Minneapolis 2040, and the blowback ("There goes the neighborhood!")

[EngagedToFIRE]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

[Fru-Gal]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

I can see your point. Agree that it's the affordability and the space in the US that makes driving more accessible than in most parts of the world (not just Europe). Also there's something annoying about always saying how much better European trains are than US trains. It's both an excuse and somewhat elitist. Having recently done a lot of train travel here and in Europe, you see that just as here there are different qualities. Commuter trains here and there are uglier, dirtier, than tourist lines. And Amtrak has some amazing deals.

Check what world train travel expert https://www.seat61.com/UnitedStates.htm says:

"USA coast to coast from $232...
You'll see nothing of America at 35,000 feet, so come down to Earth and see world class scenery from an Amtrak train across the United States.  You can travel coast to coast from as little as $232 (around £177 or €202) if you book well in advance, one of the world's great travel bargains.  The USA has an excellent rail network for visitors, and although only a skeleton network by European standards it'll take you to almost all the towns & cities a visitor wants to see, in comfort at affordable prices.  Long-distance trains in the USA are operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, www.amtrak.com.  This page explains what you need to know to plan and book a memorable trip across America by train..."

[GodlessCommie]

I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.

I have to disagree. Europe has a number of discount airlines, and amazingly cheap airfare. As an experiment, I just went onto Ryanair web site and found a $60 round-trip ticket between London and Lisbon. No promotions, no bargain hunting. My friends in Kyiv now fly to Western European destinations for a weekend, so cheap the flights became.

[dougules]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

In the US driving is artificially cheap.  The vast majority of infrastructure projects are built with only cars in mind and are paid for mostly from the general fund.  If those were paid from gas taxes and tag fees, driving would be as expensive as it is in Europe.  If drivers had to pay for the cost of pollution, it would be more. 

We have public transportation, but it's not all that good.  It basically just checks the box.  Even then, there are a whole lot of places with 0 mass transit.  Everything here is made for cars first then all other forms of transportation as an afterthought if at all.  Wide streets with tiny/no sidewalks and high speed limits discourage walking.  Cutting down shade trees over streets in hot climates implies you expect everybody to be in a car with AC.  Requiring parking minimums significantly increases distances for pedestrians.  Etc. etc. etc.  If cars in the US got treated the same way as pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, I promise you driving wouldn't be popular at all. 

Rural areas may always have some dependence on cars, but most people don't live in rural areas. 

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, I don't think people realize how heavily subsidized driving in most of North America really is.  A tremendous amount of money is spent on road infrastructure, dealing with the health costs of the accidents/deaths that automobiles cause, the environmental cost, and artificially deflating the price of gas.

[robartsd]

Cheap flights around Europe are relatively new; and indeed, many trips are now cheaper by air than rail. Rail does provide some advantages: stations at the center of town, less hassle for security screening, and seeing the landscape as you travel. Some cities do a decent job connecting airports to the center with commuter rail, but that's still a hassle compared to boarding a train at a central station and traveling directly to the center of another city.

A drive through ban combined with McDonald's corporation requiring upgraded facilities to renew franchise licenses shut down the McDonald's restaurant in San Luis Obispo, CA about a decade ago. I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

[EngagedToFIRE]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

I can see your point. Agree that it's the affordability and the space in the US that makes driving more accessible than in most parts of the world (not just Europe). Also there's something annoying about always saying how much better European trains are than US trains. It's both an excuse and somewhat elitist. Having recently done a lot of train travel here and in Europe, you see that just as here there are different qualities. Commuter trains here and there are uglier, dirtier, than tourist lines. And Amtrak has some amazing deals.

Check what world train travel expert https://www.seat61.com/UnitedStates.htm says:

"USA coast to coast from $232...
You'll see nothing of America at 35,000 feet, so come down to Earth and see world class scenery from an Amtrak train across the United States.  You can travel coast to coast from as little as $232 (around £177 or €202) if you book well in advance, one of the world's great travel bargains.  The USA has an excellent rail network for visitors, and although only a skeleton network by European standards it'll take you to almost all the towns & cities a visitor wants to see, in comfort at affordable prices.  Long-distance trains in the USA are operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, www.amtrak.com.  This page explains what you need to know to plan and book a memorable trip across America by train..."

Exactly.  There is nothing special about the trains there in general.  They certainly function.  They are relatively clean.  Can be crowded.  I don't know, it's a train.  They do have the Quiet Zones which are nice :)  But we have trains here, too.  That work really well, too.  Down here in Miami we have the new Virgin Trains that is connecting all the way through Orlando and Disney.  Plus we have the Tri-Rail which connects the 3 counties nicely (great for airports).

I just know when we have friends move here from Europe, the first thing they do is go out and buy a Mustang.  It's not like these Europeans just hate cars and love trains.  It's that their societies don't really give them other options.  Our friends overseas love cars all the same, but usually have to be more hobbyist with older cars simply because of the costs involved in owning a car.  Which would make MMM quite happy, lol.

[EngagedToFIRE]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

In the US driving is artificially cheap.  The vast majority of infrastructure projects are built with only cars in mind and are paid for mostly from the general fund.  If those were paid from gas taxes and tag fees, driving would be as expensive as it is in Europe.  If drivers had to pay for the cost of pollution, it would be more. 

We have public transportation, but it's not all that good.  It basically just checks the box.  Even then, there are a whole lot of places with 0 mass transit.  Everything here is made for cars first then all other forms of transportation as an afterthought if at all.  Wide streets with tiny/no sidewalks and high speed limits discourage walking.  Cutting down shade trees over streets in hot climates implies you expect everybody to be in a car with AC.  Requiring parking minimums significantly increases distances for pedestrians.  Etc. etc. etc.  If cars in the US got treated the same way as pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, I promise you driving wouldn't be popular at all. 

Rural areas may always have some dependence on cars, but most people don't live in rural areas.

I think one thing we need to careful of doing, is that when we compare Europe or a European Country to the US, we tend to compare it to the US as a whole.  Which is ridiculous.  Denmark is smaller than NYC.  How is the public transit in NYC?  Excellent.  You talk about no sidewalks or small ones, but where I live, pretty much the entire South Florida has excellent roads and wide sidewalks everywhere.  Pretty sure it's the law, as I can't picture a single road without a decent sidewalk, actually. 

Is it a bad thing we make it easy and affordable to drive? I know, that's a loaded comment!  Heck, I drive a Leaf and use a bicycle quite a bit.  But in comparison, I mean.  In areas with good roads and infrastructure, driving is pretty darn nice.  I have no interest in public transit in the suburbs.  But my point is, do we want our government making nice things suck?  That seems like shitty government to me.

[EngagedToFIRE]

Cheap flights around Europe are relatively new; and indeed, many trips are now cheaper by air than rail. Rail does provide some advantages: stations at the center of town, less hassle for security screening, and seeing the landscape as you travel. Some cities do a decent job connecting airports to the center with commuter rail, but that's still a hassle compared to boarding a train at a central station and traveling directly to the center of another city.

A drive through ban combined with McDonald's corporation requiring upgraded facilities to renew franchise licenses shut down the McDonald's restaurant in San Luis Obispo, CA about a decade ago. I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

So it's better if people sit at the speakers at Sonic idling their engines for 10 - 15 minutes instead of spending 2 minutes in the drive thru?  I'm not sure I am following you here.  What am I missing?  A drive-in seems far less efficient with far more idling engines for far longer.

[mm1970]

Cheap flights around Europe are relatively new; and indeed, many trips are now cheaper by air than rail. Rail does provide some advantages: stations at the center of town, less hassle for security screening, and seeing the landscape as you travel. Some cities do a decent job connecting airports to the center with commuter rail, but that's still a hassle compared to boarding a train at a central station and traveling directly to the center of another city.

A drive through ban combined with McDonald's corporation requiring upgraded facilities to renew franchise licenses shut down the McDonald's restaurant in San Luis Obispo, CA about a decade ago. I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

So it's better if people sit at the speakers at Sonic idling their engines for 10 - 15 minutes instead of spending 2 minutes in the drive thru?  I'm not sure I am following you here.  What am I missing?  A drive-in seems far less efficient with far more idling engines for far longer.

At the drive in you actually turn off the engine.

[mm1970]

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

At least from what I saw in rural Denmark, there were far more bike paths than most places I've lived in the US.  And there are buses. You'd be hard pressed to get around by bicycle/ bus combo to the rural area where I grew up (no buses at all, no bike lanes or paths).

[EngagedToFIRE]

Cheap flights around Europe are relatively new; and indeed, many trips are now cheaper by air than rail. Rail does provide some advantages: stations at the center of town, less hassle for security screening, and seeing the landscape as you travel. Some cities do a decent job connecting airports to the center with commuter rail, but that's still a hassle compared to boarding a train at a central station and traveling directly to the center of another city.

A drive through ban combined with McDonald's corporation requiring upgraded facilities to renew franchise licenses shut down the McDonald's restaurant in San Luis Obispo, CA about a decade ago. I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

So it's better if people sit at the speakers at Sonic idling their engines for 10 - 15 minutes instead of spending 2 minutes in the drive thru?  I'm not sure I am following you here.  What am I missing?  A drive-in seems far less efficient with far more idling engines for far longer.

At the drive in you actually turn off the engine.

That must be a west coast thing.  Definitely not around here.

[EngagedToFIRE]

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

At least from what I saw in rural Denmark, there were far more bike paths than most places I've lived in the US.  And there are buses. You'd be hard pressed to get around by bicycle/ bus combo to the rural area where I grew up (no buses at all, no bike lanes or paths).

Rural Denmark is where my family is.  There are bike paths along the major roads, but definitely not all of them and virtually nothing of the sort once you get off the major roads.  My mother in law has no bike paths on her ride to work if she takes the bicycle. Zero.  And no buses or any other way to get there, either.  Bike in the tiny 1 lane road (dangerous) or drive. And the road is only wide enough for 1 car, too.  So when you have oncoming traffic, you have to almost go off the side of the road to let them by.  There is virtually no buses or public transit within reasonable distance and they are only 15 minutes drive from a fairly good sized city.  The public transit is virtually non-existent in rural Denmark.  Buses here and there but that's about it.  And only on the major roads.  I've spent a LOT of time there.  Nobody is biking or busing any more than they do here unless you are biking within the town you live.  I'm sorry, your comments about Denmark are just not accurate.

Here is kind of near where they live:  https://www.google.com/maps/@56.4002442,8.3674337,3a,75y,292.76h,77.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXGR5iG_Rg2sOPRKrEapN2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Even on the larger roads it's far from consistent.  This would be a relatively fast road connecting the towns.  Not even a shoulder to ride on.  And this is a road heading in to the largest town in the area.  No bus stops, no nothing:  https://www.google.com/maps/@56.3685281,8.465018,3a,60y,84.14h,78.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG4q4PJ_lZ0szuubr6PgzDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As I said previously.  People are big time romanticizing Europe when it comes to public transportation.  I fully agree that their cities are incredibly bike friendly.  Oslo basically banned cars from the Centrum, too.  It's great.  But we also have good public transportation in our cities, generally speaking.  They could be more bike friendly, though.  That's something we should be doing much better.  Though I do hold some reservations considering one of our friends got whacked and killed on a bicycle in a large city in Denmark a couple years ago...

There aren't good buses, bike paths, or anything of the sort in the rural areas of Denmark.  Although, amazingly, they did just get fiber internet.  And to be fair, they are constantly trying to add new bike paths, but right now there are quite a few bike paths to nowhere and it's not the glorious bike utopia that is commonly talked about.

[Just Joe]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Are you kidding? Where I live people drive up and place their order and then sit there for 15-20 minutes eating their food with the engine idling so they can have tunes and air conditioning...

We prefer the Sonic picnic tables but its no fun sitting in front of 3-4 idling cars with the cooling fan kicking on and off.

[TheContinentalOp]

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-man-fights-to-regain-emotional-support-pigs-not-allowed-by-the-city/538509922/?refresh=true

Minneapolis man fights to regain 'emotional support' pigs, not allowed by the city

To keep himself calm, Larry Johnson relied on Carmel, a 22-pound potbellied pig who enjoys blueberries and having her belly scratched.

“I’m very close to her. She’s very close to me,” Johnson said. “She’s my emotional support.”

But Carmel and her two piglets were seized by Minneapolis Animal Care & Control (MACC) earlier this summer, leaving Johnson with sadness — and a $4,400 bill from the city to get his beloved pets back, at least until the window to get them back closed Monday evening.

The pigs were confiscated from Johnson, a 59-year-old Minneapolis contractor and Air Force and Navy veteran, because hoofed animals aren’t allowed in Minneapolis. City officials, however, said the problem goes further than that: The animals weren’t being properly cared for and Johnson’s triplex was “found to be in extremely unsanitary conditions,” said Caroline Hairfield, MACC’s director.

[bacchi]

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-man-fights-to-regain-emotional-support-pigs-not-allowed-by-the-city/538509922/?refresh=true

Minneapolis man fights to regain 'emotional support' pigs, not allowed by the city

What does this have to do with ADUs?

Is it because the pig owner lived in a triplex and, thus, all non-SFH residents are guaranteed to be hoofed animal owners, condemning the city to pigs and donkeys and goats in the parks and streets and buildings?

[TheContinentalOp]

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-man-fights-to-regain-emotional-support-pigs-not-allowed-by-the-city/538509922/?refresh=true

Minneapolis man fights to regain 'emotional support' pigs, not allowed by the city

What does this have to do with ADUs?

Is it because the pig owner lived in a triplex and, thus, all non-SFH residents are guaranteed to be hoofed animal owners, condemning the city to pigs and donkeys and goats in the parks and streets and buildings?

The article seems to be adjacent to zoning and living in the city. Just like the link I posted on the proposed Minneapolis ban on new drive-thrus.

But if this guy ultimately is successful in keeping his pigs in the city, that's going to mean more hoofed animals, not less.

[robartsd]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Are you kidding? Where I live people drive up and place their order and then sit there for 15-20 minutes eating their food with the engine idling so they can have tunes and air conditioning...

We prefer the Sonic picnic tables but its no fun sitting in front of 3-4 idling cars with the cooling fan kicking on and off.

Cities that ban a drive through would likely also ban idling at the drive in.

[Just Joe]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Are you kidding? Where I live people drive up and place their order and then sit there for 15-20 minutes eating their food with the engine idling so they can have tunes and air conditioning...

We prefer the Sonic picnic tables but its no fun sitting in front of 3-4 idling cars with the cooling fan kicking on and off.

Cities that ban a drive through would likely also ban idling at the drive in.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Question is will the residents feel like it is a rule being imposed on them or will they be supportive? Not too worried about Sonic or McDonald's opinion. ;)

[bacchi]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Are you kidding? Where I live people drive up and place their order and then sit there for 15-20 minutes eating their food with the engine idling so they can have tunes and air conditioning...

We prefer the Sonic picnic tables but its no fun sitting in front of 3-4 idling cars with the cooling fan kicking on and off.

Cities that ban a drive through would likely also ban idling at the drive in.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Question is will the residents feel like it is a rule being imposed on them or will they be supportive? Not too worried about Sonic or McDonald's opinion. ;)

I prefer giving people choice. Charge an idling/pollution tax for each order that goes through the drive-through.

[Another Reader]

"Not necessarily a bad thing. Question is will the residents feel like it is a rule being imposed on them or will they be supportive? Not too worried about Sonic or McDonald's opinion. ;)"

You should be.  The reason cities love these restaurants is the very high sales per square foot that result in very high sales tax revenue.  Drive-thrus increase sales dramatically, meaning more tax dollars.  Secondarily, these restaurants produce more property tax revenue.  They are the largest market for high traffic, high visibility commercial parcels, especially corner parcels.  Remember, businesses generate revenue, residents consume revenue.

[seattlecyclone]

The idea that a drive-through produces more property tax revenue per acre than more compact non-auto-oriented development is simply false. Sales tax is harder to quantify from public records, but I'd hazard a guess that a half-dozen walkable restaurants would sell at least as much as the one drive-through that occupies the same amount of space.

[Another Reader]

The idea that a drive-through produces more property tax revenue per acre than more compact non-auto-oriented development is simply false. Sales tax is harder to quantify from public records, but I'd hazard a guess that a half-dozen walkable restaurants would sell at least as much as the one drive-through that occupies the same amount of space.

Property sales and rent comps, please?  Sales per square foot of each type of restaurant?

As a real estate investor with 35 plus years of professional experience in valuing real estate, my opinion is you do not know what you are talking about.

[roomtempmayo]

Remember, businesses generate revenue, residents consume revenue.

That balance is going to depend quite a bit on the balance of income, property, and sales taxes in a given city/state which isn't at all uniform around the country.

But you seem to be overlooking the fact that sales taxes are paid by people, usually residents of the area.  Without people/customers, there's no sales tax being collected. 

I mean, we could try turning the whole town into a giant strip mall and running the residents out, but even if the city then collected more taxes that would sort of miss the point of having a town, no?  At least in my mind, the purpose of a city is to serve the needs/desires of the residents, not to maximize tax receipts.

[roomtempmayo]

The idea that a drive-through produces more property tax revenue per acre than more compact non-auto-oriented development is simply false. Sales tax is harder to quantify from public records, but I'd hazard a guess that a half-dozen walkable restaurants would sell at least as much as the one drive-through that occupies the same amount of space.

Property sales and rent comps, please?  Sales per square foot of each type of restaurant?

We might also want to consider the health costs (largely borne by the public) for selling all that fast food.

If a drive through boosts sales taxes from Big Macs by $X, but it also increases public health care costs by $X, there's no real net gain, it's just shuffling money from McDonalds to the doctors and hospitals and insurance companies.  Cities may not think of it that way because they collect much of the sales tax while the county, state, and fed governments cover the health costs.  But in the big picture, those extra sales taxes collected from fast food might just be a wash at best, and perhaps even a net loss if the health costs outpace the additional tax revenue.

[Another Reader]

Fast food restaurant, second tier.  Built in 2002, but hard to see if there is a drive through.  The clones this agent has for sale in other locations both have drive thrus.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/5060-NE-Central-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/16820374/

Freestanding non-chain, sit down restaurant.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/765-NE-53rd-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/12488953/

I do not know anything about the locations of these two properties, what the traffic counts are, or what the neighborhood demographics and land values are.  However, this gives you a sense of the respective values of these properties are.  It's all about the gross sales and the resulting rent or purchase price that the business operator is willing to pay.  If your city values real estate using market value and periodically revalues to market, the assessments should reflect that.  If the taxing jurisdiction values on cost and never revalues or indexes, then the property tax component of the revenue stream to the City and County of the two properties may not be as divergent. 

[roomtempmayo]

I do not know anything about the locations of these two properties, what the traffic counts are, or what the neighborhood demographics and land values are. 

I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from these two properties.  They're both in the furthest north reaches of Minneapolis, in basically the least desirable part of the city that's not reasonably walkable.  One is on three quarters of an acre, newer construction, and worth more than the other that's older, run down and on a half an acre off the main street.

The point of the Strong Towns article is that either of those lots would be more productive if they were subdivided with less space devoted to parking in a neighborhood with higher walkability.  It isn't about what sort of individual restaurant is most valuable or productive, but rather how valuable or productive a given block is or not given its configuration.

[Another Reader]

Remember, businesses generate revenue, residents consume revenue.

That balance is going to depend quite a bit on the balance of income, property, and sales taxes in a given city/state which isn't at all uniform around the country.

But you seem to be overlooking the fact that sales taxes are paid by people, usually residents of the area.  Without people/customers, there's no sales tax being collected. 

I mean, we could try turning the whole town into a giant strip mall and running the residents out, but even if the city then collected more taxes that would sort of miss the point of having a town, no?  At least in my mind, the purpose of a city is to serve the needs/desires of the residents, not to maximize tax receipts.

Most cities barely generate enough revenue to survive.  They will grasp at any source of additional revenue to make things work.  Most politicians are on the helical treadmill to the next job up.  They are not as heavily invested in the city as you think they are.  Few care about the current job long term as long as they don't get blamed for some disaster. 

The people utilizing the drive thru at the fast food place may have no connection with the city or the neighborhood.  It's a convenient place with a recognized name to get something to eat as they make their way through their day.  The sit down restaurant is dependent on local customers, which is why most fail over time. 

You would likely benefit from spending some time learning how commercial real estate is valued and looking at the revenue sources cited in your city's budget.  Strong Towns is interesting reading, but not always accurate in their assessment of the issues.

[roomtempmayo]

You would likely benefit from spending some time learning how commercial real estate is valued and looking at the revenue sources cited in your city's budget. 

I'm not sure why you're so confident in your knowledge of a city on the other side of the country, but here's the 2019 Minneapolis city budget: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@finance/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-214163.pdf  See B7-B8 for a breakdown of the sources of revenue.

The single largest source of revenue at 37% is charges for services/sales, which includes water, sewer, and trash/recycling/compost. 

All property taxes account for 22% of the total budget. 

Of the property taxes, in 2018 47.9% were residential, 17.5% were apartments, 30% were commercial, and 4.4% were industrial.  To summarize, 65.4% of property taxes came from property where people live.

Sales taxes, by comparison, only made up 6%.

I fail to see in this budget why Minneapolis needs to prostrate itself before a bunch of stripmall slumlords to keep the lights on.

[Another Reader]

Revenue from sales and services is restricted to expenditures on same.  Your city cannot make a profit on the services it provides per your budget write up.  That's not revenue for other services, capital improvements, or debt service.  However, you are correct on property taxes.  In California, property tax revenue is largely capped by Prop 13 and a large increment of property taxes goes to the State to be reallocated to school districts.  You don't have the Prop 13 restriction.  Not being familiar with Minnesota, are the property tax rates on commercial property different than on residential property?  It's also not clear what the basis of valuation is.  Those things can make a real difference in revenue.

My argument is that you cannot generate enough customers in the layout you describe to sustain the retail, service, and restaurant businesses that you want to locate there.  What makes the land and the structures valuable are the rents that can be charged, which in turn depend on how much revenue the businesses housed in these buildings can generate.  Unless you can achieve the density of a Manhattan and accept the car gridlock that results, I don't see how you can succeed.

[partdopy]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Why don't you just stop going to them and convince others to do the same?  The US wasn't founded on the principle of banning everything because you think you know what is best for other people...

[Davnasty]

I'd like to see drive through bans spark more fast-food restaurants to adopt Sonic's drive in model. Nothing stops drivers from pulling up, ordering, and driving off after getting their order, but it eliminates the idling engines waiting in the drive through for people who haven't decided what to order or waiting for extra large orders to be fulfilled.

Why don't you just stop going to them and convince others to do the same?  The US wasn't founded on the principle of banning everything because you think you know what is best for other people...

I typically agree when it's a matter of what's good for the individual but this is a matter of what's good for the environment.

And at the same time, the US does ban things because some people think they know what's best for others.

[Incandenza]

Most cities barely generate enough revenue to survive.  They will grasp at any source of additional revenue to make things work.

Cities are the biggest, most important economic generators in America.  Literally your entire way of life depends on the economic contributions of our cities.  Those hellholes of NY, Chicago, LA, and Dallas--the failing places where you think nobody wants to live?  They contribute over 3 trillion dollars to our GDP. The ten biggest cities alone represent a third of US GDP. 

80% of Americans live in urban areas. 

I get that you don't like cities.  But you should be thankful that these dense economic powerhouses exist.  Without them this country would be poor, weak, and unimportant.

[Another Reader]

Most cities barely generate enough revenue to survive.  They will grasp at any source of additional revenue to make things work.

Cities are the biggest, most important economic generators in America.  Literally your entire way of life depends on the economic contributions of our cities.  Those hellholes of NY, Chicago, LA, and Dallas--the failing places where you think nobody wants to live?  They contribute over 3 trillion dollars to our GDP. The ten biggest cities alone represent a third of US GDP. 

80% of Americans live in urban areas. 

I get that you don't like cities.  But you should be thankful that these dense economic powerhouses exist.  Without them this country would be poor, weak, and unimportant.

I don't disagree with what you say.  The businesses that exist in the cities contribute those trillions of dollars, not the cities.  The cities themselves are in many cases close to broke.  They cannot grow or even maintain their infrastructure.

[Hash Brown]

Revenue from sales and services is restricted to expenditures on same.

The taxes that cities can levy are dependent upon state law.  Those laws, and therefore the strategies of various cities, are often very different.  An obvious difference is that some states allow their cities to levy municipal earnings (personal income) taxes, whereas many don't.  Some states like New York collect and administer their municipal earnings taxes through their state tax department whereas the task of collection of local taxes in Ohio is dumped on the cities themselves, meaning many people get away without paying municipal taxes because the cities don't have the same staffing or legal tools as the IRS or state tax departments. 

The bottom line is that companies and people DO NOT choose one locality over another based on taxes alone with any frequency.  For example, Columbus, OH is by far the fastest growing state in Ohio despite it having a significantly higher municipal earnings, property, and sales taxes than Cincinnati (where I live).  The City of Cincinnati gets away with low taxes on its citizens in part because of the huge amount of rent it collects from the railroad it built in the 1880s and still owns. 

[Hash Brown]

So...have any triplexes actually broken ground yet in Minneapolis?  I predict that very, very few will be built.  They are expensive to build and expensive to manage.  Few if any institutional investors will come to Minneapolis with a plan to build 50 of these -- building a 150-unit apartment complex is much cheaper and managing a complex is much less labor-intensive than 50 scattered buildings. 

Also, just about any bank will loan you the cash to build a single-family home.  Are the big national banks going to bother creating a custom product just for Minneapolis triplex construction?  Hell no.  So anyone with ambitions to do this (which would tend to be small-time people) would be stuck with local banks, who will make plenty of money because there won't be much competition. 

Then, architects and general contractors can get away with overcharging because they're dealing with naive clients. 

[Another Reader]

ADU's are gaining traction in the Bay Area suburbs.  Smaller companies and some banks find opportunity.  My guess is they will be largely funded by HELOC's and cash out refis.  There is a seminar on them put on by the Housing Trust Silicon Valley on Saturday.  A number of vendors will make presentations, including two banks.  It's fully subscribed.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/small-homes-big-impact-adu-workshop-tickets-63780188260?aff=ebdssbdestsearch

The inadequate supply of housing locally has forced this change.  Although some of the thrust is intergenerational "housing Grandma" projects (note the AARP logo), most people are looking for an extra source of income.  The rent I could charge on an ADU here would pay the mortgage on the entire property.

I don't think you will see new triplexes constructed in the cities that encourage this type of development.  Certainly not in the urban areas of California, where there is almost no unoccupied land left and what there is is too expensive to make this type of project feasible.  The lots in the cities that encourage this already have structures in most cases.  What you will see are additions and revamping of existing structures.  Kind of like the conversions of large multistory houses in the East to two and three units, one on each floor, starting before WWII. 

Of course, that trend led to middle class flight from the cities to the suburbs after WWII.  We will have to wait for a decade or two to see what this experiment produces in the way of unintended consequences...

[Incandenza]

The cities themselves are in many cases close to broke.  They cannot grow or even maintain their infrastructure.

While true for a very limited few, this is simply not accurate for the vast majority of cities.  The story over the past twenty-five years in the US has been about urban growth.  Almost every major american City has a bigger population now than it did in 1995.  While growth has leveled off in some of the biggest cities, many continue to grow.  Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Seattle, Austin, Fort Worth, San Diego, and Charlotte (among others) all added over 10,000 people in 2018 alone. 

And none of these cities are close to broke.  NY has a 88 billion dollar budget and bond rating of Aa1.  LA has 10 billion dollar budget and a rating of AA.  San Francisco is rated AA.  Even Detroit has a low-investment grade rating at this point.  Our major cities (with the exception of Chicago, which has some work to do) are on firm financial grounding.

These cities are such powerful economic drivers because they are cities.  It is the density, the geography, the cultural output, and yes, the public transit, which creates the environment in which these businesses succeed.  There's plenty of valid criticism to be leveled at cities, but ultimately the country just isn't going to run on Mcdonalds in strip malls. 

[mathlete]

The cities themselves are in many cases close to broke.  They cannot grow or even maintain their infrastructure.

While true for a very limited few, this is simply not accurate for the vast majority of cities.  The story over the past twenty-five years in the US has been about urban growth.  Almost every major american City has a bigger population now than it did in 1995.  While growth has leveled off in some of the biggest cities, many continue to grow.  Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Seattle, Austin, Fort Worth, San Diego, and Charlotte (among others) all added over 10,000 people in 2018 alone. 

And none of these cities are close to broke.  NY has a 88 billion dollar budget and bond rating of Aa1.  LA has 10 billion dollar budget and a rating of AA.  San Francisco is rated AA.  Even Detroit has a low-investment grade rating at this point.  Our major cities (with the exception of Chicago, which has some work to do) are on firm financial grounding.

These cities are such powerful economic drivers because they are cities.  It is the density, the geography, the cultural output, and yes, the public transit, which creates the environment in which these businesses succeed.  There's plenty of valid criticism to be leveled at cities, but ultimately the country just isn't going to run on Mcdonalds in strip malls.

Great commentary! (and great info about the debt ratings!)

[Incandenza]

Great commentary!

Thanks.  One other interesting thing is that the cities that have succeeded the most, population-wise, are the ones that have been most successful at attracting non-US born residents.  Most of the population growth of places like NY, LA, and Boston has been as a result of increasing numbers of immigrants.  Take away the immigrants and you'd have declining cities.  This influx has coincided with historic low levels of crime, for any Trump enthusiasts reading.

And it's worth mentioning that mid-tier industrial towns have struggled.  Places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh continued to lose population through the 90s, although even that trend has leveled or reversed in most of those cities over the past 5-10 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[mathlete]

Great commentary!

Thanks.  One other interesting thing is that the cities that have succeeded the most, population-wise, are the ones that have been most successful at attracting non-US born residents.  Most of the population growth of places like NY, LA, and Boston has been as a result of increasing numbers of immigrants.  Take away the immigrants and you'd have declining cities.  This influx has coincided with historic low levels of crime, for any Trump enthusiasts reading.

And it's worth mentioning that mid-tier industrial towns have struggled.  Places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh continued to lose population through the 90s, although even that trend has leveled or reversed in most of those cities over the past 5-10 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Immigration has worked brilliantly for the USA for a long time. It seems crazy to close our doors now, especially with declining fertility.

Pittsburgh is an interesting one. The population dwindled for decades after the collapse of the US steel industry, but it looks like that's leveling off. The city and greater area is actually pretty well diversified now. There are 8 fortune 500 companies in Pittsburgh, and 3 of them are bigger than US Steel. I could see Pittsburgh coming back big time.

[TheContinentalOp]

Great commentary!

Thanks.  One other interesting thing is that the cities that have succeeded the most, population-wise, are the ones that have been most successful at attracting non-US born residents.  Most of the population growth of places like NY, LA, and Boston has been as a result of increasing numbers of immigrants.  Take away the immigrants and you'd have declining cities.  This influx has coincided with historic low levels of crime, for any Trump enthusiasts reading.

And it's worth mentioning that mid-tier industrial towns have struggled.  Places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh continued to lose population through the 90s, although even that trend has leveled or reversed in most of those cities over the past 5-10 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Immigration has worked brilliantly for the USA for a long time. It seems crazy to close our doors now, especially with declining fertility.

Pittsburgh is an interesting one. The population dwindled for decades after the collapse of the US steel industry, but it looks like that's leveling off. The city and greater area is actually pretty well diversified now. There are 8 fortune 500 companies in Pittsburgh, and 3 of them are bigger than US Steel. I could see Pittsburgh coming back big time.

It's going to be a lot easier to get carbon emissions down, if we don't import high-fertility immigrants from low-carbon emitting countries.

[Kris]

Great commentary!

Thanks.  One other interesting thing is that the cities that have succeeded the most, population-wise, are the ones that have been most successful at attracting non-US born residents.  Most of the population growth of places like NY, LA, and Boston has been as a result of increasing numbers of immigrants.  Take away the immigrants and you'd have declining cities.  This influx has coincided with historic low levels of crime, for any Trump enthusiasts reading.

And it's worth mentioning that mid-tier industrial towns have struggled.  Places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh continued to lose population through the 90s, although even that trend has leveled or reversed in most of those cities over the past 5-10 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Immigration has worked brilliantly for the USA for a long time. It seems crazy to close our doors now, especially with declining fertility.

Pittsburgh is an interesting one. The population dwindled for decades after the collapse of the US steel industry, but it looks like that's leveling off. The city and greater area is actually pretty well diversified now. There are 8 fortune 500 companies in Pittsburgh, and 3 of them are bigger than US Steel. I could see Pittsburgh coming back big time.

It's going to be a lot easier to get carbon emissions down, if we don't import high-fertility immigrants from low-carbon emitting countries.

Your comment is tinged with something I won't name, out of the desire to keep the discussion based on facts.

https://cis.org/Report/Immigrant-and-Native-Fertility-2008-2017

If you are really concerned about getting US carbon emissions down, probably the way to do that would be help US industry and agricultural practices lower their carbon production. And stimulate energy forms that are carbon-neutral or close to it.

[MayDay]

So...have any triplexes actually broken ground yet in Minneapolis?  I predict that very, very few will be built.  They are expensive to build and expensive to manage.  Few if any institutional investors will come to Minneapolis with a plan to build 50 of these -- building a 150-unit apartment complex is much cheaper and managing a complex is much less labor-intensive than 50 scattered buildings. 

Also, just about any bank will loan you the cash to build a single-family home.  Are the big national banks going to bother creating a custom product just for Minneapolis triplex construction?  Hell no.  So anyone with ambitions to do this (which would tend to be small-time people) would be stuck with local banks, who will make plenty of money because there won't be much competition. 

Then, architects and general contractors can get away with overcharging because they're dealing with naive clients.

I think it will be 90-100% people adding ADU's and basement rentals to their own house for personal use (or relatives, young adult children, etc) or to rent out the existing square footage in the basement for minimal investment.

ADU's cost ~100k so it doesn't pencil out unless you are doing it to keep grandma close, etc. And basement conversations definitely happen whether they are legal or not, but doing it legally is fairly minor (adding windows). I could also see some larger two stories convert to duplexes but again that already happened in a lot of areas.

I can't see tear downs to build triplexes unless it's a vacant lot anyway.

[TheContinentalOp]

If you are really concerned about getting US carbon emissions down, probably the way to do that would be help US industry and agricultural practices lower their carbon production. And stimulate energy forms that are carbon-neutral or close to it.

Sure lower carbon emissions from factories and agriculture. But it's easier to do that in a nation of 330 million rather than a future 400 million.

And it would have been easier in a nation of 275 million, rather than the 330 million we have today.

[roomtempmayo]

So...have any triplexes actually broken ground yet in Minneapolis?  I predict that very, very few will be built.  They are expensive to build and expensive to manage.  Few if any institutional investors will come to Minneapolis with a plan to build 50 of these -- building a 150-unit apartment complex is much cheaper and managing a complex is much less labor-intensive than 50 scattered buildings. 

Also, just about any bank will loan you the cash to build a single-family home.  Are the big national banks going to bother creating a custom product just for Minneapolis triplex construction?  Hell no.  So anyone with ambitions to do this (which would tend to be small-time people) would be stuck with local banks, who will make plenty of money because there won't be much competition. 

Then, architects and general contractors can get away with overcharging because they're dealing with naive clients.

I think it will be 90-100% people adding ADU's and basement rentals to their own house for personal use (or relatives, young adult children, etc) or to rent out the existing square footage in the basement for minimal investment.

ADU's cost ~100k so it doesn't pencil out unless you are doing it to keep grandma close, etc. And basement conversations definitely happen whether they are legal or not, but doing it legally is fairly minor (adding windows). I could also see some larger two stories convert to duplexes but again that already happened in a lot of areas.

I can't see tear downs to build triplexes unless it's a vacant lot anyway.

Lisa Bender has said repeatedly that she and the city council don't think the 2040 plan will have much of an effect on construction in the short term.  Even with rebuilds in south Minneapolis, it's still more profitable to put an SFH on the lot than put in a triplex.

Rents still aren't all that high.  The 2040 plan just serves as a built-in pressure relief valve to keep them from doubling or tripling.

[J Boogie]

As long as this thread is serving as a Twin Cities urbanism catch all... Is anyone else excited about Carter's proposal to turn the northbound lane of Ayd Mill into a dedicated bike/pedestrian path??

I am pumped, I am especially pumped because I am adamantly opposed to St. Paul footing a large portion the mill and overlay bill for this road that offers relatively little financial benefit to St. Paul.

Now that half of it will be far cheaper to maintain and provide big benefits to those of us who ride & walk, I'm on board with the costly (but badly needed) mill and overlay.

It also would inch us a little closer on the way to St. Paul Cyclist's holy grail of connecting into the greenway with a dedicated bridge. Still tons of obstacles in the way, but it would make the case much more compelling.

[Hash Brown]

So...have any triplexes actually broken ground yet in Minneapolis?  I predict that very, very few will be built.  They are expensive to build and expensive to manage.  Few if any institutional investors will come to Minneapolis with a plan to build 50 of these -- building a 150-unit apartment complex is much cheaper and managing a complex is much less labor-intensive than 50 scattered buildings. 

Also, just about any bank will loan you the cash to build a single-family home.  Are the big national banks going to bother creating a custom product just for Minneapolis triplex construction?  Hell no.  So anyone with ambitions to do this (which would tend to be small-time people) would be stuck with local banks, who will make plenty of money because there won't be much competition. 

Then, architects and general contractors can get away with overcharging because they're dealing with naive clients.

I think it will be 90-100% people adding ADU's and basement rentals to their own house for personal use (or relatives, young adult children, etc) or to rent out the existing square footage in the basement for minimal investment.

ADU's cost ~100k so it doesn't pencil out unless you are doing it to keep grandma close, etc. And basement conversations definitely happen whether they are legal or not, but doing it legally is fairly minor (adding windows). I could also see some larger two stories convert to duplexes but again that already happened in a lot of areas.

I can't see tear downs to build triplexes unless it's a vacant lot anyway.

Lisa Bender has said repeatedly that she and the city council don't think the 2040 plan will have much of an effect on construction in the short term.  Even with rebuilds in south Minneapolis, it's still more profitable to put an SFH on the lot than put in a triplex.

Rents still aren't all that high.  The 2040 plan just serves as a built-in pressure relief valve to keep them from doubling or tripling.

I owned two single-family lots in a gentrifying neighborhood and investigated building small multi-families before I sold the lots last year.  Now I own another lot I got for cheap about five blocks away, in a city (NOT Minneapolis) which is zoned "RMX" (residential mixed) which allows triplexes.  But the money just doesn't pencil out.  It would be very, very difficult to build a triplex on this lot for under $300k, and I doubt that I could get over $1k per month per unit in that neighborhood right now.  Plus, I'd have to put way more money down to build it than for a single-family house that costs the same amount to build. 

All of these people out there think Minneapolis is going to sprout triplexes left and right.  I'd bet that in 2030 there will be 100 at most. 

[roomtempmayo]

As long as this thread is serving as a Twin Cities urbanism catch all... Is anyone else excited about Carter's proposal to turn the northbound lane of Ayd Mill into a dedicated bike/pedestrian path??

I am pumped, I am especially pumped because I am adamantly opposed to St. Paul footing a large portion the mill and overlay bill for this road that offers relatively little financial benefit to St. Paul.

Now that half of it will be far cheaper to maintain and provide big benefits to those of us who ride & walk, I'm on board with the costly (but badly needed) mill and overlay.

It also would inch us a little closer on the way to St. Paul Cyclist's holy grail of connecting into the greenway with a dedicated bridge. Still tons of obstacles in the way, but it would make the case much more compelling.

I'm glad Mayor Carter came part way around on Ayd Mill, and this compromise is better than nothing.  I'd still rather see the whole thing turned into a linear park.

And I'll add that I hate the hostage-taking logic that either the city pays for this commuter road, or else the commuter traffic will just speed through residential areas.  St. Paul should learn from Chicago and put in commuter tolls.

If we have zero choice about the city paying for commuter roads, I guess I'd rather see the traffic on Snelling where it might stop at local businesses than on Ayd Mill where it definitely won't.  So, yes, I think Carter is at least taking a step in the right direction, even if he's beginning from the worst possible position.

[seattlecyclone]

So...have any triplexes actually broken ground yet in Minneapolis?  I predict that very, very few will be built.  They are expensive to build and expensive to manage.  Few if any institutional investors will come to Minneapolis with a plan to build 50 of these -- building a 150-unit apartment complex is much cheaper and managing a complex is much less labor-intensive than 50 scattered buildings. 

Also, just about any bank will loan you the cash to build a single-family home.  Are the big national banks going to bother creating a custom product just for Minneapolis triplex construction?  Hell no.  So anyone with ambitions to do this (which would tend to be small-time people) would be stuck with local banks, who will make plenty of money because there won't be much competition. 

Then, architects and general contractors can get away with overcharging because they're dealing with naive clients.

I think it will be 90-100% people adding ADU's and basement rentals to their own house for personal use (or relatives, young adult children, etc) or to rent out the existing square footage in the basement for minimal investment.

ADU's cost ~100k so it doesn't pencil out unless you are doing it to keep grandma close, etc. And basement conversations definitely happen whether they are legal or not, but doing it legally is fairly minor (adding windows). I could also see some larger two stories convert to duplexes but again that already happened in a lot of areas.

I can't see tear downs to build triplexes unless it's a vacant lot anyway.

Lisa Bender has said repeatedly that she and the city council don't think the 2040 plan will have much of an effect on construction in the short term.  Even with rebuilds in south Minneapolis, it's still more profitable to put an SFH on the lot than put in a triplex.

Rents still aren't all that high.  The 2040 plan just serves as a built-in pressure relief valve to keep them from doubling or tripling.

I owned two single-family lots in a gentrifying neighborhood and investigated building small multi-families before I sold the lots last year.  Now I own another lot I got for cheap about five blocks away, in a city (NOT Minneapolis) which is zoned "RMX" (residential mixed) which allows triplexes.  But the money just doesn't pencil out.  It would be very, very difficult to build a triplex on this lot for under $300k, and I doubt that I could get over $1k per month per unit in that neighborhood right now.  Plus, I'd have to put way more money down to build it than for a single-family house that costs the same amount to build. 

All of these people out there think Minneapolis is going to sprout triplexes left and right.  I'd bet that in 2030 there will be 100 at most.

Would a new single-family rental on that lot be any more profitable than a new rental triplex?

When Seattle recently passed a more expansive ADU law (which allows triplexes citywide if you squint at it right), part of the process was to write an environmental impact statement looking at the current economic situation to predict how many homes would actually be created under the new rules. One thing they found was that under current local economic conditions, building a new home for rent is rarely the most profitable thing for a developer. We see that playing out in practice around the city; when a new single-family house is built the developer tends to sell it to someone intending to live there rather than a landlord.

What the analysis predicted is around 2,000 additional homes built over the next decade under the new rules. These would generally not be from investors building a three-unit building to rent out all three. Instead most of the new homes would come from homeowners using some additional rental income to help pay their mortgage, and from more moderate-income people who would only be able to afford homeownership due to the rent that an ADU or two could bring. Even though the three-unit building costs more than a single-family home than the owner's suite of the triplex, the rent from the other two units makes the net mortgage cheaper.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar thing play out in Minneapolis. It will start with homeowners finishing their basements or adding a second floor apartment to bring in some rental income that more than covers the construction costs. When a property would be redeveloped anyway, maybe the developer puts in two or three moderate-sized homes rather than one huge one. As in Seattle, the number of these won't be huge compared to the overall housing stock, but it will mean the world for those families who are only able to afford homeownership due to this option.