The Eclipse

[twincitizen]

It's a bad rendering. You guys remember the Stonebridge renders, right?

http://www.mplsloftsearch.com/briefcase ... M66177.jpg

Thank you.

Now can we delete this thread and start over? It is embarassing that we have a thread of 280 posts, with 200 of them by four people getting their panties in a knot over a bad preliminary rendering (which was repeatedly pointed out to be monocromatic).

I'm kidding about the starting over thing, but good grief.

[nordeast homer]

I had forgotten how bad that one was. Good thing the building looks nothing like the rendering.

I'm still trying to figure out the anger over the parking on the Eclipse design. You can't even see the parking structure. If we are going to have that kind of parking, wouldn't the best scenario be that you can't see it? In that case, how is this a negative impact? The desire for us to be dependent on public transportation is silly and unrealistic; for my job I could never bike, walk, or take a bus, I practiaclly live in my car. This car is a work car though, so with that I need a personal vehicle for my family. If I were to live in a place like the Eclipse I would be one of those people that requires 2 stalls. This does not make me evil, it is not gawdy, it is a necessity. If they are willing to offer this for thier tenants as well as offering parking for retail tenants the number is going to be higher than normal. I guess I just don't have a problem with his request.

[FISHMANPET]

Every space devoted to a car is a space that isn't devoted to retail or office or living space. The first two stories of this building have a lot of parking, which is space that could be for people. There are 4 stories of underground parking, which drives up the cost quite a bit. Really, if you live in your car, I don't know why you'd want to live in the heart of downtown. Where we live is all about tradeoffs, and the tradeoff for living downtown is that it's not so easy to have as many cars as you want, but you get other benefits. If you live farther out you can more easily keep a car, but you're not going to be as close to everything. But since you're in your car all the time I doubt you care how close you are to anything.

Look at it this way. If Stanton wanted to build a 26 story parking structure with 1 penthouse unit on top, would that be OK? If not, then yes, the amount of parking matters, and we should be discussing what is the appropriate amount. If you think that building would be OK, then I think you have a warped view of what a city is and probably shouldn't be speaking about what is or isn't feasible.

[twincitizen]

I don't think it was ever opposition to providing that much parking in the abstract, it was specifically to providing that much parking at Washington & Hennepin. If this was going in the (relatively) more car dependent Mill District or upper North Loop, etc. there wouldn't be such a fuss.

It has nothing to do with being anti-car or anything, it's about the context of the location. Stanton seems oblivious to that. I believe him when he says that's what his buyers want, but maybe that just means this is the wrong location for his buyers. Honestly, this site might be a better fit for rentals or at least a developer who isn't Jim Stanton.

[nordeast homer]

Look at it this way. If Stanton wanted to build a 26 story parking structure with 1 penthouse unit on top, would that be OK? If not, then yes, the amount of parking matters, and we should be discussing what is the appropriate amount. If you think that building would be OK, then I think you have a warped view of what a city is and probably shouldn't be speaking about what is or isn't feasible.

We're not talking 26 stories of parking and we're not talking about a structure like Centre Village. I'm offended that you believe I don't deserve a voice, but you do. Isn't this site supposed to be about discussion and view points. I know mine is not the only one, but apparently you believe yours is.

[FISHMANPET]

Not everything can be all things to all people. This development is not in a location that's appropriate for a car dependent life style. So there's no reason to try and build a building that will cater to a car dependent life style.

[mattaudio]

Not everything can be all things to all people, but nearly everything can be all things to people willing to pay enough.

Not sure why parking is an issue here. As long as it doesn't unduly hurt the public realm of this building, I can't see a justification to limit it.

[sanguinic]

Perhaps the developer realizes that, while Hennepin-Washington is becoming a fairly dense and walkable urban neighborhood, the residents of this building live in the Twin Cities, which remains a car-dependent metro area. It seems unreasonable and unlikely to assume that those living in this building would not want to own a car. Yes, they would probably prefer to do a lot of walking, but sometimes that isn't possible. Imagine if a couple rented an apartment in the building, and they worked at, say, the suburban headquarters of General Mills and Best Buy. Both would most likely commute by car, and their lease would probably include two spots in the parking ramp.

[twincitizen]

Yes, that's absolutely a realistic scenario for a couple living in this building. But would it be the norm? Definitely not. One would speculate that individuals or couples or empty nesters choosing to live here would be more likely to work downtown or nearby (like the U of M) than your average Twin Cities resident.

It is really annoying that we can't have a discussion surrounding cars without it turning immediately to absolutism. No one is suggesting that anyone living in this building will own zero cars. If you can afford a $300k+ condo, you own a car, there's no questioning that. What we are pushing back against is the idea that residents of every unit will be like the ones in your scenario. I find that very unlikely.

[Anondson]

I have no strong opinion whether there are too many car stalls or not. I just demand the car levels be easily convertible into other uses when it is determined the car spaces have been over-built.

[go4guy]

My gf and I are seriously considering moving downtown. Neither of us work downtown, so both of us would require a car. That is 2 cars for 1 unit. This site would be great for us, as it has great access to freeways to get out of downtown and to our jobs. I think this site is a GREAT site if you have a car. And one we will be looking at very strongly.

Also, wouldnt you want this to have plenty of parking? If it does, that makes the need for those big ugly ramps to exist. Maybe it will get those torn down and redeveloped quicker!

[Archiapolis]

I have no strong opinion whether there are too many car stalls or not. I just demand the car levels be easily convertible into other uses when it is determined the car spaces have been over-built.

Can you point to an example of where parking has been successfully converted to housing/other uses? I'll wager that you can't find ONE example in this city and will find very few examples in the US but I'll suspend my disbelief until I see what you can offer.

[VAStationDude]

Does Saint Paul count?

https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1030

[sushisimo]

When I bought in DT 10 years ago, I was able to walk to my DT job. So, that situation was nice while it lasted until the reality of jobs these days kicked in. Since then, I've had another perm job and years of contracting...vastly in the suburbs. I suppose I should visit a thread here which talks about business economics and the sprawl of corporate TC locations to vent. As for the Eclipse, I'm not going to sound like Oprah and say, "And YOU get a space! And YOU get space! Everybody gets a parking space!" But there should be enough spaces to handle the amorphous parking needs when things change in people's lives after they've purchased. And like it was said, being a part of the TC Metro means you're still rather car dependent, no matter how great DT gets.

[Archiapolis]

My gf and I are seriously considering moving downtown. Neither of us work downtown, so both of us would require a car. That is 2 cars for 1 unit. This site would be great for us, as it has great access to freeways to get out of downtown and to our jobs. I think this site is a GREAT site if you have a car. And one we will be looking at very strongly.

Also, wouldnt you want this to have plenty of parking? If it does, that makes the need for those big ugly ramps to exist. Maybe it will get those torn down and redeveloped quicker!

What is great about this post is that it gets to the heart of the issue: What do we want this city to be?

1. A "bedroom community" with every building containing plenty of parking so people can reverse commute to jobs in the suburbs.

OR

2. An urban city with a built environment that encourages walking, biking and public transit by NOT building one parking stall/bedroom (standard for a suburb).

I, for one, am in the camp that desires an urban city with minimal parking pushing HUMAN BEINGS out into the city rather than cars. Urban policy shouldn't be governed by people who desire to take advantage of all the amenities of the city but ALSO pile cars up on the streets and require buildings bulging at the seams with cars. Instead, we should desire a truly urban city and better transit that gets people to employment centers that aren't in the city.

People have voiced their opinion that this thread shouldn't be "about parking", or "about the [crappy] rendering." I don't see what else we would have to talk about without these two items but I'm just one person.

I'm obviously not an admin but if someone wants to create a thread that isolates one issue and is dedicated to arguing out the merits of urbanism/walkability/transit versus car oriented suburbanism, I'm up for the philosophical debate.

[Archiapolis]

Does Saint Paul count?

https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1030

Pardon my skepticism about this "example" and clarify my request: A BUILT example (as distinct from a "proposal").

[VAStationDude]

The "Rayette" is under "construction" with "anticipated" "initial" occupancy in September. Conversion from parking to other uses is possible as is parking in one building supply parking to another, separate building.

[mattaudio]

But the Rayette was a building for humans before it was a building for car storage. So the floors were flat already. Modern parking ramp designs have nearly all parking decks at a grade, which makes it impossible to convert to other uses. Hopefully that can change.

[go4guy]

Archiapolis. Are you saying we should not live in downtown? Downtown is a central location for us. Makes sense to us. And even if we both worked in the western suburbs, who cares? It would be our decision to live downtown, because that is where everything we do outside of work is. I dont know that many people that live downtown, but the ones I do commute out of the core to their jobs. If there is a need for the developer to build parking spaces, let him do it. That is not anyone's decision but the developers. How it looks is a different thing. But the number of spaces is not. The developer isnt going to waste money building extra spaces for sh!ts and giggles. There is an obvious demand that needs to be met.

[VAStationDude]

True. Let's hope city staff can convince Stanton to pony up for flat floors.