If the response you want to share doesn’t fall into any other category, please leave your comment here. We welcome your input on the planning process for The Great River Project as we move forward. Just fill in the Leave a Reply form below.

Thank you for your interest in the project. Return to the blog to see what other topics you can comment on.

53 Comments

  • I would love to see an abundance of benches. Consider situating them so people can sit across from each other and have a good conversation. And what would make this even better would be the opportunity for individuals to donate funds for these benches in honor or in memory of others.

  • In Chicago we came across a public space where loads of people were playing chess on permanent, outdoor, public chess boards.

  • Here are some ideas compiled by members of the W 7th Community.

    West Seventh Street and the Mississippi River
    August 11, 2010

    The Mississippi River
    The West Seventh community is located on a six mile stretch of land that parallels the Mississippi River from Fort Snelling to downtown Saint Paul. Much of it is located between a lower and upper bluff. The West Seventh Community has begun to reorient and reconnect toward the river and restore the riverfront as a community amenity. Examples of development to pursue:

    • Refine and develop Upper Landing restaurants, pubs and coffee shops that face the river, including decks and views.
    • Construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Walnut Street, over the railroad tracks and Shepard Road connecting Summit Avenue, West Seventh Street, Irvine Park, and the Head House to the Mississippi River.
    • Reconstruct the stairway (with an elevator) from the High Bridge to Mississippi River paths and bikeways.
    • On Shepard Road between Randolph Avenue and downtown, redesign, improve and lower the height of street lighting so that the Saint Paul city skyline remains visible and separated from the night sky.
    • Develop Island Station with a public pavilion (like the Lake Harriet Band Shell or the public pavilion at Minnehaha Park) with a marina, canoe lockers, restaurant, pub and coffee shop.
    • With a gateway to the Mississippi River at West Seventh Street, develop a tree lined parkway with paths and bikeways on Randolph Avenue between West Seventh Street and Shepard Road.
    • Connect the development plans for the former Schmidt Brewery to the Mississippi River via Randolph Avenue (Saint Paul’s version of a ‘Castle on the Rhine’).
    • Restore Fountain Cave, Pig’s Eye Parrant’s residence and establishment dating from 1811, both at the river and on land, as a public historic site.
    • Develop a restaurant, pub and coffee shop at Watergate Marina (or on adjacent land in Crosby Park) that all face the river.
    • Refine and develop overlooks along the river at Fort Snelling ( from the Saint Paul side), Fountain Cave, and Otto Street.
    • Consider a seasonal pedestrian ferry service (publicly operated or private concessionaires?) to cross the river at selected points linking the pathways east and west of the Mississippi for bikers and hikers.

    (from others)
    • Xcel site
    • Pedestrian bridge from I. Sta. to Lilydale
    • historic conservation districts that would include walking tours from the NPS site
    • historic re-enactments of Pig’s Eye, Fountain Cave, solders coming to get blitzed, and a full understanding of how SP was settled
    • migratory bird patterns and wildlife on/in the river
    • transit orientated to the community and NP
    • It’s the Mighty Mississippi!
    • High Bridge artworks (books, paintings, photos), history, engineering
    • “Power”
    • Homelessness
    • Security (cameras?!, police on bikes and horses, more people = more eyes); seems safe enough now, but people are afraid anyway
    • Plantings, biosphere, weeds, maintenance
    • Bicycle services, Run ‘n’ Fun model
    • Transportation hub – limos, bikes, scooters, motorcycles, taxis, boats, mini-buses, trolleys, ped-i-pub, …

    • After having just returned from Milwaukee I see much more potential for urban development along our river. As you pointed out, water facing restaurants, pubs, ice cream and coffee shops with decks or a connecting boardwalk would draw locals and tourists alike. The new big box condo development on St. Paul’s riverfront is boooring! All you get for living there is a view and a walking/ biking trail. So much more could be done to incite livability and breath new life into the community.

    • To Andrew’s list of overlooks, I would add the combined area of North High Bridge Park and Cliff Street as an area needing some access at the bluff for parking to view the valley. These areas have wonderful views of the valley, yet not a single safe parking or stopping spot exists for out of town visitors to stop and have a look out over the valley. The grade and cliff edge wall prevent visual contact from a passing car except when turning south to cross over the high bridge.

  • At the kick-off lunch, the question came up about how we will pay for improvements along the river, and one thought I had involves tapping the hydro-power of the river as a source of electrical power and source of revenue to pay for improvements along the river. There has been a great improvement in low-speed turbines for electrical generation in rivers, and developing a role for the Mississippi as a source of clean-energy production as well as a source of publicly accessible recreation seems like a particularly 21st century approach to the idea of a “working river.”

  • Getting planning maps of what areas there are to work with would be helpful, in addition, a thorough KMZ overlay for Google Earth/maps displaying all boundaries of areas to work with and proposed sites/plans, made free to download on this website. I agree with the chess tables, especially downtown/Harriet Island. Something more should really be done with Crosby Lake and/or Pike Island parks to draw people. Shepard Road is such a nice bike trail (actually it could use a little revamp and repave) but feels so desolate and disconnected from the river until you reach up near Randolph and downtown. I fully support the idea of water taxis! I also would seriously like to request public wifi access in the parks along the river downtown so people like myself are able to sit and work by the river for a couple hours. I love what has been done to the riverfront downtown on both banks. More of this would be nice to draw the other neighborhoods to the riverfront. We need some type of strong fragrant flowers/vegetation along the developed parks because this river is really starting to stink badly! It can ruin a romantic stroll by the river. For an architectural centerpiece for local tourism, how about a modern nature center jutting over the river, perhaps even with a medium sized “arena” style room with a large acrylic bowed “viewing port” sticking into a deeper part of the river from above (like a glass-bottom boat). It could be constructed largely by modular means and include recycled materials and can be hydro-powered. This can also draw revenue. A series of small nature learning centers and ecological support facilities can be constructed in a factory from modular ISBU crates and quickly installed along the river front for each neighborhood along the river (Sunray-Battlecreek, Downtown, W7th, Highland, and Merriam Park). These would be relatively inexpensive and could receive federal funding for “green” building. We need more sports facilities and things of utility installed in riverside parks (badmitten, tennis, frisbee golf, a couple small soccer/football fields, etc.) instead of mostly aesthetics.

  • This is a nice site. But I’m surprised there is no map that outlines the
    actual area we are talking about.

  • Congratulations on a successful kickoff event for the final planning process. The River of Life movie was a hoot as well. Kind of a Huck Finn meets modern guy (and people of the river) tour. Humorous and informing.

    In conversations at the event, I asked how conceptually the connections to the city would be made in the design plan. A loop system was suggested as a design concept. I would like to suggest another way to view the way to improve physical access (city connectedness) to the river.

    A Ray System leading from the city to points of contact might be another way to get a handle on the movement of people. My concern is that a loop system, as I would envision it, would end up as a proscription for significant riverside elements that might be better left as is or cleaned/preserved as a natural element. A year long process is too short in my opinion to come up with an extensive planning description of what to do along the edge of the river. Completing the loop would proscribe rather than describe the possibilities for future uses along the river edge. A Ray system would increase the emphasis on getting to a point along the river. The point could be at the rivers edge, it could be nearby on a bluff where development more rightly should occur in most cases, or it could simply be an overlook that should be created or if existing protected and enhanced. To increase the use of the river must be respectful as well as easy. I would submit that a loop system is only for those that have significant extra time who are also young and able. Since I would not suggest significant additional parking at the rivers edge the most common way of enabling contact would be by walking. Biking, visual contact and public transit would also be other ways for interaction to occur. A Ray System would be the best way to increase the interaction sought.

  • I’d love to see the Raspberry Island bandshell(?) used! The island has been upgraded for the last 2 years anyway and the bandshell has been in place for 5+ years? but it is rarely used. That’s a real shame. Not sure if it’s a partnership snafu w/Shubert Club and City or what…but that facility sorely needs some active programming. It’s a real underutilized gem.

    Hopefully the master planning process will address and foster partnership opportunities to better utilize existing (and future) facilities.

  • As a west 7th homeowner several neighbors and I suggested a gateway to the Mississippi River at West 7th and Randolph at the March Zoning Committee meeting and also suggested keeping what is already “Green” in our neighborhood green. Our voices were not heard by the West 7th Federation or by attending zoning and city council meetings. The empty lot in our area, will not be kept green and will be turned into a black topped bar parking lot planted right in the middle of where our homes are located. Meanwhile the new fire station gets a green rooftop at the cost of a half million. Nice going St.Paul leaders.

  • I would like to add an addendum to number 7 above relative my comments about single points contact of a city visitor to the river. I would like to suggest a measure of success for the number of points provided. If a user can reach the river ‘experience’ in maybe 10 or 15 minutes by walking, have their lunch or decompression time and return to work without getting in trouble with the boss you will have succeeded and will get people at the river curing the day. They will bring their families back at night and on the weekends if they have a good experience.

  • Why does what appears to be the Target logo appear when you move your mouse over the images on the lower-half of front page of this website? Seems odd. I know this is a bit off topic, but I couldn’t find anywhere else to post this question.

    • interesting question – just a strange coincidence I suppose. The graphic is inherent in the web page template we used. Target is not involved in the development of this plan.

  • On my “Think Bigger” rant (again).

    More Urban, More Natural, and more Connected are an EXCELLENT start for our community vision. But how about MORE FUN? Even better…how about “More Romantic?”

    Brining Saint Paul Saints baseball team to Lowertown certainly would = MORE FUN.

    On more than one occasion, internatioanal visitors told me they enjoy looking at Saint Paul along the river, but they really don’t see it as being much fun. They go to Stillwater, Mall of America, or MPLS to have fun (typically at night).

    What can we do in the Public Sector to create spaces that gain a reputation for FUN every weekend? More importantly, how can we create a repeat customer and word of mouth buzz?

    The river corridor is not really in walking distance from any existing nightlife hot spots(not Grand Ave, not Downtown, and not Distrcit de Sol). Seems to me one could start by bringing in retail, nightlife, and fine arts & snugging it right up to the Harriet Island levey. Or setting up crazy golf carts that wisk people to & from nightlife to some sort of year-round fun-zone-river-walk-midway-carnie type experience here. There’s really not anywhere for an appealing sunset stroll, or impress your gal with games of chance, followed by sneaking a kiss in the phot-booth at this point anywhere in Saint Paul.

    People love to picnic and maybe do some smooching in National Parks and romantic destinations all over the world. How can we develop & market that opportunity here? In San Antonio TX it’s the river walk. Niagra has the falls. Key West FL has the sunsets (and wicked parties). Yellowstone has the lodge. Manhattan Beach has the strand and the pier. What will be the romantic memory our visitors take back home with them?

  • I am posting a series of exchanges over the last couple of days between myself and Neil Emick of Wenk Associates at his request. It has been edited for unneeded details. Hope others find it useful as we as a city move to the Charrette process and beyond. I am encouraged by the Team attitude and Neil in particular in this exchange. Keep in mind that this exchange moves from oldest to newest at the top, so starting at the bottom will make more sense.
    Kent Petterson
    W. 7th Enhancement Coalition

    Please comment on the website in the form of a post so information is available to all.

    Yes…Gap analysis refers to gaps in systems such as access, parks, trail, but also gaps in our knowledge in these systems. This plan covers an extensive area…there is a lot we don’t know and will be relying on the public workshop/process to identify many of these holes. This has got to be a group effort. Bring your thinking cap…it should be a great time.

    If you don’t mind please post the project information you listed below on the website.

    Thanks,

    neil emick

    As to your ‘gap’ analysis, I am not sure what is meant by that. Since you say ‘gaps in the system’ my presumption would be at least gaps in the physical system of trails, roads, bridges, parks, access etc. Could there also be a gap in information? Not knowing what you know to date or what you think might be missing it is hard to answer specifically except to say the following which will add to and summarize some things I have already said or recently learned myself.

    I have called West Seventh Street (Fort Road) the Cradle of Commerce in Minnesota. Most of that commerce was from the river. The upper landing and the early version of Shepard Road served the city and Fort Snelling etc. In the 19th Century a guy named Davern promoted W. 7th Street as the new commercial avenue from the core of the city to Ft. Snelling. The events of history and growth in commerce have in time to a great degree severed the easy access the W. 7th area had with the river with the possible exception of commercial/vehicle connections. I could go into more detail about all the areas of the city that have access or don’t and what that entails, but I do believe that the historical connection of the river and the W. 7th neighborhood deserve particular attention as having a ‘gap’ in every connecting system. My view is that the gap on the north side of the river extends from Crosby Farm to Warner Road. Check the projects’ own updates page for the inventory of access on the google connectivity map provided by the city. One can look at the inventory of the system and say, well, look at all those trails right along or near the river. My point is, one could say the trails are a part of the connectivity of the system, but they serve only the young, but not too young and able who can move fast. Runners, bikers, the very able and those that live on the river really are almost set. Those users have a few ‘gaps’ in the system. Everyone else in the core of the city has to think about overcoming rails and Shepard Road and no parking. That was a long way around to saying my short answer is that we have an important and large gap on the north side of the river from Crosby farm to Warner Road in our West 7th access to the river. We will do everything to help you prepare a good plan that gets us connected.

    Thank you, Kent Petterson
    W. 7th Enhancement Coalition
    PS: When you get a chance you should look at the posted Charrette #2 scheduled date for the closing public session. That can get corrected when you are able to get the location confirmed.

    Kent,

    Having your thoughts in writing would be very helpful. The charrette will be an open forum that will allow you and the public to engage directly with the design team. It is our goal throughout the process to discuss and record significant opportunities and constraints at many levels. Having individuals such as yourself (with a wealth of knowledge of the area) attend will be of great benefit. We are currently looking at the “big moves” – macro content and will be refining it to the level you mention(particular ped crossings). With that said, your input is always welcome.

    If you can think of major “gaps” in the current systems that would be of great benefit early. We are producing an initial round of gap analysis maps that will be available for review before the charrette. Being a member of the community task force will also give you special permissions to certain content that will be available on the project Sharesite. I will be distributing usernames and passwords soon.

    Thanks

    neil emick

    Name: Kent Petterson

    Email: [email protected]

    Comments: Hi Craig, Neil et all
    I have never participated in a charrette process before and I am looking for a little guidance on what would work best for you regarding input. I am thinking in terms of specific items or themes that might be offered to the conversation at each charrette. Rather than expecting you to remember a lot of details offered verbally from the public, I thought it might be helpful to offer it in writing for the charrette to consider at the opening public forum as well as by verbal comment. Would you want the written portion early? We have in the west end (w.7th) a long term project that could be a centering connection in your project. It is the pedestrian/bike bridge at Walnut Ave. I wrote up a preliminary draft of the idea and hoped you might comment on the format and what is requested. Is this what you want and in turn could provide for output after the workshop is complete?
    Proposal for Charrette #3 to study access to the river at Walnut Street

    1) A pedestrian and bicycle bridge should be built off the south end of Walnut Street as a north south crossing over the rail lines and Shepherd Road toward the headhouse and river beyond. This bridge would complete previously built access all the way to Cathedral Hill and on into the city. The bridge should be an ADA compliant structure of high artistic design incorporating historical and science themed art coordinated by West End Arts. All existing elements of the built access for pedestrians and bikes going north should be verified as complete.
    2) The design Team is requested to study the merits of this proposal, advise via comments it’s feasibility with information such as preliminary drawings, cost estimates and recommendations as to how it would fit into the final Team ideas for the Study. (This would be a sort of how are we doing so far, what do you need from us milestone on the way to where we could go.)
    Thank you, Kent Petterson
    West 7th Enhancement Coalition

  • I would like to see a walking bridge built over Shepard Road and the railroad tracks connecting Chestnut park with Chestnut street going downtown. Much safer than crossing vehicle and train traffic plus would encourage more people to come to the park and the river.

  • Could we have symbols created for the different items that will be available for residents and visitors? for example: water view (blue wave), walking trail (green feet or animal tracks), biking trail (wheel), historical (magnifying glass)(Minnesota History Center could get involved with the symbol for historical places), plants, wildlife and other items? We could have the paint symbols on the sidewalks closest to the trails to invite people to explore nature so they could see how close they are to the river and other amenities.

  • I am a member of the community task force. I’d like to make this general observation: I came away from our most recent meeting lamenting the absence of American Indian perspectives in the planning process. The planning process should develop guidelines for incorporating Native American interpretation and signage along all portions of the river. I was at an unrelated meeting the following day at which native people kept talking about “Bedote” (sp?) and I had to ask them what they were talking about; it is the Dakota name for Pike Island. The planning process should adopt as a guiding principle that place names and interpretive signage reflect this cultural perspective; in many cases, the interpretive narratives will be vastly different, depending on whose point of view is represented. We can begin by ensuring that our planning documents refer to the Indian names of places and the river. There is an excellent model for this; the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary. In its signage and collateral materials place and river names are identified clearly: Wakpa Tanta (Great River), Imniza-Ska (white cliffs, the Indian Mounds Park bluffs) and Wakan Tipi (Spirit House, Carver’s Cave). I suggest that members of the various committees urge their native friends and colleagues to weigh in on this idea.

  • Hi… I like the idea of visioning, but with a mixed outlook given the recent election. First I do see the need to put ideas out there regarding large-scale (one might say ambitious) public-friendly “amenities” along this our precious river resource. However, given this past week’s election, there are vital components missing that hark back to concept of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and of what neighbors themselves can do. Regarding the WPA, this unprecedented program not only offered work to the unemployed on an unprecedented scale, but also was an educational tool for not only those same laborers, but also for the American public with projects that exist and are used to this day. We might say also that many are endangered of being lost for lack of maintenance–even when times were good. I emphasize the educational value of both this GRP effort, and the preceding employment aspect.

    As regards neighbors’ input, I would welcome ideas that are “smaller” scale that groups could form around and develop, either through sweat equity or grants under the aegis of the Federation or W7 Business Association, even the W7 Community Center.

  • I would love to see a splash pad park for children. There is a something like this near the science museum, but not intended for kids play. This is a feature that will attract st paul families to stay and play in st paul. Most of us moms end up driving to the ‘burbs to go to a splash pad…and the one at Highland is way too expensive to go on a regular basis.

    • Thanks for the comment Casey. A splash park is under consideration as a park program element for Harriet Island Regional Park.

  • Connect The Park Within

    Connect neighborhoods and user groups to the park, that theme plays with many variations. One variation I have not heard… connect the park within the park. OK, let’s say you live in highland and have a hankering to go bird watching at Pig’s Eye. Walk, take the MTC bus or drive and park on the city street adjacent to Mississippi River Blvd. Step on the Great River Park Shuttle and ride the River Road to Pig’s Eye.

    Something significant just happened; the need for a parking space at Pig’s Eye to accommodate a solitary birder watcher. And it’s not just birders. Cyclists or kayakers could enjoy a river experience that might include a shuttle for them and their equipment.

    Think Glacier Nat’l Park with its Red Busses, Zion, Yosemite… why not in our park? Swap the parking space for a shuttle seat along the 17-mile corridor. Increase access to the GRP at the same time as we diminish the need for pavement within.

    • Dennis: great idea. we’ll included it our thinking about access and connections. I wonder – and would value responses from the readers of this – how much demand for this service there would be and how much people would be willing to pay – either as a free service (with added cost to the park recouped in taxes) or a user fee? We could involve Metro Transit in this discussion…

      Thanks

  • Hello,

    I am a fifth-generation Irish-American Minnesotan born in St. Paul. My children were born in Minneapolis, but now we all make our home back in St. Paul. The Mississippi River is of great significance to our family. Unfortunately, our education did not include information about the significance of the Mississippi River in St. Paul to our indigenous hosts–the Dakota Nation. I am very very interested in the Great River Park Plan as a vehicle for educating those of us who arrived from other continents about our debt to the Dakota.

    Minnesota is the homeland of the Dakota, Minnesota’s oldest indigenous people and the Mississippi River in St. Paul sits within Bdote, a culturally and historically significant site of the Dakota Oyate (Nation).

    A plan to manage the Mississippi River in St. Paul provides an opportunity to acknowledge and honor this unique site. The Dakota Nation, Minnesota’s first environmental advocates, is a strong partner for protecting the Mississippi River and the historic, cultural sites along the river.

    Dakota historic/cultural sites of significance in the Bdote region along the Mississippi River include:

    + The confluence of the Mississippi River (HaHa Tanka), the Minnesota River (Mnisota Wakpa), and Minnehaha Creek is named Bdote. (St. Paul’s Crosby Park and Lake border this site.)

    + The ancient burial mounds at Indian Mounds Park.

    + Wakan Tipi/Carver Cave, which is located in the newly renovated Bruce Vento park.

    The Bdote region and Mississippi River is also of historic significance to non-Native people who make their home in St. Paul.

    Since the 1500s, the Dakota have greeted the explorers, fur traders, government officials, soldiers, and settlers who arrived in Minnesota. In 1805, the Dakota (Sioux ) Nation and the U.S. Government signed a landmark treaty at Bdote on Wita Tanka, (Pike Island). This was the first treaty ever signed in Minnesota between an indigenous nation and the U.S. federal government. Thus this treaty marks another beginning–the creation of our city (St. Paul) and our state.

    In the ground-breaking 1805 U.S.-Dakota treaty, the Dakota gave the United States permission to establish military posts in the region of Bdote. The purchased land also included a corridor running nine miles on both the east and west side of the Mississippi River. As a result, the 1805 federal treaty formed the land base for Fort Snelling, which was later completed in 1825. With the fort in place, the City of Saint Paul grew up in the Bdote region. In fact, all of Saint Paul was originally Dakota land sold to the U.S Government.

    In return for the lands that created Fort Snelling and St. Paul, the 1805 U.S. Treaty guaranteed the Dakota ongoing use of the land and waters in and around Bdote. The United States promised on their part to “permit the Dakota to pass, repass, hunt or make other uses of the said districts, as they have formerly done, without any other exception, but those specified in the first article of the treaty where the Dakota Nation grants to the United States, the full sovereignty and power over said districts forever, without any let or hindrance whatsoever.”

    This government-to-government provision, enacted by the U.S. Congress, reveals that the Dakota Nation has a unique relationship to the management and use of Crosby Lake and Park, Indian Mounds Park, the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, all along the Mississippi River.

    While members of the Dakota Oyate now live throughout Minnesota, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, Canada, and right here in St. Paul, Bdote is still a sacred site for all Dakota people.

    Given the cultural and historical significance of Bdote, as well as the federally guaranteed treaty provisions, I would like to request that:

    1) The Great River Park Plan protect and improve water quality and aquatic life in the Mississippi River and Crosby Lake, and protect native plant species in order to enhance lake quality.

    2) The Great River Park Plan involve Dakota Nation representation in all future management and planning of the Mississippi River, Crosby Park and Lake, Indian Mounds Park, and Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary as they are legitimate stakeholders, per the Treaty of 1805.

    3) The Great River Park Plan oppose or minimize additional development in these sites to maximize traditional green space that honors this significant sacred site.

    4) The Great River Park Plan install Dakota history interpretive stories and signs, developed by Dakota people, along the river trails where people can view and honor the cultural and historic significance of Bdote.

    5) The Great River Park Plan also include Dakota-developed culture and history information in all other public information on the Mississippi River, including the city’s website, as an additional strategy to educate people about the unique significance of this region.

    6) The Great River Park Plan support St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department inviting Dakota band members to participate, for free, in the annual bow and arrow culling of deer in Crosby Park.

    7) The Great River Park Plan recognize Dakota Nation fishing rights in Crosby Lake and the Mississippi River.

    8) The Great River Park Plan and the St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department consider renaming our city’s parks that are sited on historic/cultural Dakota sites to reflect the significance of Dakota Nation land in establishing the City of Saint Paul.

    I would be delighted to volunteer my time to help realize these important steps toward creating a truly just, sustainable Mississippi River for ALL.

    I am also very open to dialoguing further about this issue.

    Thank you for this opportunity.

    Nora Murphy

  • Great River Park Master Plan: Consider Affordability When Planning for Parks

    Submitted, February 7, 2011

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft of Saint Paul’s Great River Park Master Plan. My comments will focus on the limited ability of the City of Saint Paul to finance the construction, operation, and maintenance of the many proposed public improvements identified during the visioning process for preparing the plan. River-front parks should be designed as passive preserves that will minimize taxpayer costs.

    It is most appropriate for Saint Paul Parks and Recreation to participate in the preparation of a Master Plan to guide future development of lands adjacent to the Mississippi within Saint Paul. Pig’s Eye Lake, Battle Creek, Indian Mounds, Bruce Vento Trail, Harriet Island, Cherokee, Lilydale, Crosby Farm, Hidden Falls, Mississippi River Gorge and the Mississippi Bike Trails are all Saint Paul parks within the river corridor. While these parks enhance the quality of life in Saint Paul, they also cost taxpayers a lot of money to construct, operate, maintain, and repair when damaged.

    There are two major external factors that are generating a need to have a Great River Master Plan to help guide future development of these river-front parks.

    First, there continues to be a significant reduction in budgets for Parks and Recreation. Our Federal and State of Minnesota budgets are in a deficit position, where actual revenues are much less than actual spending. The lack of current revenues and the high level of long-term debt, is forcing a significant reduction in grant spending and transfer of money to local governments. When grants and aids to Saint Paul are reduced, local property taxes are increased for high priority budgets like police and fire. But, because property tax increases cannot offset all reductions in intergovernmental aids, the Parks and Recreation budgets end up with major cuts, much greater than the citywide average.

    In the late 1970’s, the City of Saint Paul had 52 recreation centers where staff provided active programming. Today there exists only 37 recreation centers; of these only 25 have staff assigned for active recreation programs. The other 12 city-owned centers have been “Re-purposed.” The City is letting other nonprofit public partners use the 12 centers since the City can no longer afford to staff and maintain the buildings. The land at the centers is still being used for playgrounds and athletics. With additional budget cuts to Parks & Recreation anticipated for the next five years, it is reasonable to expect that the number of active recreation centers may be further reduced to less than 25.

    Second, our general population is aging. Younger people like more active recreation facilities and programs, while seniors like passive parks where they can enjoy nature and peaceful surroundings. Obviously, there will be more future demand to use the river-front parks as the baby-boomers age.

    While there will be greater demand to develop/utilize the river-front parks, please don’t let Saint Paul’s Great River Park Master Plan create unrealistic expectations that the City can afford to put expensive facilities and amenities in these parks. Don’t make park plans that require active programming with high costs.

    Please keep development plans for river-front parks Nature Orientated, with low construction cost, minimal staffing, and affordable maintenance. Remember, any improvements in river-front parks will be subject to flooding, and will eventually require costly cleanup and repair.

    Respectfully requested,
    Greg Blees

  • Great River Park Master Plan Must Recognize Flood-Relief Preserves

    The Mississippi River and the land adjacent to the river are valuable public assets which must be protected and utilized in a responsible manner. While there will be competing land use desires for industrial, commercial, residential, and both active and passive parks, one thing must be consistent: all future development must protect the natural environment and improve water quality. Towards that end, “Flood-Relief Preserves” must be part of the consideration when determining appropriate land use.

    A common occurrence in Saint Paul is Mississippi River Flooding. Many times the floods produce high costs to city taxpayers for flood control, clean-up and damages to public property. Private properties and the airport along the river also incur major inconveniences and flood related costs. Mississippi River Gorge, Hidden Falls, Crosby Farm, Lilydale, Battle Creek and Pigs Eye Lake regional parks play an important role in helping to minimize the negative affects during flooding events. These park areas are low laying and collect river water to reduce the overall height of the flood. It does not make good economic sense to construct any expensive improvements in these low areas, as they would be subject to significant flood damage and costly maintenance and repair. These six natural areas provide significant flood relief which benefit all the other already developed properties along the river. These six low-lying parks should be preserved as natural areas to help reduce the high costs associated with river flooding.

    There is another very important reason for keeping the river-front parks as natural as possible. The watershed districts serving Saint Paul rely upon undeveloped land to both clean and slow the flow of storm water entering the Mississippi. Plans for further developing the river-front parks should not jeopardize this important environmental strategy.

    I respectfully request that park staff, city planners, landscape designers and consultants working on Saint Paul’s Great River Park Plan designate Mississippi River Gorge, Hidden Falls, Crosby Farm, Lilydale, Battle Creek and the Pigs Eye Lake as Flood-Relief Preserves. As such, the passive open space would be kept as natural as possible for the benefit of our environment, the wildlife, the Saint Paul taxpayer, and future generations who will value the peace and beauty of these regional river-front parks. In addition, all other property owners along the river will have less flooding inconvenience and costs if Flood Relief Preserves are used to reduce the high water levels.

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the current draft of Saint Paul’s Great River Park Master Plan.

    Juliet Branca

  • Great River Park Master Plan: Recognize Native American Culture

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the current draft of Saint Paul’s Great River Park Master Plan. My comments will focus on the need to recognize Native American Culture in the future development of river-front parks.

    I strongly believe that both the National Park Service and Saint Paul Parks and Recreation should put a major emphasis on protecting sacred Indian grounds and providing historical information about the indigenous people who once inhabited the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. And, I believe Crosby Farm Park should remain undeveloped, as passive, natural open space; as it is adjacent to Bdote, a most sacred spot for the Dakota Indians.

    Since the 1500s, the Dakota Indians have greeted the explorers, fur traders, government officials,soldiers, and settlers who arrived in Minnesota. In 1805, the Dakota (Sioux) Nation and the U.S. Government signed a landmark treaty at Bdote on Wita Tanka, (Pike Island, right across from Crosby Farm Park). This was the first treaty ever signed in Minnesota between an indigenous nation and the U.S. federal government. This treaty allowed for the development of our city and our state, as it gave the U.S. government title to the area’s only efficient, reliable transportation system . . . the Mississippi River. The Dakota gave the United States permission to establish military posts in the region of Bdote. The purchased land also included a corridor running nine miles on both the east and west side of the Mississippi River. As a result of the Treaty, Fort Snelling was located and completed by1825. With the new fort in place, the City of Saint Paul grew up in the Bdote region. In fact, all of Saint Paul was originally Dakota land sold to the U.S. Government.

    The “Great River” running though Saint Paul is part of the 72 mile long Mississippi National River and Recreation Area.

    “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.”
    To achieve this mission, the National Park Service adheres to the following guiding principles:
    1) Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to park visitors and partners.
    2) Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with federal, state, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and businesses to work toward common goals.
    3) Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park Service.
    4) And, other principles, not listed in this communication.

    Recommendations for the National Park Service:
    1) Consult with Dakota Tribal Leaders to determine which park properties are most culturally significant, and then jointly develop interruptive learning displays and videos.
    2) Work with Saint Paul Parks and Recreation to make sure there is compatibility in educational efforts and information sharing. Make sure that when people come to visit the Mississippi River Park Headquarters and N.P.S.’s website, that visitors can find out about the cultural heritage of indigenous people by visiting Saint Paul’s various river-front parks

    Recommendations for Saint Paul Parks and Recreation:
    1) Parks and Rec. has a “Find-A-Park” website where people can select any City park and find out specific information about the park (facilities, amenities, location, reservations, etc.) All City parks that were historically significant to the indigenous people of Minnesota should have a web site section to explain relevant Native American history.

    2) Co-name all of Saint Paul’s river-front parks to also have a Native American name. The new Native American names could easily be referenced on signs in the park and on the Park and Rec.’s “Find-A-Park” website. Dakota Tribal Leaders could suggest names that best represent the site’s historical significance.

    3) Whenever improvements are being designed for a river-front park, consult with Dakota Tribal Leaders to determine opportunities to recognize culturally significant opportunities.

    4) Maintain Crosby Farm Park in its most natural, undeveloped state; as an honor to the Dakota Nation’s sacred Bdote region.

    5) Install Dakota history interpretive signs along the existing paved riverside trails in Crosby Park, across from Pike Island, where people can view and honor the cultural and historic significance of Bdote.

    Respectfully requested,
    Greg Blees

    • Brava! Through the Great River Park Plan St. Paul has this unique opportunity to recognize, honor, and co-care for the wondrous Bdote cultural/historic site of the Dakota people.

    • I support recognizing Native American heritage as part of the Great River Project. This area has many long and rich Native American cultural traditions. It is respectful and just to acknowledge these traditions.

  • GREAT RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN MUST ADVOCATE GREEN DESIGN

    The Mississippi River and the land adjacent to the river are valuable assets which must be protected and utilized in a responsible manner. Because the Saint Paul section of the river is within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, all future development should protect the natural environment and improve water quality. While the planning process for the Great River Park Master Plan is focusing on what should be developed in the future, we want to make the following recommendations regarding HOW TO GREEN DESIGN future developments.

    All private and public development in the Great River Park Master Plan should strive to:

    1) Utilize green technologies to clean and control water flowing into the Mississippi. It is important to guide rain water into local aquifers rather than send it downstream. However, when storm water must enter the Mississippi, it should be clean, cool and controlled. Design plans for future development should consider the most cost-effective use of storm water ponds, flood relief preserves, rain gardens, cisterns, curb-less parking lots using pervious asphalt, green roofs and green walls. Gray water from buildings can be used to water landscape, rather than be disposed of in a sanitary sewer.

    2) Minimize the use of natural energy in order to save costs and reduce the global warming. Facilities should be designed to be energy efficient. Best practices should include: ideal levels of insulation, Energy Star heating & cooling systems and appliances, geothermal heating & cooling, solar heating systems, maximize the use of natural lighting, use energy efficient lighting with motion sensors & timers, and produce on site non-carbon producing electricity by using solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines.

    3) Design facilities that use recycled materials and that encourages facility users to reduce, reuse and recycle in order to protect the environment and save natural resources.

    As Green Roof Advocates, we believe that the installation of a green roof is cost effective, from a life-cycle perspective. A Green Roof will help meet the above objectives and reduce the heat island affect in our urban area.

    Respectfully,

    Juliet Branca, Green Roof Advocate and Saint Paul Homeowner
    Greg Blees, Green Roof Advocate and Saint Paul Homeowner

  • I really like the thread of giving a sense of place, honor, and respect to the Native Americans. Would love to see a “living history” location that partners with the local tribes and honors, repsects, and supplements the Ft Snelling experience.

    Love the approach thus far to the project, and hope it’s not too late to make one small request:

    Can we add a more tangible “detination” concept for the 2-8 year olds (and the kid at heart types)? Something that incorporates a Sesame Street, Mr Rogers, Pooh Bear, Nursery Rhymes, Dinosaurs or other similar concept that is pure magic to the kids? Como has carosel that has a specail place for multiple generations. What might we want along, in, or near the GRP that could evoke that same whimsical tug to come back over and over again?

    Last thought….try and get City to look beyond the minimum standards of zoning within the Great River Park. Think about the “buffer areas” and the type of economic development you want to encourage as residents and visitor approach the Great River Park. The smell and sight of the meal before actually tasting it so to speak.

    • Thanks for your commments Jimmy. We agree that the GRP should be a destination for all ages and the children will be the future stewards of this great place. While the plan will not delve into specific design recommendations it will stress the need to provide places of interest, playgrounds, recreation and learning opportunities, in the Park. And the approach to create a sense of place that extends beyond the River and the Park itself, to adjacent communities, is a key point that has been discussed extensively and integrated into the developing plan recommendations. Thanks again for your thoughtful input.

  • I read about the suggestion of making Shepard Road a parkway. While nice, it does not seem feasible unless you plan to allow truck traffic on I-35E from the river to downtown. Trucks use Shepard Road as an alternate access since the Interstate does not allow them on that stretch. What are your plans for truck traffic?

    • Actually, there is nothing in the GRP plan or contemplated according to the designers that would ban or limit truck traffic on Shepard Road. One of the guiding principles for the plan has been to respect past commercial users that use the river valley appropriately.

      Crossing Shepard Road is unsafe for many people, obviously not all. Planners and public works have admitted as much when they built the new portion of Sam Morgan Trail from Rankin to Davern. Protecting the trail users is a significant guardrail (river side of Shepard) without the openings that had been provided in the earlier version. Now, everyone that is not fast or athletic must go to each end of this new barrier to get to Sam Morgan trail. We wondered how that could happen. The answer, Shepard Road was no longer judged to be safe for grade crossing for walkers or bikers under current conditions in the area. I believe this is the case generally for Shepard Road.

      Public works has been involved from the beginning with the GRP planning, and they are well aware of the traffic numbers and effects on W. 7th and 35E. They too see the need for these changes at Shepard Road which will be incremental, programatic and profoundly good for the city as it returns to being a river town.

    • I agree it is time for St Paul to let go of the past and remove 35E from the Parkway designation and allow comercial traffic into the downtown area. 35E has no truck traffic University is now greatly limited with light rail and St Paul constantly wants more parkways. The roads of St Paul needs to be kept for the movement of traffic in, out and through the City please do not restrict that any further.

  • I do not like the prospect of losing shepard rd as a alternate (read:quicker)route to mpls and its suburbs. I live near downtown and really appreciate being able to use shepard road to get to hwy 5/62 within minutes.
    I will now begin the Rant portion of my message:
    If I want to drive 30 mph and stop at every intersection, I can drive on w 7th st. We use millions of tax dollars to build roads to drive on. we then shoot ourselves in the foot by using millions more to make those roads more difficult to use. I am sick and tired of the casual tyranny of the environmentalists who enforce their lifestyle choices on others without our consent. I live in the city so i can drive on cement roads and enjoy urban life. If you want to enjoy nature, go live in the country, trot around on the dirt, drive 20mph and look at the birds.
    Thank you for considering another point of view.

  • This website is set up to provide information about and allow comments on each of the categories (Access and Trails, Natural Environment, Neighborhood Opportunities, and Urban Environment) but there does not seem to be the opportunity to link these topics together. The General Comment section obviously allows stakeholders to provide feedback on anything but it seems that engaging stakeholders in a linked conversation would be beneficial. I’m sure the City of St. Paul and its support team understands the links between trails and neighborhoods or increasing access to the natural environment in urban areas but wouldn’t it be valuable to actually facilitate this discussion with the public instead of keeping conversations separate? All too often planning seems to takes place by analyzing pieces of the problems instead of looking at them holistically. There is no doubt that the Great River Park Plan has the ability to unify the St. Paul riverfront as its vision states, but creating conversations that enhance the connections between all the pieces will generate more success. I encourage the City and its partners to look at ways to really engage the public in a dynamic conversation, not just separate conversations that are intended equal a complete plan.

  • As a local resident who is looking forward to the opening of the Central Corridor LRT in a few years, I am disappointed to note few specific strategies for integrating transit in the access and connections themes. I know that improved transit is included as a planning principle, but shouldn’t it go farther than that? For instance, making bus stops mandatory, at least at entrance points and regularly spaced intervals along the river? This would allow people who do live farther away or are unable to walk or bike significant distances to get to the river and enjoy it too

    The Central Corridor will also create a relatively direct connection between downtown and the river near the Minneapolis-St. Paul boundary. Wouldn’t it be useful to locate signs and directions from the Raymond Ave train station that guide people to the nearest part of the Great River Park? For that matter, having directions at each station about the most direct path or bus to get from each station to the closest part of the river would support the goal of making the river accessible all across the city. In addition, part of the Central Corridor redevelopment plan is to introduce a string of parks and green infrastructure along the length of the corridor. The Great River Park Plan could look to complement those new park projects by using them to create continuous networks across the city. I know that the GRP plan is for the river corridor, but making the river “more connected” and “more urban” means integrating it into the larger city park system, not making a separate system. I would like to see some effort to connect these two major green infrastructure projects, rather than see them move forward independently.

    • Thanks for your input Linden. The plan will emphasize connection from transit and alternative ways to get to and traverse the GRP. Most notable are signed and multimodal connections at Raymond Ave and Union Depot. There is also a connection as part of the future Red Rock Station along the Commuter rail line to the south. What you have reviewed so far in teh Vsion plan preseentaio ust provides overall themse without getting into the detail recomemndations – which include those details and willb e avaialbel for public revie and comment during the next month. Saint Paul is fortunate to have options for mobility and the GRP should both contribute to and capitalize on them. Thanks again.

  • So as a user of the Mississippi on a regular basis, I would have to say that I am very pleased with what has been done so far. The bike trails, which is the one and only amenity that I use, are very user friendly. The length is a good length, the ease of use is outstanding, and the difficulty is one that does not require you to get too much out of breathe. One thing that I really would love to see on or around the river is a place to stop and get off you bike for a while. Almost all of the area are usually on roads or right next to the river where there is no land or area to hang out. When riding the other day, I stopped and took some pictures and it was almost a hassle for me and other people because I was somewhat in the way. This made me want to just continue on my journey until I found people friendly spots that make it easy to get off and just enjoy nature and the river itself. Also, another thing that really is not user friendly, is if you are going to the riverfront for a bike ride, getting back up to shore is quite a hassle. Something such as a longer road to bike on and then gradually make your way up to the bank would be great. Wouldn’t it be nice to get a drink of powerade when you are on the path too? A convenience area would be wonderful as you get pretty parched when you have been riding bike for a long time. This is something everyone, not just bikers would benefit from. Walkers and even people who are just out for the weekend could stop, get refreshed enjoy a view of the river, and then be on their jolly way. But, these are just some ideas but thank you for listening!

  • I think it says a lot when the home page picture is of Minneapolis and not St Paul. I have lived in Minneapolis, near the river and near Lake Harriet, and now in Highland Park. Changing Shepard into a parkway is a good idea, but don’t stop at Rankin, just link it 3/4 mile up the road to East River Road. Crossing at Davern or Gannon is dangerous, particular at Gannon where drivers could care less about pedestrians in the cross walk. Remove the Shepard exit from Highway 5 and turn the former US Bank space into a combination of green space and upscale restaurants. (Sorry but Bucca doesn’t cut it). The condos and high-end apartments would support it. Not putting in retail at the apartments at Davern and W 7th was a BIG mistake. If you want to compete with SW Minneapolis you need to add high end restaurants and retail, not low scale retail (Sibley Plaza or Ford Parkway/Cleveland). Coming from SW Minneapolis, it is pathetic.

  • I was born in StPaul and after graduating from The U of M as an Engineer (Soil and water) immigrated to Israel. I live on the banks of the river Jordan and 18 years ago designed and supervised cleaning an 11 kilometer stretch just south of the Sea of Galilee.
    My studies at the U and especially the St. Anthony Falls lab were
    put to use. My Professor was Phillip Manson and we learned from him many things which are today part of the ecological agenda.
    One item I often use is; “design the maintenance, then desugn the main plan”.
    I was no longer in St.Paul when the river rose some 20 feet and inundated the airport on the right bank (west St. Paul). Todays design has to take account ofsuch an occurance even if may happen once in 50 or 100 years.
    Please keep me up to date on progress. I have fond memories of the river, the parks, the dams and the beauty of nature.

  • Hi,

    I know I should read all the info at your web site before making any comments, but have not done so.

    I inline skate and bike. I have been on a lot of the Twin Cities trails. Yesterday morning I skated the trail along Shepherd Road and Warner road in preparation for the August 6, 2011 Half-Marathon inline skating race. I skated the full marathon race on this course several times a few years ago. The riverfront area by downtown St. Paul is really nice. There should be a lot of people there, I thought – like around Lake Harriet or Lake Calhoun. One idea I had was to build some restaurants by the river on the north side. But there is no room there. So I thought they could be built over Shepherd road. There could be several smaller restraunts with outdoor eating areas on the river side. The restraunt area over the road could be one block long and on stilts or columns so people in cars on the road could still see the river. And there would need to be an easily accessible and cheap parking ramp. People could sit outside at noon or in the evening and eat while watching the river traffic and people on the trails. Boats could tie up and walk up to the restaurants to eat. The restaurants would not block the view of anything north of them since there is nothing there to look at the view anyway.

    Rodger

  • When did the definition of “community park” (Chapter 6, page 36) get changed to “soccer fields for suburbanites”?
    When did the definition of “protection and restoration of the bluff” (Chapter 6, page 35) get changed to “cover the blufftop with artificial turf”?

    As if that’s not bad enough, the words “soccer fields” do not appear anywhere, as if we are too dumb to see them in the plans or realize what is being “secretly” shoved down our throats.

    Parks & Rec cannot maintain what they already have, as evidenced by the Harriet Island pavers and the Chestnut Plaza water features. I have yet to see water come out of the square columns. How are we to believe they can maintain artificial turf (which is by no means maintenance-free)? What good is it for the community to give our input, and how are we expected to react, when we are completely and utterly disregarded by City officials elected and hired to represent us?

    If the Port Authority is giving away land, they’ve got acres and acres of soccer field land at the 3M site. Soccer moms from Eagan are not going to hang out and sip cocktails at JR Mac’s and Bennett’s while their children play games. They won’t shop at Stransky’s Liquor, or drop their drycleaning off at Skylark. Suburbanites are afraid of, or at least intimidated by, the city – I work with scads of them and know this for a fact. They won’t be able to get out of Saint Paul soon enough after the final whistle blows. I suspect this would be part of the argument against building fields on E 7th, but apparently it doesn’t apply to W 7th.

    What on earth is wrong with providing an expanse of grass on which local kids can play whatever game they choose?

  • I am very sad to hear about the proposed soccer fields for Victoria Park. I live a stones throw away and had been excited for Victoria park. My family would much prefer a natural space in which to gather and relax. I too am worried about the light pollution these new fields would bring to the area both for the birds and people of the area. I think about our seniors living at Sholom Home and how the once beautiful view of the bluffs is now obstructed with a school and now potentially the bright lights and influx of traffic due to follow. I hope there is time and the powers that be will listen to the people who actually live in the neighborhood and support them.

  • The part no one is talking about is how much it will cost. River road is already a nice place. Can’t we bike around the river and stop on Grand for a latte? My property taxes are through the roof yet my neighboring rec centers are underfunded. I like the idea of an improvement for my neighborhood. Mac Grove and Highland improvements are LONG OVER DUE. We pay the highest taxes in the city. There are existing business that already need a boost. The highland pool costs a RESIDENT family 200 for the summer. There is almost no open gym time available for kids at Jimmy Lee. Miriam Park, Edgecombe & Groveland Park have abysmal rec centers. Consider that the Highland group will meet to discuss this on the 29th at El Rio (which is a gorgeous rec center). Why not focus on our existing capital improvement needs and consider the river for what it is beautiful, natural and accessible. Which it is. I agree a few road signs are needed for residents who don’t know how to navigate shepherd road. Put in a little restaurant near crosby farm (ala sea salt at minnehaha falls) and call it a day.

  • SKATE-PARK : GREAT, GREAT IDEA

    Is this really part of the plan? If so, many many people who live downtown st. paul and surrounding areas will thank you, later, for giving many kids and parents a reason not to drive all the way to Golden Valley and pay steep prices. What company and or city skatepark is this being done by and modeled after? Thanks.

  • While I support the concept of making the river corridor more accessible for recreational activities, many people rely on Shepard Road as an alternative to 35E for commuting to/from downtown St. Paul. I don’t believe this plan adequately addresses what may happen once reduced speed limits and other pedestrian-friendly features are implemented along Shepard Road. 35E can become a parking lot during rush hour, so its capacity to absorb addition traffic is extremely minimal.

    Keep in mind that we are currently in an economic downturn and there is quite a bit of vacant office space in downtown St. Paul. Imagine what will happen once more of this space is occupied by 9:00-5:00 office workers. More cars, more congestions, longer commutes, more pollution. Is turning Shepard Road into parkway a net gain in the face of these negative consequences? The light rail expansion will do nothing for folks who commute to/from the south/southwest.

    Commute times are constantly factored into livability ratings. So are parks and open spaces. Balancing these priorities will be difficult. Ultimately, I don’t believe the current plan accomplishes this.

  • If it’s a question between cost and doing ‘the right thing’ it always comes down to cost it seems. People don’t seem to understand that we aren’t the only ones affected. Some day (hopefully) our children’s children will be living on the inheritance we leave them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *