Don’t McMansion Me In.
So it sounds as if City Council (in Minneapolis) has taken some steps to stop giant McMansion-sized, pvc-covered atrocities (but I’m not biased or anything) from going up next to your quaint 1922 Tudor on the 120 x 44 foot lot.
Good on them, I say. Minneapolis is full of gorgeous midwestern architecture, and I often don’t understand why houses just disappear only for another eyesore which doesn’t fit the neighborhood anyway, to take its place.
(I know, I know… it takes cash to rehab an old house. But it takes cash to knock it down and put up something ugly in its place, too…)
And how does St Paul manage do do such a better job of keeping their old neighborhoods preserved? What laws are different over there? I love running around the Merriam Park, Mac-Groveland, Crocus and Cathedral Hill neighborhoods… they are almost too pictureseque to be true. Where does St Paul succeed and Minneapolis oftentimes grossly fail?
Related posts:
For what it’s worth, Minneapolis is growing and St. Paul is shrinking in population. That might be why it’s easier to keep “the old neighborhoods preserved” in St. Paul. Or it may be restrictive zoning codes are driving people out of St. Paul. Or maybe it’s unrelated. I don’t know. I do know that the most beautiful “preserved” neighborhoods in St. Paul feature larger houses that have been substantially renovated. Many of them were divided into multiple units, then later merged back into single-family dwellings.
Do you want high density, urban dwelling? If so, let people build dwellings that they want to live in within the urban neighborhoods. The alternative is even more sprawl and less investment in the urban core. Not a good deal if you’re an urbanite (like myself).
i’m gonna go with “because i live in st. paul.”
jeez, sarah; i’d think it was obvious what a profound effect i have on urban development.
Hi Sarah, I’d hate to see an eyesore go up near me, but I’ve been lucky. I live in Carag, and the new constructions near me have actually been nice.
AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND IT.
My wife and I live in a 1911 house, and everything about it is wrong. THe way they built houses back then doesn’t make sense for today, it’s not just cheaper, but it has a big environmental and safety impact to start over. Otherwise you’re slapping bandages on one mistake over another, just like they used to do back then.
Because we really don’t have the money to scrap our tiny house and start over, we’re remodelling a little at a time, but I certainly sympathize with those who have the means to do otherwise. There’s enough character in this city for us to not turn into a rich white ghetto of Wayzata or a cookie cutter neighborhood of Shakopee/Savage.
I think the key is that the new construction needs to visibly fit with the appearance and scale of the other houses in the neighborhood.
It doesn’t need to match like in a suburban development and it doesn’t have to follow hardcore guidelines like in historical districts, but the style and materials ought to mesh. I would hope that the owners of these new houses would exercise a little judgment.