The Eclipse

[Silophant]

For sure. What I'd like to (but I know I won't) see is all 360 units go into a single tower, with half the site left empty, so he can, when conditions warrant, do another 360-unit tower, still without triggering an EAW.

On a more reality grounded note, I'm kinda worried about the Washington tower being listed as phase 2, but the entire block-long base being phase 1. If the second phase doesn't happen, we wind up with a shorter, squatter Nic on 5th, but with the tower inexplicably being on the less prominent intersection, and the Washington-Hennepin corner being stuck with a parking garage.

[bubzki2]

And for context, LPM has about this many total units packed into one slenderish tower. Not sure how much more it costs to almost double the height, though. Probably a pipe dream to think this will change.

[gpete]

No, he can't build two towers on this site with 360 each and avoid an EAW.

From the Minnesota Rules:

An EAW is required for residential development if the total number of units that may ultimately be developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to purchase by the proposer, except land identified by an applicable comprehensive plan, ordinance, resolution, or agreement of a local governmental unit for a future use other than residential development, equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart.

[Silophant]

Ah. Actually, I'm glad it's not that easy to get around that requirement.

[FISHMANPET]

Boom regulation limits density and raises the price of housing. Not saying that it's a good or bad thing here, but who knows how tall he'd build if he didn't have to do an EAW.

[mattaudio]

So one developer wants to cram hundreds of residential units in one block, in a dense downtown core that's one of the oldest developed areas in the state, and they need an EAW.

But other developers can build cheap subdivisions in the exurbs all day and nobody bats an eye.

Makes sense.

[FISHMANPET]

If I'm reading those Minnesota rules properly, the city could waive the requirement for an EAW, right? It'd be silly to do that for just one project, but they could easily change the downtown overlay district or something to remove the requirement for an EAW. Because yeah, it's pretty dumb in this area.

[Nathan]

thinking more about the architecture, and the fact that the former federal reserve building Is across the future park, I think they'd compliment each other in their dark boxiness and book end the park well.

[Anondson]

Terribly unfortunate a regulation the city has no control over will affect its urbanization efforts and form so … irreversibly.

[gpete]

So one developer wants to cram hundreds of residential units in one block, in a dense downtown core that's one of the oldest developed areas in the state, and they need an EAW.

But other developers can build cheap subdivisions in the exurbs all day and nobody bats an eye.

Makes sense.

You should read the rules. There are environmental review thresholds for unattached suburban housing, too.

Plus we need to remember that an EAW is a hurdle, but it's not nearly as onerous as a full EIS. I think there is some value in reviewing a project's potential impacts (an EAW includes noise, traffic, and visual impacts, too). It brings forth a lot of information for the public to review. Obviously that can give NIMBYs some ammunition, but I still think it's a valuable process.

[uptowncarag]

This is not the best block for a supertall building. There is plenty of space in downtown east.

[John]

This is not the best block for a supertall building. There is plenty of space in downtown east.

Agree, I like supertalls, but I don't think this is the best place either. This project definitely has some glaring aesthetic problems, but the height aspect of the project is fine. It makes a nice step up from the shorter 222 Hennepin apartments across the street to the taller buildings in the core.

[tab]

For scale/fit within downtown, the Crossings is a roughly similar project. The Crossings is about the same height, with similar massing and is mostly monochromatic, though it has some angles at the corners. The Eclipse as currently proposed has some advantages in the sense that it breaks up its longest face into two towers, whereas the Crossings forms a single long wall.

[Wedgeguy]

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

There is in fact a condo tower and a separate mixed, apartment on the lower and condo's on the upper portion, tower facing the park. The Jackson Tower is the Condos only and the Sibley Tower is the mixed tower. So yes it can be done easily!

[sushisimo]

I like it. The previous proposal was pretty slick, but I'm willing to let that more 'Miami' look go. I just wish Phase 1 and 2 would swap, just my preference to get the Henn/Wash corner tower first. I'm also now changing my mind of having that park across Hennepin. I'm leaning toward another development instead. In terms of money spent for parks and open space, I'd rather spend to get the post office ramp torn down and improving the sight lines from the river a bit.

[John]

^^ Agree , If they had phase one on the corner of Washington/Hennepin , it would fill in the area quicker. Also having the 16 story tower built first with the taller one stepping up to the north works better with the scale of 222 Hennepin across the street. The street level also needs to be more open with two story frontage ( of clear glass, NOT dark tinted) for retail. The current rendering makes it look concealed and a bit of fortress. Haven't we had enough of these Center Villages, City Centers, and Block E's in this town?

[Avian]

Once again I'll point out that the renderings of this project are curiously monochromatic. If the glass has even a slight reflective quality the buildings will not be as hulking as they may appear in the drawings. The end result may not be much of a "fortress" at all.

[kregger22]

Is this project waiting for approval?

[Archiapolis]

I think the responses here regarding the massing are interesting. I agree with some of the comments regarding the phasing being reversed to what it should be (more prominent corner FIRST). More importantly though, the bigger issue for me is the bulk and the relative proximity to the other phase. If both phases were more slender, there would be more open space between them which would go a long way to a better massing/architecture. This also impacts the units - the deeper the unit, the darker the interior gets (obviously)which is also undesirable. I'd be all for a taller, more slender singular tower on the corner as others have suggested. Well done all.

[bubzki2]

Yes, well done ... Perhaps UrbanMSP is really just someone's discount version of an urban planning and design think tank. Hopefully someone [who makes these decisions] is listening?