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

[helsinki]

I wonder if the city would be better off (risk-wise) buying the lots themselves and selling off land in smaller chunks to the highest bidder.

Not only risk-wise. I think it would be healthy to promote more varied, smaller-scale buildings and ownership downtown. The mega-projects we're currently suffering from find part of their cause in the single ownership of full city blocks. The results are monotonous and overscaled buildings that provide spaces so large that they are only affordable to large corporate tenants.

[RailBaronYarr]

Not only risk-wise. I think it would be healthy to promote more varied, smaller-scale buildings and ownership downtown. The mega-projects we're currently suffering from find part of their cause in the single ownership of full city blocks. The results are monotonous and overscaled buildings that provide spaces so large that they are only affordable to large corporate tenants.

I definitely personally agree with that assessment, but am trying to take as pragmatic stance on this as possible. It's also entirely possible for monolithic, block-level buildings to be varied at street-level and extremely pleasant to walk along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blv-h ... ayette.jpg IMO the problem is that what faces the street has tons of curb-cuts, is a parking ramp, or doesn't have retail (or the small/varied types) thanks to 60% of it being in the skyway level (at the public's dime). For example, why not build the 1,610 space ramp into the ground if you can find a builder to put something on top of it? Yes, it's more expensive, but the city is already committing to the ramp with no guarantee of development, would underground+dev be revenue neutral to ramp+no dev, and which is better for DTE and Mpls on the whole from a property value perspective?

[helsinki]

the problem is that what faces the street has tons of curb-cuts, is a parking ramp, or doesn't have retail (or the small/varied types) thanks to 60% of it being in the skyway level (at the public's dime). For example, why not build the 1,610 space ramp into the ground if you can find a builder to put something on top of it? Yes, it's more expensive, but the city is already committing to the ramp with no guarantee of development, would underground+dev be revenue neutral to ramp+no dev, and which is better for DTE and Mpls on the whole from a property value perspective?

Yes, I'm not sure why this was never considered. For all the tangential discussions that have occurred (rooftop signs? seriously, in the broad scheme of things . . . [sigh] . . . ) with this project, the parking ramp has, frustratingly, always blithely sailed past all criticism because, as everyone knows, parking is absolutely essential. The lack of push-back probably has something to do with the stubborn persistence of this mindset amongst key decisionmakers. It is particularly annoying because, as you say, the city is paying for the stupid thing, so they should insist on something a bit more people-friendly.

[alleycat]

RailBaron: It does look like the MFSA is paying towards the ramp.

The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, which is overseeing stadium construction, will pay for about 35 percent of the ramp. The authority will also pay $10.7 million to construct skyways. http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/234627291.html

Now when they say the MFSA is paying doesn't it just mean that the funds allocated between the city, state and vikings are going to pay for 35 percent of the ramp?

[RailBaronYarr]

I missed that. I was wondering yesterday how the MSFA is funded - is it only the money between state/city/Vikings contributions to the stadium construction? Or is there additional funding from the state/etc for ongoing stuff? Their website had no details on finances, and the legislation that created it wasn't specific, either.

In that case, the MSFA is spending $26.64 of the $84.25m (31.6%), all of which is on skyways and parking. But 15.4% of MSFA's funding is from the city anyway ($150/$975 million).

Either way, this does tilt the balance a little better from a risk/ROI standpoint from the city's perspective. Thanks for noting that!

[Rich]

Last week Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak urged a request for proposals be issued within weeks for the development of the top of the new stadium parking ramp. Rybak, in an appearance before a council committee meeting, said that a delay could cost the city the chance to develop what he called ”potentially one of the great marquee tower sites that this city will ever have” and “an icon on the skyline.”

If MPR's Tim Nelson is to be believed, Rybak seems to be promoting the top of the parking ramp as a site for an iconic tower.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/stadium-watch/

[Didier]

To be sure, the reporter is quoting Rybak, so unless you don't believe the quote, Rybak himself said that this could be a site for an iconic tower.

[Scott16475]

I wonder if Rybak knows something that we don't? In other words, is there a proposal already out there for a 1,000 foot plus tower that we haven't heard of that someone wants to build on this site?

[Silophant]

I'm no structural engineer, but it seems to me that there would be a difference between a parking ramp designed to let a generic building be built on top of it, and a ramp designed to let a supertall be built on top of it. So, unless, as Scott suggests, there's already a proposal out there that Ryan knows about and can factor into the ramp designs before building, I don't really believe that an iconic supertall would be added in the future, at least not without tearing down and rebuilding the ramp.

Of course, "iconic" might not mean "huge". I believe Centre Village was built atop an existing ramp, and something that size could certainly be iconic, if the design is up to the standard of the Wells Fargo Center or the IDS Tower, especially in an area that otherwise tops out at 17 stories.

[mattaudio]

For all the skyline fawners out there, wouldn't a tower east of Park stick out like a sore thumb? I thought part of the beauty of our skyline is that the towers are densely packed and the primary viewsheds are angled.

[bubzki2]

For all the skyline fawners out there, wouldn't a tower east of Park stick out like a sore thumb? I thought part of the beauty of our skyline is that the towers are densely packed and the primary viewsheds are angled.

Well, I tend to agree; but at the same time, the Carlyle and new LPM look pretty dang good. 1000-footer, though, might be better placed nearer the core.

[Nathan]

I don't think that anything taller than the big three would look great so far from the core without a lot of other development. but there are plenty of iconic mid rise buildings out there. under 30 stories still has great views of the river and downtown. would be cool for a hotel/condo project.

[twincitizen]

I think people are misinterpreting "iconic" to mean "supertall". I am sure that the Mayor meant that it was an iconic location. Where in Rybak's quote did someone pick up that it would be tall? ~15 stories of hotel would make it as tall as the stadium or Ryan project. What part of that quote made someone's brain think "1000 footer, obviously"? Please.

[woofner]

This could be a gateway to East Downtown like National Bone Marrow will be a gateway to the North Loop

[Scott16475]

Rybak said, ”…an icon on the skyline.” When I think of 'an icon on the skyline', I think of tall. I could be wrong. You're right, when Rybak said the words "tower" and "skyline", I thought tall. At this time, the chances of a possible super tall tower on this site are equal to the possibilities of there not being a super tall tower on this site. If and at this time it's a BIG if, a super tall tower is built at this location, sure it may look weird being so far away from the core but couldn't we over the years build more tall buildings between the core and this site? Houston has tall buildings beyond their core and it doesn't look bad.

Of course, this discussion may be for not.

[Wedgeguy]

An Icon is something that stands out. This can mean a building like the Wiesmann on the East bank, The Carlyle, something that is above and beyond the normal dull standard that this town can produce way too often. Something that could get a write up in an Architecture magazine. This does not have to be super tall to fit that bill. IMO

[Nathan]

it just needs a few stories I'd Minnesota modern...

[mplsjaromir]

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/235466861.html

Good!

[MNdible]

Good that people are filing frivolous lawsuits? The portion of the stadium legislation quoted in the article seems pretty clear that this is allowed.

Or because you think that Gold Medal Park was illegal?

[Avian]

Last January a certain member here said Ryan is working on two 300-footers, which of course turned out to be the WF project announced last May. But he said they were also working on a 600-footer. Is it part of this development? Maybe, maybe not.