Minneapolis Park History

The park board is considering a measure tomorrow evening that I oppose and I hope you will, too. It’s not too late to make your thoughts known to your park commissioners.

The intent of the mean-spirited, elitist, and deceptively named “Open Parkways” measure is to “close” parkways to all but the young, healthy, and wealthy. It would close parkways to cars.

Who will use “open” parkways? The wealthy people who can afford homes on or near the parkways and those with the resources to buy fancy bicycles or baby joggers and the good health or strength to be able to use them — in any weather!

And its redundant as well. We always brag about our 50-plus miles of bike and walking paths — and we should. They are a remarkable amenity. But I can’t think of a section of parkway that does not have adjoining paths for non-motorized locomotion (although there are several sections of paths that do not have adjoining parkways).

Without vehicle access to parkways will people throughout the city put their families, including little kids and grandparents, on bikes and ride out for a nice picnic on a parkway miles away? What becomes of people like my Mom, who just turned 99 and loves the parkways. She and my Dad who died at 95, could only enjoy our spectacular parkways, especially along the river and lakes, in their later years from a vehicle they did not have to self-propel. I’ll get to that place in the not-too-distant future. You will too.

“Closed Parkways” will effectively extend the front yards of many of our more-affluent neighbors who live along the parkways to the lakes, creeks and river we now all claim as ours. And I believe it is a “gift” most of them have not requested. I suppose the rest of us will still be able to see a lake, creek or river between their houses.

Our celebrated park system was built on the principal that parks and parkways would be open to everybody, not just the few with fine bicycles, Spandex shorts, cool helmets, and maybe some soft, padded, fingerless gloves.

Contrary to how it’s being sold, this is one of the most blatant examples of elitism in recent park history. Park commissioners already have the authority to close parkways to vehicles for any occasion they want, so why do they need to make them inaccessible to all but the healthy and wealthy permanently?

I’ve heard the claim that the effort tonight is only targeted at downtown riverfront parkways and is only a pilot program. Subterfuge! The proposal is clearly pretense for closing many more if not all parkways to motorized vehicles. Proponents of the measure tried and failed to shut down parts of Minnehaha Parkway to cars a couple of years ago, so they picked a section of parkway on each side of the river downtown that might not arouse the same howls of elitism. But it is as elitist now as then. The section of parkways proposed for closure lies between the river and some of the highest concentrations of high-income households in the city. Nice to keep the rest of us from crowding the parkways there.

The “Closed Parkways” proposal includes developing a “tool kit” for closing parkways. If the intent isn’t to close more parkways more often, then what purpose does a “tool kit” serve? Part of that “tool kit” will be barriers that could be lowered to prevent vehicle access — like military checkpoints in old Mission: Imposible movies. Permanent fixtures at park intersections. The image that pops up is armed goons demanding, “Show me your identification (or bike license) now! And keep your hands where I can see ’em.”

Proponents of the measure to close off access to the parkways for most of the population claim that one goal is to eliminate the cost of putting up temporary closure signs for special days or events. Will installing permanent railroad-crossing type barriers at all parkway intersections be cheaper? When the ominous arms come down will park workers no longer have to put up signs that tell drivers when and how long the parkways will be closed? (Hmmm, they won’t if the closures are permanent!) How will those looming arms be lowered? Remotely? Electronically? That sounds expensive. Do we need a pilot program to estimate those costs? And won’t those slightly menacing traffic arms be a picturesque addition to our idyllic park landscapes? Wouldn’t the real cost savings be just to skip this disingenuous step and close off the entrances to parkways with curbs or berms from the start?

Proponents claim closing parkways will address over-crowded walking and bicycle paths. If that is the objective, perhaps they should close the parkways to bicycles too to avoid speeding cyclists running down pedestrians who need to overflow onto parkways.

I am also puzzled why “Closed Parkways” is the highest priority of the new park board — such that it supersedes all other business. This is the most pressing issue facing our parks? Keeping all but the young, healthy, and wealthy off our parkways? Is this what voters prioritized when they marked their ballots? If this is representative of the new park board’s priorities, I’m worried.

Will the extension of the Great River Road through Minneapolis, for which park commissioners and staff, and our representatives in St. Paul and Washington fought so hard, be dismantled so cavalierly? The amazing development of the Central Riverfront in the last forty years is due above all to the work of the park board to make the river an amenity rather than an outdated, no-longer-needed industrial yard. Opening the river to the city and all of its citizens is one of the greatest accomplishments in the park system in the last half-century. Let’s not undo it — or use it as an incremental step to closing more or all parkways to vehicles. No more “pack up the babies and grab the old ladies and everyone go…” as Neil Diamond once sang.

David Carpentier Smith

Correction. Since publication I have thought of a couple parkways without separate bicycle paths: portions of Linden Hills Parkway and Kenwood Parkway. Any others come to mind?