urbanMSP

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

I've got to admit, it is typical for that to happen here....but I think it also happens in a lot of other places. I'm in Cleveland now though, and if somebody (ANYBODY) said they would build a 33 story apartment tower NOBODY would complain or hold them back. So if that's the comparison, Minneapolis is "picky". San Francisco, Seattle, Portland.....the opposite.

So if that's the comparison, Minneapolis is "picky". San Francisco, Seattle, Portland.....the opposite.

Are you saying that San Francisco is not picky? The city with a population of 805K netted only 269 units in 2011. San Francisco's NIMBYs would make the residents of Linden Hills look like the Toll brothers.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housin ... -418/2065/

I do not think that "Minneapolis" is holding back the top eight floors, its the financiers.

Actually, in Seattle the process is very similar to here, and there are often huge hold ups because of bureaucracy and neighborhood protest...They are quite "picky". Can't speak for the other places. There is just a lot more demand, so more gets built. But again, in the case of this tower, I really do think it is the financing...because there hasn't been much like this built in several years.

Edit: The post above me just reinforces my point:) Thanks.

But again, this case isn't about "nimbys", but since we are speaking of development in general in this off shoot...

It's really not tall buildings that make cities special and urban. Look at Paris and several neighborhoods of NYC as an example. It's density and streetscape that make a difference. We should not complain that buildings aren't tall enough. We should complain that our streets are too wide and fast, while doing a poor job accommodating pedestrians enough. We should demand our streets be tamed if we ever want create a comfortable, urban neighborhood feel. Once this happens, great developments, great architecture, great retail, and a great city will surely follow.

I totally agree, I would love to see more townhomes go up, not in the dt core, but over by Eliot Park. I would love to see dense, lower rise building go up like the East/West Village in NYC or Areas of London like Notting Hill, Hampstead or Islington where there's ton of density, street life, corner shops, street markets/vendors, restaurants etc. They encourage people to walk and explore, to take uncharted paths and find new favourite haunts. They encourage new small business and innovation, and make wonderful places to live.

I do not think that "Minneapolis" is holding back the top eight floors, its the financiers.

YES. The mayor and the city basically threw a parade for the developers when they announced this project. I don't know where people get the idea that if a project doesn't move forward, it must be the fault of the City or NIMBY's or the County Coroner. It's really hard to get financing right now, especially if you're proposing a building that's much more expensive to build than what everybody else is doing (e.g., a high-rise tower while everybody else is building six story stick frame).

The only person I've seen really complain about this project was Barbara Flanagan, and while she is much beloved, last time I checked she doesn't have the authority to unilaterally cut 8 stories off a building.

It's really not tall buildings that make cities special and urban. Look at Paris and several neighborhoods of NYC as an example. It's density and streetscape that make a difference. We should not complain that buildings aren't tall enough. We should complain that our streets are too wide and fast, while doing a poor job accommodating pedestrians enough. We should demand our streets be tamed if we ever want create a comfortable, urban neighborhood feel. Once this happens, great developments, great architecture, great retail, and a great city will surely follow.

Just to add to this, I've been the the densely populated metropolis of Tokyo. Usually Tokyo is glamorized as the ideal metropolis, with its low crime, awesome (best in the world?) public transportation, and completely urban lifestyle. However, does anyone really know what Tokyo's skyline looks like? Besides Tokyo Tower and Skytree, it doesn't exactly have any memorable buildings. In fact Tokyo's tallest building is only 22 feet taller than our very own IDS! Most of the tallest buildings in Tokyo are office buildings, and walking around Tokyo one notices that the vast majority of buildings, especially residential, are under ten or even five stories.

I'd much rather have East Downtown filled with >2 story residential and commercial buildings than have one tall project directly downtown coupled with way too many surface lots in East Downtown.

So if that's the comparison, Minneapolis is "picky". San Francisco, Seattle, Portland.....the opposite.

Are you saying that San Francisco is not picky? The city with a population of 805K netted only 269 units in 2011. San Francisco's NIMBYs would make the residents of Linden Hills look like the Toll brothers.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housin ... -418/2065/

I do not think that "Minneapolis" is holding back the top eight floors, its the financiers.

No, I'm saying they ARE picky.

The downsizing of Nicollet Residences may be influenced by what nervous financiers are seeing as an oversaturated market of luxury apartments over the next few years. I am very pro development and am glad that this long vacant Nicollet Mall block will be revitalized. I also really like some of the shorter projects that have been proposed ( The Velo in particular) and think mid-rise buildigns are great .
Once in a while though, there is a golden opportunity for a prominent high rise project to occur, and the 5th and Nicollet was that place. The 33 story proposal was just ( barely) tall enough to have a tower-like form creating a nice architectural drama and interplay with this corner. It communicated a strong feeling of "big city" on Nicollet Mall with its vertical arrangement of windows and the cantilevered crown. The reduction of its size in the current proposal dilutes the prominence of the building significantly, making it more of a backdrop building. It will still be attractive, but with less panache. I hate when they propose a tall building and then downsize it. You have seen the vision of what it could have been.

The bright side of this is that it will make for a more dramatic step-down effect from the 5th Street Towers (5th Street Tower I is only 356'....the original Nicollet Res. proposal would have been pretty close to that).

Can only speculate on how this will look now when viewed from Washington Ave. or Target Field, but I'm guessing slightly more pleasing to the eye than if it eclipsed 5th Street I.

Anyway, 60+ stories of rental going up between two downtown locations is nothing to scoff at. It has been a long, long time since we've seen a high-rise residential project *not* get scaled down, to....it wasn't totally unexpected, imo.

I love the great examples everyone is bringing up about height not really being that great of an indicator of how urban or dense an area is. We don't even have to look any further than our own backyards on this one-- Stevens Square, with its densely spaced 3-4 story buildings is significantly more dense than any of the census tracts in our residential high-rise center of Loring Park.

I don't think I agree with that. I am pretty sure there is more density in Loring, the only thing that breaks it up is that school.

Yeah it depends on how you want to consider density. By residential density Loring Park is a bit denser, at 41 households per residential acre vs. 36 households per residential acre in Stevens Square (avg household size is basically the same in both neighborhoods). You can check it out at http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/

I'm on my phone right now so I can't give a link, but the densest census tract in Minneapolis in the 2010 census was in Stevens.

Loring Park cenus tracts:
105201: 14,864 ppl/sqmi
105204: 14,058 ppl/sqmi
105600: 21,534 ppl/sqmi (southern Loring Park, includes Loring Heights)

Stevens Square census tract:
105700: 25,733 ppl/sqmi

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/defining.am ... index.html

I'd heard that this is going through some design changes, which is why they may be starting later than planned.

Yes I heard this also.

I hope they have retail at ground level so that it does kill the traffic on the street...

This is about as much of a picture I can find of the revised Nicollet Residences ( behind the new Xcel Energy building). The cantilevered crown is squatter than the 33 story proposal, in addition to the loss of 6 stories. Has much less visual impact. Still can't believe they would cut the top six stories which would have been their most coveted rental units.

I really think it is the same, as I said in the other thread...it is just an entirely different angle and entirely different lighting. Of course the top looks bigger on the rendering that is looking from underneath with up lighting! I was never actually a fan of the design for this one...i think the lighting and angle of the original rendering are what make it look nice...this is a more realistic view of the same design IMO. Put the two next to each other, look closely, and account for angle and light...same.