The urban environment is critical to the success of The Great River Project. We welcome your input on the planning process 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.

31 Comments

  • It would be fun to have City Fires on the riverside, especially during the winter. X-C Skiing is really easy on this flat part and reserving at least one of three or four trails for groomed trails is not too much to ask.

  • I would like to see the plan find was to improve the city’s bike transportation system by utilizing the river as a bike corridor. The plan should prioritize connecting other bike paths and bike lanes to the river so it serves as the spine of an expansive biking system. An important component of making this successful would be making sure cyclists have the opportunity to cross the river at key locations.

    • Tim, it is interesting to think of utilizing the river as a bike corridor. In terms of the most appropriate mode of transportation for a river, biking is best. On a bike, your pace is slow enough that you can enjoy and view the surrounding landscape. One could argue that walking has the same benefits. However, the riverfront is miles long and double-sided. Therefore, bike-pace is the best way to enjoy more of the river.

      In order for the Great River Park to be a success, it will have to become part of the public’s DAILY lives.

      The city of Minneapolis and St. Paul recognize the benefits of biking as evidenced by the already existing extensive bike trails and newly introduced “Nice Ride” bike share system, as seen in Montreal and Paris. However, “Nice Ride” is not so nice for daily use in the winter, and there is room for improvement.

      When Tim suggested the river should “serve as the spine for an expansive biking system,” it reminded me of a new technology developed in New Zealand. I suggest the Twin Cities think about investing in the “Shweeb” technology, which is a mix between monorail and recumbent biking. The inventor of the Shweeb came up with the idea after daydreaming about being able to bike over the traffic.

      The shweeb fits best in the urban environment. It’s physics: more people = more mass, and d=mv. Therefore, the more people you have, the faster you go, the less hard you have to pedal, the more you can look out and enjoy the scenery, the more distance you can cover! It’s perfect for Minneapolis because it would appeal to its active population, as well as attract outside tourists. The Shweeb monorail structure fits an urban aesthetic. Shweebs are also ideal for the urban context because they are ecological and run on human power. Shweeb’s catchphrase is, “Your space, your time, your power.” Plus, they are weatherproof and do not require plowing snow for bike lanes because they are above ground level.

      Here’s a link to a Shweeb video to get a better idea:
      http://bit.ly/mMdEej

  • There has to be destinations to eat drink and socialize along the river. The Headhouse is a great idea. I can’t believe there is not one place you can sit outside along the river and enjoy it with a glass of wine. It has tremendous potential. People are hungry for outside dining even into the late fall. Minneapolis’ sidewalk dining is dirty and noisy. St.Paul has such an opportunity to take advantage of the natural beauty that winds through it, and attract people downtown.

    Harriet Island is an unbelievable spot, but I figured out how to get there only after I moved to the West Side. Sea Salt in Minnehaha Park is a great example of a restaurant that helped make the park a destination.

  • I think the key to making “more urban, more natural” work is to be – to the degree necessary – quite clear about the characteristics of the various landscapes along the river we’d like to see drawn out in the years to come. Much of this general work has already been done in past planning, but could be enhanced (or diminished) by the details added here. Being conscious of and sensitive to urban form in the context of the landscape of the river valley is central to maximizing our investments in the riverfront.

    A place like Island Station that is so central to the riverfront itself needs such guidance. On the one hand, it holds tremendous potential for redevelopment responsive to the surrounding environment. It’s easy to imagine Island Station, the Schmidt Brewery, and Randolph Avenue corridor as a smartly-redeveloped historic riverfront hub of activity. But in order to achieve its maximum potential, it needs to be consciously designed to integrate gracefully into a key natural corridor and important public riverfront node.

    We want the river to be many things to many people, and it’s only by responding carefully to those considerations that we’re able to maximize all our riverfront can be to our city.

    • I would like to expand on Bob Spalding’s comments with a combination of possibilities to explore for the possible future ‘village’ at W. 7th and Randolph. I do not really like the idea of adding significant parking at the river. Instead, I would like to think in terms of access from the nearby built areas. A unique situation exists at Randolph Ave. It could be possible to think of a larger underpass/overpass of railroad and/or Shepherd Road to the river that would be designed for walkers, bikers and a ‘trolley’. The Trolley could stop at any combination of W.7th, privately developed brewery, and privately developed Island Station. Along the way could be a large low rise public parking ramp for river users tastefully built into the river bluff and away from the river.

      • I would like to comment on the idea of Island Station becoming a ‘historical hub’ with minimal / hidden parking. Island Station has great potential to attract all ages and types of people to the St. Paul Area. Having an overpass/underpass would bring more connection and better access from the surrounding areas. Making this part of an Urban Environment means connecting it to St. Paul’s urban feel as well as being a private, destination of sorts. Along with the trolley to connect people, and having a built –in, hidden parking ramp, what if a ‘water taxi’ was included to transport people to downtown and back? Water taxis are currently found in Baltimore, New York City and Davenport. This would provide a direct access to the urban area especially if there’s a parking ramp, anybody including commuters could use the service. While keeping Island Station an ‘important public node’ as well as a ‘key natural corridor’ the site could become a place for a beautiful garden. The soil underneath Island Station is highly contaminated with minerals from the plant and rail lines that used to go through, transforming it into a natural oasis could attract more people. Having species of plants that rejuvenate the soil and providing some landscaping, this could become a sanctuary for animals. The node at the end of the island could be transformed to host weddings with a beautiful river background; then the river taxi can take the wedding party to their favorite downtown restaurant. Combining the soft breeze of the river and the beauty of the Conservatory, a destination will be created.

  • Overall: we need an Urban Nature Center like Wood Lake in Richfield or Dodd Nature Center in West St. Paul. This might be combined with a History Center, St. Paul or Mississippi River History. The DNR at the Science Museum is nice but inaccessible for short stop in type visits and collecting people who are at the river.
    Island station has loads of space and potental. Find a multifaceted solution for it, be it nature center, park pavilion, rock climbing center, wind tunnel parachuting…
    Increase the access to Fort Snelling from the East side of the River (HWY 5). I can get there on a bike, but not on a bike with my child in a bike trailer. And I don’t want him waiting for me to carry the bike and trailer down at the top next the the beginning of Shepard Road or at the bottom next to the highway
    Development:
    Look for combination solutions for development along the river. These serve more than one function or community at a time. For example we have a local food movement that is getting established in our neighborhood, with the Co-op, city farm, community gardens. The caves along the river once were chillers for cheese making. We need undergrowth management for the forests along the river. I think goats eat garlic mustard. Use goats to clear the undergrowth and start making St. Paul’s Cave Goat Cheese.
    Working River tours. We are a working river, celebrate it.
    Celebrate the confluence of the Mississippi and the Minnesota.
    Historic Marinas: Find uses for them! Most are not usable for big boats due to sediment or access issues. The one at the confluence could be created as an artist living, river retail, or a river education building where the ‘boats’ would be permanent thus keeping the dredging needs to a minimum. Or a kayak/canoeing/peddle boat schools or rentals along with bike rentals.

  • Last week (November 1st) we were sitting at Vic’s on the outside deck enjoying wine along the river. From our vantage point we could see the mill city redevelopment, Nicollet Island, a mini amphitheatre, bike paths, and lots of green area. But one of the things I really like about the area is that it feels connected to the city, which to me a critical piece for any public is planning as people have to feel connected and appreciate this great river we have.

  • I’m glad you took off your plan the pedestrian bridge crossing the river between Mounds bluff and the pontoon plane landing bay. I was wondering how it could possibly work. Now you show a boat launch there. Can boat trailers actually reach the river’s edge there? I thought there was a floodwall or steep grade.

    I am in favor of making a better connection between Mounds Park and Johnson Parkway, so the parkway flows, and Burns Ave. must stop. Right now there are no sidewalk or bike trail linkages between the two, yet a lot of people want continuous flow.

    I think Mounds Park should have an upgraded first-class promenade along the river bluff, with much more interpretation of Native American history.

    • our thinking for the float plane harbor is a carry or hand trailer in launch for small boats, not necessarily a ramp with drive up access. nothing is set in stone yet so comments are appreciated.

  • I like the approach you take in this plan by coming from multiple different angles. It’s important to think about the river as something other than a natural asset that needs to be protected and walled off from development. With that in mind creating an urban riverfront is the most important part of this project to me. We need to get people down to the river, and most people will only be interested in doing this if there are attractive opportunities for living, eating and playing. A river system as grand as the Mississippi should be shown off and embraced as the heart of the Twin Cities, and to do this we need to bring important amenities to the river edge. This could include residential condo developments, adventure parks that showcase the river, and world-class restaurants and bars. The second most important aspect of your plan is the connectivity. To be able to easily move from one park/amenity to another along the river will really help keep people down by the river once they get there. A river taxi system, like the one used in Brisbane Australia, is a very attractive idea that I haven’t seen much mention of. This can bring people physically into the river and show of a different perspective of the various developments. Ultimately something needs to be done that give us more than a “newly renovated park system.” Lets move the Twins Cities into the future by embracing urban development within a wonderful ecological system.

  • I love the concept of trying to drive more people to the river and utilize its ability to generate revenue. As a whole I believe the ability to utilize the river as both an urban and natural system is vital in moving forward when we look at the future of our river front. To me personally the river is something to be experienced through interaction whether it be direct contact, or utilizing its setting for indirect purposes, such as recreation and leisure.
    However I believe that a stronger more visible connection between the Highland areas commercial and residential communities would strengthen both the Hidden Falls area and Ford Dam area. For reference I personally believe the Quad-Cities project has done a superb job at relating the surrounding communities to the river in context with each individual city and community.
    I applaud the amount of work and insightful thought that has been put into the design so far. I can’t wait to see some of these ideas put into action and be able to enjoy them. Kudos.

  • Island Station is extremely important to keep as historical preservation because it reminds me of The Fundidora Park of Monterrey in Mexico where it has a similar industrial building that was abandoned and it restored back to community to allow people to access into the environment and the river to entertain because it has bicycle and pedestrians trails.

    It seems to me that Island Station was a ghost box for a long time. Guess what, it can be useful for something to become a bigger opportunity to grab like replace into restaurants or recreational place. It is important for the society that will bring the people back into the river for the historical purpose to experience the environment. Island Station should have enhance the urban environment better because it was the most hidden place. People would not think that it was not important to check because of the plant has a strange stack. If people drives pass by and see the single stack, and it will draw people to see something unusual thing that will pull us to check what is out there.

    I thought Island Station was a great place for the artists and photographers must get their opportunity to capture the moments. I would definitely want to do something about it because it can become a sustainability historical place. The Mississippi river was not really interfering Island Station plant and it was accessible when other roads were blocked due to the flood. I do see the future opportunity for this Island Station into public that should have done something about it than just abandoned and do nothing about the space. I would love to see Island Station to become something an unique that people will never see this before.

  • Personally, I feel that although the ground around the now defunct Island Station Power Plant is nearly worthless, it has massive potential to be developed into something interesting. I’m looking mainly to the Mill City Museum, which several of you have mentioned earlier, as a precedent. Here we saw a seemingly derelict (as of the 1980’s) structure, refurbished and repurposed into a tool for both learning and tourism. Now, it stands as a major draw in the area. With some prudent investing and some clever marketing, I think we could do the same with Island Station, and help bring some life along an otherwise dead section of the river.

  • While the idea of an urban adventure park for Island station really impresses me, I wonder about its feasibility and location. Jumping right into an ice climbing wall could be fairly rough – the people who this is marketed at will likely find it lacking the “adventure” they seek, especially because it is a sanctioned wall. I would make sure that any and all activities put in place at this adventure park come with the appropriate classes and learning facilities. When it comes down to it, the hardest thing for people to do is replicate a natural feature in a way that will draw crowds off the natural feature itself. I want to emphasize the necessity of this park to be a place where people can begin these activities – safely.

    So far, I feel that the park plans underutilize the spaces created in these city infrastructure and natural world collisions. Examining the spaces in the park that need the most work, the bridges crossing through are perhaps the most ignored. Places like hidden falls have huge areas of bridge coverage, and these seem underutilized. Could this be a pre covered park pavilion that only need a little sound deflection? I simply feel that the re-use side of infrastructure within the parks applies to more than our historic power stations and the granaries. A multifunctional landscape needs to also make use of multiple methods. Existing bridges seem ignored, while tentative plans for new ones are made. Perhaps making the pedestrian corridor on the bridges more connected and visible would solve the issue. They also create a huge space underneath that while loud, seems vacant, encouraging vandalism and mis-use of our park system. What has been put in place to address these spaces in the plan? Simply addressing the rest of the park seems to pass by this issue.

    I would like to see a plan put in place to use these spaces as they are – vertical, shaded, and without interfering with the road deck and its care. Historically climbers have been put off of these spaces, mostly due to the “hazard” perceived by the city and its liability. Instead of using a new construction for an adventure park, why not use the vertical pylons already in place within the hidden falls area? These appear much taller than anything you’ve got in the works, the bridge deck would provide shade to keep the ice in better condition, and most importantly the bridge would bring back some of the interest and adventure to a manufactured adventure spot. It could create a unique space that isn’t available in the real world – something new instead of a bad replica. It could then really cater to all users interested in the spot instead of being reduced to an area only attractive to the beginner.

  • Having lived near the river all of my life within the context of an urban setting I realize how important it is to truly connect the Mississippi to the urban area that surrounds it throughout the Twin Cities. I find the numerous proposals for the riverfront that I have recently stumbled upon quite interesting, especially the ones that integrate the urban environment with the riverfront through the use of ecological assets. For example, the park at Harriet Island is a beautiful green space that thrives within the urban context and is a great example for what the rest of the riverfront corridor could look like. Numerous aspects of this park could effectively be used in an area that isn’t as integrated into the urban context, such as the area around Pig’s Eye Lake.
    I honestly believe that our unique urban context—the fact that we have not one, but two major cities located along the riverfront as well as a major urban University should lead us to a great partnership between numerous entities working within these political spheres to create an urban riverfront that is unique to the area and a design scheme that is like no other. The urban environment that is the Twin Cities is an ideal place for interconnectivity with the Mississippi River through the use of accessibility to the river and the direct connections that are made to the water.
    Personally, I find the idea of interconnected park systems along the riverfront quite intriguing, an integrated park system allows for neighborhood involvement through the participation of surrounding communities in the design process all the while enhancing the natural environment within the urban context.

  • St.Paul industrial history should be embraced and implemented into future plans for park and trail systems that improve the city. The combination of nature and old industry can be a powerful message, the idea of vegetation surrounding or being directly implemented into the vestiges of an industrial sector send the message of taking back an area for the public good. A good precedent for this idea of industrial and nature being combined can be seen in the German park. I find this park striking and it really gives the feel that it has a sense of place.
    http://www.landschaftspark.de/en/home/index.php

  • I personally don’t envision such a strong dichotomy between what is ‘urban’ and what is ‘natural’. I expect what is natural to inform urban design and for the line between the two to blur, and this, to me, describes the essence of a “sustainable” relationship. As it stands, I think one of the largest connectivity gaps between Minnesota and its Mississippi is the lack of urban camping experiences. Such experiences serve as a perfect example for the kind of relationship I’m getting at – an opportunity for people to regain perspective on urban, social life by communing with nature while still proximal to the city in which it was borne. What sorts of experiences could we create? An example of the sort of context I’m imagining can be found in Amsterdam’s public campgrounds. More specifically, a potential jumping-off point is import.export’s tent-tower (http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/18/urban-camping-by-importexport/). Island Station, as one example, is a perfect location for such an endeavor, and camping could place people there without being environmentally invasive. Island Station’s ‘bay’ is also a prime location for pushing off a canoe or kayak, with plenty of potential connection nodes existing downstream. Why not create a “river-run” camp/canoe system? See James River Runners: http://www.jamesriver.com/. Such activity could potentially lead to a culture of river travel with far-reaching access/connectivity and environmental implications.

  • The report missed the biggest problem that spoils enjoyment of the Mississippi’s natural beauty: that problem is the noise pollution emitted by the District Energy Plant, the wood burning plant next to the Science Museum.

    The plant is off this week as employees are on vacation. Tonight you can enjoy the Mississippi valley in a serene silence and understand why the city of Saint Paul was formed here. When the plant starts up again, it sounds like a 747 revving its engine, spoiling any acoustic performance or wedding on Rasberry or Harriet island, sending a aggravating low bass humming disturbing Irvine Park, Upper Landing, and anyone trying to enjoy the Mississippi.

    The noise pollution is as if someone sprayed fluorescent orange paint all over the Mississippi river valley within eyesight of the plant.

    Saint Paul should set noise limits on the District Energy Plant to reduce its noise pollution.

    The plant can operate on a range of levels: from quiet to extremely loud. When it is loud it is loud. I measured the sound at 92 decibels last year from the Science Museum’s golf backyard. Why is the plant loud? It sells back electricity to Xcel which is then given to the employee’s as profit sharing checks (why is it then called a non-profit?) What is even more aggravating is that the plant switches to its loud mode at night and the weekends – the times when people are most likely enjoying the river.

    We are subsidizing District Energy by sacrificing our quality of life and the natural beauty of the river. District Energy has forgotten that 1. it exists in an urban environment with lots of neighbors, 2. that it serves the neighbors and not the other way around. District Energy promised it would be quiet when it asked permission to build the plant.

    District Energy should be held to that promise and stop the noise pollution.

  • I live in the West Seventh Street neighborhood, and I am adamantly opposed to any speed limit reduction on Shepard Road.

  • Perhaps we should do more with what we have rather then build new stuff. A friend of mine is trying to start an outdoor recreation retail store on West 7th and the city hasn’t helped him at all. Here he is trying to revitalize a destressed building in an area that needs help and the city won’t do anything. But they are more then willing to throw money at “new sporting goods stores” on Island Station as reported in the Villeger this week. A sad state of affairs really… Saint Paul, get your priorities straight!

Leave a Reply

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