Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government, and its page numbers are that section's own. We have pinned 1 slot here, so an element absent from this file may simply not have been reviewed yet.
minneapolis | 2040
Minneapolis 2040 — The City’s Comprehensive Plan
⬚ figure
Adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on October 25, 2019 Effective January 1, 2020
Eliminate Disparities ............................ 8 More Residents and Jobs ......................... 14 Affordable and Accessible Housing .................. 19 Living-Wage Jobs ............................... 23 Healthy, Safe, and Connected People ................ 26 High-Quality Physical Environment .................. 30 History and Culture ............................. 32 Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities ............ 34 Complete Neighborhoods ......................... 37 Climate Change Resilience ........................ 40 Clean Environment: ............................. 44 Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy ........... 47 Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government ... 50 Equitable Civic Participation System ................ 52
Land Use & Built Form ........................... 55 Transportation ................................. 80 Housing ....................................... 82 Economic Competitiveness ........................ 86 Environmental Systems ........................... 90 Public Health .................................. 92 Heritage Preservation ........................... 94 Arts and Culture ............................... 96 Parks and Open Space ........................... 98 Public Services and Facilities ..................... 100 Technology and Innovation ....................... 102
⬚ figure
The Minneapolis 2040 Plan was developed by the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development. Should you require a reasonable accommodation in order to fully participate, or information in an alternative format, please contact 612-673-3000. Para asistencia 612-673-2700 - Rau kev pab 612-673-2800 - Hadii aad Caawimaad u baahantahay 612-673-3500.
For more information, contact: Department of Community Planning and Economic Development
105 Fifth Avenue South, Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 673-3000 2040@minneapolismn.gov
Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure . . 152
Vision Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Transportation Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
MSP Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts . . .156
Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Artists and Creative Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Arts and Culture in Community Development . . . . . 160
Affordable Housing Production and Preservation . . 162
Cultural Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Innovative Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Mixed Income Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers . . 169
Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Tenant Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Expand Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Housing Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Comprehensive Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community 179
Healthy Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Housing Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Freeway Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Educational and Economic Access. . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Access to Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Healthy Pre-K Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Human Capital and a Trained Workforce . . . . . . . . 188
Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Supporting Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Business Innovation and Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Supporting Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Cluster Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Business Districts and Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Intrinsic Value of Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Environmental Justice and Green Zones . . . . . . . . . 199
Contaminated Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Food Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Food Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Urban Agriculture and Food Production . . . . . . . . . 206
Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Climate Resilient Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings . . . . . . 210
Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy . . . . . . . . . . 212
Ecology and Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Soil Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Sustainable Water System Management. . . . . . . . . 217
Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Integration of Water Management into Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
New Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Park Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Park Design and Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Healthy Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Development Near METRO Stations. . . . . . . . . . . 228
Social Connectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Public Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service . . 235
Healthy Food in Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Northside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Public Services Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Technology in the City Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Technology in the Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Heritage Preservation Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources. . . . . . . . 243
Stewarding Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Heritage Preservation Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Heritage Preservation Financial Incentives . . . . . . . 248
Cultural Heritage and Preservation Recognition . . 249
Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Innovation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
University District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Place-based Neighborhood Engagement . . . . . . 255
Appendix A - Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan . . I
Appendix B - Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II
Appendix C - Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
Appendix D - Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
Appendix E - Resources & Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Appendix F - Water Resources Management Plan . . . . . . . VI
Appendix G - Review & Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
Appendix H - Parks & Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
Appendix I - Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX
Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . X
Minneapolis is growing, and will continue to grow. Done right, this new growth can help our city become a healthy, sustainable, and thriving place for everyone.
Minneapolis 2040 is a Comprehensive Plan that shapes how the city will grow and change. The plan covers topics such as housing, job access, the design of new buildings, and how we use our streets.
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires municipalities in the Twin Cities area to provide the Metropolitan Council with an updated Comprehensive Plan every ten years. The Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s regional development guide, Thrive MSP 2040, that sets the direction for the region’s growth and development. Local communities are served by regional systems planned by the Metropolitan Council, including transportation, wastewater collection and treatment, and regional parks.
During more than two years of engagement, the people of Minneapolis shared their vision and hopes for the future of our city. A main theme voiced was that as the city grows, everyone must benefit from that growth. Historically, not everyone has. This plan is one opportunity to undo barriers and overcome inequities created by a history of policies in our city that have prevented equitable access to housing, jobs, and investments.
The plan reflects the result of more than two years of engagement with the people of Minneapolis, including over 100 meetings and conversations with thousands of residents, business owners, and others. Public feedback directly helped to establish priorities and inform the content of the plan. From March 22 through July 22, 2018, the City engaged with the public to discuss a first draft of the plan and to encourage review and feedback. Following the close of the public comment period on July 22, City staff made revisions to the plan based on public feedback, and presented a final draft to the City Planning Commission and City Council in Fall 2018. For more details about the process see the Planning Process section.
On December 7, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to transmit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review by December 31, 2018. While Minneapolis 2040 is intended to meet the requirements of state statute and the Metropolitan Council, the plan also has particular significance for Minneapolis in a time of population and employment growth. The City will use this plan to guide decision-making that affects the long-term future of our city as it relates to the built, natural, and economic environment.
⬚ figure
The Minneapolis 2040 goals are intended to state the plan’s intent as clearly as possible, so that we as a city know what we are working to accomplish through the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Using feedback from the public at the beginning of the planning process, the City Council adopted these goals to provide direction to staff in the development of draft Comprehensive Plan policies that guide the future of the city. Every policy in Minneapolis 2040 is intended to contribute to achieving one or more of the goals.
⬚ figure
Photo: Kids learning at the Bakken Museum in Minneapolis (Photo by Bakken Museum, via flickr. com)
Goal 1: In 2040, Minneapolis will see all communities fully thrive regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, country of origin, religion, or zip code having eliminated deep-rooted disparities in wealth, opportunity, housing, safety, and health.
According to a report issued by the Economic Policy Institute in 2010, Minneapolis led the nation in having the widest unemployment disparity between African-American and white residents. This remains true in 2018. And disparities also exist in nearly every other measurable social aspect, including of economic, housing, safety and health outcomes, between people of color and indigenous people compared with white people.
Take, for example, the income disparity: White non-Hispanic residents in Minneapolis make approximately three times the income of black and American Indian residents; the median income in 2016 for white non-Hispanics was approximately $65,000, while the median incomes for blacks and American Indians were $20,871 and $22,476, respectively. And since 2000, white non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in median income while black and American Indian households have experienced an approximately 40 percent reduction in median income (Figure G1.1).
⬚ figure
This disparity in incomes can be seen in the poverty rate (Figure G1.2), which is nearly four times as high for blacks (nearly 45 percent) as for white non-Hispanics (approximately 12 percent). The poverty rate for American Indians is 33 percent and for Hispanics nearly 27 percent. And the unemployment rate in Minneapolis for blacks (17 percent) and American Indians (14 percent) is approximately three times higher than it is for white non-Hispanics (less than 5 percent).
⬚ figure
The employment and income disparities are predictable outcomes of educational disparities. Analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows higher rates of unemployment for people with lower levels of education. People with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree have unemployment rates of up to a percentage point less that the labor force in general. In Minneapolis, 83 percent of white non-Hispanics have more than a high school education, compared with 47 percent of black people and 45 percent of American Indians (Figure G1.3). Only 32 percent of Hispanics have more than a high school education. Educational disparities begin at birth and grow wider over time, suggesting that the best opportunity to close or even prevent these achievement gaps is by focusing investment toward the earliest stages of life.
⬚ figure
Income significantly impacts housing access, and for a growing number of residents, especially people of color, incomes are not keeping up with rising housing costs. This results in fewer housing units in fewer neighborhoods that are affordable. For households of color that are renting this means there are few, if any, housing units that are affordable. The loss of affordable housing units and the changes in household income have resulted in a greater number of cost-burdened households – households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing. Thirty-seven percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but, similar to the change in household incomes, this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and over 45 percent of American Indian and Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened.
Homeownership has given generations of Minneapolitans the opportunity for housing stability and wealth development, but inequities are apparent in this realm as well (Figure G1.4). There is a 36 percentage point gap between households of color that own their home versus white households. Over 59 percent of white non-Hispanic households own their home, while less than 21 percent of African-American and American Indian households own their home. Just under 25 percent of Hispanic households own their home.
⬚ figure
These disparities are rooted in overt and institutionalized racism that has shaped the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents. For example, an examination of federal housing policy starting in the 1930s reveals racially discriminatory housing practices. Following the Great Depression, in an effort to increase housing stability, improve the economy and help residents retain their homes, the federal government began to underwrite and back home mortgages, which
lengthened the life of the loans and lowered the amount of down payment amount needed to purchase a home.
To reduce risk, the government adopted loan underwriting standards that steered the direction of private investment in housing. This practice prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities, as well as in the more densely populated and mixed-use parts of the city. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting manual made the case for racially restrictive covenants, using language that described people of color as undesirable neighbors in the same vein as nuisances such as odor and high traffic: “The more important among the adverse influential factors are the ingress of undesirable racial or nationality groups; infiltration of business or commercial uses of properties; the presence of smoke, odors, fog, heavy trafficked streets and railroads.”
These policies and regulations left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents. Areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks did not lend in those areas. On the outskirts of the city, a post-Depression development pattern emerged with little variation in housing types and density and with few areas for commercial development. Today, the zoning map in these areas remains largely unchanged from the era of intentional racial segregation.
The physical patterns in the way Minneapolis has developed, and will develop, shapes the health and safety outcomes of its residents. The World Health Organization describes social determinants of health as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities.” Inequities related to opportunities, conditions, policies and practices don’t impact just individuals in isolation. Instead, entire generations are impacted by these inequities – especially those rooted in race, place and income – in healthy development and lifestyle. The impact can be seen, for example, in infant mortality (Figure G1.5) and premature death rates (Figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
G1.6). In Minneapolis, American Indians have premature death rates that are more than four times higher than those of whites, and the premature death rate for blacks is twice the rate for whites. The disparity for infant mortality is similar: American Indians have infant mortality rates four times higher than those of whites, while blacks experience infant mortality at nearly three times the rate of whites. The City must work to close these and other disparities in health outcomes, as well as those that exist in education, employment, income and housing outcomes.
To achieve the goal of eliminate disparities, the City of Minneapolis will work to undo the legacy that remains from racially discriminatory housing policies by increasing access to opportunity through a greater diversity of housing types, especially in areas that lack housing options as a result of discriminatory housing policy. The City will invest in education, skills training, small business support and other support systems to help residents access opportunities to gain and retain well-paying employment that allows them to grow as individuals. Additionally, the City will lead by example, hiring and training a diverse workforce, as well as promoting these practices through its contracts, vendors and other procurement and partnership opportunities.
Achieving this goal will mean directing City and other resources – dollars for transit, for affordable housing and business development, for education, and for health and safety programs – to the geographic areas most in need, while providing economic and housing opportunities for all Minneapolis residents. Accomplishing this will require tracking progress and outcomes; and it will require engaging with the community, especially with communities of color, around City actions.
39 policies relate to Goal 1: Eliminate Disparities. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 49: “Educational and Economic Access” on page 184
Policy 50: “Access to Technology” on page 186
Policy 51: “Healthy Pre-K Development” on page 187
Policy 52: “Human Capital and a Trained Workforce” on page 188
Policy 55: “Business Innovation and Expansion” on page 192
Policy 56: “Supporting Small Businesses” on page 193
Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108
Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110
Policy 58: “Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196
Policy 30: “Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture” on page 158
Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159
Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105
Policy 33: “Affordable Housing Production and Preservation” on page 162
Policy 37: “Mixed Income Housing” on page 168
Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169
Policy 39: “Fair Housing” on page 170
Policy 40: “Homelessness” on page 171
Policy 41: “Tenant Protections” on page 173
Policy 42: “Expand Homeownership” on page 174
Policy 43: “Housing Displacement” on page 176
Policy 44: “Comprehensive Investments” on page 178
Policy 23: “Coordinated Development Strategy” on page 149
Policy 45: “Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community” on page 179
Policy 46: “Healthy Housing” on page 180
Policy 15: “Transportation and Equity” on page 137
Policy 16: “Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138
Policy 61: “Environmental Justice and Green Zones” on page 199
Policy 66: “Air Quality” on page 207
Policy 62: “Contaminated Sites” on page 201
Policy 81: “Social Connectedness” on page 230
Policy 85: “Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service” on page 235
Policy 63: “Food Access” on page 202
Policy 86: “Healthy Food in Institutions” on page 236
Policy 78: “Park Design and Programming” on page 226
Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164
Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182
Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237
Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252
Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255
⬚ figure
Photo: Buses and transit users on Marquette Avenue in downtown Minneapolis (Photo by Metro Transit)
The population of Minneapolis peaked at almost 522,000 in 1950 (Figure G2.1). At its height, this population supported a bustling streetcar network, convenient neighborhood retail nodes and other services whose traces are still felt in the city. But by 1990, many of these advantages of urban living had faded away, and Minneapolis’ population dipped to a low of 368,000. The downturn in manufacturing, discriminatory housing and lending practices, suburban growth and flight, less centralized employment centers and more encouraged this loss of population, as well as exacerbated patterns of inequity that are still apparent today.
⬚ figure
However, since 2000 Minneapolis has experienced growth that has increased demand for housing. This has prompted the creation of new housing units to help meet the needs of the dynamically changing population, new grocery stores to fulfill basic needs, renewed vitality in commercial areas, new and expanded industries, new and recapitalized parks and open spaces, and increased frequency, speed and reach of transit.
Yet this growth has not been without its challenges. The recent demand for urban living has outstripped the supply of housing available in many areas of the city, which has escalated housing prices at rates faster than wages for many people in the city. As a result, the city has seen an increase in cost-burdened households (households where more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing) and residents who have been priced out of their neighborhoods.
Overall, 37 percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but this is not equal across racial groups (Figure G2.2). Over 50 percent of black and American Indian households, and over 45 percent Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened. For a growing number of people, especially people of color, incomes are not keeping up with rising housing costs, resulting in fewer housing units in fewer neighborhoods that are affordable, especially for renters.
⬚ figure
Since 2000, overall household incomes in Minneapolis have slightly decreased – but not equally across racial groups. White non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in household income since 2000, while black households have experienced an approximately 40 percent decrease in income (Figure G2.3).
⬚ figure
Businesses also face the stresses of rising rents and displacement. As rents rise, small retail and service businesses are often the most impacted. These small businesses tend to embody neighborhood and cultural identity, and their loss has repercussions beyond just the loss of jobs and retail or service establishments.
One of the primary factors influencing a resident's ability to afford housing is employment, and in the past 15 years Minneapolis has seen growth in many industries, resulting in refreshed economic vitality and new jobs. Educational disparities hinder the ability of residents of color to prepare for and participate in the continually evolving economy. In Minneapolis less than half of black, American Indian and Hispanic residents have more than a high school education, compared with 83 percent of white non-Hispanic residents (Figure G2.4). These educational disparities create barriers to finding employment that pays a living wage.
⬚ figure
One promising avenue is production and processing businesses, which provide economic opportunities for those who may lack higher levels of education by offering living wages compared with the retail, accommodation and food service industries. Production and processing businesses in the region have average monthly starting wages for workers of color that are twice as high as retail businesses and nearly two-and-a-half times as high as accommodation and food service businesses.
A crucial element of residents’ ability to access employment and of a vibrant economy generally is public transit. While transit has improved in Minneapolis, it is still
far behind the level of transit accessibility and mobility the city’s residents once enjoyed as they accessed jobs, services and housing.
Private investment also has helped stimulate the city’s economy, but like so much else it has not been equal across the city. While some areas have benefited from new market-led investments, other areas have seen very little. Encouraging a more equitable distribution of private investment, continuing to expand and improve the transit system, and working to increase options for affordable housing and living-wage jobs are necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth are experienced by all residents.
To achieve the goal equitably benefiting from that growth, the City of Minneapolis will create new opportunities for people to live throughout the city by allowing and encouraging the development of new multifamily housing of various sizes and affordability levels, including in areas that today contain primarily single family homes. Along with creating these new opportunities, the City will take proactive steps to minimize residential displacement, including by preserving naturally occurring affordable housing and offering homeownership support.
The City will also support the growth of existing businesses and the creation of new businesses, while helping prepare Minneapolis residents for the jobs that result. This includes maintaining and expanding areas of the city for production, processing and distribution of products, services and ideas.
Achieving the above will require the City to support, build and maintain a multimodal transportation system that promotes growth in a sustainable manner. And it will require the City to coordinate the development of housing, businesses and infrastructure in geographic areas where a district-wide approach has the greatest opportunity to achieve growth that can benefit everyone.
⬚ figure More Residents and Jobs Policies:26 policies relate to Goal 2: More Residents and Jobs. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 58: "Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196
Policy 59: "Downtown" on page 197
Policy 62: "Contaminated Sites" on page 201
Policy 76: "New Parks" on page 224
Policy 20: "Transit" on page 145
Policy 48: "Freeway Remediation" on page 182
Policy 98: "Innovation Districts" on page 252
⬚ figure
Photo: Backyard gathering (Photo by Tela Chhe, via flickr.com)
Minneapolis is a magnet city attracting more residents and businesses each year. As a city Minneapolis is facing challenges as it grows, including a shortage of housing units that residents can afford, a rise in the number and percentage of cost-burdened households – especially among renters, and the presence of zoning regulations that have favored single-family housing at the expense of housing access since the era of segregation.
The Metropolitan Council estimates that between 2010 and 2016 the city added over 12,000 housing units and more than 37,000 residents. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and an associated increase in housing costs and rents. As a result, housing units that were once
affordable no longer are, and less housing is available for low-income residents of Minneapolis.
Since 2000, Minneapolis has lost roughly 15,000 housing units that are considered affordable for those earning 50% percent of the area median income ($31,650 for one person/ $45,000 for a family of four ).. These units generally still exist, but they cost more to own or rent, making them unaffordable to this demographic.
In 2017, for the 13-county metropolitan region, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculated a median family income of $90,400. Based on this figure, 50% percent of the area median income for a single-person household is $31,650 annually (or an hourly wage of $15.22 for a standard workweek and year), and for a family of four it's $45,200 annually (or a household hourly wage of $21.73 for a standard workweek and year). (Figure G3.1).
The majority of Minneapolis residents are renters and renter households are growing at a faster rate than owner households. When broken down by number of households, the two largest groups of residents in the city are renters earning less than 30% of AMI, ($28,300 per year) and homeowners earning more than 100% of AMI ($94,300 per year). Most people of color in the city are renters while the majority of the city's white residents are homeowners.
Since 2000 a growing number of residents, especially residents of color and indigenous people, have seen a decrease in household income preventing them from keeping up with rising housing costs. A decrease in the number of affordable housing units coupled with decreasing incomes greatly limits the ability of residents to find the housing they need throughout the city.
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Throughout this document there are many references to Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing is rental housing with rent and income restrictions (typically 60% of Area Median Income or below) or housing for homeownership with income restrictions (typically less than 80 percent of Area Median Income) as governed by local, state, and federal housing assistance programs. In comparison to Housing Affordability, which is access to homeownership or rental options based on housing price relative to household income. The loss of affordable housing units and changes in household income have resulted in a greater number of cost-burdened households – households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward mortgage or rental payments. Forty-nine percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but, this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and over 45 percent of American Indian and Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas 1 in 3 white households are cost-burdened. (Figure G3.2).
Racial disparities persist in all aspects of housing. Until the 1960s, zoning regulations, racially discriminatory housing practices, and federal housing policies worked together to determine who could live in single-family houses in “desirable” neighborhoods. These determinations were based on race and have shaped the opportunities granted to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents. (Figure G3.3).
Following the Great Depression in 1934, guidance from the federal government steered where private investment in housing could occur, this direction was called redlining. This practice denied mortgages in areas where Jews, African-Americans, and other minorities lived, as well as in the more densely populated and mixed-use parts of the city. Related guidance in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting manuals encouraged the segregation of land uses, also known as zoning, in order to reduce the financial risk of backing single family home loans near land uses deemed undesirable, such as factories and even
⬚ figure
multifamily housing. This guidance, from 1934, reinforced the approach that Minneapolis and other cities in the United States began years earlier through the introduction of zoning ordinances.
While the FHA promoted zoning as an effective tool for assuring a “homogenous and harmonious neighborhood,” the FHA did not think zoning was enough to accomplish the segregation of the races as a means of protecting property values. The FHA underwriting manual also made the case for racially restrictive covenants, using language that described people of color as undesirable neighbors in the same vein as nuisances such as odors and high traffic. These practices allowed banks to deny mortgages and property owners to prevent the sale of a home based on race. As a result, areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks did not lend in those areas.
These policies and regulations shaped the physical characteristics of Minneapolis and the financial status of its residents. Although racially segregated housing is no longer enforced in these “desirable” neighborhoods the zoning map remains largely unchanged from an era in which discrimination was legal, and still contributes to disparities communities of color and indigenous people experience today such as, access to commercial goods and services, quality housing, and public transportation.
To address these issues, the City of Minneapolis will expand opportunities to increase the housing supply in a way that meets changing needs and desires. This means allowing more housing options, especially in areas that currently lack housing choice and in areas with access to frequent and fast transit, employment, and goods and services. It also means creating and expanding new resources and tools to produce and preserve affordable housing, to minimize the displacement of existing residents, and to ensure housing is maintained to promote health and safety. The City will also need to invest in its residents, especially residents of color and indigenous residents, to ensure that it identifies and removes barriers to accessing and retaining housing.
⬚ figure Affordable and Accessible Housing Policies:22 policies relate to Goal 3: Affordable and Accessible Housing. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Construction workers on site
The Twin Cities region is predicted to have a shortfall of more than 114,000 workers by 2020. A knowledge-based economy, heightened competition in globalized markets, and the quickening pace of change make continual innovation, commercialization, and business creation imperative for economic success. To ensure the growth of the region's and the city's economy, all businesses must have access to employees who can easily fill growing job demand, and small business owners and entrepreneurs need access to resources that help them start and grow their businesses.
It is also necessary to promote a city in which residents from all backgrounds have opportunities to gain and retain
well-paying employment and a city where ethnic diversity in all fields of entrepreneurship is supported and promoted. This will help amend past inequities, as people of color and indigenous people historically have not had equal access to education, employment and entrepreneurial resources. These barriers to access start in youth and continue throughout a lifetime. They range from not having a parent or adult present during childhood to not having access to preschool education, and from educational inequities in schools to employment inequities in job training and access.
Educational inequities in Minneapolis are apparent in the significant disparities that exist in high school graduation. Approximately 22 percent of American Indian students graduate, slightly over 34 percent of Hispanic students graduate, and 36 percent of black students graduate. Thirty-eight percent of all low-income students, regardless of race, graduate. It is foolish to ignore the fact that these trends show up long before graduation; disparities begin at birth and grow wider over time. Income-based achievement gaps open up between the ages of 0 and 5 and stay stable or shrink during K-12, while race-based gaps are very apparent at age 5 and grow modestly at later ages. This suggests that the best opportunity to close or even prevent these achievement gaps is by focusing investment toward the earliest stages of life.
Doing this can help close not only the educational gap, but also the employment gap, as educational disparities routinely become barriers to finding employment in the changing economy and are evident in unemployment and poverty rates. In Minneapolis, the unemployment rate for blacks and American Indians is approximately three times higher than it is for white non-Hispanics. The unemployment rate is 17 percent for blacks and 14 percent for American Indians, compared with less than 5 percent for white non-Hispanics (Figure G4.1).
⬚ figure
This relationship between education and employment levels is borne out by national level analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows higher rates of unemployment for people with lower levels of education. People with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree have unemployment rates of up to a percentage point less that the median unemployment rate, while those with a high school degree have unemployment rates over a percentage point higher than the median unemployment rate. In Minneapolis, 83 percent of white non-Hispanics have more than a high school education, compared with 47 percent of black people and 45 percent of American Indians. Only 32 percent of Hispanics have more than a high school education (Figure G4.2).
⬚ figure
To achieve the goal of ensuring residents access to a living-wage job, the City of Minneapolis will invest in education and skills training so residents, especially low-income residents, residents of color and indigenous residents, have opportunities to prepare for and participate in Minneapolis’ growing economy. This also means increasing job readiness by investing in employment training, placement and education for both youth and adults; as well as serving as a model employer by increasing the diversity of the City’s workforce. The City will support business innovation and invest in capacity building for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The City will support businesses in providing fair wages and worker protections.
18 policies relate to Goal 4: Living-Wage Jobs. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 49: "Educational and Economic Access" on page 184
Policy 50: "Access to Technology" on page 186
Policy 51: "Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187
Policy 52: "Human Capital and a Trained Workforce" on page 188
Policy 55: "Business Innovation and Expansion" on page 192
Policy 56: "Supporting Small Businesses" on page 193
Policy 57: "Cluster Strategy" on page 195
Policy 90: "Technology in the Economy" on page 241
Policy 2: "Access to Employment" on page 108
Policy 3: "Production and Processing" on page 110
Policy 58: "Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196
Policy 20: "Transit" on page 145
Policy 22: "Downtown Transportation" on page 148
Policy 31: "Artists and Creative Workers" on page 159
Policy 64: "Food Businesses" on page 204
Policy 34: "Cultural Districts" on page 164
Policy 87: "Northside" on page 237
Policy 98: "Innovation Districts" on page 252
⬚ figure
Photo: Open Streets on Nicollet Avenue (Photo by Fibonacci Blue, via flickr. com).
The physical patterns in the way Minneapolis has developed, and will develop, shapes the health and safety outcomes of its residents. The World Health Organization describes social determinants of health as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities.” Inequities related to opportunities, conditions, policies and practices don’t impact just individuals in isolation. Instead, entire generations are impacted by these inequities – especially those rooted in race, place and income – in healthy development and lifestyle.
Minneapolis is among the areas of the nation with the largest disparities between people of color and indigenous peoples and white people in level of education, employment and poverty rates. White non-Hispanic residents in Minneapolis make approximately three times the income of black and American Indian residents; the median income in 2016 for white non-Hispanics was approximately $65,000, while the median incomes for blacks and American Indians were $20,871 and $22,476, respectively. And since 2000, white non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in median income, while black and American Indian households have experienced an approximately 40 percent reduction in median income (Figure G5.1).
Inequities in social and economic factors are key contributors to health disparities; ultimately, these gaps need to close if equity in health outcomes is to advance. Social and economic disparities underpin health disparities from premature death rates to access to healthy food and from healthy youth development to housing stability. In Minneapolis, American Indians have premature death rates that are more than four times higher than those of whites, and the premature death rate for blacks is twice the rate for whites (Figure G5.2).
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
The disparity for infant mortality is similar: American Indians have infant mortality rates four times higher than those of whites, while blacks experience infant mortality at nearly three times the rate of whites (Figure G5.3).
The link between economic and social inequities and health disparities is also clearly evident in the issue of access to healthy food. Insufficient income is one of two primary barriers to healthy food access. (The other is lack of proximity to stores that sell healthy food, which is also affected by income.) Residents living at 185 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2016, the equivalent of household income for a family of four was $44,955, or $21.61 an hour) are more likely to experience food insecurity, which is associated with obesity and inadequate nutrition.
Psychological resiliency can also be impacted by social and economic disparities. For example, a lack of stable and affordable housing can negatively impact community cohesiveness by forcing people to move often in search of housing they can afford. This kind of neighborhood mobility breaks up social networks, impacts school success, and places stresses on families forced to adjust to new environments. The lack of diversity in housing type and size impacts not only affordability (and thus stability), but also options for Minneapolitans who are aging or disabled and need housing alternatives that allow them to stay in their community and remain connected to their social networks.
Social connectivity is incredibly important in creating and retaining the relationships that make our communities stronger and more resilient. Through programs and the design of community spaces, including parks, community and youth centers, new buildings and city streets, Minneapolis can foster environments to increase social connectedness. The design of these spaces can also improve safety and the perception of safety, making people more likely to use the spaces.
A multisector public health approach to public safety that is informed by and responsive to the community will ultimately lead to a city that is safer, stronger, more
connected and more resilient. Enforcement is essential to public safety, but it’s only one of other equally essential components that together comprise a holistic approach. In the pursuit of safer communities it is essential to consider not just individual actors, but also the relationships between individuals, the communities in which those relationships exist, and societal factors that influence the climate and conditions of the city. Influential societal factors include conditions, policies and practices that create and sustain disparities.
To achieve the goal of a connected, healthy, and safe people, the City of Minneapolis will ensure healthy outcomes for all Minneapolis residents, including youth and seniors, regardless of where in the city they live and regardless of their income, the City of Minneapolis will continue healthy-living and disease-prevention activities, including the promotion of equitable access to and distribution of healthy food sources.
In addition, the City will support social connectedness through the creation, retention and programming of gathering spaces for people of all ages. This includes ensuring independent living opportunities, meaningful engagement and resources for older Minneapolis residents so they can be a vital part of the fabric of the community, and it includes ensuring people with disabilities and their families are visible, active and valued members of the community. The City will also work to ensure public safety through collaborative multisector, community-inclusive approaches.
⬚ figure Healthy, Safe, and Connected People Policies:28 policies relate to Goal 5: Healthy, Safe, and Connected People. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: New Nicollet Mall (Photo by Metro Transit)
A well-designed physical environment in Minneapolis can facilitate positive human interactions and promote commerce, pedestrian activity, safety, and health. The city achieves this through urban design, which is the process of shaping and locating buildings, parks and open spaces, landscapes, streets, and public art to make up the physical form, function, and feel of a city.
The urban design of Minneapolis influences the city’s quality of life and environment. A well-integrated private and public realm can encourage street-level activity that supports public safety, facilitates foot traffic to support local retail businesses, and forms comfortable and appealing places that naturally become destinations for both Minneapolis residents and visitors from the region and beyond.
To achieve the goal of a high-quality physical environment, the City of Minneapolis will promote design for the built environment that is dynamic and durable, reflects the diversity of Minneapolis residents, and contributes to a sense of place and community identity. The City will also proactively improve the public realm, including streets, sidewalks, parks and open spaces between buildings, to ensure that public spaces and private development are thoughtfully connected.
⬚ figure
25 policies relate to Goal 6: High-Quality Physical Environment. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 5: "Visual Quality of New Development" on page 116
Policy 6: "Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design" on page 118
Policy 7: "Public Realm" on page 122
Policy 80: "Development Near METRO Stations" on page 228
Policy 8: "Public Safety Through Environmental Design" on page 124
Policy 9: "Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127
Policy 78: "Park Design and Programming" on page 226
Policy 10: "Street Grid" on page 128
Policy 12: "Lighting" on page 132
Policy 13: "Landscaping" on page 134
Policy 14: "Tree Canopy and Urban Forest" on page 136
Policy 74: "Integration of Water Management into Development" on page 220
Policy 15: "Transportation and Equity" on page 137
Policy 58: "Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196
Policy 11: "Skyways" on page 130
Policy 47: "Housing Quality" on page 181
Policy 60: "Intrinsic Value of Properties" on page 198
Policy 93: "Stewarding Historic Properties" on page 245
Policy 91: "Heritage Preservation Outreach" on page 242
Policy 92: "Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources" on page 243
Policy 34: "Cultural Districts" on page 164
Policy 48: "Freeway Remediation" on page 182
Policy 97: "Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways" on page 250
Policy 98: "Innovation Districts" on page 252
Policy 100: "Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255
⬚ figure
Photo: Midtown Global Market (Photo by Fibonacci Blue)
Minneapolis is filled with buildings and landscapes that are important to its heritage and integral to defining and framing the character of the city’s place and culture. These properties may be a collection of commercial buildings or industrial buildings, old railroad infrastructure or a set of rowhomes. Some may be local or national historically designated properties, while many are not. The value of some may be more universally recognized – for example, the Foshay Tower; while the value of others may not be as universally recognized – for example, early 20th century commercial buildings along West Broadway. In either case, the properties have intrinsic value in helping define and frame the character of an area and present opportunities to support economic and business development and, more broadly, community development and investment.
Minneapolis has been experiencing change since its early settlement and will continue to experience change well into the future. It’s essential to manage this change and evolution so the physical attributes of the city reflect Minneapolis’ history and cultures and all residents have a sense of belonging and access to a cultural anchor. Preservation can not only celebrate who has lived in the city in the past, but also reflect who lives here today. The City can accomplish this only through proactive engagement with residents, business owners, and property owners, especially those from communities of color and indigenous and low-income communities who have not typically participated in heritage preservation activities or other city activities.
To achieve the goal of having physical attributes that reflect its history and culture, the City of Minneapolis will broaden its understanding of important places through engagement with cultural communities, communities of color and indigenous communities. The City will use the feedback from this engagement to help identify and preserve buildings, landscapes and other places important to the city’s heritage. Additionally, the City will recognize and actively promote the intrinsic value of historic places as integral to the city’s evolving environment and will support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets.
⬚ figure History and Culture Policies:11 policies relate to Goal 7: History and Culture. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Native dance at the Commons
Minneapolis’ creative, cultural and natural amenities shape the city and its economy and attract residents, businesses and visitors. In 2017, Minneapolis had the repeat honor of being recognized as the Nation’s Best Park System by the Trust for Public Land; Minneapolis’ parks encompass the city’s defining lakes and river banks and include features of astonishing beauty, historical significance and ecological wonder, all within a thriving urban setting.
Not only that, but Minneapolis has a national park running right through it – the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, which follows the Mississippi River through the city. Its pinnacle, St. Anthony Falls, the only
major waterfall on the Mississippi River, generated the power that created Minneapolis. St. Anthony Falls has been the anchor in the rebirth of Minneapolis’ central riverfront, an area that provides an incredible opportunity to increase access to natural and cultural amenities for Minneapolis residents and expand the city as a regional and national destination.
In addition to its parks and natural attractions, Minneapolis’ creative sector is often cited as an important factor in promoting the city on a global scale. In 2015, creative sector sales contributed $4.5 billion to Minneapolis’ economy – nearly eight times the revenues of Minneapolis’ sports sector. That said, the value of the creative and cultural amenities tied to the creative sector goes far beyond money. It’s much deeper, rooted in individual and group expression and learning, as well as in growing, exploring and forging deeper connections between Minneapolis residents. A 2014 survey conducted through the City’s Creative City Road Map planning process demonstrated that Minneapolis residents and artists think it’s important to offer arts and cultural programs to bridge differences between people and to make tangible the values and identities of local communities. The City will continue to encourage this creative – and natural – vibrancy that makes Minneapolis a welcoming attractive community.
To achieve the goal of creative, cultural, and natural amenities, the City of Minneapolis will steward, support, and strengthen its creative, cultural, and natural amenities. This means strengthening the ecosystem to support the creative sector and reducing disparities among creative sector workers to give people of color and indigenous people opportunities to participate and succeed. It means connecting cultural institutions and creative workers with the resources and dynamic spaces they need to thrive.
Minneapolis will continue to maintain, promote and expand upon the unparalleled beauty and recreational opportunities of the city’s parks and open spaces. The City will strive to fill gaps where residents do not have equal access to parks and open spaces and to connect residents to natural amenities. And the City will work to ensure that improvements to parks and park programs better serve Minneapolis’ changing population.
⬚ figure Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities Policies:17 policies relate to Goal 8: Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
| Policy 29: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156 |
| Policy 30: “Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture” on page 158 |
| Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159 |
| Policy 53: “Quality of Life” on page 190 |
| Policy 58: ““Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196 |
| Policy 93: “Stewarding Historic Properties” on page 245 |
| Policy 59: “Downtown” on page 197 |
| Policy 76: “New Parks” on page 224 |
| Policy 78: “Park Design and Programming” on page 226 |
Policy 9: "Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127
Policy 7: "Public Realm" on page 122
Policy 14: "Tree Canopy and Urban Forest" on page 136
Policy 72: "Sustainable Water System Management" on page 217
Policy 34: "Cultural Districts" on page 164
Policy 97: "Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways" on page 250
Policy 99: "University District" on page 253
Policy 100: "Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255
⬚ figure
Photo: Washington Avenue in downtown Minneapolis
Goal 9. In 2040, all Minneapolis residents will have access to employment, retail services, healthy food, parks, and other daily needs via walking, biking, and public transit.
The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan adopted in 2013 provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with targets of 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2025 compared with 2006 levels. In 2014, Minneapolis adopted a vital long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
In 2015, on-road transportation accounted for 26 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today, over 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are taken in personal automobiles. Even with the adoption of electric cars, a 38 percent reduction in passenger miles
⬚ figure
traveled by automobile is needed to achieve the 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (Figure G9.1).
Nationally, 45 percent of daily trips are taken for shopping and errands. Residents in many parts of the city have no choice but to drive long distances to access regular daily goods and services such as grocery stores. In most of the city, demand for retail is much higher than supply, indicating an opportunity to make retail more convenient for everyone and thereby reduce car trips and greenhouse gas emissions. The city also has 11 low-income census tracts in which residents live more than a mile from a full-service grocery store.
Currently 97 percent of Minneapolis residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, but small pockets of the city still lack easy access to such a critical component of a livable urban environment. Some of these gaps are in places where new residential neighborhoods are emerging. As the city’s population grows, it will be important to continue evaluating park access and to build new parks in underserved areas.
To achieve the goal of access to daily needs via walking, biking and public transit, the City of Minneapolis will allow more housing to be built in places close to transit, retail services and employment areas. The City will designate additional areas for commercial uses in parts of the city that are well-served by public transportation and where demand for retail goods and services exceeds supply. The City will support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets and serve the daily needs of Minneapolis residents. And the City will work to build parks in underserved areas to ensure that all residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park.
Achieving this goal also requires changes to the transportation system that make it easier to walk, bike or use transit to access daily needs. The City will proactively improve the pedestrian environment and continue to build and maintain a network of bikeways, while working
with Metro Transit to increase the frequency, speed and reliability of the public transit system.
21 policies relate to Goal 9: Complete Neighborhoods. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105
Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228
Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169
Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108
Policy 4: “Access to Commercial Goods and Services” on page 113
Policy 58: “Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196
Policy 64: “Food Businesses” on page 204
Policy 63: “Food Access” on page 202
Policy 76: “New Parks” on page 224
Policy 77: “Park Access” on page 225
Policy 17: “Complete Streets” on page 140
Policy 18: “Pedestrians” on page 142
Policy 19: “Bicycling” on page 144
Policy 20: “Transit” on page 145
Policy 24: “Shared Mobility” on page 151
Policy 25: “Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure” on page 152
Policy 11: “Skyways” on page 130
Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164
Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182
Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237
Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252
⬚ figure
Photo: Community members planting the street median (Photo by Ted Eytan, via flickr.com)
Goal 10. In 2040, Minneapolis will be resilient to the effects of climate change and diminishing natural resources, and will be on track to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Climate change is a defining challenge of this decade and even this century. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are destabilizing the earth’s climate and human activity is the primary driver of these emissions. Without rapid action to reduce these emissions, we will face threats to our economic livelihood, public health, and supplies of food, fresh water and power.
These impacts will not be felt equally across the globe, nor in Minneapolis; low-income and vulnerable residents face disproportionate impacts from climate change.
Simply paying for energy takes a disproportionate share of income for low-income residents. Energy bills constitute 19 percent of income for households with income between 75 and 100 percent of the federal poverty level, but even households with incomes between 150 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level have energy bills higher than is considered affordable. Older adults, children and people with disabilities or certain medical conditions are at great risk of the effects of climate change, including hotter summer days and nights, higher levels of humidity, extreme storm events and rising rates of insect-borne illnesses.
To be resilient to the effects of climate change and diminishing natural resources, the city’s residents, communities, businesses and systems must be able to survive, adapt and thrive despite the stresses and shocks caused by climate change. Accomplishing this requires supporting and fostering an environment where residents of Minneapolis are well-connected to their neighbors and have social support systems in times of stress and shock. It requires a physical environment, such as trees and landscaping, that helps provide shade and passive cooling opportunities in the summer and reduces the impact of extreme cold in the winter. It requires stormwater infrastructure that can handle larger storm events, and it requires water resources sufficient to last through periods of drought. It requires energy systems that can efficiently handle periods of high demand and buildings that rely less on electricity and natural gas. It requires a transportation system that functions throughout extreme weather events, and it requires areas housing and employment capable of accommodating population shifts due to climate migration.
The worst impacts of climate change are not inevitable. Moving to a more energy-efficient economy, renewable and reliable energy sources for buildings and transportation, and a less wasteful system has the potential not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to improve public health, clean the air and water, and keep more dollars in the local economy.
The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan adopted in 2013 provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with targets of 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2025 compared with 2006 levels. In 2014, Minneapolis adopted a vital long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
In 2015, buildings accounted for 71 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions (Figure G10.1); commercial and industrial buildings accounted for nearly two-thirds of that and residential buildings accounted for the rest. Despite an increase in the number of buildings in the city of nearly 8 percent since 2006, electricity consumption has declined 6 percent during the same period and continues on a downward trajectory. Furthermore, emissions from electricity consumption are down 31 percent from 2006, accounting for 81 percent of the city’s total greenhouse gas reductions in that time. Improved energy efficiency and cleaner electricity (more renewables and fewer coal power plants) are driving this change. Emissions from electricity consumption still comprise the largest share of the city’s total greenhouse gas emissions, but this is expected to be eclipsed by emissions from natural gas in the coming years as more clean, renewable electricity is added to Xcel Energy’s portfolio. To achieve the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 the city will need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, and this will require a transition from relying solely on fossil fuel-derived natural gas for heating.
⬚ figure
In 2015, on-road transportation accounted for 26 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today, over 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are in personal automobiles. Even with the adoption of electric cars, a 38 percent reduction in passenger miles traveled by automobile is needed to achieve the 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Achieving this goal requires changes to both transportation infrastructure and land use to make it easier to walk, bike or take transit to access jobs, goods and services. This means more people living close to transit, jobs, goods and services, as well as improved pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems.
In 2015, solid waste and wastewater accounted for 3 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. While this is low compared with emissions from buildings and transportation, opportunity exists to reduce it further, including by increasing recycling and organics collections as well as through water conservation.
To achieve the goal of climate change resilience, the City of Minneapolis will strive to substantially increase the energy efficiency of buildings by retrofitting existing buildings and improving the design of new buildings. It will also work to accelerate the transition to renewable energy in buildings and transportation. Minneapolis will establish a pattern of development and a transportation network that prioritizes pedestrians, bicyclers and transit users. At the same time, the City will prepare for the consequences of climate change by investing in improved stormwater management, urban heat island reduction and energy system resilience.
21 policies relate to Goal 10: Climate Change Resilience. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Woman canoeing on the Mississippi River
Minneapolis is annually ranked as one of the healthiest cities in the nation. In these rankings, the city’s park system, clean air and water, and quality of life are often cited as contributing to its high standing. Yet despite being acknowledged for these beneficial assets and its efforts to make the city cleaner and healthier, the City must persist in improving the quality of the air and surface waters and continue to improve the ecosystem. Minneapolis’ environmental system is an intricate network of living, engineered and climatic features working together. The health of the city is directly correlated to the strength of this ecosystem and how well these systems can thrive despite the pressures of climate change.
Minneapolis’ lakes received excellent and good scores using Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board measures that assess conditions affecting the public use of lakes. The measures look at public health, water quality, habitat quality, aesthetics and recreational access. However, measurements established by the federal Clean Water Act list many of Minneapolis’ lakes and rivers as having multiple impairments ranging from chemicals and metals in fish to other water quality issues that impact aquatic life and recreation. Past City and state regulations and programs have made progress in improving the water quality of Minneapolis’ lakes and rivers, but more can be done locally.
Minneapolis’ air is getting cleaner. In 2007 where there were 225 days when pollutants were above the levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to be protective of public health. In 2015, there were 114 days. The sources of air pollutants range from mobile sources like cars and trucks to point sources such as factories and power plants and to area sources such as dry cleaners and gas stations. Minneapolis can impact these pollutant sources through transportation and land use planning, by encouraging reductions in energy consumption, and through programs and regulations to reduce point and area sources. In early 2018, Minneapolis became the first major city in the nation to go entirely “perc-free” as the last dry cleaner switches over to a safer process. “Perc” is classified as a likely carcinogen by the EPA, and in 2015 there were 99 occasions in the city when perc was detected at levels above the level the state defines as a “chronic health risk.” Minneapolis has established programs to help the last nine dry cleaners in the city using perc replace their equipment to make the switch.
The City will succeed in meeting this goal only if everyone is able to benefit from the outcomes, meaning all residents have access to clean air, quality water and plenty of recreational spaces in flourishing natural environments. Unfortunately, many of the city’s most vulnerable communities – low-income and indigenous communities and communities of color – experience more exposure to poor-quality air and other environmental pollutants. According to the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, people of color are much more likely to live near pollution sources and breathe polluted air. These air pollutants – construction dust, auto fumes, smog, soot,
⬚ figure
oil smoke, ash – are linked to serious health problems such as heart attacks, asthma, high blood pressure, lung conditions and low birth weights.
The City of Minneapolis strives to achieve environmental justice for its residents, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental or commercial operations or
policies. This requires meaningful involvement from all communities, especially those disproportionately affected and previously disenfranchised, and intentional action by the City to protect the health of residents and guests of the city into 2040. In 2017, the City established Green Zones as a place-based policy initiative aimed at improving health and supporting economic development using environmentally conscious efforts in communities that face the cumulative effects of environmental pollution, as well as social, political and economic vulnerability. These efforts toward environmental justice, as well as for cleaner air and water overall, will continue to be a priority for the City.
To achieve the goal of a clean environment, the City of Minneapolis will meet and exceed the air quality standards recommended by the EPA by eliminating the use of some of the most common industrial volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and by reducing industrial sources of other harmful pollutants. The City will also pair investments with regulatory changes to achieve equity in areas of environmental injustice.
The City will protect and manage its water resources sustainably while preventing contaminants from polluting its water systems. Achieving this means maximizing waste reduction to meet the City’s zero-waste goals, supporting healthy ecosystems in and around surface waters, and increasing biodiversity to restore ecological habitats. It also means promoting large and small developments that enhance air, soil and water quality.
⬚ figure Clean Environment Policies:19 policies relate to Goal 11: Clean Environment. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Local brewery (Photo by smcgee, via flickr.com)
Minneapolis is operating from a rich base of local assets that generate business and expand industries. Minneapolis and the surrounding region are home to 17 Fortune 500 companies and seven of the top 225 private companies. Minneapolis’ regional creative economy continues to be ranked in the top six in the Creative Vitality Index, with a score nearly four times higher than the national average. The University of Minnesota, ranked fourth in the nation for patent creation and the ninth-best U.S. public research institution, continues to lead in the development and creation of new technology, ideas and business. The state of Minnesota ranks first in the nation in the number of jobs
per capita related to medical technology. And Forbes has called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for tech jobs
Minneapolis’ economy needs to continue to grow and innovate, and people of color and indigenous people must have physical, personal and institutional access to this growth. This means developing and supporting an economic climate that helps sustain and nourish businesses through targeted outreach to business sectors that demonstrate growth and support other Industries. It means addressing the growing racial disparities in Minneapolis’ economy by identifying barriers that have reduced access to economic opportunities and by developing strategies and programs that ensure people of color can participate, compete in and succeed in the economy – ultimately ensuring that the growth of Minneapolis benefits everyone.
The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development estimates that Minneapolis was home to 318,500 jobs in 2015, and the Metropolitan Council projects that the city will add 41,500 jobs by 2040. Much of this job growth will happen in downtown Minneapolis, the central business district that is the economic and transportation hub of the region. Downtown continues to attract and retain companies, employees, residents, commercial options and regional destinations. This growth can be attributed to a variety of investments, but ultimately downtown offers an experience and a bundle of goods and services that give it a competitive advantage over other areas in the region. Downtown is not the only driver of Minneapolis’ economic growth; numerous large employers such as hospitals, universities and cultural institutions are located outside of downtown and will continue to generate economic growth and opportunity.
Minneapolis’ neighborhood business districts and corridors also serve a vital economic role. Residents visit them for daily goods and services, they provide opportunities for small business and employment, they offer community gathering places, and together the buildings and businesses provide an identity for the surrounding community. These places bring vital energy and diversity to the city and region, and they should be supported.
Production and processing businesses are also an important element of a healthy local and regional economy. These types of businesses include but are not limited to medical device and electronic instrument manufacturing, breweries and distilleries, food production, metal fabrication, and distribution and fulfillment. Production and processing businesses provide economic opportunities for people without a college degree, especially those of color, by offering higher wages than comparable jobs in the retail, accommodation and food service industries. In Minneapolis less than half of black, American Indian and Hispanic residents have more than a high school education, compared with 83 percent of white non-Hispanic residents. These educational disparities create barriers to finding employment that pays a living wage – but production and processing businesses in the region have average monthly starting wages for workers of color that are twice as high as retail businesses and nearly two-and-a-half times that of accommodation and food service businesses. The City will work to ensure these and other economic opportunities are available to all residents.
To achieve this goal, the City of Minneapolis will support existing businesses and help them grow. Additionally, the City will foster innovation and entrepreneurship in business sectors that show promise for growth and give Minneapolis a competitive advantage. This means supporting new business creation with a focus on creating opportunity for people of color and indigenous people.
Minneapolis will maintain and expand opportunities to start and grow businesses. This means strengthening downtown’s position as the region’s business, commercial, cultural and entertainment center. It also means supporting neighborhood business districts and corridors. And it means ensuring the physical space necessary for the production, processing, and distribution of products, which also helps provide quality living-wage jobs to residents.
27 policies relate to Goal 12: Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy.
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Resident speaking at Minneapolis City Council hearing (Photo by Tony Webster)
When the City develops policies, enacts ordinances, creates programs or deploys resources, its activities have a direct effect on residents, businesses and visitors. To be effective, the City needs to continually explore refinements and new tools to ensure it provides services in a streamlined, accessible, and equitable manner.
This includes committing to meaningful engagement with residents and businesses when making decisions. It means improving the accessibility of engagement activities and intentionally seeking out engagement with populations that have been underrepresented – specifically communities of color and indigenous peoples. Pairing public feedback with empirical research and data will lead to better-informed decisions and increased transparency. The City should also
improve engagement by expanding the racial and ethnic diversity of its workforce, supply chain and vendors.
Like all cities, Minneapolis often faces fiscal uncertainty as a result of actions at the federal and state levels. This makes City government more reliant on the local tax base for support and requires the City to make diligent, prudent fiscal decisions and seek opportunities to leverage City resources with external funding sources.
To achieve the goal of being a proactive, accessible, and fiscally sustainable government, the City of Minneapolis will provide services that benefit residents, workers, visitors and businesses in a streamlined, accessible and equitable manner. This means improving services and using data and research to guide decision-making and plan for the future. It also means planning effectively for municipally owned facilities to serve a growing city.
Minneapolis will manage existing physical assets and work to implement the right improvements at the optimal time; and will use those improvements to cumulatively progress multiple City goals. This means creating and seizing opportunities to leverage funding with internal and regional partners or other entities that invest in the city. The City will also serve as a model employer by increasing the diversity of its workforce and providing employment opportunities for youth.
⬚ figure
7 policies relate to Goal 13: Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
⬚ figure
Photo: Residents engaging at an open house event
Goal 14. In 2040, Minneapolis will have an equitable civic participation system that enfranchises everyone, recognizes the core and vital service neighborhood organizations provide to the City of Minneapolis, and builds people’s long term capacity to organize to improve their lives and neighborhoods.
In 2016 Minneapolis conducted a survey of its residents. Nearly half of the respondents indicated they do not feel they can influence decisions made in the City of Minneapolis. Approximately 30 percent of respondents felt they did not have a voice about issues important to them when interacting with the City. For Minneapolis to successfully implement the policies in this plan and work toward achieving its goals, it’s important to give
stakeholders a voice and the capacity to influence decisions.
This plan strives to eliminate disparities among people of color and indigenous peoples compared with white people. This includes differences in rates of civic participation such as representation on neighborhood organization boards and City boards and commissions, and levels of engagement on issues, policies, regulations, programs and other City efforts. Implementing many of the policies of this plan requires a greater understanding of Minneapolis’ diverse communities to identify and remove barriers to participation. It also requires deeper and ongoing engagement, specifically with a focus on people of color, indigenous people and vulnerable populations such as low-income households, the elderly and people with disabilities. This means continuing to explore new methods and techniques to not only engage with underrepresented populations but to build trust and strengthen connections. And it means partnering with organizations such as cultural groups and neighborhood organizations that already have connections in the community and can help proactively engage residents on City activities.
To achieve the goal of an equitable civic participation system, the City of Minneapolis will actively build the community’s capacity to strengthen authentic engagement through neighborhood associations and City advisory committees and to facilitate meaningful resident input into City policies, programs and procedures; and it will work to maximize the involvement of renters, people with disabilities, people of color, indigenous people and others who have been historically underrepresented in civic life. This requires deepening an understanding among City staff of Minneapolis’ diverse communities, their histories, and how the government has impacted them over time The City will track the progress of engagement improvements as well as ensure that City staff reflects the diversity of Minneapolis’ residents.
The City will also help foster the kinds of social connections that encourage and promote civic participation by ensuring safe and welcoming community spaces for all to connect with each other, including parks, community and youth centers, and city streets and rights of way.
⬚ figure Equitable Civic Participation System Policies:8 policies relate to Goal 14: Equitable Civic Participation System.
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
The Comprehensive Plan policies are sorted by eleven topics. Each topic contains policies that relate to the built, natural, and economic environment of the city with background information about the importance of each topic to the future of our city.
⬚ figure
Photo: Stone Arch Bridge and downtown Minneapolis (Photo by Dan Anderson, Courtesy of Meet Minneapolis)
The Minneapolis 2040 goals describe a future for Minneapolis that is equitable, healthy, and sustainable. The policies of this plan are intended to provide an overarching structure for achieving those goals as they relate to the built, natural, and economic environment of our city.
Among the goals of this plan is to ensure that all Minneapolis residents will be able to afford and access quality housing throughout the city, that all Minneapolis residents will have access to a living wage job, and that all Minneapolis residents will have access to daily needs via walking, biking, and public transit. Policies associated with the topics of Housing, Economic Competitiveness, and Transportation describe proactive steps the City will take to achieve these goals.
This section, Land Use and Built Form, describes where new housing, workplaces, and retail establishments may locate in the city in order to achieve the plan goals. This guidance is communicated through a combination of policies and maps. The first four policies that appear below – Access to Housing, Access to Employment, Production and Processing, and Access to Commercial Goods and Services – form the basis for the Future Land Use Map and the Built Form Map that guide the location and characteristics of new buildings.
The Access to Housing policy outlines the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in increasing housing choice throughout the city, acknowledging the contribution of zoning to racially-restrictive housing practices of the first half of the 20th century, and the lasting effect those actions had on people of color and indigenous people. The policy also reinforces the practice of developing multifamily housing on transit routes, providing people the opportunity to live without a car, or with fewer cars in each household, helping to work toward the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. This policy, and the resultant housing guidance on the future land use and built form maps, ensures that we have places throughout the city to increase housing supply and choice. The remaining Housing policies of the plan communicate a commitment to proactively meet the housing needs of Minneapolis residents, including through the production and preservation of affordable housing and expansion of the City’s inclusionary housing policies and tools.
Together, the Access to Employment and Production and Processing policies outline the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in supporting employment growth and ensuring that land is available for living-wage jobs in areas close to where people live. These policies work in conjunction with the Economic Competitiveness policies of this plan, which communicate a commitment to ensuring that Minneapolis residents have job training and skills necessary to participate in the economy, and will have access to living-wage jobs.
The Access to Commercial Goods and Services policy outlines the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in providing the opportunity for Minneapolis residents to access daily needs without using a car. This is especially important because achieving the City’s goals of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions requires reducing the number of car trips in Minneapolis by 37%. People take more trips running errands than going to work, so it is critical to give people the opportunity to meet their daily needs closer to home.
The remaining policies inform the design of buildings and the spaces in between, and support the goals of a high-quality and distinctive environment, a clean environment, and a city that is resilient to climate change.
21 policies relate to Land Use and Built Form. Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.
Policy 1: "Access to Housing” on page 105
Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108
Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110
Policy 4: “Access to Commercial Goods and Services” on page 113
Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228
Policy 6: “Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design” on page 118
Policy 5: “Visual Quality of New Development” on page 116
Policy 7: “Public Realm” on page 122
Policy 8: “Public Safety Through Environmental Design” on page 124
Policy 68: “Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings” on page 210
Policy 9: “Open Spaces in New Development” on page 127
Policy 10: “Street Grid” on page 128
Policy 11: “Skyways” on page 130
Policy 12: “Lighting” on page 132
Policy 13: “Landscaping” on page 134
Policy 14: “Tree Canopy and Urban Forest” on page 136
Policy 74: “Integration of Water Management into Development” on page 220
Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182
Policy 97: “Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways” on page 250
Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252
Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255
The Future Land Use and Built Form Maps are the primary tools for implementing the Land Use and Built Form policies of the Comprehensive Plan. They also embody and implement policies found throughout this plan, as well as the fourteen Comprehensive Plan Goals. The Future Land Use Map guides land use for every parcel in the city. Any changes to the use of land must be consistent with the guidance of the Future Land Use Map. The Built Form Map guides the scale of development for every parcel in the city through Built Form Districts. The built form of all new and remodeled buildings must be consistent with the guidance of the Built Form Map.
The maps, along with other policies in the plan, will be used to make decisions on development proposals and to shape regulations over the life of the document. Height, bulk, and setback standards, among other regulations, will continue to work in concert with and be informed by these maps and policies to guide and govern development that occurs throughout the city.
It is important to note that not every property in the city will be redeveloped between now and 2040. Rather, these maps provide guidance in the event that a change is proposed by a property owner. Following adoption of Minneapolis 2040, the City of Minneapolis will update its Zoning Code and Zoning Map to reflect the guidance of the Future Land Use and Built Form Maps.
Additional supporting materials for Land Use and Built Form content can be found in Appendix B, Land Use.
The Future Land Use Map identifies the types of uses allowed on a given parcel according to the categories described below. The map guides use only. The Future Land Use Map works in tandem with the Built Form Map to provide a complete set of guidance for each parcel.
There are 12 Future Land Use Categories.
Urban Neighborhood is a predominantly residential area with a range of allowed building types. May include small-scale institutional and semi-public uses (for example, schools, community centers, religious institutions, public safety facilities, etc.) scattered throughout. Like the Neighborhood Mixed Use category, commercial uses can continue serving their existing commercial function. Commercial zoning is appropriate for these properties, while expansion of commercial uses and zoning into surrounding areas is not encouraged.
Neighborhood Mixed Use includes individual commercial uses and small collections of commercial uses, located primarily away from major streets, that should continue to serve their existing commercial function. Commercial zoning is appropriate, while expansion of commercial uses and zoning into surrounding areas is not encouraged. Semi-permanent or temporary commercial retail establishments such as farmer's markets are also appropriate in this category (Figure T1.1).
Corridor Mixed Use serves a larger market area than Neighborhood Mixed Use, and may have multiple competing uses of the same type. Commercial zoning is appropriate, mixed use multi story development is encouraged (Figure T1.1), and contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.
Large-scale mixed use development is encouraged throughout these areas, with commercial uses fronting on major streets. Commercial retail spaces are typically smaller in order to generate pedestrian activity, and are often a destination for customers coming from outside of the market area. Active uses that are accessible to the general public such as office, food service, retail, or medical establishments are required at the street level; therefore single-use residential development is
⬚ figure
not permitted (Figure T1.1). Contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.
Commercial retail uses are required at the street level of all development in this category to encourage pedestrian activity beyond the typical daytime business hours (Figure T1.1). Multi-story development is required. Contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.
Goods and Services Corridors serve two purposes:
To indicate where commercial uses should front in relation to properties guided for commercial future land uses.
In addition to the guidance for the mixed use land use categories found in this section, Goods and Services Corridors identify where the establishment or expansion of commercial uses can be considered. Properties immediately adjacent to a Goods and Services Corridor may be considered for commercial activity, allowing for uses similar in scale and scope to the Neighborhood and Corridor Mixed Use categories.
In addition to the uses allowed in Urban Neighborhood, allows for greater flexibility in locating low impact commercial activity. Dental and medical services and offices, small scale lodging, and small scale retail are appropriate.
Accommodates major office centers, public and semi-public uses, including museums, hospitals, civic uses, and college and university campuses. Entertainment uses of greater intensity such as stadiums should be focused in downtown and university campuses. Multi-story residential uses are permitted in this category, with mixed-use encouraged – particularly fronting major corridors.
Applies to land or water areas generally free from development. Primarily used for park and recreation,
⬚ figure
natural resource conservation, transportation, historic, or scenic purposes. Park related uses such as amphitheaters, food service, parkways, and equipment rental are also permitted. This generally does not capture privately-owned and operated open spaces and plazas.
Production and Processing areas are suitable for a wide range of employment-focused development. These areas are designated with the intent of protecting them from encroaching non-industrial uses that could erode the diverse job base that these uses provide. Residential uses are strictly prohibited.
Production Mixed Use is a land use designation that allows both production and non-production uses, recognizing that while many buildings in these areas are no longer viable for modern production industries, they are increasingly occupied by a wide variety of uses that contribute to the economic health and diversity of the city. Residential uses are allowed as part of mixed use buildings that provide production space and must incorporate mitigation strategies to address potential conflicts between existing production uses and new residences. Adaptive re-use of older industrial property is encouraged.
The Transportation land use designation allows for Production and Processing uses, but is typically utilized for transportation intensive uses that support commercial and production activity throughout the city.
FIGURE T1.3: FUTURE LAND USE MAP Citywide (Updated Oct 2025*)
⬚ figure
| LEGEND | |
|---|---|
| Urban Neighborhood | |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | |
| Corridor Mixed Use | |
| Community Mixed Use | |
| Destination Mixed Use | |
| ▪▪▪▪ | Goods and Services Corridor |
| Neighborhood Office and Services | |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | |
| Parks and Open Space | |
| Production and Processing | |
| Production Mixed Use | |
| Transportation |
These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com. *Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.
⬚ figure
These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com. *Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.
FIGURE T1.3b: FUTURE LAND USE MAP North Sector (Updated Oct 2025*)
⬚ figure
These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.
*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.
⬚ figure
| LEGEND | |
|---|---|
| Urban Neighborhood | |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | |
| Corridor Mixed Use | |
| Community Mixed Use | |
| Destination Mixed Use | |
| ▀ ▀ ▀ | Goods and Services Corridor |
| Neighborhood Office and Services | |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | |
| Parks and Open Space | |
| Production and Processing | |
| Production Mixed Use | |
| Transportation |
These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com. *Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.
1193 pages load as you reach them