"In the meantime, without knowing the schematic design of the proposed fields I can honestly say I don't think we are talking a stadium here "
Peter Vevang writes: The way I think the process should work for a typical project like this is as follows:
1. Due diligence: feasibility, title search, site examination, rough budget, benchmarking 2. Pre-design: establish the project program, goals and criteria (usually accompanied by a master plan with concept sketches for a project like this) '*Public participation*'and if necessary back to step 1, or the end of the process. 3. Budget and final design program 4. Authorize the project: purchase the site, prepare a survey, issue RFP's, authorize design contracts, build the team and begin the process towards construction. 5. Architectural Design: schematic design, design development and constructions drawings and specifications. 6. Bids, final financing, final budget, schedule, insurance and construction contracts signed 7. Construction
Citizen input should begin long before the "schematic design" phase. That is at step 5, after the project has been approved for construction. For true citizen involvement to take place, we will need to start the public process at the end of step 2, before all the major decisions have been made and the project has been given approval and the site has been purchased (or leased).
In my opinion, if the design ideas don't exist, we shouldn't be wasting time and money on a fiction. If they do exist, they have no good reason to keep them secret since this is not private property they want to use. I think a lot of boosters are getting caught up in the tortured legal history of the site since the late 1970's and have stopped looking at the bigger picture and trying to communicate. Solid things to talk about will make that process much clearer and less messy for everyone involved.
We also need that master plan to understand the full big picture ramifications of this project. This is a key piece of beautiful property linking the river, north to south, at the juncture of DT Minneapolis, that is why it was saved in the first place. It could not be more strategic. Whether or not it is a stadium is not the most important thing. We should be looking at the big picture use of this site as our primary concern. We need to elevate that conversation. We deserve excellent and thorough answers on this or I fear we will blow it, and given past development blunders, that is a well founded fear.
Peter Vevang Audubon
p.s. can anyone confirm, did people really ride donkeys and horses there all the way up to the 1970's? What was that all about?
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
