A new report highlights faculty research and student learning opportunities in the planning and development of a sustainable community on the University’s 5,000-acre UMore Park property. The publication provides guidelines for infusing the University’s academic mission into the project and describes ways that faculty and students can participate. Learn how you can get involved by reading the recently published report. For more information on UMore Park, visit the UMore Park Web site.
UMore Park Research and Teaching Opportunities
About Amy Danielson
View all posts by Amy Danielson3 Comments on “UMore Park Research and Teaching Opportunities”
What do you think?
- Controlled substances moves to DEHS
- U of M physics professor makes the case for funding scientific research
- NIH releases new sequestration guidelines
- BioCoR short courses
- Under the microscope: examining the promise of bioremediation
- Comment to win Gopher basketball tickets
- Telling your research story: tips from U communicators
- New IRB Website Launched
- UMore Park Research and Teaching Opportunities
- The right personality for the job: Deniz Ones
-
Gene modification technology developed at the U receives patents | Business @ the U of M: […] newly issued patents are part of a portf...
-
Andria Waclawski: Reblogged this on Business @ the U of M and commen...
-
Under the microscope: examining the promise of bioremediation | Research @ the U of M: [...] example, one project uses a novel technology...
-
Erin Dennis: Hi Neil, According to the staff at DEHS, Autoclave...
-
Neil Carlson: Where do I get the autoclave test strips?...
Get our monthly enewsletter
Subscribe
Stay connected via our RSS feed or the U of M's social media channels.
January 20, 2010 at 12:49 am
I read the report and found it to be a beautiful description of the kind of integrated cross-disciplinary research that we should all be doing, with participation of undergraduate and graduate students alike, often in the context of service-learning projects.
However, the report completely fails to explain how the development of UMORE Park will enable more of this kind of research. None of the potential reseach areas listed in the report depend on the development of UMORE, whereas there are already many venues for the kind of research described much closer to the U of M campus.
The report completely fails to mention what will be lost–agricultural research land that is close enough to campus for easy access by agricultural researchers. Agriculture is far from a solved challenge: climate change, population growth, loss of farmland, especially on the urban fringe, and demand for biofuels make agricultural research as urgent now as ever. Moreover, UMORE park is the only U of M agricultural research facility that includes soil that is typical of that of Southeastern Minnesota.
Without UMORE park, much agricultural research will be pushed further out from campus making it more difficult for researchers to visit plots in a timely fashion, or for professors to take students on field trips. Thus it is ironic that the one negative point made in the report was that transportation to UMORE park will be a challenge for students. The loss of research land at UMORE will exacerbate the transportation challenges that agricultural researchers already have! The vision is to develop light rail to UMORE, but we have barely started to develop light rail in our existing metro area.
If the University is serious about wanting to pioneer research on development of sustainable communities, I suggest that, rather than contributing to urban sprawl, which is in complete conflict with the concept of sustainability, we start closer to home, by working to retrofit existing communities in the metro area. The need to make existing urban and suburban communities more sustainable is urgent, so we cannot wait the decade or two for the gravel mining at UMORE to be complete before beginning. (Gravel mining is completely unsustainable too.) If the University wants to tackle some truly challenging problems in sustainable development, it should figure out how to improve energy efficiency, transportation, schools, public health, and the availability of healthy food in North Minneapolis, not in some elite community that doesn’t currently exist.
If, however, the University would like to figure out how to remediate the land that was contaminated by the Gopher Ordinance Works, and then put that land to productive use, I’d be all for it. I used to have research plots on some of that land and can vouch that it is not good for agriculture, so it would not be a loss if it was developed. On the other hand, some of that land might be good wildlife habitat just the way it is. I would like to know if anybody has studied the impact of the contamination on wildlife.
January 21, 2010 at 9:31 am
Thank you for your comments regarding the recent report, “Integrating Academic Mission into the Planning and Development for the UMore Park Property.”
It is important to note that this recent report is a companion to the March 2008 “Distinctiveness through Academic Mission” publication in which faculty, staff and students from across the University outlined ideas and opportunities for the types of research, teaching and public engagement efforts that are afforded by the planning and development of a new, sustainable community at UMore Park. The new report outlines mechanisms to achieve these academic mission pursuits at UMore Park.
UMore Park has a long tradition agricultural research. On average, 600 to 900 acres are utilized for agricultural research on the 5,000-acre UMore Park property. To provide for this and additional future research, 1,000 acres on the Vermillion Highlands property in immediate proximity to UMore Park are dedicated specifically to agricultural research. Additional research will also be accommodated on Vermillion Highlands, such as ecological processes, wildlife habitats and native plant restoration. The University’s strong tradition of agricultural research will be maintained in the future. Most important, we are expanding the agricultural research to engage a broader spectrum of University faculty, staff and students in cross-cutting research and educational opportunities that can benefit the University as well as citizens.
The concept master plan for UMore Park presents an alternative to suburban sprawl with an emphasis on economic, environmental and social sustainability in the design of a community that integrates into the region. Moreover, the vision for UMore Park is a community that is diverse in every way—age, gender, ethnicity, race, income, work, lifestyles—living in a variety of single- and multi-family housing, including affordable housing. UMore Park presents an opportunity to serve as a model for innovation, education and best practices that can improve community planning efforts throughout the nation and world.
As a good steward of the land, the University pursues appropriate steps toward gravel extraction via an environmental impact statement, which is in process. Similarly, the University is working closely with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and state entities to ensure that the site investigation and any necessary remediation occurs on the former Gopher Ordnance Works, the World War II federal munitions facility which produced smokeless gunpowder from January to October 1945.
January 26, 2010 at 10:49 am
Thank you for your response to my comments.
First, I have also read your report “Distinctiveness through Academic Mission” and feel that it too fails to adequately make the case that the kind of research you propose depends on the development of UMORE Park for gravel quarrying and housing development. I maintain that the kind of research being proposed can be done just as well in existing communities, where it will be more relevant to the real needs of society.
I am glad that some agricultural research land will be maintained at UMORE. However, I would like to reiterate that we need to maintain the GOOD land at UMORE for agriculture. Take a look at the Dakota County Soil map. At the southern side of Rosemount, which is where I understand that research land will be maintained, the map shows curious rectangluar lines (such rectangularity is rare in nature) delineating land that has been “disturbed by urban activity”. I have experience with some of this land and can say that it is not good for agriculture. By contrast, the land in the Northwestern quadrant of the park, which is where I currently have my plots, is good land. Part of what makes it good for agriculture is that it is relatively level, and thus not prone to erosion, in contrast to the land in the Vermillion highlands.
Even if the university cannot use all of the good land at UMORE for research at this time, it should be preserved for agriculture. Food production is the highest possible use for good agricultural land. Right now a group of 10 or 12 Hmong families lease some of the land on the north side of UMORE for market vegetable production. These kinds of arrangements should be expanded to fulfill the demand for fresh vegetables in a state where about 90% of food is imported.
Your say that your plan presents an “alternative to sprawl”. It might be “smart growth” but it is still sprawl, because it constitutes the spread of the city. I contend that the time for constuction of new houses is over. Neither our economy nor our plant can sustain more urban growth. A sustainable future depends on a new paradigm of contracting the urban footprint. Much of existing housing stock is much larger than it needs to be for comfortable living. We must figure out how to retrofit existing houses for improved energy efficiency and to accomodate multiple families. Doing so will also be more economical and thus will better address the needs of the urban poor. If we want to do research on sustainable urban development, North Minneapolis is a perfect lab.
I am glad to hear that the University is seeking ways to remediate the land that was contaminated by the Gopher Ordinance Works, and that it is conducting an Environmental Impact Statement before proceeding with gravel extraction. Although I am in favor of technological innovation, we must also be realistic. For some things, such as soil building, nature does a much better job, at a much lower cost, than human technologies can ever do. It is always better to prevent a problem than to clean up after one.
As I have said before, I have no argument with efforts to find new creative uses for the land that has already been spoiled. But we should leave the land that is still good alone.