The Eclipse

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
ndokken
City Center
Posts: 27
Joined: August 20th, 2013, 12:27 pm

Re: The Eclipse

Postby ndokken » January 24th, 2014, 10:59 am

At first I was excited, but much like the other comments, the boxiness of the building is blah blah boring. Another overpriced smug box in the sky which I seriously hope they redesign or go back to the original rendering.

...maybe they wouldn't have to worry so much about funding if they could have both for-sale condo's and rentals...or just make it all rentals.

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

Re: The Eclipse

Postby mattaudio » January 24th, 2014, 11:02 am

Doesn't Galtier have a mix of condos and rentals? Maybe one tower of each?

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: The Eclipse

Postby mister.shoes » January 24th, 2014, 11:23 am

I hope your are right. And historically, the "phase two" of so many project proposals never get off the ground. That parcel can be sold to another developer at a future time, so we only have to deal with the blight of one "hulking" building.
Except he's not proposing to build on two separate parcels for the two phases. The entire parcel will be 4 stories of retail + parking + some residences as part of phase 1. The smaller tower is also phase 1. The second phase is *only* adding the second tower on top of the 4 story podium. So if this craps out halfway through, there's no second parcel for a different developer to take over. And I certainly can't imagine Stanton allowing a different developer to build a second tower on top of his podium.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

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

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Tyler » January 24th, 2014, 11:27 am

At first I was excited, but much like the other comments, the boxiness of the building is blah blah boring. Another overpriced smug box in the sky which I seriously hope they redesign or go back to the original rendering.

...maybe they wouldn't have to worry so much about funding if they could have both for-sale condo's and rentals...or just make it all rentals.
THEY AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT FUNDING. THEY"RE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING MONEY>!q#!

You ever talk to anyone at Sherman about the Zenith (and the current condo market)? Compare that to what Stanton says. Sherman says the Zenith was not good business and he needs close to $400/sq ft to make money building new condos. Stanton says, screw $400 a sq/ft. I can (and have) build where $325/ sq ft will make me money. And I already know there's a willing market at that price point.

But yeah, he should just say screw it and build high end condos instead even though we know the market isn't there. Or more apartments because those generally scream luxury (literally) and that would totally make him rethink his design. And he has a great record of building luxury apartments. (Wait... no he doesn't)

Not that I love this, but if they make the ground level ok (better than Bridgewater) it will be a net positive. The other option in the near term is NOT high end condos.
Towns!

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

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Tyler » January 24th, 2014, 11:28 am

I hope your are right. And historically, the "phase two" of so many project proposals never get off the ground. That parcel can be sold to another developer at a future time, so we only have to deal with the blight of one "hulking" building.
Except he's not proposing to build on two separate parcels for the two phases. The entire parcel will be 4 stories of retail + parking + some residences as part of phase 1. The smaller tower is also phase 1. The second phase is *only* adding the second tower on top of the 4 story podium. So if this craps out halfway through, there's no second parcel for a different developer to take over. And I certainly can't imagine Stanton allowing a different developer to build a second tower on top of his podium.
He'll build it eventually. Why wouldn't he?
Towns!

City slicker

Re: The Eclipse

Postby City slicker » January 24th, 2014, 11:35 am

Now that I've seen the pics from the original buildings Bapster2006 posted, it's exactly what I'm talking about in my post yesterday. A much more dramatic, taller and skillfully architectural design in Minneapolis, replaced by a much duller, shorter, boxier rendering. Another foul ball for the "height shy" Minneapolis.

User avatar
TommyT
Target Field
Posts: 511
Joined: August 13th, 2013, 9:21 am

Re: The Eclipse

Postby TommyT » January 24th, 2014, 11:39 am

But yeah, he should just say screw it and build high end condos instead even though we know the market isn't there. Or more apartments because those generally scream l****y (literally) and that would totally make him rethink his design. And he has a great record of building l****y apartments. (Wait... no he doesn't)
Why do we star out l****y?? I know what it means but it doesn't make sense to me. Just wondering.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: The Eclipse

Postby John » January 24th, 2014, 11:40 am

I hope your are right. And historically, the "phase two" of so many project proposals never get off the ground. That parcel can be sold to another developer at a future time, so we only have to deal with the blight of one "hulking" building.
Except he's not proposing to build on two separate parcels for the two phases. The entire parcel will be 4 stories of retail + parking + some residences as part of phase 1. The smaller tower is also phase 1. The second phase is *only* adding the second tower on top of the 4 story podium. So if this craps out halfway through, there's no second parcel for a different developer to take over. And I certainly can't imagine Stanton allowing a different developer to build a second tower on top of his podium.
Thanks for the clarification. All the more need for a design revision IMO.

5th Ave Guy
Landmark Center
Posts: 212
Joined: October 2nd, 2012, 3:11 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: The Eclipse

Postby 5th Ave Guy » January 24th, 2014, 11:46 am

Now that I've seen the pics from the original buildings Bapster2006 posted, it's exactly what I'm talking about in my post yesterday. A much more dramatic, taller and skillfully architectural design in Minneapolis, replaced by a much duller, shorter, boxier rendering. Another foul ball for the "height shy" Minneapolis.
Do you really think "height shy" has anything to do with it? He's afraid of going up a certain number of stories?

People build what they think will sell and make them money. Supply and demand. Why in the world would he build a taller building when he doesn't think the demand is there?

User avatar
Avian
Union Depot
Posts: 385
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 6:56 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Avian » January 24th, 2014, 11:47 am

Just an interesting note to throw fuel on the high-rise fire...

Eclipse (both phases) totals nearly 700,000 square feet. That would be quite the tower if it were slender.

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”
― Plato

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: The Eclipse

Postby John » January 24th, 2014, 12:23 pm

Now that I've seen the pics from the original buildings Bapster2006 posted, it's exactly what I'm talking about in my post yesterday. A much more dramatic, taller and skillfully architectural design in Minneapolis, replaced by a much duller, shorter, boxier rendering. Another foul ball for the "height shy" Minneapolis.
Do you really think "height shy" has anything to do with it? He's afraid of going up a certain number of stories?

People build what they think will sell and make them money. Supply and demand. Why in the world would he build a taller building when he doesn't think the demand is there?
Quote from Stanton from the MSP Business Journal :"Stanton said he might have proposed more units for the Eclipse site, but didn't want to do a time-consuming environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).

"I don't want to waste a big bunch of time," he said.

City slicker

Re: The Eclipse

Postby City slicker » January 24th, 2014, 12:24 pm

Yes I do. Minneapolis is height shy. It seams like just about every proposal gets dropped to a much shorter and less attractive building. This one is a prime example, and my point. It looks like a chocolate factory compared to the original much taller and better looking proposal. If I can't afford a pair of Adidas running shoes, I'm not going to go buy a pair of pro- specs at Walmart instead. I'd rather go running barefoot.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 961
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: The Eclipse

Postby mullen » January 24th, 2014, 12:35 pm

another stunted, ugly box from this developer. he's very adept at getting condo product to market but the designs are cookie-cutter and boring.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4472
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Silophant » January 24th, 2014, 12:39 pm

Quote from Stanton from the MSP Business Journal :"Stanton said he might have proposed more units for the Eclipse site, but didn't want to do a time-consuming environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).

"I don't want to waste a big bunch of time," he said.
What triggers the EAW? Is it a certain height, or certain number of units in one structure, or what?
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4646
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Anondson » January 24th, 2014, 12:44 pm

Great question, Silophant.

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: The Eclipse

Postby Archiapolis » January 24th, 2014, 12:44 pm

I'd be very surprised to see the massing change. Devs don't go to CoW unless they have a building that works for their pro forma. There are financial reasons why the old scheme got scrapped. If that worked in the current market, he wouldn't have paid the architects to draw a completely new building.

As for the colors, materials, etc. That *can* be a little less defined at the CoW stage. This will get refined as they move through the approval process but obviously Stonebridge is a good guide as it is the same dev/team/architect.

Should be a great test of the urban ideas of the new CC and Lisa Bender as chair of Z & P as they relate to the parking counts and how/if they push back on Stanton's plans. LPM is rental and this is condos so the parking comparison isn't exactly apples to apples. Not saying I agree with Stanton's ideas on parking needs, just saying that "the markets" are a bit different between a rental vs. owned dwelling in multi-family.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 330
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: The Eclipse

Postby gpete » January 24th, 2014, 12:51 pm

The EAW would be triggered by a specific number of units.

In this case (attached housing units in Minneapolis), the state rules say anything over 375 units needs an EAW.

Minnesota Rules, 4410.4300: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=4410.4300

sad panda
Metrodome
Posts: 73
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 10:31 am

Re: The Eclipse

Postby sad panda » January 24th, 2014, 12:56 pm

What triggers the EAW? Is it a certain height, or certain number of units in one structure, or what?
Minneapolis has a page that lists the triggers: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/planning/cped_eaw

It's square footage based for industrial/commercial and unit-based for residential.

bubzki2
Foshay Tower
Posts: 811
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Snelling-Hamline

Re: The Eclipse

Postby bubzki2 » January 24th, 2014, 1:02 pm

But Avian makes a very good point: the number of units could stay the same while changing the girth of the tower or the details, such as rounding. 20% narrower towers would make for much more pleasant aesthetics and better views on prime units.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: The Eclipse

Postby John » January 24th, 2014, 1:10 pm

I'd be very surprised to see the massing change. Devs don't go to CoW unless they have a building that works for their pro forma. There are financial reasons why the old scheme got scrapped. If that worked in the current market, he wouldn't have paid the architects to draw a completely new building.

As for the colors, materials, etc. That *can* be a little less defined at the CoW stage. This will get refined as they move through the approval process but obviously Stonebridge is a good guide as it is the same dev/team/architect.

Should be a great test of the urban ideas of the new CC and Lisa Bender as chair of Z & P as they relate to the parking counts and how/if they push back on Stanton's plans. LPM is rental and this is condos so the parking comparison isn't exactly apples to apples. Not saying I agree with Stanton's ideas on parking needs, just saying that "the markets" are a bit different between a rental vs. owned dwelling in multi-family.
Too bad about the massing. We are going to have to live with this design (on one of our most prominent downtown sites) for many many decades. :| TwinCitizen is familiar with and worked on Lisa Bender's campaign, so he may have insight into her general philosophy on urban planning ( not necessarily how she would view this project specifically, of course). If he sees this , it would be great for him to comment and thanks!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests