222 & Whole Foods - (222 Hennepin Avenue)

[5th Ave Guy]

I'm sure the posters that are involved with neighborhood planning have a much better idea that I do, but wouldn't a taller building be better 4 to 5 blocks into the actual neighborhood as opposed to right on the initial corner or the "gateway" to the neighborhood? Something like the Carlyle seems like it would just be a gigantic barrier on that corner.

Either way, I live in the neighborhood and I'm all for the infill. It's not like we're running out of empty lots to build more ambitious projects on in the future.

[Konante]

The market takes care of all the of this. Most rental downtown is not "overpriced." If it was there would be higher vacancy rates. Period. The opinion of you and those you've spoken to is truly irrelevant in this case. Any drawback the building has will also be taken care of by the market. If the building has a ton of problems rents will have to decrease. Or if the demand is still there despite those problems they won't. I still have no idea what this has to do with building "quality communities".

If you define market rate as willing seller and willing buyer (or renter), then I agree with you it is not overpriced. By that definition it can't be given current vacancy rates. But I'm being less restrictive with my definition by incorporating unscientific cost/value comparisons in Minneapolis to other cities, so in that case, my and others' opinions are not irrelevant.

I use the phrase quality communities to describe a place where the residents/workers are invested in the area and act accordingly. It's admittedly an amorphous concept like quality of life that can't be definitively quantified. A blunt supply/demand analysis of where the market sets rental rates fails to look at all of the factors that affect the livability of a city, the happiness of its residents, etc.

I'm not saying this a disaster. It's just not even close to what someone invested in seeing the city become the best it can be would want, even working under the constraints of targeting strong profit margins and staying at 6 stories.

[FISHMANPET]

There's nothing wrong with the sizes of these units, my 966 sq ft 2 bedroom in the city is almost the biggest in the complex (a handfull are 1100 sq ft). In fact, there are 2 bedroom units (840 sq ft) in my building that are smaller than some of the 1 bedroom units in this complex.

[FISHMANPET]

If you define market rate as willing seller and willing buyer (or renter), then I agree with you it is not overpriced. By that definition it can't be given current vacancy rates. But I'm being less restrictive with my definition by incorporating unscientific cost/value comparisons in Minneapolis to other cities, so in that case, my and others' opinions are not irrelevant.

But people are moving in and paying these "high" rents. If other places are a better value, then people should move there. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Why wouldn't a building charge the highest rent it can and still fill the building?

[Konante]

If you define market rate as willing seller and willing buyer (or renter), then I agree with you it is not overpriced. By that definition it can't be given current vacancy rates. But I'm being less restrictive with my definition by incorporating unscientific cost/value comparisons in Minneapolis to other cities, so in that case, my and others' opinions are not irrelevant.

But people are moving in and paying these "high" rents. If other places are a better value, then people should move there. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Why wouldn't a building charge the highest rent it can and still fill the building?

People would move to places offering better value if they view it from a dollars only standpoint, but where people choose to live is driven by much more than economics. Arguing that something cannot be overpriced because people pay the demanded price in one area, or at one point in time, et cetera, does not settle the issue as you suggest. Wouldn't you agree that the recent housing bubble evidences that fact? Aren't diamonds overpriced? Weren't tulips overpriced during tulip mania?

And a building would charge the highest rent it can. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think we can all agree that if 1000 people want X but there is only one, the price of X will be significantly higher than if there are 1000 of X. So, my main point in saying prices are too high is really to say "there isn't enough rental housing in downtown so developers/building owners can get away with charging way more than they could in a more normal setting." By normal setting, I'm comparing the delta between supply and demand in Minneapolis to other large-ish cities.

[Didier]

And now for something completely different, I took a few pictures while working at the library earlier this week.

[Tyler]

People would move to places offering better value if they view it from a dollars only standpoint, but where people choose to live is driven by much more than economics. Arguing that something cannot be overpriced because people pay the demanded price in one area, or at one point in time, et cetera, does not settle the issue as you suggest. Wouldn't you agree that the recent housing bubble evidences that fact? Aren't diamonds overpriced? Weren't tulips overpriced during tulip mania?

And a building would charge the highest rent it can. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think we can all agree that if 1000 people want X but there is only one, the price of X will be significantly higher than if there are 1000 of X. So, my main point in saying prices are too high is really to say "there isn't enough rental housing in downtown so developers/building owners can get away with charging way more than they could in a more normal setting."

Yes, prices are higher than they would be if we had bunch more apartment stock.

By normal setting, I'm comparing the delta between supply and demand in Minneapolis to other large-ish cities.

What are you saying? That Minneapolis needs more supply? Yes, I agree. See:This Project.

[go4guy]

That second pic, from up in the Library, shows that the height compared to the Fed building will be just fine. Hopefully a building between 10-20 stories will go on the vacant spot by Dolphin Staffing. If that park gets approved, you would think that would become a prime parcel.

[mattaudio]

That second pic, from up in the Library, shows that the height compared to the Fed building will be just fine. Hopefully a building between 10-20 stories will go on the vacant spot by Dolphin Staffing. If that park gets approved, you would think that would become a prime parcel.

Yes! Maybe within a decade we could see two new buildings fronting a new park... one across Nicollet Mall, and one across Hennepin Ave where you suggested.

[Didier]

That second pic, from up in the Library, shows that the height compared to the Fed building will be just fine. Hopefully a building between 10-20 stories will go on the vacant spot by Dolphin Staffing. If that park gets approved, you would think that would become a prime parcel.

I agree. Personally I think that space just south of Washington is more appropriate for a tall building.

[mnmike]

I think Stanton still owns those lots...maybe if Stonebridge goes well, that will be his next site. That is, if he is still alive. Isn't that guy in his late 80s?

[spectre000]

The grass field south of 222 is owned by 21st Century Bank. The big lot just east of the library is owned by a partnership, but its tax records point to United Properties. UP is a big player. They could build something quite impressive there. Though their sale date was back in 1991. So they've largely been sitting on that property for 20 years. So I wouldn't say there in any sort of hurry.

Hopefully with 222, a new park, Xcel's new building and the Nic, they'll finally develop that lot.

[mattaudio]

I think I asked elsewhere, but anyone have a thought on how a new taller tower would look on that block east of the library?

[mnmike]

Is Stanton a part of 21st century bank? Because I rememer his initial proposal (The Eclipse) including the 21st century bank as well. I guess they were just in on it together?

[Didier]

Isn't the block east of the library part of the eventual Gateway Park concept?

[Nathan]

Isn't the block east of the library part of the eventual Gateway Park concept?

They talked about the green ribbon from downtown. I don't think it would be much more than what is already greened in that parking lot. (especially since The nic on 5th and xcel aren't playing along...)

[Nathan]

I think I asked elsewhere, but anyone have a thought on how a new taller tower would look on that block east of the library?

It wouldn't be so bad, but it's a bit far out, and close to the river, for my taste. it is on nic which is nice. If the tallest part of the tower were on the southern part especially.

[FISHMANPET]

If you define market rate as willing seller and willing buyer (or renter), then I agree with you it is not overpriced. By that definition it can't be given current vacancy rates. But I'm being less restrictive with my definition by incorporating unscientific cost/value comparisons in Minneapolis to other cities, so in that case, my and others' opinions are not irrelevant.

But people are moving in and paying these "high" rents. If other places are a better value, then people should move there. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Why wouldn't a building charge the highest rent it can and still fill the building?

People would move to places offering better value if they view it from a dollars only standpoint, but where people choose to live is driven by much more than economics. Arguing that something cannot be overpriced because people pay the demanded price in one area, or at one point in time, et cetera, does not settle the issue as you suggest. Wouldn't you agree that the recent housing bubble evidences that fact? Aren't diamonds overpriced? Weren't tulips overpriced during tulip mania?

And a building would charge the highest rent it can. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think we can all agree that if 1000 people want X but there is only one, the price of X will be significantly higher than if there are 1000 of X. So, my main point in saying prices are too high is really to say "there isn't enough rental housing in downtown so developers/building owners can get away with charging way more than they could in a more normal setting." By normal setting, I'm comparing the delta between supply and demand in Minneapolis to other large-ish cities.

I'm gonna go ahead and beat this dead horse...

Actually, where people live is 100% based on economics. The reason someone pays $2000 a month for an apartment downtown versus $750 in an exurb is because they place more value on the downtown location. From what you think is a pure dollars and cents perspective we should all live in Houston, but people are willing to pay higher rents in a place because they derive enough value from it that they make an economic profit, or at least break even.

I also agree that we need more housing, and I for one can't wait for this developer to make a profit before something better is built nearby, so this can filter down into more affordable housing.

[min-chi-cbus]

Actually, where people live is 100% based on economics. The reason someone pays $2000 a month for an apartment downtown versus $750 in an exurb is because they place more value on the downtown location. From what you think is a pure dollars and sense perspective we should all live in Houston, but people are willing to pay higher rents in a place because they derive enough value from it that they make an economic profit, or at least break even.

I also agree that we need more housing, and I for one can't wait for this developer to make a profit before something better is built nearby, so this can filter down into more affordable housing.

Stupid questions continued: is that the correct expression, "dollars and sense"? I thought it was "dollars and cents".

Am I wrong?
Were you being ironic?
Are you wrong?

I seriously am not sure now...

[FISHMANPET]

Actually, where people live is 100% based on economics. The reason someone pays $2000 a month for an apartment downtown versus $750 in an exurb is because they place more value on the downtown location. From what you think is a pure dollars and sense perspective we should all live in Houston, but people are willing to pay higher rents in a place because they derive enough value from it that they make an economic profit, or at least break even.

I also agree that we need more housing, and I for one can't wait for this developer to make a profit before something better is built nearby, so this can filter down into more affordable housing.

Stupid questions continued: is that the correct expression, "dollars and sense"? I thought it was "dollars and cents".

Am I wrong?
Were you being ironic?
Are you wrong?

I seriously am not sure now...

Ach, nobody catches my accidental misuse of homonyms in spoken conversation!