The city of Minneapolis, MN is bisected by the Mississippi River, perhaps the most storied river in the United States.  The revitalized banks of the Mississippi in Minneapolis are a striking example of how a city has taken a central leadership role in implementing a long-term vision for its riverfront.  Though the rehabilitation of the riverfront has taken over three decades, and utilized numerous land use polities, real estate transactions, and approaches, the case study of Minneapolis’ riverfront revitalization efforts is largely one characterized by the use of an incentive-based land-use tool, tax-increment financing (TIF), to inject new life into their downtown riverfront.

Below, we highlight specific aspects of how this riverfront revitalization effort was orchestrated:

History
Riverfront revitalization goals
What’s in the land policy toolbox?
What was the role of citizens (in planning, implementing, and oversight)?
What was the role of the municipality?
Who were the key champions of the riverfront vision?
Did a particular project or initiative act as a catalyst for further riverfront revitalization?
Does a particular governing body oversee riverfront development?  Is its authority regulatory or advisory?
How is “success” measured?
More information

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

History:

The Mississippi flows through Minneapolis for 11.5 miles, at the center of which is the famous St. Anthony Falls.  The power of the falls was harnessed to drive flour mills, making Minneapolis the “Flour Milling Capital of the World” in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  By the 1960s, the riverfront had fallen into disuse.  Warehouses and factories sat empty, and with a few exceptions, the area was largely uninhabited by neighborhood residents.

Beginning in the 1970s, the city made an intentional effort to begin redevelopment of the Mississippi riverfront, completing the “Mississippi/Minneapolis” plan in 1972, creating historic districts, and reshaping a policy to guide use of TIF allocations.  Riverfront development efforts began in earnest in the late 1970s in the area now known as the Minneapolis Riverfront District.  Recently, the city worked with a consultant to identify goals and recommendations that will allow the city to continue successful riverfront revitalization efforts, as well as organized the Minneapolis Riverfront Corporation (see below).

Riverfront revitalization goals:

• Remove barriers to redevelopment
• Convert the riverfront from a practical utility to a public amenity
• Preserve and interpret the area’s history
• Redevelop a vital mixed-used community with vibrant residential neighborhoods

What’s in the land policy toolbox?

INCENTIVE-BASED APPROACH: TIF

Minneapolis has a long history of utilizing TIF to facilitate city redevelopment efforts.  In the Riverfront District, TIF was utilized to provide public access to the riverfront, as well as to facilitate the enhancement of social and environmental assets.  Several ‘showcase’ developments were also leveraged via TIF, such as the new Guthrie Theater, the Mill City Museum, and the rehabilitation of the Stone Arch Bridge.

What was the role of citizens (in planning, implementing, and oversight)?

Citizen involvement in Minneapolis’ riverfront revitalization efforts was (and continues to be) significant, though it’s noteworthy that when redevelopment efforts began in the 1970s, the residential population of the district was quite low.  However, the city boasts a strong network of engaged neighborhood groups, who were involved in redevelopment efforts from the onset.

Citizens have been involved in all aspects of revitalization efforts, from planning to implementing to oversight.  Currently, citizens are represented on the City Planning Commission.  Citizens are also represented on the board of the Minneapolis Riverfront Corporation, a public-private corporation established to help Minneapolis achieve its riverfront revitalization goals.  Additionally, citizen support continues to be instrumental in the city’s use of TIF toward continued riverfront revitalization efforts.

What was the role of the municipality?

The commitment shown by the City of Minneapolis to revitalizing the Mississippi riverfront is significant.  Multiple city departments have had some level of involvement in revitalization efforts, most notably the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED).  The City’s leadership role in revitalization efforts is too extensive to detail here in summary form.  For more information, see resources and planning documents linked below.

Who were the key champions of the riverfront vision?

The City of Minneapolis showed leadership in all aspects of making the vision of a revitalized downtown Mississippi riverfront a reality, over thirty years in the making.

Does a particular governing body oversee riverfront development?  Is its authority regulatory or advisory?

The Minneapolis Riverfront Corporation, established in 2009, is a private nonprofit organization governed by a public-private board of directors.  The authority of the MRC may be characterized as advisory—it does not have taxing or eminent domain authority.  However, the MRC does hold the power to review and make recommendations on plans and public projects, and will approve design guidelines that would then be enforced through appropriate governmental committees and procedures (e.g., zoning review).

Did a particular project or initiative act as a catalyst for further riverfront revitalization?

The rehabilitation of the iconic Stone Arch Bridge, which spans the Mississippi at St. Anthony Falls, was a significant catalyst for riverfront revitalization efforts.  The high-profile project enhanced public access to the riverfront, by incorporating pedestrian and bicycle pathways (completing a vital link in the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Trail), in addition to stabilization and beautification efforts.  Redevelopment began in 1994 with public funding, and the project galvanized public support for riverfront revitalization on a larger scale.

Efforts made by the city to acquire parkland along the riverfront, as well as to rehabilitate historic buildings that had fallen into disrepair, also contributed to jumpstarting riverfront revitalization efforts.

How is “success” measured?

• An intangible measure of the success of Minneapolis’ riverfront revitalization efforts, lies in the public view of the riverfront.  According to Ann Calvert, Mpls Comm Planning and Econ Dvlpmnt Project Coordinator, the riverfront is “part of our community civic consciousness.  When people visit from out of town, locals take them down to show them the river.”
• Strategic public investment of $301 million leveraged public/private investment of $1.75 billion
• Prior to revitalization efforts, the estimated market value of properties in the Mill District (within Riverfront District) was $25 million; post-revitalization efforts it is estimated to be worth $440 million

More information:

Minneapolis Riverfront Corporation: http://www.mplsriverfrontcorp.org/

Minneapolis Riverfront District: http://www.minneapolis-riverfront.com/

A detailed overview of Minneapolis’ riverfront revitalization efforts can be found in Riverfront Revival: Collaboration and Change along the Mississippi Riverfront in Minneapolis, 2004 [PDF]