DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
Jez
Block E
Posts: 19
Joined: June 5th, 2012, 2:21 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Jez » May 15th, 2013, 12:02 pm

Could the put the ramp under the park, or is that already proposed? Just wondering, seems to make the most sense to me.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby MNdible » May 15th, 2013, 12:06 pm

If we're just tossing out ideas without any regard to what things actually cost, why don't we bury the jail under the parking ramp under the tunneled streets under the park? That solves all of our problems.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby go4guy » May 15th, 2013, 12:16 pm

It would be nice if the jail would just disappear so there'd be a four block park with city hall at the other end instead of a fortress, but since they just built it that's unfortunately not going to happen. There was discussion about putting the jail at Fort Snelling which would avoid the NIMBY problem, but they elected to build downtown because of the cost of transporting prisoners.
Just have the prisoners take the light rail to Fort Snelling. :D

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1768
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Tcmetro » May 15th, 2013, 12:19 pm

^ IIRC, In Edmonton, LRT platforms were placed at the jail for transport of prisoners, but I don't believe they ever used them.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby talindsay » May 15th, 2013, 12:30 pm

What if Portland and Park both went two-way, and were built through the park as single lanes in each direction? Perhaps very narrow lanes with a wide median between the two, like a parkway, and with well-marked midblock crosswalks? Maybe that could keep connectivity while making the streets unintimidating, even during rush hour.
In essence, this is what many of the streets in DC do as they cross the National Mall. It seems to work pretty well there, even with what I perceive to be higher traffic levels than Minneapolis.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby talindsay » May 15th, 2013, 12:33 pm

What if Portland and Park both went two-way, and were built through the park as single lanes in each direction? Perhaps very narrow lanes with a wide median between the two, like a parkway, and with well-marked midblock crosswalks? Maybe that could keep connectivity while making the streets unintimidating, even during rush hour.
Even crazier, what if Park and Portland dug down under the LRT tracks and drove below the park, with access to parking that stretched under the 2 blocks of the park as well as the existing parking under the station? Too crazy?
You're describing the end effect of the La Defense district in Paris - the "ground level" is pedestrian only, with streets and parking one level down, and the metro, RER, and long-distance trains a level below that. The difference though is that at La Defense the rail level is actually resting on the natural ground, with everything else built up from there. This is still very expensive, but less expensive than what would be involved in digging out the other uses.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 15th, 2013, 12:43 pm

If we're just tossing out ideas without any regard to what things actually cost, why don't we bury the jail under the parking ramp under the tunneled streets under the park? That solves all of our problems.
Quick! How much does it cost to dig out one level of underground parking for 2 square blocks and a 1 lane trench in 2 streets for about a 300' approach on either side? Now, how much does it cost to build 2 separate parking ramps for ~1,700 spaces, change out the approach in to the existing underground LRT parking garage? Also, what is the property tax value of those 2 parcels in 2016 and beyond?

You don't know for sure? Neither did I. Most of us on here aren't professional engineers or contractors who know the exact cost-benefit analysis. We're here to discuss ideas. I also like that when something costs a lot of money in your mind, it's worth ridicule, but when other "StrongTown Republican wet blankets" question the amount of public money spent on a project that you find to increase 'civic pride' it's ok to call us out.

Viktor Vaughn
Target Field
Posts: 593
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » May 15th, 2013, 12:59 pm

If we're just tossing out ideas without any regard to what things actually cost, why don't we bury the jail under the parking ramp under the tunneled streets under the park? That solves all of our problems.
We're hardly on the cusp of making serious decisions about the city here on this internet forum. Though, this can be a good place to evaluate serious proposals AND kick around preposterous ideas. I do wish though, we could either ignore those not serious ideas or else point out why they're not practical. Mocking folks for brainstorming creates a corrosive environment and mitigates the free-flow of ideas.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 15th, 2013, 1:00 pm

What if Portland and Park both went two-way, and were built through the park as single lanes in each direction? Perhaps very narrow lanes with a wide median between the two, like a parkway, and with well-marked midblock crosswalks? Maybe that could keep connectivity while making the streets unintimidating, even during rush hour.
In essence, this is what many of the streets in DC do as they cross the National Mall. It seems to work pretty well there, even with what I perceive to be higher traffic levels than Minneapolis.
I think this would be a cost-effective solution if keeping N-S connectivity was deemed a must (which I'm not sure it is). But the lanes would have to be very skinny and clearly marked to make drivers understand it's pedestrian space first and driving space second. I'd say the streets that cross the Mall east of the Washington Monument (14th and 15th, even 17th by the WWII Memorial) are less of a pedestrian place and more of a "cross at a crosswalk only when the light tells you" place. Pretty much everywhere else on the mall breaks up the grid or allows cars to drive underneath (9th and 12th). 3rd, 4th, and 7th are pretty good places to safely walk in to the street, I think.

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 409
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Andrew_F » May 15th, 2013, 1:10 pm

There was discussion about putting the jail at Fort Snelling which would avoid the NIMBY problem, but they elected to build downtown because of the cost of transporting prisoners.
How expensive are prisoners to transport!? Is it more or less than the tax value they could be bringing in from private development on that site? If it's more, is the difference worth it to re-activate areas of downtown? Why not also move the court to Fort Snelling if it's such a big deal?
I'm sure the county court benefits from being near the county offices (including sheriff), City Hall (municipal court, MPD HQ), the federal courthouse, and all the law firms.

Unless of course we moved the jail, all three courts, the law enforcement offices, and all the criminal defense firms out to Fort Snelling, then we could have a mini downtown populated exclusively by criminals, cops, and lawyers! Is that a vibrant enough urban mix? :P

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby MNdible » May 15th, 2013, 1:14 pm

I'm all for bandying about ideas, but when the question is posed as:

"Why in the world aren't we putting the parking under the park? Why didn't it occur to people to tunnel Park and Portland under the LRT tracks and 500' of park land?"

The answer is almost assuredly, "This did occur to us, and it costs too much money."

For future reference, a quick rule of thumb is that underground parking costs at least twice as much as structured above grade parking. Depending on your exact circumstances, it can be a little less (if, for example, you needed to excavate anyway for a building foundation) or much more (depending on site geology and water table issues, depth of excavation, etc.).

Viktor Vaughn
Target Field
Posts: 593
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » May 15th, 2013, 1:27 pm

I'm all for bandying about ideas, but when the question is posed as:

"Why in the world aren't we putting the parking under the park? Why didn't it occur to people to tunnel Park and Portland under the LRT tracks and 500' of park land?"
Is that a real quote? My non-thorough scan of the last couple of pages didn't turn up anything like that. It was more people sheepeshly asking 'what if' questions.
The answer is almost assuredly, "This did occur to us, and it costs too much money."

For future reference, a quick rule of thumb is that underground parking costs at least twice as much as structured above grade parking. Depending on your exact circumstances, it can be a little less (if, for example, you needed to excavate anyway for a building foundation) or much more (depending on site geology and water table issues, depth of excavation, etc.).
Perfect. Emphatically explaining why an idea isn't practical expands the conversation (and sometimes even educates). For some reason mocking people doesn't get the same result.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 15th, 2013, 1:38 pm

I'm aware of the estimates for per-space parking for above/below/structured. My point was to ask if you knew the exact amount of all the things under consideration when you mocked a proposal that is actually done in several places around the world today. How much is it to trench the 2 lanes vs building new ones in a park? How much is the property value surrounding the park worth if it is contiguous vs broken up? How much is it per space in the big ramp vs the small one? How much will the skyways connecting them cost compared to no skyway if the deck went underground? How much will it cost to re-route the LRT parking entrance that exists today? How much is the excavation of the Strib building and parking lot going to cost anyway vs going a little bit more and decking over it? What is the economic value to the surrounding area to keep car connectivity in place?

All of these things should be taken in to account and perhaps cities around the country would do well to be more transparent to some of these numbers if they are going to just toss out ideas (show in the report the list of other alternatives not under consideration based on rough total system-wide cost-benefit analyses).

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 15th, 2013, 2:17 pm

I'll do the thought exercise on ramp parking vs. underground, assuming the need for Park and Portland to continue being through streets either above ground (ramps) or below ground with access to sub-level parking (existing and new).

Assumptions:

Number of spaces: 2,000
Structured Parking cost per space (big ramp): $13,000
Structured Parking cost per space (small ramp): $15,000
Underground Parking cost per space: $30,000
Cost for skyways (only for ramps): $3.5 million (similar lengths of skyway elsewhere had this cost, but up for debate)
Cost to re-route existing ramp entrance (ramp plan only): $2M (total guess, based on capping off existing, tunneling a new one from the side street)
Park/Portland re-build through the park: $350,000 (total guess)
Single lane cut and cover cost per mile: $25M (for reference, the LRT tunnel under MSP was $80M per mile)
-> Cut and cover + trench cost (assuming the 1 block length approach on each side bears half cost of cut and cover due to only being a trench): $6.9M

Total Parking Ramp Plan Cost: $33.2M
Bonded @3% interest over 30 years: $1.7M per year

Total Underground Parking + Cut/Cover Street Plan Cost: $66.9M
Bonded @3% interest over 30 years: $3.4M per year
Property tax value of parking ramp blocks if developed: $0.8M per year (site of 2 office towers and residential will bring in $3.5 M per year, but similar sized parcels with mid-rise apts bring in this much combined right now, though this could easily be more given the direct proximity to the LRT and stadium).
Total cost weighing opportunity costs of land: $2.6M per year

My question is how much is the streetscape worth to the city? Does doing this plan improve values elsewhere as well? If these assumptions are anywhere close it looks like a $900k difference per year to do it. At least worth having the discussion, I think.

Edit: I forgot to take out whatever costs of excavation we'd already be doing to build the park in the first place from the underground decking assumptions. But I'll call it a wash as filling in over a deck is probably more expensive than just re-grading natural land.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Mdcastle » May 15th, 2013, 2:33 pm

It's not like the area the jail was built in didn't have a lot of underutilized land at the time, so hypothetical situations where you could have a private development generating huge amounts of taxes instead of the jail probably didn't occur to them. Also, different people in government have different incentives. The people collecting property tax revenue are different from the people paying to transport prisoners.

As to why not move the courthouse too, the government center was and is a serviceable building and the jail was not.

nasa35

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby nasa35 » May 15th, 2013, 3:30 pm

It's not like the area the jail was built in didn't have a lot of underutilized land at the time, so hypothetical situations where you could have a private development generating huge amounts of taxes instead of the jail probably didn't occur to them. Also, different people in government have different incentives. The people collecting property tax revenue are different from the people paying to transport prisoners.

As to why not move the courthouse too, the government center was and is a serviceable building and the jail was not.
you can't move the jail. It's that simple.

I still like this

Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 976
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Tyler » May 15th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Anyone have a clear understanding of where this proposal actually stands (assuming Ryan was full-steam ahead)? Is the negotiation between Ryan and the City complete at this point? Still many more hoops to jump through?
Towns!

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby ECtransplant » May 15th, 2013, 4:13 pm

Agreed. The jail, and juv are not moving. Morgue also unlikely to move. What could happen though, albeit many years out, is a consolidation of some of these public services buildings into a larger redevelopment of one of their sites, opening up the other sites for private development.

SixOneTwo
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 115
Joined: July 26th, 2012, 9:59 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby SixOneTwo » May 15th, 2013, 4:28 pm

Is it a possibility that the parking ramp will have enough reinforcement to support a future tower? If I were Ryan I would certainly look at doing so.
"Vice President Rick Collins said Wednesday that Ryan Cos. will seek air rights for development on top of a parking ramp that it is proposing to build for the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority."

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/05/rya ... z2TP31c0Uh (paywall)

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby mattaudio » May 15th, 2013, 5:38 pm

As has been mentioned elsewhere, it should be relatively simple to develop over the eastern third of the jail block, where it's just covered parking/dock space.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests