I grew up in apartments and now live in a single-detached home in south Minneapolis. We live near my in-laws, who helped with the down payment, and I’m so comfortable that our 3-year-old gets to see their grandparents on a weekly basis. I write as a response to David Schultz’s piece about urban planning after the court ruling on Minneapolis’ 2040 plan.

I would like to live in a city where there are abundant homes and everybody can discover a place to live that they love. I would like my kid to have the opportunity to live here once they grow up. To have independence. And housing security. I would like to grow roots and know they won’t get ripped out by a rising tide, strong winds or wildfires.  

There is just one earth. Minnesota and Minneapolis only take up a lot space. People need space. We want places to live, work and play. And we hope it doesn’t take more time traveling between those places than we spend being in them — like when my family lived within the D.C. metro area and my commute was 4 hours a day. The argument between sprawl and compact cities is like one between selecting to send trash to a landfill or selecting to compost at home. 

Sprawl is sort of a landfill. You’re taking the unwanted necessities of creating room for more people and push it far-off where you possibly can’t see it anymore. You make big infrastructure to make that possible, like highways, and then you definitely kinda ignore it. Until the externalities construct up and up and we have now a world catastrophe of pollution. 

Compact cities are more like composting. There are some impacts like smells or construction noise. After which you might have an end product, more homes and fewer vehicle miles traveled to and from the places you would like, which is best for the planet than a highway. 

Environmentalism has long been about saying no. But we’d like to say yes to welcoming more neighbors in order that we are able to construct communities our kids can grow up in and thrive. We want to construct compactly so we are able to have the power to frequent small businesses, walk to the food market, and use our untapped verticality quite than pushing ever outwards. 

MPLS 2040 is a vision of allowing for growth in our city. Currently about 89% of town’s parcels are designated for homes only and about 83% are single detached homes. Meaning just one family can live in that specific a part of Minneapolis. That didn’t change much post 2040. Recent triplexes can only be as big as a single-family home.

We only have a lot horizontal space. But we do have quite a little bit of vertical space. Most small detached homes are bungalows, about 1.5-2 stories tall.  The largest changes within the 2040 plan were on corridors along bus lines where we try to permit more three- to four-story buildings. 

There’s a brand new beautiful apartment constructing in south Minneapolis, the Sundial constructing on thirty seventh Street and Nicollet Avenue, which took a vacant lot and built 12 latest homes in a three- to four-story constructing. It’s on a bus line and next to a set of restaurants, which helps individuals who decide to live with no automotive access amenities. And it’s just three blocks from a park that hosts a farmers market on Sunday mornings.

The Sundial constructing was made possible by the 2040 plan. And we’d like more such buildings. A city comp plan can’t account for each regional or global impact. But it could possibly allow us to do our part in making a Minnesota we wish to live in with enough homes for all of our neighbors. 

Some folks say that planning for homes for as much as 150,00 latest residents in town by 2040 would cause impacts to current residents that just aren’t price it. That the noise of kids playing at their latest school or on the park is an environmental degradation. That the reduced privacy of a neighbor having a balcony round the corner is just too disruptive. Or that tall buildings providing consistent shade and reducing the sun’s radiation to a house is more harm than the nice done on your AC bill.

OK, sure, different folks have different preferences. However the one argument I don’t buy is that it could increase air pollution.

Living in a compact city reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) — because people can decide to walk, bike or take the bus quite than being forced by the built environment to drive. It also reduces driving time as there are more businesses and houses closer to one another. VMT is the first reason for air pollution as seen by the prevalence of asthma next to highways. And can be the first reason for global warming that we are able to do anything about at a neighborhood level.

Comprehensive plans are compulsory, and denying city and regional growth doesn’t make people magically disappear. Environmentalists who see people as pollution only provide unpalatable solutions. I hope we are able to discover a way toward abundance and community quite than fighting for the privilege of living in our great state with our greenbacks. 

Brit Anbacht has volunteered with Neighbors for More Neighbors since 2018 and contributed to the N4MN amicus temporary to the court on the 2040 Plan lawsuit.