confused04

Originally posted by: hym I read an article on Politico a few days ago where the author was arguing exactly the opposite--Palin had given the Republican faith in McCain.quote> That is indeed true, but a lot of the more moderate women in the party have been more skeptical of Palin and have admitted to being less likely to support her. A poll (which I will cite upon request, but its somewhere on fivethirtyeight.com) showed that 9% of Obama supporters said they were more likely to pick McCain now that Palin was on the ticket, however, 15% they were less likely to support McCain because of her pick, most of whom were women. Although its only a 6% gap, thats more than enough to swing some states. Alright,... I just wanted to comment on how people are suddenly claiming that any questioning of Palin is considered SEXIST. I don't doubt that sexism still exists but I feel that supporters of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin have been trying to block criticism by using "-isms". Like we can't LEGITIMATELY question policy decisions and background. You criticize Obama and you're a racist. You say anything about Clinton or Palin and its sexism. Even criticizing McCain has been met with claims of Ageism. I just don't see how people are saying that questioning Palin is sexism. Can someone enlighten me to a specific sexist remark? I just dont' get this CRAP. I will question any candidate I want.

Only the first day was canceled, every day after is exactly the same (in fact they are more full cause of rescheduling). Only thing is that there's such a huge enthusiasm gap that there's not that much public attention to the RNC. The Democrats "story" has been more compelling, which was only strengthened by Republicans trying to emphasize the division within the party. The grueling race between two major candidates who were not white men captured the nations attention. People watched to see if the Democrats could come together. The Republicans don't have a compelling story and they are far more hush about the true division in their party. When Democrats were asked if they preferred another candidate over Obama, 37% said yes.... The same question was asked about the Republicans and 38% said they preferred another candidate. The Republican Party has been good about keeping the image of a unified party, and it isn't. Did Palin successfully close this division gap? Probably not, and in some cases increased it as the Republican Party lost a good chunk of woman voters.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK yep, it sounds like seattle again. Anarchists causing trouble, innocent people caught in the middle, mass arrests, yay. I guess the Denver was just extremely lucky. Why would any city ever want to host any kind of political event?quote> There are several reasons why cities would want to host the convention. Free Advertising (nothing like getting 100k people to spread how awesome your city is for free. Security is paid for by other agencies and the party). Economic windfall.... $150 million is hard to turn down National Attention (part of free advertising). Also helps bring your city into the political forefront. Many of our politicians have been speaking and getting name recognition. Obama came to this city when he anticipated his win over Hillary Clinton. Day 2: The RNC was on a full schedule. I haven't read much on it. Ron Paul held his competing convention in Minneapolis at the Target Center with 10,000 supporters and a bunch of volunteers. Basically saying that the War was unjust and illegal and that there's too much government intervention. Bush spoke today... but whatever Battle for St. Paul continues... Protesters were thought to have subsided but several developments have occurred. First, the Rage Against the Machine wasn't allowed to play on the streets of the capital but they still got the crowd riled up by playing over a megaphone. St. Joseph's hospital went on lockdown as protests threatened to throw the city in chaos. Clashes continued today... Here Here Here This one is crazy. In front of one of the most famous landmarks in downtown St. Paul, Mickey's Diner (Another vantage point with no news interference) EDIT: To set up what looks like police oppression as some people have suggested, the last link was in response to not one, not two, but THREE homemade explosive devices being detonated. This is where I have a HUGE problem with protesters. Don't bomb my street!!!

The collapsed lung isn't technically what killed him, it was a consequential disease that followed the collapsed lung that killed him. He was from Duluth, Minnesota. Sad to hear

Pretty comprehensive collection of videos in one clip Arrests are at 283 with over 100 felonies and tons of "inciting riot" arrests. We're told that the city might not be secure til early tomorrow morning. This is already greater than more than double the entire total number of arrests during the six days around Denver's Democratic National Convention . EDIT: Guess the cops were right, sunset and the anarchists are still out... Another:- the anarchists said that they would target the bridges and they did. Two REALLY good summaries of the Day 1 of the RNC and its protests and a interesting look at what happens to those arrested and the cops involved. Around 10 o'clock, the sirens did become few and far between, but it was to the point that between around 2 PM and 7 PM it was nearly constant sirens with news of transit shutdown around 6 PM due to protesters blocking bridges and "mass loitering" on a number of roads. Everyone's wondering how Thursdays gonna go when McCain accepts the nomination (which is looking like its gonna be in person).

I took this pic just a few blocks north of where I live. The Republicans are meeting in the Xcel Center at what appears to be the end of the street in this pic (7th). I dare not to get any closer cause I had heard downtown was pretty chaotic. I did catch some 10 delegate buses taking the back road onto Shepard because I believe one of the exists was blockaded by people lying down in the street. I saw cops trumping the street lights whenever a bus came to the intersection. About 6 blocks further along this street I would not have been able to continue without a delegate pass. Go past the Xcel and there is where 10,000 people peacefully protested (FAR short of the 50k to 100k expected). Go a bit further and thats where the chaos occured). Another Video Some more The Connecticut Delegation was attacked by protesters with "toxic substances" What turned out to be a relatively active day was not expected to be violent. Protest organizers had said this was a family day but couldn't guarantee anything for Wednesday and Thursday for more "radical action". 78 people have been arrested so far according to CNN. Rubber bullets, gas canisters etc were also used. I was wondering why only 3 buses came by while I walked and took pics. Turns out that all routes going through downtown have been suspended due to the chaos. I live off the 54 line. EDIT: UGH... I can't keep up with the news... apparently over 100 arrests according to KSTP with reports of bricks being used as a primary weapon against buses. EDIT: 130 163 250 and climbing.... Cops are concerned that the protests will not stop during the overnight hours. Macy's, banks, and numerous store fronts have been trashed and roads are blockaded. Even at sunset, they expect more chaos.

Small bursts of violence have punctuated the relatively peaceful protest. My guess I've heard around 20 arrests so far today, we'll see what happens when the crowd is told to go home. here Some of the things I'm gathering from the broadcasts... Windows have been smashed with newspaper bins and bus benches in several locations in downtown St. Paul. Pepper spray has been used and SWAT has been deployed to corral a errant groups of protesters who deviated from the authorized path. 5 have been arrested for lighting a dumpster on fire and smashing it into a police car. Bottles have been flung at coach buses and traffic stopped at several intersections (which normally wouldn't be that bad except that 1/3 of downtown is already closed off to vehicles and parking). Here are some videos... Here Here Edit: National Guard got called in. 150 members of the National Guard have been called in to bring order to St. Paul

I love how the right will say Palin is more experienced in podunk Wasilla versus than Obama's CHICAGO and ILLINOIS and THE US SENATE... yes... far more experienced... I wonder how bad crime is in Wasilla, ya know, I heard those gang problems and poverty rival that of the east side of Philly. Like, this defies ALL logic to say she has more experience. Legislative and executive experiences aren't all created equal. Wasilla does NOT equal federal experience. Additionally, she was governor of a state that as a population smaller than Denver proper. Yes, population size DOES matter. Governing 500,000 people is not the same as governing 300,000,000. Governor does not equal president. If I cared about experience at all, on the job training is not something that should be acceptable for the VP. Presidents can die at any moment, like.... a month after their inaugural speech. The right is setting up a double standard for experience against Obama. He's somehow LESS experienced and ya know, being "inexperienced" as Vice Manager for possible the oldest President ever is "okay". As I said before, experience is NOT something that has ever predicted the success of a presidency, (in fact, some bloggers have suggested a negative correlation). And its not like Obama has to learn how to use the espresso machine all by himself.... Simply.... if Obama's inexperienced, Palin is... Now to attack the left..... Everyone by now has heard of the down syndrome baby that Palin refused to abort and how she's family values and blah blah blah.... Apparently, some liberals are claiming that Palin is in fact NOT the mother of that child which really belongs to her eldest daughter. According to verifiable new sources, Palin did not announce her pregnancy til the 7th month and didn't look pregnant. But liberal bloggers have taken it upon her self to analyze the muffin top of the eldest daughter and said "hey, she looks more pregnant than the size 2 Sarah Palin, it must be hers". I do find it odd that Sara said nothing about the baby til the 7th month and pictures of her at around 8 months showed not even the slightest hint of a bulge... but I do find this rather outlandish. If this were true, her entire conservative image would be destroyed. I would laugh if this turned out to be true. But I really hope McCain wouldn't have been THAT stupid....

Originally posted by: Duke87 Worth pointing out that Palin actually has more years of political experience than Obama does. And on top of that, there's executive experience there, not just legislative. McCain could use that to his advantage. "My VP candidate has more experience than your presidential candidate." Interesting how people seem to not be looking at it from that angle, though (blame the liberal media bias, perhaps).quote> She doesn't have "more experience" really... Palin has been on the Wasilla city council from 1992 to 1996... then mayor from '96 to 2002, failed to earn the L. Governor position and became governor in 2006. Thats 4 + 6 +2 (and that 2 is rounded up) to 12. I'll be nice an add the UNELECTED position she held for 1 year as the Chairman of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. A total of 13 years (with rounding up and adding that one year). Now... Obama... Set up tons of community outreach programs, chaired a bunch of committees (its only fair if I gave it to Palin). Which he was a big part of starting in 1992, and for the sake of simplifying things, he "ended" this stuff when he was inaugurated in 1997-2004 to the IL State Senate. Finally, we all know about his US Senate stuff from 2005 to present... 11 years NOT counting the chairman stuff... 16 if you do. Basically, they have the same amount and I dare say Obama definitely takes the "experience cake" as his chairman duties affected more people on the south side of Chicago than 10 Wasillas. You can always argue that Palin has NO experience in the federal government at ALL so her "executive experience" is just mincing words. Palin is NOT more experienced than Obama and to suggest that is just silly. Again... not that I personally care, she's not right for me due to her Pro-life and mining/drilling stances, not because of her experience. I think she could lead this nation like Obama, I just think it'd be a terrible administration. BUT onto other things... The Republican National Convention starts today in St. Paul, Minnesota. Hundreds of thousands of people are running around the city with their heads chopped off and we're all excited, nervous and very bummed out due to the unfortunate circumstances of Gustav. I'm not sure how many of you have been paying attention to the latest developments coming out of St. Paul, but Day 1 will be only official business that is necessary by law to nominate John McCain. However, tensions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area are very high as we have seen more action and hints of violence already than Denver experienced throughout the entire convention. 1 Arrest occurred last week, 6 this morning at 3 separate raids and 9 at a protest the morning. The protesters have said that they will not call off the massive march planned to occur on Monday with anywhere between 50k and 100k protesters. Experts are not sure exactly what the turn out will be but the cops are on full alert after wrist rockets (fancy sling shots), molotov cocktails, buckets of urine, gas masks and planning materials were found this morning in several homes. The hint violence is already put the city on edge... I live just a mile (as the crow flies) from where the raids took place across the river. I'm pretty much in the thick of things, especially as I'm just blocks from the 35 E bridge that connects Bloomington to downtown St. Paul. Many of the delegates will be taking my street to get to the Xcel Energy Center as two of the 4 exits downtown are completely blocked. I would go take pics but even the hint of violence has deterred me. I will take protest pics of they go by my neighborhood or if something were to go down at the bridge site (which the anarchists had promised). I'm in the thick of things. Some people are bringing up the familiar "Battle of Seattle" scary scenario and if that happens, my neighborhood will be where many protesters could scatter. Yay for tear gas. Well, the cops have been preparing for 2 years, lets hope they do a good job. But we are excited for the attention. Btw, its in St. Paul, NOT Minneapolis folks X(

To not have reservations is to blindly follow. Every election everyone has reservations about their candidates or at the very least should. But to be honest, I do prefer Obama over McCain quite readily, mainly cause I'm very socially liberal (ha... Welcome to Minnesota, haven't gone Republican since 1972, longest blue streak for a STATE in the nation). But I like to have reservations on policies than over personality quirks and "experience" and basically things that have no merit on governance. I don't care who I can sit down with and have a beer, although THAT would be hilarious. I don't care who's old or young as history has NEVER shown experience or lack there of is a predictor of presidential excellence. I personally don't like Obama's move to the center, but I excuse it because its better than having the country stay in right field by the foul post for another four years. The thing that sickens me are how people STILL think he's a muslim or how "elitist" Obama is. McCain is also elitist.... very few people in the government are NOT elitist. Biden was one of them (I've always liked that guy, even if he cant' shut up). But I'd rather have the two sides fight on legitimate policy issues than yell "old yeller" and "young snob". At least you guys don't have the highest profile most expensive Senate Race of the year (for that matter EVER) plaguing your TV and even the State Fair. I wish I had the ignorance to just vote on the candidate with the fewer ads, but I could never bring myself to it (although it would happen to be the same person I'm voting for anyway). But really I'm hoping the Democratic Candidate, Al Franken, is removed during the primaries cause I don't like him. Having reservations is normal, its just an extension of our political philosophy that government sucks. Personally I don't think that, I just think people suck period. Edit: And Obama has more experience than Palin, even Republicans admit that and a few have shaken there heads at the decisions. I was at the State Fair yesterday and there were two booths to note, right next to each other.... WCCO Radio 830 AM was discussing the passing over Pawlenty (which got his own Breaking News Story on CNN for NOT being picked...) and the choosing of Palin. The talkshow radio host who I believe is very independent was in an absolute UPROAR over the choice. He yelled something along the lines of "I think this choice is demeaning to woman. The Republicans made a choice that can only be one of two things. McCain wanted someone who was young and beautiful and it really didn't matter about her credentials, she's just eye candy. Or that women would be SO gullible that it doesn't matter who you pick. There were far more qualified female candidates that were passed over". He basically said that yes, this was a ploy for Hillary voters and that they really don't think much of them. In a way I agree, if women choose to vote for him SIMPLY because there's a woman on the ticket, then this guy is right. Btw, this booth was directly next to.... The Republican Party Booth EDIT II: To second the "she has more experience" argument... HA! Palin has 6 years as mayor of a village with 5400 people and 21 months as governor vs. Obama's 8 years in the Illinois state senate and 3 1/2 years in the U.S. Senate. Executive experience is not created equally. McCain really might have shot himself in the foot with this one because moderates are totally going to call him out on the "experience" argument should he use it again on Obama. Conservative bloggers and strategists have admitted that this is no longer a good tactic. However, Palin comes off as "down to Earth" kinda gal that rides motorcycles and shoots guns.... Ironically, a new poll out today says that women are far more skeptical about Palin then men. I think her Pro-Life stance has alienated the Hillary Clinton voters....

They say it won't necessarily appeal to Clinton supporters because a) she's young (oops, killed that argument) b ) good looking (this is according to some political analysts as a drawback for getting woman to vote for McCain cause it appears rather shallow) and c) she's under investigation for firing the safety commissioner who refused to fire a state trooper that was embroiled in a custody battle with her sister. She's a tough sell and quite honestly, I always thought that the McCain brand would have a harder time picking a running mate than Obama because of how McCain set himself up. This is probably his best choice. Last night my state was abuzz, as was CNN, that Pawlenty had been picked cause he suddenly cancelled all his events in Denver and flew home. His two homes in Minnesota (one he bought, one thats provided by the state i.e. governor's mansion) were staked out by the Media. It was quite fun. Then I woke up to the WONDERFUL news that he hadn't gotten picked. Although to be honest, if they were gonna pick an absolute nobody, they should have picked someone NOT under investigation. I honestly thought he was gonna pick Pawlenty because polls had shown that upwards of 10% of Minnesotans would have switched to vote for the Republicans with Pawlenty on the ticket. At the very least he's "clean" and has "emergency" experience with the 35 W collapse. His liability was a lack of experience that McCain is trying to paint Obama with.... way to go McCain, pick Palin who is even LESS experienced. The more I think about it,.... the less I understand his choice.

Wow, this story is like my life!!! Awesome update. I need to hone my indoor archery skills.

Regarding poverty and obesity, it is no secret that there is a very statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately, the value of these fast food stores does appeal to lower income folks. Research has shown that fast food restaurants (mostly containing high fat diets) are more concentrated in lower income neighborhoods. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that rich neighborhoods they DON'T have them, but dollar menus do appeal to some demographics more than others. This is why LA had that temporary ban on the construction of new fast food restaurants in one neighborhood that is particularly poor and now particularly obese.

I actually had McDonalds when I watched that movie.... didn't disgust me one bit. In addition to the valid statements by duke87, the guy made his own stupid rule that he HAD to supersize if asked, even if he wasn't that hungry. Now if you eat more food for the sake of eating more food and not because your hungry, it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out that "Hey, thats not good for your health." The movie is shock value, and nothing more. McDonalds is not the cause of any obesity problem in any country, its a symptom of greater consumer irresponsibility.

I enjoy McDonald's... I'm not fat (see pic thread).... its called moderation and movement, although I'm blessed with a cool metabolism.... As to whether the meat is real... come on folks, they do have to abide by false advertising rules, inspections etc. The American bureaucracy wouldn't allow them to call it "chicken" and not be made of "chicken". There are very specific rules for labeling food. If it wasn't, it would be "the McChicken-substitute".

really... not funny any more... this is kinda why I stopped posting for three months.

Let's be nice folks Me on yet another night on the town... it was a mini welcome back party for me but a HUGE going away party for my friend who's going to law school. This fall (and he's already left).

The US Department of Transportation just released its report stating that Americans have driven 9.6 billion miles less this May over May 2007. This marks the 7th month in a row of decreasing miles driven. Since November 2007, Americans have driven 40.5 BILLION (holy cow) miles less than the same period a year earlier (November 2006 to May 2007). Article here I also read that mass transit ridership numbers have been increasing around 10% nationally with some lines citing nearly 25% increases. This has lead many cities, such as my own Minneapolis, to adopt mass transit policies that are just astounding. Cities that were once reluctant to build one line due to "economic infeasibility" are now trumpeting their plans as buses become crammed. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Transit stated that park and rides are above capacity resulting in parking lot rage and illegal parking as well as turning away potential riders because mass transit has become so popular. Unfortunately, the passion for mass transit also takes a toll on ... tolls and taxes. With more people taking mass transit, that means fewer people are purchasing gas (imagine how much 40.5 billion miles would translate into less gas tax revenue). This ironically hurts many mass transit systems. Additionally, this puts a financial strain on the federal government's program for providing mass transit funds to projects that are economically feasible. Now that ridership numbers are up, some projects have suddenly become feasible in just one year. One line alone connecting Minneapolis-St.Paul obtained over $450 million. Makes you wonder how competitive funds will be in the coming years. To make matters worse, most states, particularly those who have been hit hard by the housing crisis will see MONSTROUS budget shortfalls (California is short $15 Billion dollars). A loss in gas tax revenue will further fuel budget problems in many places. Minneapolis has begun exploring 30 plus mass transit lines for future development between now and 2030 (not half bad). I say 30 "plus" because Metro Transit apparently doesn't have any authority over streetcars that the city of Minneapolis wishes to include within its own boundaries (at the sobering coast of 25 million per mile). Many cities are choosing to wait til the US census is conducted in 2010 for accurate population estimates (unless you live in those cities that chronically challenge their census estimates). Next year the Northstar Line will be completed and within the next few years construction will begin on the Central Corridor light rail as well as numerous BRT lines. Depending on the success of the Northstar Line, ridership models might be adjusted to make even more lines "feasible". Two other lines are in the pipeline (Environmental impact statements completed, possible alignment studies, etc). Have you noticed mass transit ridership increasing and has your city seen similar gains in mass transit ridership? Have YOU taken mass transit more now that gas prices are higher. Additionally, are your respective cities upping their plans for new mass transit opportunities.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Now I would never advocate doing away with highways, they are a necessity and are pleasant to drive on. I like them like the next guy, but I think that mass transit opponents need to wake up and stop using this tiresome argument (btw, I'm not addressing this to you Duke, I'm just going on a side rant). quote> Um... I never spoke in opposition to mass transit (I'm quite in favor of it, actually). quote> Hence the "btw, I'm not addressing this to you..." because I knew you didn't. I just was making a completely off tangent.

Originally posted by: Duke87 It's not surprising at all, actually. The reason no private company is going to do that is because it's economically unfeasible. Even if you're not building anything, it costs more money to run and maintain a railroad than you could reasonably expect to bring in in revenue from running it. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates the PATH rail/subway service. Riding it isn't free, there is a reasonable fare, but it still operates at a net loss of a few hundred million dollars a year- and it's a fairly small system. Point being, if there weren't any public mass transit systems, there wouldn't be any mass transit systems period. You can't turn a profit from it, so you can't make a business out of it.quote> That doesn't even apply strictly to mass transit but to transportation in general. ALL forms of transportation rely heavily on subsidizing. The US spends far more money on building and maintaining the interstate highway system than any mass transit system and can expect very little direct return from these highways. No private entity has attempted to build roads or highways on a large scale because it too is economically impossible without government handouts. The I-35 W bridge ALONE, about 2,000 feet long and not remarkably high cost 300 million dollars. Why some politicians say mass transit is a money pit and then they approve $100 billion dollar highway budget plans is beyond me. The Airline industry and shipping industry also rely on government subsidies. They surely didn't pay for the construction of all these airports. None of them bought the land and spent billions PER major airport. This relied on subsidies. There is no mode of transportation that exists that doesn't require subsidy. Its infrastructure. It needs money. Its not just railway companies and mass transit, but they for some reason get the greatest resistance DESPITE having the smaller budget. Now you can argue that a mile of highway is cheaper than a mile of light rail. But I would think that unless tolls are dramatically increased that mass transit fares make up for the cost far faster than highways, if highways even do. Since many highways lack tolls, their only income comes from a tax (federal subsidy) so they NEVER even ATTEMPT to pay for themselves. Now I would never advocate doing away with highways, they are a necessity and are pleasant to drive on. I like them like the next guy, but I think that mass transit opponents need to wake up and stop using this tiresome argument (btw, I'm not addressing this to you Duke, I'm just going on a side rant). I don't mind people advocating building new highways, their point of view. But they shouldn't claim "economically unfeasible" ever.

Not to downplay the seriousness of this situation, but there are well over 2,500 tornado warnings per year in the United States. It is unwise to post news on a weather story that might not exist (not all tornado warnings have tornadoes in the end). If we did this for ever tornado warning, poor Dirk would have to pay a lot more for this site to stay open. After all, this information is readily available for those in the path at http://weather.gov After all, I've been under tornado warnings 5 times this year... one of them was even a huge devastating tornado (Hugo, MN). We don't need an up to the minute update of life threatening news since it doesn't affect the vast majority of us nor can we comment or discuss.

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied Oh yeah, why doesn't the U.S. government tax mass transit instead of gas to earn money?quote> They do... its called a transit fare. Local governments can't tax because... well, they own it. If you mean why doesn't the Federal government tax mass transit, the can't. Otherwise they'd be taxing themselves and the federal government can't tax local governments. Additionally, taxing mass transit is just stupid. You want to encourage mass transit to reduce infrastructure wear and tear and congestion. Promoting cars is very inefficient, especially when land becomes a premium. When cities increase in size, land downtown proportionally becomes more expensive so the return on parking lots decreases. Another thing that many people don't take into account are costs that don't have a dollar amount like "land opportunity costs". Once you build a highway, you can't use that land for anything else like development so unless you wanna have one large asphalt county, you need to use highways as little as possible as highways generally don't have a good return on investment ON THEIR OWN*. Highways do help if there's land to develop, but if you continue to keep building highways, you have less and less land for more practical purposes. Mass transit is something you want to encourage, not tax.

Yes the math calculations put the estimate at around a decrease of 50 miles per person for the month of May. That might seem small and insignificant, but there's two ways to look at it. A) Think of the miles as trips. For me, this would be over 10 separate trips to the grocery store. Thats a huge reduction for me. In the grand scheme of things, 50 is a small number especially if your a suburbanite. I live in the city and I rarely have to go further than ten miles for anything. Its a small but obviously significant drop in driving. Besides... imagine all the people who physically can't drop the number of miles they drive due to business or commute who would like to drop. I think the 10 billion mile drop has less to do with carpooling and more with people combining trips. Instead of doing errands throughout the week, I imagine many people combine all their trips to reduce redundant driving. I imagine carpooling is up, HOV lanes seem pretty full to me these days. B) Its not an increase. Having a decrease AT ALL is an amazing thing since our driving population is continuously rising every month and every new driver can easily outdo any reductions five people make. A meager 1 million new drivers (I'm pulling this one out of thin air) who drive a 100 miles per month (HA! doubt it) could easily outdo the savings of 2 million people making it hard for the overall population to even drop the total number of miles at all. The US has always seen a large increase in driving mileage every month until recently. Ditto on the for sale signs. Seen them everywhere and they aren't going anywhere. Driving by the dealerships, its just filled with signs about high gas mileage (40 mpg! 25 mpg! 35 mpg!) as opposed to horsepower or price.

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 hmmm thats weird. boston emporis isn't broke, it lists up to 241 m, our tallestquote> They have been slowly restoring the site. Minneapolis was fixed two nights ago after saying that our tallest building was 100 m yet if you click on the pic of that building, you can see towers behind it that are clearly taller (237 m). Even worse, the building was part of a complex and the other tower was actually the main tower at I believe 150 m or so. Still, if you see a city at 100 m, for the time being, check another site to verify.

Minneapolis just finished a ton (as in blocks and blocks and blocks) of condo/lofts/apartments that would take forever to post.... I'll highlight the big projects in town. 2007 to 201x is the era of stadiums for the city. In 2007, the new Twins Stadium broke ground and it will be a new transportation hub for two light rail lines and a commuter rail line. This stadium will seat just above 40,000 and is nestled JUST outside the CBD in the Northloop neighborhood in the Warehouse district. Its one of the physically smallest stadiums due to its relatively small site. In fact much of the plaza for the stadium is built over 394. This is the view of the skyline What it will look like when its done. The University of Minnesota also started a new stadium for its football team seating I believe 60,000 and is expandable to 80,000. Its pretty neat and I've seen this with my own eyes (I've seen the new Twins one as well. Its pretty impressive. There's also a highschool stadium of decent size but its boring so meh.... Finally, the Vikings are trying to do away with "that Dome"... a.k.a. the Metrodome. Which I admit is bare, simplistic, and aesthetically... uh... meh... There are no OFFICIAL plans for building the stadium, but that's not stopping the Vikings for releasing renderings and soliciting developers. Right now there are three big questions. 1. Will it revive Downtown east (if the Metrodome has anything to say, the answers a definitive "no"). Other attractions like the Guthrie have revitalized other parts of the cities in just 4 years. We know have the Mills District which was otherwise dead just four years ago. Now thousands of units have been built there. 2. Will it have a retractable roof? I don't get why this is such a big deal, but it is. They argue that they need it for "other uses" but the Metrodome is the only stadium to hold the Superbowl, NCAA Final Four tournament, World Series and the All-Star Game. Not bad for having a FIXED roof. This is of huge contention as it changes the price tag and pushes it over a billion. Personally, I don't think the Vikings deserve it and ... COME ON! We live in Minnesota! How many football games are gonna have an open roof! If you count preseason, maybe 6 to 8 out of 20 + playoffs. Doesn't seem worth 1 BILLION dollars. I think people can suck up having a roof for those other 8 games. Additionally, people would just moan about the heat in August anyway. 3. How the heck are they gonna come up with 900 million to 1.2 BILLION dollars after the city has raised gas tax for transportation, sales taxes twice for transportation and the Twins Stadium, and suffered a catastrophic bridge collapse just blocks away from the Metrodome. Oh, and additionally the NFL said "we broke". They've stated that the fund in which they support new stadiums ran dry. I guess thats what happens when 10 cities build new stadiums in less than a decade... I'm not willing to pay another silly tax especially if its for a dang ROOF :@ Enough about my rants... here is the Viking Cathedr--- err... the Viking Stadium (this would be built on top of the old stadium site). Supposedly this stadium will use some elements ( one wall and a foundation) of the old stadium for this one reducing it just 900 million dollars... The Inside. Good skyline view, that I approve of... Supposedly Ziggy Wolf wants to redevelop Downtown East, but at the very least he's putting his money where his mouth is and has gobbled up land around the Star Tribune headquarters for development. So far this development is approximately $350 million dollars in new retail, office and residential units. If plans live up to their hype, this would include 4,500 residential units, 1.7 million square feet of office space and a renovated light rail stop (despite only being 4 years old right now). If this project were to miraculously succeed, it would help increase the downtown population by 7500 to 10000 (Minneapolis already has a very sizeable downtown pop). Its a HUGE improvement on whats there now and it would extend the skyline further east. Right now most of this land is unused or underutilized. Estimates originally had the stadium at 600 million and the development at 350 million. But, costs are expected to be 1 billion dollars for this stadium making this pie in the sky a staggering 1.35 billion dollars. By the way, ignore the stadium in the previous pic, that was never intended to be a legitimate design, just filler. Okay... non-stadium stuff... Rumors of a supertall (which this week got a lot of traction when a grocery store announced they were moving downtown in a mixed use projects on one of the sites in question). No renderings yet... The Ivy This is actually already done, but it just opened this year. There's a bunch of other ones which can be found at www.minnescraper.com Thats if you really wanna look at it. Most of it is pretty generic "infill". There is "The Nicollet which is undergoing a redesign as well. The subprime mortgage crisis has eaten away at development but there are new hotels being consider and as I've mentioned in the Supertalls-Take 2 thread, there are rumors of a supertall. It sounds like they have already designed the building if Lund's (the grocery story) signed a 36 month lease. I'll keep you guys on top of that when the announcement comes. EDIT: Surprise! Apparently you CAN build another stadium The University of Minnesota is looking to build a new baseball stadium. It was just announced today in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal. This one is far far far far cheaper at just $10 to $15 million and should not rely on public funds. Its a meager 3,000 seater so whatever. I was never planning on going to a baseball game... 2000 also saw the opening of our new hockey arena in St. Paul. w00t Additionally, new information is coming out of the possible supertall...Plans include... A Mariott Hotel 25-30 floors of Apartments (the city has a very high demand for rental properties) Offices (downtown Minneapolis is looking to add 1 million square feet) high density housing and a possible planetarium that was supposed to be built on top of the new library but that has hit financial snags and the developer said... gimme gimme... This could possibly lead to a supertall tower. No renderings yet but the buzz keeps growing .