Urban Design Framework for the University District

METROPOLITAN DESIGN CENTER

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK for the

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Today, cities and, perhaps more precisely, cities and their specific regions are being rediscovered as magnets of creative energy and innovation. These city-regions have been able to create new and distinctive growth economies and lifestyles based on the ability to weave their reconstruction efforts, mixing together the physical with the cultural — an essential integration, shaped by the physiographic characteristics of each specific region.

PHASE 1 REPORT NOVEMBER 2010 COLLEGE OF DESIGN

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Framework Project Approach

Southeast Como Marcy Holmes

University of MN Prospect Park

Cedar Riverside

The University District

A framework is an integrated operating system linking independent sets of information...a scaffold or armature supporting the learning processes that facilitate the exploration of a concept (theory/hypothesis) and that develop a critical path to decision-making prior to a full operational research, design or master planning phase takes place.

To achieve complex and multifaceted vision results, government officials and city planning agencies are looking for new collaborative partnerships that function outside of electoral politices. Often involving civic organizations and academic institutions the goal is to expand the dialogue, find new solutions, re-assess old questions, and be better informed with respect to discovering suitable alternatives to help achieve positive growth and beneficial development. The University District Alliance organization and the Urban Design Framework Process led by the Metropolitan Design Center exemplifys this approach.

The issues for the University District, and the City of Minneapolis are, ultimately, how to build the human habitat so that it is in harmony with the bioclimatic regime of the region, and, how to invest in design and city building that offers the greatest levels of comfort and urban livability.

Successful cities share a number of attributes, they emerge based on the ability to positively transform change over time, becoming a magnet for attracting talent and entrepreneurship while fomenting a life style that values the regional ecology, green design technologies, values the role of the arts as agents to reinforce local place and identity, and develop a system of well informed decision-making that is built from a vibrant public vision for the future.

Understanding the community – The University District, as a subset of greater urban and ecological conditions is critical to understanding how it has come to be what it is today and will provide the foundations for the development of a vibant urban future.

To begin the work we identified four questions:

1. Can the University District be positively transformed from its’ current urban untidiness and fragmentation into a cohesive network of well integrated walkable communities?

The Changing Nature of the Neighborhood

Fragmentation of the urban form brought on by alternative mobility frameworks

2. What are the critical obstacles preventing the advancement of a substantive urban design framework guiding this transformative process?

3. Can the Mississippi River again perform a critical regenerative role in the transformation of the University District?

4. Is there another way to think about finding solutions to difficult urban transformations outside from, or prior to, the conventional Master Planning process?

Historical Urban Growth

Urban settlement oriented to riverfront with urban structure formed parallel to river terraces.

2

The University District Alliance This project was done in collaboration with the University District Alliance, a coalition of leaders from the University, the neighborhoods and the City of Minneapolis. The University District Partnership Alliance was formed in 2007 authorized and funded by state legislation for the creation of a “University Partnership District.” The mandate “to form an Alliance to facilitate, initiate, or manage projects that are intended to maintain the University Partnership District as a viable place to study, research, and live” runs parallel to the Alliance Goal to have a campus/ community area that is a desirable and sustainable place to live, learn, work, do business and visit.

29 30 31 32

The geologic and fluvial history of the Mississippi River Basin reminds us that the District is shaped in part by conditions that preceded the founding of the University (1851) and the City of Minneapolis (1867).

7

6

1

4 3

2

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 8

9

15

13 14 28 16 17 18

10 19

12 11

20

32 Plans in 13 years The University District is composed of University of Minnesota - Minneapolis campus and four adjacent neighborhoods, Cedar-Riverside, Marcy-Holmes, Southeast Como and Prospect Park. More than 20 localized communities are identified within the District.

Intertwined with the identity and planning legacy of the District is the extant physical urban-scape. Shaped by over 150 years of settlement practices, industrial and commercial conditions and an evolving transportation infrastructure the 2800 acre District reads like a patchwork.

The past 15 years have been fertile for Neighborhood Planning, Master Planning and Visioning. Areas adjacent to the Central Corridor light rail and the new University Football Stadium have received significant study. Since 1997 there have been a more than 32 plans, studies, initiatives and proposals for areas within the District. The color coded map above indicates where planning efforts were focused and where they overlap. Color intensity correlates to areas where multiple studies have been focused. Many of these plans have not been realized. Some have resulted in zoning or regulatory changes within the District.

Together they present a catalogue of emergent ideals and goals in light of very specific conditions.

The principal and defining physical relationship for the District is to the Mississippi River. Essentially every property owner in the University District is a Shoreland Property owner! While officially the river corridor Critical Area is designated as a 100’ swath from the Ordinary High Water line on either side of the river, the entire District is well within the Mississippi watershed and it’s ecological system.

The Mississippi River is of national and continental significance - ecologically, economiclaly and culturally.

What once was a defining natural feature captured in stories, travel journals, paintings and etchings thru the late 1800’s was transformed and modified as a driver for industry and commerce in Minneapolis industrial riverfront. With the river as a source of livelihood, progress and power was followed by population, pollution, noise, fire, abandonment and eventual rediscovery. Today – the City is coming back to the River. The revitalization of Saint Anthony Main Street (1980/2000), the Stone Arch Bridge (1995), the North Loop (1995) and the Mill District (2000) have leveraged proximity and identity with the riverfront as a remarkable assett.

As a land-grant university the University of Minnesota plays a highly visible role and commitment to the communities that form the University District. Each neighborhood has its own distinctive qualities, history, infrastructures, housing forms, and challenges. All have the capacity to accommodate growth and to transform into more vibrant, economically vital and sustainable communities.

In this project we have studied how to restructure the University District into a model sustainable community; to better integrate and connect each neighborhood and the University with systems of mobility, and, to better understand and strengthen the character and vitality of the entire community through it’s reconnection with the Mississippi River. This research will provide the foundation for envisioning the transformation of this ‘human habitat’ in harmony with the bioclimatic regime of the region.

Metropolitan Design Center Team Professor Ignacio San Martin, Director & Dayton Hudson Chair of Urban Design Marcy Schulte, Faculty Research Fellow, Architecture & Urban Design Peter Crandall, Research Assistant, MArch, Architecture Michelle Barness, Research Assistant, MLA, Landscape Architecture

Integration Field Work Objectives

Social Human Health

Landscape

Community Needs

Geographical

Watershed

University Needs

Hydrological

Corridors

Topographical

Network

Vegetation Geology U.S.G.S.

Data Analysis Existing Conditions Report

Background Findings

Working Process

• Analysis • Resolve Conflicts • Establish Choices

Opportunities & Constraints Analysis

Ecological Alternatives

Community Workshop at Rapson Hall November 20, 2010.

Transportation Parks & Recreation University Master Plan Aerial Photos

In Collaboration With THE ALLIANCE Prepare Base Ecological Framework

Urban Research Data Gathering

Design Intervention Alternative Framework

Urban Design Framework

A University District Partnership

Richard Poppele, Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association Richard Gilyard, Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association Jan Morlock, Director Office of University Relations 3

Geophysical Conditions: Fluvial & Geologic Context Minnesota’s watery landscape is a direct result of glaciation. The slow movement of ice, water, and the debris they carry and deposit on the landscape has over many thousands of years shaped this landscape.

In the metropolitan region - the chain of lakes, mounds of glacial deposits and the course and profile of the Mississippi River channel are all traces of the glaciers.

Continental Glaciation Maximum Extent

Wisconsin Era Laurentide Ice Sheet 14,000 years ago.

Map adapted from Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers, Minnesota Geological Survey, Educational Series 7. By H.E. Wright. University of Minnesota. St. Paul, 1990. Page 1, Fig. 1.

Today, nearly 24% of the state is covered by water. Composed of lakes (11,842), natural rivers and streams (6,564), and wetlands (9.3 million acres) the landscape continues to evolve. Minnesota’s wetland area has decreased by 50% in the past 150 years.

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2008) “As ice to the north (of the metropolitan area) continued to melt, large rivers formed and the incipient Mississippi River broached the St. Croix moraine in Minneapolis establishing its modern course.

Earlier interglacial and preglacial river channels that had been cut deep into the bedrock were filled with glacial drift. At places these old channels had cut completely through the St. Peter sandstone so the drift filling them was hundreds of feet thick. Melting blocks of ice in these drift-filled channels formed chains of lakes such as the Lake of the Isles, Calhoun, and Harriet group. Bassett’s Creek also flows on top of one of these ancient channels.”

“The post-glacial course of the Mississippi River follows a completely new route from Bassett’s Creek to downtown St. Paul where an old channel is intersected. Following the glacial retreat, the infant Mississippi reached the edge of this old channel and the gravel mantle was quickly eroded. A waterfall formed when the upstream part of the river encountered the hard Platteville limestone, while downstream the deep glacial debris filling the old channel was rapidly displaced.” (Anfinson, 1989 and 1990)

Land of over 10,000 Lakes 24% of the state is covered by water.

Rock Surface Topography: Glacial Channels

Map adapted from Schwartz 1936, Bulletin 27, Plate 6, Minnesota Geological Survey.

4

Mississippi River and Glacial River Channels over time with key to Cross Section.

Map adapted from Schwartz and Thiel,1963.

Bedrock Geology in the University District Study Area

Map adapted from University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District. County Atlas Series, Atlas C-4, Plate 2 of 9. Bedrock Geology by Bruce M. Olsen & Bruce A. Bloomgren, 1989.

Surficial Geology in the University District Study Area

Map adapted from University of MInnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District. County Atlas Series, Atlas C-4, Plate 3 of 9. Surficial Geology by Gary N. Meyer & Howard C. Hobbs, 1989.

Geology of the Minneapolis Region

East-West cross section showing the bedrock, buried valleys, glacial deposits, and Mississippi River trench.

(From Wright, H.E. 1972 Quaternary History of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume. P.K. Sims and G.B. Morey, editors, pp. 515-547. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul.) http://www.fromsitetostory.org/sources/papers/mnarch48/images/ mnv48f02a600um1000.asp

Mississippi River Commission Survey, 1896 Excerpt from Chart #189 with University District indicated.

5

Geophysical Conditions: Topographic Context Topo Graphia of the District Place + writing = topography.

The topography of an area can also mean the surface shape and features themselves. In a broader sense, topography is concerned with local detail in general, including not only relief but also vegetative and humanmade features, and even local history and culture.

A

East View Across Hennepin Island Park

B

Down-river View of Old 35W bridge, 10th Avenue Bridge and Rail Trench (Granary)

Like Minneapolis, the history and geography of the University District is intimately linked to the River. The Falls of St. Anthony and the rivers course determined where and how the city was settled. While the falls propelled lumber and milling, it also anchored the riverfront as an industrial center for over 100 years.

Essentially three topographic zones have resulted: (1) the river channel and falls, (2) the river’s edge -bluffs & flats, and, (3) the gently sloping plain 100’ above the river.

The low sandy and clay flats were first quarried and then later either settled – as was Bohemian Flats on the western shore, or, inhabited by adventurers, house boats and barges on the east bank flats. 100 feet above the flats – the bluffs were home to the University, the city’s gridded urban development pattern and emerging residential districts. There is one exception to three zones - 100 feet above the University and adjacent plain the highest point in the Districts Tower Hill in the Prospect Park. This distinctively hilly

C

East View of Washington Ave Bridge, East Bank Campus & Bohemian Flats

Topography of the District

6

Section Cuts Throught Mississippi River Corridor and Environs

area was created by glacial deposits and was platted as a residential neighborhood in the 1870’s.

In the past 80 years the topography of the District has been re-written by the engineering and construction of transportation infrastructure. First, the channeling, dams and locks installed in the river raised the water level and submerged the low lying natural peninsulas, sand bars and islands that provided habitat but compli -cated the flow of the river for navigation and commerce.

Secondly – the industrial nature of the riverfront – was further advanced by the connectivity provided by railway lines. In 1862 the first line connected the eastern shore of St. Anthony Falls to the City of Saint Paul and Stillwater. By 1896 the riverfront was crowded with rail lines on both fronts. The adjacent neighborhoods were dissected by trenches, elevated lines and extensive yards to facilitate and support the increasing volume of rail traffic.

As the viability of rail shipping and the industrial facilities along the riverfront waned in the late 20th century, the freeway and interstate infrastructure was emerging. In the 1960’s the construction of 35W, the 35W bridge over the Mississippi River, and the 35W94 interchange forever changed the topography and continuity of the urban topography.

D

Up-river view of Washington Avenue Bridge, UMN East Bank Campus & Bohemian Flats

E

Up-river view of West & East Bank Campus, and Downtown Minneapolis

F

Down-river View of Riverside Park, Interstate I-94 and Franklin Avenue Bridge

G

West View of Franklin Ave Bridge, I-94 & Riverside Park Arial Photographs from the Metropolitan Design Center Image Bank ŠRegents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

Used with permission. Accessed from The College of Design’s Digital Collections and Archives Unit (DCA) http://dcl.umn.edu/

University District Topography, Parcels and Streets with key to cross sections and photographs.

7

Ecological Conditions: Water, Plant & Animal Communities “The Mississippi River and its floodplain are home to a diverse population of living things:

• 25% of all fish species in North America, at least 260 species of fishes, ; • 40% of the nation’s migratory waterfowl use the river corridor during their Spring and Fall migration; • 60% of all North American birds (326 species) use the Mississippi River Basin as their migratory flyway; • 38 documented species of mussel from Cairo, Illinois, upstream to Lake Itasca • More than 50 species of mammals; • More than 145 species of amphibians and reptiles.”

Continental Flyways

Illustration adapted from Biological Flyways, Credit: Michael A Johnson, North Dakota Game and Fish. http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/flyways.html Accessed August 18, 2010.

Mississippi Watershed

Adapted from National Park Service Web Site Watershed Map accessed 18 August 2010. http://www.nps.gov/miss/ photosmultimedia/upload/watershedBG.jpg.

National Park Service. Mississippi River Facts. http://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm. Accessed 18 August 2010.

The longest migration route of any in the Western Hemisphere lies in the Mississippi Flyway. “It’s northern terminus is on the Arctic coast of Alaska and its southern end in Patagonia. During the spring migration some of the shorebirds traverse the full length of this great artery and several species that breed north to Yukon and Alaska must twice each year cover the larger part of it.”

“Uninterrupted by mountains, well timbered and watered, the entire region affords ideal conditions for the support of hosts of migrating birds. ...Another factor in determining the importance of this route which is used by large numbers of ducks, geese, shorebirds, blackbirds, sparrows, warbler and thrushes. It is estimated that about 40% of all North American migrating waterfowl and shorebirds use this route.”

(Nutty Birdwatcher, 1998) “The Mississippi River watershed is the third largest in the world, extending from the Allegheny Mountains in the east to the Rocky Mountains in the west. The watershed includes all or parts of 31 states and 2 Canadian providences. The watershed measures approximately 1,837,000 square miles, covering about 40% of the United States and about 1/8th of North America.”

Ecological Classification: Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province

Illustration adapted from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Maps, Ecological Classification System. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html. Accessed 18 August 2010.

University District - 3 Ecological Subsections The University District is located at the confluence of three ecological SUBSECTIONS: The Anoka Sand Plain, The St. Paul – Baldwin Plains & Morains, and The Big Woods.

The Anoka Sand Plain subsection consists of a flat, sandy lake plain and terraces along the Mississippi River. The Big Woods subsection coincides with a large block of deciduous forest present at the time of EuroAmerican settlement. The St. Paul-Baldwin Plans and Morains is dominated by glacial moraines and areas of outwash plain. (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.)

“Communities up and down the river use the Mississippi to obtain freshwater and to discharge their industrial and municipal waste. A January 2000 study published by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee states that close to 15 million people rely on the Mississippi River or its tributaries in just the upper half of the basin. (National Park Service, 2010) Ecological Unit classifications are used to identify, and describe uniform ecological features. The system uses associations of biotic and environmental factors, including climate, geology, topography, soils, hydrology, and vegetation.

The city of Minneapolis and the University District study area is situated within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest PROVINCE in the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal SECTION. “The MIM is a long band of deciduous forest, woodland, and prairie that stretches nearly 350 miles from Polk County in northwestern Minnesota to the Iowa border.

8

Over half of this area consists of rugged to hummocky moraines deposited along the eastern margin of the Des Moines ice lobe during the last glaciation. Another quarter of the area consists of rolling till or basal till deposited as drumlins. Small sand plains occur locally within the moraines. (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.)

University District - 3 Ecological Subsections

Illustration adapted from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Maps, Ecological Classification System. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html.

Accessed 18 August 2010.

SEVEN Native Communities

Applicable to the University District biotope

This geologic, soils history and ecological context provides critical information for understanding succession and future possibilities for health and vitality within the study area. Bio-diversity and richness are widely understood as key components in healthy communities.

We have identified seven Native Communities as hypothetical models and contributing communities to draw from to enhance the ecological vitality of the University District community.

See back cover for Key to plant and animal species.

Plant and Animal Community information was developed from multiple sources including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge also manages a fourteen county Wetland Management District (WMD) and Emmons Olivier Resources, Inc.

9

Urban Ecological Conditions: Foundations for Sustainability Urban ecology includes not only plant and animal communities but also human communities. What conditions or foundations are required to create a sustainable healthy urban community? What makes each neighborhood great? What makes some streets more pleasant to be on then others?

From the science of ecology we have terms such as biodiversity, intensity, richness, web, population that apply to how we think about our neighborhoods as well. What is the capacity of the University District to support a vibrant, diverse residential scene?

Historical Survey of Land Cover, 1853

Adapted from Original government land survey map of Minneapolis dated February 1854. Prairie is shown as stippling (tan) and dark green areas are wooded.

Dotted lines are roads or trails. Cross hatched areas (dark tan) are cultivated fields. Bassett's Creek is in the upper left quarter. St. Anthony Falls is in Section 23. http://www.fromsitetostory.org/sources/papers/ mnarch48/images/mnv48f04a600um575.asp

Land Cover map information is based upon the Minnesota Land Cover Classifcation System (MLCCS) developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Metro Region, in cooperation with other state, federal and local agencies. Additional Tree Cover and Species information was incorporated from the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities Campus Tree inventory.

10

As a collection healthy urban villages, this District has the opportunity to be a model for sustainable urban living. In the metropolitan region this District will benefit from the anticipated population growth for it’s benefit without sacrificing existing exurban greenfields and farmland for new development.

University District Land Cover

Francis J. Marschner’s Map “Original Vegetation of Minnesota” was created in 1929-1930 based upon the original notes contained in the 200 volume Public Land Survey created from 1847-1907. These documents provide a great foundation for how we understand what was here prior to ‘settlement’.

While it is estimated that in the 6 counties making up the northern metropolitan Twin Cities area, less than 6% of the original area of native plant communities remains intact today, this historical context provides critical information for rethiniking what an ecologically vibrant, healthy community in this place might be in the future. (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.)

“Green infrastructure provides environmental benefits like supporting wildlife, improving the quality of air and water, and providing places for people to interact with nature. Natural resources provide many other benefits such as:

• • • • • •

Improving human health, well being, and quality of life Minimizing the effects of floods Increasing property values Reducing energy costs Reducing infrastructure costs Supporting economic development and tourism”

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, 2004.)

Urban Forest: Structure & Complexity In addition to beauty in the landscape and the provision of habitat the Urban Forest can contribute significantly to human health and environmental / ecosystem functions – including both pollution removal and cooling air temperatures during the cooling season.

The urban forest of Minneapolis has an estimated 979,000 trees and a tree cover of 26.4 % (of land area). The three most common species are green ash 21.6%, American elm 17.1%, and boxelder 9.1%. The 10 most common species account for 75% of all trees.

The density of trees occurs in the River District is 19.8 trees/acre. The highest density of trees in Minneapolis is in the Lakes District (31.6 trees/acre). (United States Department of Agriculture; Nowak et. al., 2006) Urban Forest Service Statistics for Minneapolis Pollution removal: 384 tons/year ($1.9 mil/yr) Carbon storage: 250,000 tons ($4.6 million) Carbon sequestration: 8,900 tons/year ($164,000) Building energy reduction: $216,000/year Avoided carbon emissions: $16,000/year Structural values: $756 million” (United States Department of Agriculture; Nowak et. al., 2006)

Trees can increase your property value by as much as 15%. Trees capture rainfall and reduce storm water runoff, erosion, and pollution. An average city tree can capture nearly 1,700 gallons of water each year. Trees act as windbreaks in winter to help save on heating costs. In addition, they provide habitat for birds and other wildlife. (EPA, 2007; McPerson and others, 2005) (UMN Extension Publication,”Your Sustainable Yard”, 2008.)

While the environmental services that an individual tree provides increases as the size and leaf area increases, the structure of urban forest plant communities is also of critical importance for biodiversity and vitality.

Planting a variety of plants and plant types can turn landscapes into rich and diverse communities capable of harboring beneficial insects and attracting wildlife. The complexity and structure of these plant communities is directly related to their vitality and the animal communities they support.

11

Urban Ecological Conditions: Foundations for Sustainability Impervious Land Cover Map

'Land Cover - MN Land Cover Classification System' MN DNR - MIS Bureau (1999 - present)

¯

Impervious Surfaces map information was developed based upon the Minnesota Land Cover Classifcation System (MLCCS) developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Metro Region, in cooperation with other state, federal and local agencies.

12

0

1,000

University District Impervious Surfaces Legend The study area map above indicates impervious 0-10%_impervous_surface surfaces in the University District. 52% of the total land 11-25%_impervious_surface surface area within the District is 91-100% impervious.

26-50%_impervious_surface The University of Minnesota contains approximately 51-75%_impervious_surface 1/4 of the76-90%_impervious_surface most impervious surface area, within the 91-100%_impervious_surface study area.

Impervious surfaces are a concern because they essentially seal the grounds surface, eliminating rainwater infiltration and natural groundwater recharge.

2,000

4,000

6,000

Runoff from these urbanized areas the primary source of pollution in rivers.

8,000 Feet

is

often1:400

Impervious surfaces collect solar heat contributing to the heat island effect and they deprive tree roots of aeration, eliminating the “urban forest” and the canopy shade that would otherwise moderate urban climate. Because impervious surfaces displace living vegetation, they reduce ecological productivity, and interrupt atmospheric carbon cycling. (Wikipedia http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface, accessed 09.08.2010.)

Housing Density & Community Vitality Minimum residential densities are needed to create healthy communities that will support the investment in public transit systems and vital commercial activities.

A range of 15-30, 20-45, and 40-80 dwelling units / acre are good choices and are present in our most successful livable communities.

There are 12,500 dwelling units within the University District in a variety of housing types, 2000 census figures reflect a population of 32,561.

While the overall District average is 8 dwelling units / acre, the core residential areas in each of the neighborhoods vary widely in density:

Cedar Riverside: 12.0 DU / Acre (range: 5-45)

Marcy Holmes:

17.5 DU / Acre

(range: 9-75)

Southeast Como: 9.5 DU / Acre Prospect Park:

9.3 DU / Acre

Identifying sites and configurations for infill, re-use and new residential types / mixed-use developments that will increase both density and variety of housing options will benefit and sustain the District over the long run.

New mid-rise (6-10 storey) developments in the Mill District and in Northeast Minneapolis have successfully integrated density’s of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre into the fabric of these vibrant neighborhoods.

Calculations Based on Statistics from the 2000 Census, City of Minneapolis Data, and Density within districtAlliance (by dwelling units/ac.)

University District Studies, 2007.

(CPED-Planning Division, City of Minneappolis, 2010)

Legend Dwelling Units per Acre 0.000000 0.000001 - 5.000000 5.000001 - 10.000000 10.000001 - 15.000000 15.000001 - 20.000000 20.000001 - 25.000000 25.000001 - 50.000000 50.000001 - 100.000000 100.000001 - 200.000000 200.000001 - 422.349810

ÂŻ

0

1,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000 Feet

1:400

13

Are Sustainable Communities Possible?

And if so, What are their Characteristics?

Ecological Footprint Types: Comparative Communities

Twin Cities Ecological Footprint: Method Comparison

The conviction that we humans must confront a more sustainable approach to development became evident as early as the 1970s. But the how to of becoming more sustainable has advanced only during the past decade. As the world populations change, it becomes increasingly important to understand the relationship between the activities of humans and the natural resources in the global environment. For human populations living in cities, the environment of a city is a complex system that consumes vast natural resources while producing waste in large quantities. As population increases, it is particularly important for the people living in cities to evaluate their relationship with the ecosystem that supports city life ensuring that it is not taxing the ecosystem beyond its limits.

As we have become increasingly more aware of the extent of humans’ resource consumption and waste production, many different means of measuring a society’s way-of–life impact on the environment have emerged. One approach of assessing the level of impact on environmental resources involves analyzing a society’s ecological footprint. An ecological footprint is “an accounting tool that enables us to estimate the resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements of a defined human population or economy in terms of a corresponding productive land area.”

1 Because it can measure the available resources, or biocapacity, the ecological footprint can establish a comparison between environmental impact and available resources.

2 This comparison gives the magnitude by which human consumption exceeds available resources of the earth, which is referred to as overshoot.

The advantage of using the ecological footprint as an accounting tool is its ability to quantify the human impact on the environment for any given scale. As such, footprints can be calculated for individuals, companies, cities, counties, states, and nations and these results can be compared across these different scales and locations. Comparisons are helpful but more importantly, the ecological footprint can be used as a tool to help local decision-making with respect to local or regional planning policies. Many city ecological footprint studies referenced in this paper use the ecological footprint analysis as a tool to evaluate specific policies and programs towards sustainability.

Cities can then quantify the potential footprint reduction that a particular policy or program offers, and weigh the reduction against other important planning decisions.

The Seven Principles articulate the central underlying subjects and the multiple supporting characteristics defining sustainable healthy communities. This list is intended as a tool for evaluating and priortizing sustainable strategies that may be adopted and exemplify the approach to the University District Urban Design Framework.

Twin Cities Total footprint Consumption Components

*

Total Twin Cities Ecological Foot Print (EF) = 12.02 % Distributed

Twin Cities

Transportation 28.00% Electricity (Residential & Non-Res) 28.00% Goods 13.15%

Services 10.89% Food 19.76% 99.79%

Twin Cities Total Footprint by Component Sector

*

Ecological Footprint of various nations. Adapted from World Wildlife Foundattion Living Planet Report 2006.

14

SEVEN Principles:

A Blueprint for Sustainable Healthy Communties

1. Choice & Diversity • • •

Includes a diversity of places, people and lifestyles Provides a choice of residential and employment options Includes a diversity of recreational opportunities and community services across the demographic spectrum

2. Accessibility • • •

•

• •

Provides access to affordable health care services and facilities Keep waterways and natural ecosystems in close proximity and accessible to the community Provide a built environment for a large % of the population within a living and walking distance (1/4 mile) to public transportation, jobs, open spaces, retail, commercial and community services Provides a wide range of residential opportunities across the demographic spectrum including live-work and collaborative living opportunities Provides good economic prospects and employment opportunities within the community Provides reliable quality public transportation choices

3. Natural Resources • • •

•

Maintain critical national assets and protect natural ecosystems Maintain and restore biological diversity and wildlife habitats Invest in greenbelts and edges wherever possible for use as wildlife corridors, networks and public recreation opportunities Maintain a healthy regional watershed system

4. The Built Environment • •

• • • • • • • •

•

•

•

Provides an attractive business environment with healthy economic opportunities Provide a wide range of residential opportunities across the demographic spectrum including live-work and collaborative living opportunities Strive for a rich mix of land uses Maintain existing quality building stock and accommodate change and re-use Create streets that serve pedestrians and activities Include community gardens in recreation and parks programs Consider brownfields as opportunities for redevelopment and provide clear standards to address their redevelopment Correlate land use with public transportation opportunities Significantly reduce the amount of impervious surfaces Recognize that minimum residential densities are needed for creating healthy communities, investing in public transit and support vital commercial activities. Integrate a range of 15-30, 20-45, and 40-80 du/acre, they are good choices and are present in our most successful livable communities Design and retrofit buildings to reduce energy consumption, while providing for renewable energy options, water recycling opportunities and best orientation for using passive solar design opportunities Design and install a community water drainage system that prevents stormwater runoff from adversely impacting critical water resources Design and integrate water infiltration swales to allow surface water runoff from parking lots to be absorbed into the ground instead of collected and discharged off site

5. Strong Conservation Stance & Land Ethic • • • • • • • •

Use benchmarks and metrics by which sustainable performance can be measured Utilize the ecological footprint as a metric for sustainable development Reduce overall demand for resources Increase use of renewable energy resources over non-renewable resources Reduce CO2 output and mitigate all GHG emissions Increase land assets to improve carbon sequestration Reduce water consumption levels and recycle stormwater runoff Convert conservation ethics into a sustainable industry

6. Strong Understanding of the Context • •

•

Follow the 4-Rs. reduce, reuse, recycle and rethink the way we consume energy, water, materials and resources Maintain a strong design relationship with the bioregional characteristics of the region including climate, and spatial landscape distinctiveness Protect and preserve the special historical and cultural characteristics of the region weaving old and new and taking into consideration the unique identity of place

7. Nurture a Strong Sense of Place & Community • • • • • • • • •

• • •

Recognize the influence of the built environment on our lives, behavior and social aspirations Maintain good access to nature and natural ecosystems Provide a strong community identity and feeling of belonging Provide for strong community engagement, safety and community support Develop a business climate to encourage businesses to locate within the community Provide for a legible physical environment with a distinct range of places and clear focal points of activity Provide for a good street life, quality of walking experiences and an enriching pedestrian lifestyle Invest in creating a diversity of scales and high quality public places Be self reliant with an active governing process, maintain strong literacy levels, strong civic engagement and commitment to the democratic process Provide high quality public schools Develop programs to increase community awareness and involvement in support of sustainable policies Involve the local government(s) in supporting sustainable community values and policies

15

Contested Territories: An Inve Intertwined with the identity and planning legacy of the District is the extant physical urbanscape. Shaped by over 150 years of settlement practices, industrial and commercial conditions and an evolving transportation infrastructure the 2800 acre District reads like a patchwork.

There are clearly many zones of overlapping interest, differences of opinion, and a few significant gaps. We have identified 10 critical zones that we believe are key to advancing the functioning, vitality and quality of the University District and in turn the City within which it sits.

1

Connecting Father Hennepin Park / Granary Corridor / Stone Arch Bridge • Limited access road impedes connections between University Campus and St. Anthony Main, Stone Arch Bridge and Father Hennepin Park • Power Plant requires truck servicing for transport of materials (coal) • Waterfront Park inaccessible from Granary Greenway and communities beyond.

2

The Future of Granary Corridor • Truck access to Granary Road would compete with pedestrian and bike access and complicate 35W intersection • No direct access to the river from Dinkytown

3

15th Avenue Squeeze • Convergence of bicycle, pedestrian, truck, bus and car traffic at the 15th Avenue underpass compromises safety and creates congestion • Converting Pleasant Avenue & Elm St Intersection into a vehicle thoroughfare and routing traffic through the University Knoll only promises to increase congestion at this intersection (see zone 8)

4

Oak Street Crossing / East Gateway District • Rail Yards present a huge obstacle to any additional connection between SEMI / Southeast Como area and the University, Light Rail Transit and Mississippi River.

5

East Gateway Transit & Development Zone

• Rail Yards present a huge obstacle to any connection between SEMI / Como area and the University, Light Rail Transit, and Mississippi River.

Major Roadway

Public Greenspace

Light Rail Transit Bike Route Contested Territory

Neighborhood Zone

East Gateway District

Proposed Granary Greenway Granary Corridor Proposed Grand Rounds Connection

16

ntory of the District’s Critical Sites

6

Railyards and Silos / Wetland Habitat

• Rail Yards present a huge obstacle to any connection between SEMI / Southeast Como area and University, Light Rail Transit, and Mississippi River.

• Railyards and buildings privately owned by BNSF. Likely that some rail lines will remain in perpetuity as additional passenger rail infrastructure

7

Bridal Veil Falls / East River Flats / Bohemian Flats • Entrance to Falls from Frankin Avenue is obscured • Insufficient access to river flats leaves them feeling isolated and unsafe • Falls are poorly maintained and in need of restoration

8

East Bank Transit Zone

• Diverting Washington Avenue traffic via Pleasant and Delaware will congest existing corridors and further complicate access to the river from campus as well as compromise campus pedestrian safety • Access to the river from both banks of campus is not adequately facilitated and frequently blocked by traffic

9

West Bank Transit Zone

• Traffic traveling to the East Bank over the Washington Avenue Bridge threatens to congest the campus and river corridors • Access from Cedar Riverside to the West River Parkway and Bohemian Flats is very restricted

10 Grand Rounds Connection

• Rail Yards present a huge obstacle to any additional connection between SEMI / Southeast Como, University Campus, Light Rail Transit, and the Mississippi River.

17

1

Inventory of 10 Critical Sites: Community Feedback Father Hennepin Park / Granary Corridor / Stone Arch Bridge

• Importance of Downtown Connections • Assessing the negative impacts of truck traffic on the neigborhood.

• Can Downtown East be a “zone of impact” given its many connections, high ownership rate, and importance as a conduit to the Downtown Core?

2

The Future of Granary Corridor

3

15th Avenue Squeeze

4

Oak Street Crossing / East Gateway District

5

East Gateway Transit & Development Zone

• Granary Road should be developed as a “gentle connector” focused on bike, pedestrian and greenway-type development.

• Future of Granary Road affects all issues and neighborhoods and is imporant across the board. Both an opportunity and a challenge • Thinking of G.R. as a “green zipper” weaving fractured neighborhoods back together.

• Access to the river for neighborhood residents needs to be incorporated into all future riverfront projects (i.e. A-Mill)

• How can we create additional connections between SE Como and the rest of the district?

• 10th Ave as important additional connection to Dinkytown

• Need to support more mixed development with more housing options.

• How can we create additional connections between SE Como and the “University”?

• The University should be the centerpoint for all connections / connectivity

• Need to support more mixed development with more housing options.

• Walkability is key • Purposeful development, being mindful of how and what happens.

18

6

Railyards and Silos / Wetland Habitat

• Need to support more mixed development with more housing options.

• Walkability is key • Purposeful development, being mindful of how and what happens.

7

Bridal Veil Falls / East River Flats / Bohemian Flats

8

East Bank Transit Zone

9

West Bank Transit Zone

• Access to the River from the neighborhoods needs to be incorporated into all future riverfront projects.

• What about winter? Ski Trails + biking + walking. How to accomodate for all seasons?

• What will happen to the diversion of traffic from Washington Ave? • What about winter? Ski Trails + biking + walking. How to accomodate for all seasons?

• Can there be a new bridge over the river from Oak St. / Stadium village to the West Bank that creates additional connections but routes traffic around the campus?

• What is happening at the West Bank Riverfront? How might the future of Bohemian Flats and Riverside Park impact the neighborhood?

• West Bank / Cedar Riverside is the most disconnected neighborhood from the rest of the district. Additional connections should be made.

• Can there be a new bridge over the river from Oak Street / Stadium village that creates additional connections but routes traffic around the campus?

• LRT station area plans are key to development of the District

10 Grand Rounds Connection • What is the importance / future of the Kasota District?

• Thinking about Eastward / St. Paul connections as a priority.

19

Community Engagement: Setting Priorities for Critical Sites

Community Workshop at Rapson Hall November 20, 2010.

Community engagement events for Phase I included both a public forum held November 8th and a Community Workshop that was held on Saturday November 20th. The Forum had attendance by both neighborhood residents, business owners and interested members of the public totaling over 80 people. The Community Workshop which was held in Rapson Hall at the University of Minnesota hosted over 70 community members for a 5 hour extended conversation about the critical issues and opportunities within the bounds of the University District.

Following a screening of the “Voices of the University District” video and introduction by Ted Tucker and Richard Gilyard of the University District Alliance an overview of the Phase 1 research findings was presented by Ignacio San Martin and Marcy Schulte.

Following this introduction – 8 small groups were formed to debate and discuss the two critical challenges of the day. #1 What are the 10 most critical zones for change in the district and how should they be prioritized? #2 What are the most important sustainable principles that the project should uphold?

Lively discussion was carried out in small groups, each table had a designated facilitator, leader and recorder.

Ignacio San Martin led the collective large group discussion. The day’s events were drawn to conclusion

by Richard Gilyard of the University District Alliance.

Outcomes from the discussions and ranking of zones and principles is recorded on the map below.

Priority Ranking of conflict site areas. Which are the Most Important conditions to address?

20

Community Engagement: Prioritizing Sustainbility: What are the Most Important Principles?

Sustainability Priorities for The District

1.The Built Environment 2.Nurture a Strong Sense of Place & Community

3. Accessiblity 4. Natural Resources

5. Choice & Diversity

6. Strong Conservation & Land Ethic

7. Context

Priority ranking of Sustainability. What are the Most Important Principles?

The workshop provided consensus on the need to: 1. Address changes and development that are ‘on the boards’ and imminently approaching implementation – so that work proceeds with input from the Community.

2. Coalesce the Urban Design Framework and distill from it directives/guidelines for evaluating future projects and development.

3. Clarify the message of the Framework and The District Alliance

4. Get the Message out – communicate with residents, constituents and business owners as well as planners and jurisdictions who have a hand in the District.

5. Get more people and a more broad representation of the District’s population involved in the process and the project – from underrepresentated populations (renters, younger neighbors, immigrant and minority neighbors) to decision makers and business property owners.

21

Urban Conditions: Mapping Perception

Landmarks A simply defined physical object (buildings, signs, stores, mountains, etc.) that becomes a point reference for people.

Paths The channels along which people customarily, occasionally, or potentially move.

Edges The linear elements not used or considered as paths by people. They are boundaries between two phases, linear breaks in continuity. Edges include shores, railroad cuts, edges of development, and walls.

Districts The medium-to-large sections of the city, conceived of as having two-dimensional extent, which people mentally enter “inside of,” and which are recognizable as having some common, identifying character.

Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City As A method for understanding Visual Perception and Legibility of the City In The Image of the City (1960) Kevin Lynch discusses his research in mapping map the visual form of American cities. Utilizing Boston, Los Angeles and Jersey City as examples, the goal is to understand how citizens perceive their urban environment and what attributes of the city help in creating a legible image of the city. Lynch maps five distinctive elements; paths, edges, landmarks, districts, and nodes each of which are present in varying degrees of legibility. Methods of study include field reconnaissance, verbal interviews, and individual citizens sketches.

Visual Form of Boston as Seen in the Field - Lynch, Kevin

of movement. Over time, it leads to the organization of activity, belief and knowledge for local residents in a manner that relates to the spatial and physical complexities of a city.

Put another way, “a distinctive and legible environment not only offers security but also heightens the potential depth and intensity of human experience.” For this reason the study of the legibility of a city can be beneficial.

The “perception map” below is based on methods demonstrated by Kevin Lynch. This exercise assists us in assessing the ease with which (the city’s) parts can be recognized and organized into a coherent pattern.

A legible cityscape means increased speed and ease

Nodes The points or strategic spots in a city into which people can enter, and which are the intensive foci to and from which they are traveling.

Un

ive

Bunge Grain Elevator

rsit

yA ve

.

4th

Como Avenue

Av e

.

th

Av e

nu e

St. Anthony Main

15 th

Dinkytown

.

Dinkytown

Granary Trench

Stone Arch Bridge

LANDMARK: Riverside Plaza

SEMI

15

Pillsbury A Mill

Av e

Pillsbury Pillsbury A Mill A Mill

Pillsbury A Mill

Granary Trench

The Guthrie Theater

Dinkytown

Granary Trench

Railyards and Industrial Zone

TCF Bank Stadium

The Mall McNamara Alumni Center ngton Washi

PATH: Granary Trench

Ave.

BNFS Grain Silos

The Mall The Weisman Art Museum

Ri

ve

de

st

Av e

.

Cedar Ave.

EDGE: Railyards & Industrial Zone

Ea

rsi

U of M Medical Ctr.

Ri

ve

rP

kw

27th Ave.

Oak St.

Riverside Plaza

Tower Hill Park

y

ss

si

is M

Landmarks

pi

ip r

ve

Nodes

Ri

DISTRICT: St. Anthony Main Street

Path (major) Path (minor) Edge / Barrier District (Strong) District (Weak)

Disconnected / Hidden Feature

NODE: Como Avenue @ 15th Ave.

22

University District: Landmarks, Paths, Edges, Nodes, Districts

N

Urban Framework: Community Feedback

It is important to repair the damage / disruption created by (existing transportation infrastructure) but first it is most important that no further harm is done. How do we control/ impact projects that are on the books that do not support the greater vision of the District?

University should be the center point and point for all connections / connectivity Connections to Downtown are important West Bank Connections – Cedar Riverside is most disconnected from the rest of the district.

Granary Road is a major issue and will have impacts across the Board – it is a huge opportunity and should be developed as a Gentle Connector – greenway / pedestrian / bike focused. Something that helps not harms the neighborhoods. West end of Granary Road – potential negative impact of trucks on neighborhood.

East end of Washington Traffic – impacts of closure of Washington for Central Corridor LRT station areas thru-out the district are critical for setting the tone and taking the opportunity to make thoughtful development plans that meet the Districts needs / goals.

Can University and 4th Streets be two-way streets to slow and calm traffic? As they are now they act as thru-ways for high volume and high speed (relatively) traffic and are dangerous / uncomfortable for pedestrians and cut up the neighborhoods?

Saint Paul Interface – we need to me thinking beyond the District boundaries esp. to the east. The Kasota District has not been discussed that should be included as well.

We need a better understanding of: a. the university’s historical impact on the neighborhood, & b. the sociopolitical map of the District and the impacts of this facet(s) Disconnection of Southeast Como from the rest of the district – how does it become connected? Oak Street – University connection to SE Como / SE Como connection to University What about winter! As a winter city walkability / livability year round needs to be considered in all of the plans

East Gateway: We need to support mixed development, More housing (options), Walk-ability is key Central Corridor Station Area in Cedar Riverside: Maximize the positive impact and benefit for the neighborhood (district) Overall importance - sustainability is connected directly to Quality of Life Land bridge over the freeway (35W) depression at 5th street which was made specifically for a park over the Freeway – it was discussed in 35w plans but never followed up on.

It is important for us to understand how many jurisdictions are at work here in the District? How does it work? How do we understand / track / impact what is getting done?

The District should support the strategy that every future project / development / alteration that gets done that it becomes a “green zipper” – each project is an opportunity to make things add up and to integrate sustainable / green components.

Access to the river for neighbors and from the neighborhoods needs to be incorporated (at the A-Mill project) and at all other future riverfront projects. Connect to the River and the river to the neighborhoods – Bridal Veil Falls The Central Corridor project especially in the West Bank Area station is an important opportunity to integrate the West Bank into the City and the District.

In the discussion about density and dwelling units per acre it is important to include a variety of housing options and choices so that we can have a diversity of neighbors and opportunities for people to transition and stay in the district – students remaining, faculty buying in, seniors aging in place….etc. Focus on the people.

What if a new car/ped/bike connections was made over the River from Oak Street to Stadium Village to CedarRiverside? With Washington Avenue closed to cars a new connection is needed. This would also make another loop around the District and re-connect Cedar Riverside to the rest of the District.

Community Workshop at Rapson Hall November 20, 2010.

23

Alliance Steering Committee Team

Bibliography

Key to Plants and Animals

Richard Poppele, Prospect Park East River Road (PPERRIA) Richard Gilyard, Prospect Park East River Road (PPERRIA) Jan Morlock, Director, Office of University Relations

Anfinson, S. F. (1989 and 1990). Archaeology of the Central Minneapolis Riverfront. The Minnesota Archaeologist 48:1-2 and 49:1-2 .

ANIMALS: BIRDS B1 - Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) B2 - American Crow (Corvis brachyrhynchos) B3 - American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) B4 - American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) B5 - American Robin (Turdus migratorius) B6 - Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) B7 - Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) B8 - Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) B9 - Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii) B10 - Belted Kingfisher (Megacyrle alcyon) B11 - Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) B12 - Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) B13 - Brown-Headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) B14 - Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) B15 - Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) B16 - Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) B17 - Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) B18 - Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) B19 - Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) B20 - Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) B21 - Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) B22 - Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) B23 - Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) B24 - Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) B25 - Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) B26 - Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) B27 - Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) B28 - Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) B29 - Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) B30 - Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) B31 - Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) B32 - Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) B33 - Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) B34 - Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) B35 - Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) B36 - Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) B37 - Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) B38 - Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) B39 - Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) B40 - Red-Bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) B41 - Red-Headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) B42 - Red-Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) B43 - Red-Tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) B44 - Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) B45 - Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) B46 - Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) B47 - Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) B48 - Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) B49 - Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) B50 - Veery (Catharus fuscescens) B51 - Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) B52 - Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) B53 - Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) B54 - Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) B55 - Yellow-Throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons)

Neighborhood Associations: Arvonne Fraser, Marcy Holmes Melissa Bean, Alternate Ron Lischeid, University District Improvement Association Katie Fournier, South East Como Improvement Association Bill Dane, Alternate Doris Wickstrom, West Bank Community Coalition Jennifer Blevins, Alternate Campus Area Business Associations: Mark Johnson, West Bank Business Association Skott Johnson, Dinkytown Business Association Michael McLaughlin, South East Business Association Nancy Rose Pribyl, Stadium Village Business Association Student Representatives: Paul Buchel, Minnesota Student Association Kristi Kremers, Graduate & Professional Student Association City of Minneapolis: Mike Christenson, Director, CPED, City of Minneapolis Cam Gordon, 2nd Ward City Council Member Diane Hofstede, 3rd Ward City Council Member Augsburg College: Steve Peacock, Community Relations University of Minnesota: Karen Himle, Co-Chair, Office of University Relations Brian Swanson, Office of Budget & Finance Richard Pfutzenreuter, Office of Budget & Finance Bob McMaster, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education

Daniel S. Wovcha, Barbara C. Delaney, and Gerda E. Nordquist, Minnesota County Biological Survey, Section of Wildlife, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (1995). Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain A Guide to Native Habitats. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dittman, C., Meyer, M., & Extension, U. o. (2008). Your Sustainable Yard: Tips for a Healthy Yard and Environment. Retrieved August 2010, from University of Minnesota | Extension: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/ M1237.html Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

(2006). Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. St. Paul: MInnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Hess Roise and Company. (2009). Rapids, Reins, Rails: Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront. Minneapolis, MN: The St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board, Minnesota Historical Society.

Johnson, M. A. (2009, June 1). Migratory Birds. Retrieved July 2010, from United States Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ NewReportsPublications/flyways.html Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

McPerson, E. G., Simpson, J., Peper, P., Maco, S., Gardner, S., Cozad, S., et al. (2005). City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Municipal Tree Resource Analysis.

Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research, University of California.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. (2004). Protecting the Future A Quick Guide to Using Natural Resrouce Information. St. Paul and Farmington: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Ecological Land Classification System. Retrieved August 2010, from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Web site: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2008). Lakes, Rivers and Wetlands Facts. Retrieved August 05, 2010, from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Web site: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/water.html Minnesota DNR Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program.

(2005). Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Nabor, J., Aldrich, B., & Emmons Olivier Resources, I. (2010, September 02).

Mississipi River Ecology, Plant and Animal Communities, Stormwater Integration. (M. Schulte, Interviewer) National Park Service. (2010, August 05). Mississippi River Facts. Retrieved August 2010, from Mississippi National River and Recreation Area: http://www. nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm

For additional information contact:

Metropolitan Design Center University of Minnesota 1 Ralph Rapson Hall 89 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455-0109 www.designcenter.umn.edu

© 2011 Metropolitan Design Center UMN The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.

Please call 612-625-9000.

Printed on 100 percent postconsumer fiber, processed chlorinie free, FSC recycled certified and manufactured using biogas energy.

College of Design

National Park Service, Mississippi National River Recreation Area. (2006, August 07). Birds. Retrieved July 2010, from Mississippi National River Recreation Area: http://www.nps.gov/miss/naturescience/birds.htm Nowak, D. J., Hoehn III, R. E., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., Walton, J. T., Bond, J., et al. (2006, May). Minneapolis’ Urban Forest: Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values. Northeaster Research Station Resource Bulletin NE-166 . Newton Square, Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station.

Nutty Birdwatcher. (1998, December 1). North American Migration Flyways.

Retrieved August 2010, from Bird Nature Web site: http://www.birdnature.com/ flyways.html San Martin, I., & Xu, S. (2010). Ecological Footprint for the Twin Cities: Impacts of Consumption in the 7-County Metro Area. Minneapolis, MN: UMN Metropolitan Design Center.

Schwartz, G. M., & Thiel, G. A. (1963). Minnesota’s Rocks and Waters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

The Institute for Minnesota Archaeology. (2004, January 19). Minnesota Archaeological Sources. Retrieved August 2010, from Frome Site to Story: The Upper Mississippi’s Buried Past: http://www.fromsitetostory.org/sources/ sources.asp U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Heat Island Effect; Trees and Vegetation. Retrieved September 2010, from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/mitigation/trees.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

(2010, February 22). Wildlife. Retrieved July 2010, from Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MinnesotaValley/wildlife. html Wikipedia. (2010, February 24). Mississippi Flyway. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Flyway Wright, H. E. (1990). Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers, Minnesota Geological Survey, Educational Series 7. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.

ANIMALS: INSECTS I1 - Argos Skipper (Atrytone arogos) I2 - Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae) I3 - Little White Tiger Beetle (Cicindela lepida) I4 - Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) I5 - Uncas Skipper (Hesperia uncas PLANTS: GRASS/SEDGE G1 - Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) G2 - Cattail sedge (Carex typhina) G3 - Hairy Grama (Bouteloua hirsuta) G4 - Hop umbrella sedge (Carex lupulina) G5 - Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans) G6 - Junegrass (Koeleria pyramidata) G7 - Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) G8 - Panic Grass (Panicum leibergii) G9 - Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica) G10 - Plains Muhly (Muhlenbergia cuspidate) G11 - Porcupine Grass (Stipa spartea) G12 - Prairie Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) G13 - Prairie Dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) G14 - Rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides) G15 - Side-Oats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) G16 - Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) G17 - Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) G18 - White grass (Leersia virginica)

PLANTS: FORBS F1 - Aromatic Aster (Aster oblongifolius) F2 - Beggarticks (Bidens spp.)

F3 - Bird’s Foot Coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata) F4 - Bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) F5 - Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) F6 - Clayton’s Sweet Cicely (Osmorhiza claytonii) F7 - Clearweed (Pilea spp.)

F8 - Common Enchanter’s Nightshade (Circaea lutetiana) F9 - Dotted Blazingstar (Liatris punctata) F10 - Early Meadow-Rue (Thalictrum dioicum) F11 - False Nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) F12 - Flowering Spurge (Euphorbia corollata) F13 - Gray Goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) F14 - Gray-Headed Coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) F15 - Hairy Golden Aster (Chrysopsis villosa) F16 - Hairy Puccoon (Lithospermum caroliniense) F17 - Harebell (Campanula rotundifolia) F18 - Heart-Leaved Alexanders (Zizia aptera) F19 - Heath Aster (Aster ericoides) F20 - Hoary Frostweed (Helianthemum bicknellii) F21 - Hoary Puccoon (Lithospermum canescens) F22 - Honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis) F23 - Large-Flowered Bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora) F24 - Lopseed (Phryma leptostachya) F25 - Mad Dog Skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora) F26 - Maximilian’s Sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani) F27 - Missouri Goldenrod (Solidago missouriensis) F28 - Northern Bedstraw (Galium boreale) G1F F29 - Ontario Aster (Aster ontarionis) F30 - Pasque Flower (Anemone patens) F31 - Prairie Phlox (Phlox pilosa) ANIMAL: MAMMALS F32 - Purple Prairie Clover (Dalea purpurea) M1 - American Beaver (Castor canadensis) F33 - Rock Spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris) M2 - Common Raccoon (Procyon lotor) F34 - Rough Blazingstar (Liatris aspera) M3 - Coyote (Canis latrans) F35 - Silky Aster (Aster sericeus) M4 - Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) F36 - Silverleaf Scurfpea (Pediomelum argophyllum) M5 - Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) F37 - Smooth Blue Aster (Aster laevis) M6 - Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) F38 - Starry False Solomon’s seal M7 - Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) (Smilacina stellata) M8 – Eastern Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius) F39 - Stiff Goldenrod (Solidago rigida) M9 – Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) F40 - Stiff Sunflower (Helianthus pauciflorus) M10 – Grey Fox (Urocyon cineoargenteus) F41 - Southern Blue Flag (Iris virginica) M11 – Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) F42 - Tall Meadow-Rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum) M12 – Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) F43 - Virginia Ground Cherry (Physalis virginiana) M13 - Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) F44 - Virginia Waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum) M14 - Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) F45 - Western Ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) M15 - Northern Short-Tailed Shrew F46 - White Prairie Clover (Dalea candida) (Blarina brevicauda) F47- White Sage (Artemisia ludoviciana) M16 – Plains Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius) M17 – Plains Pocket Mouse (Perognathus flavescens) F48 - Wild Sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis) F49 - Wood Nettle (Laportea canadensis) M18 – Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) F50 – Zig Zag Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis) M19 – Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) M20 – Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) PLANTS: VINES M21 – Thirteen-Lined Ground Squirrel V1 - Canada moonseed (Menispermum canadense) (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) V2 - Climbing poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) M22 - Western Harvest Mouse V3 - Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) (Reithrodontomys megalotis) V4 - Wild Grape (Vitis riparia) M23 - White-Footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) M24 - White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) PLANTS: SHRUBS S1 – American Hazelnut (Corylus Americana) ANIMALS: REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS (HERPS) S2 - Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) H1 - American Toad (Bufo americanus) S3 - Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) H2 - Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) H3 - Blue-Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma laterale) S4 - Leadplant (Amorpha canescens) S5 - Low Juneberry (Amelanchier humilis) H4 - Bull Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) S6 - Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) H5 - Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata) S7 - Prairie Rose (Rosa arkansana) H6 - Common Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) S8 - Prickly Gooseberry (Ribes cynosbati) H7 - Eastern Black Racer (Coluber constrictor) S9 - Sage Wormwood (Artemisia frigid) H8 - Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) S10 - Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra) H9 - Eastern Grey Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) S11 - Wild Plum (Prunus americana) H10 - Eastern Massagua (Sistrurus catenatus) S12 - Wolfberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) H11 - Five-Lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) H12 - Fox Snake (Elaphe vulpina) PLANTS: TREES H13 - Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) T1 - American Elm (Ulmus Americana) H14 - Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) T2 - Basswood (Tilia Americana) H15 - Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) T3 - Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) H16 - Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) T4 - Black Oak (Quercus velutina) H17 - Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) T5 - Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) H18 - Plains Garter Snake (Thamnophis radix) T6 - Cottonwood (Populus deltoids) H19 - Prairie Skink (Eumeces septentrionalis) T7 - Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) H20 - Redbelly Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) T8 - Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) H21 - Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) T9 - Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) H22 - Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera) T10 - Northern Pin Oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) H23 - Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) T11 - Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) H24 - Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) H25 - Western Hognose Snake (Heterodon nasicus) T12 - Red Elm (Ulmus rubra) T13 - Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) H26 - Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) T14 - Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) H27 - Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) T15 - White Oak (Quercus alba)