urbanMSP

I'm not saying parking stalls don't have value but *presumably*, your unit was advertised as having x stalls included in the price. Correct?

Incorrect. For the most part, parking spaces in these buildings are treated as separate pieces of property, with their own purchase price, proptery tax and HOA assessment that's not included in the list price for the condo itself. The spots in the Eclipse will probably go for ~$20k a piece

I'm not saying parking stalls don't have value but *presumably*, your unit was advertised as having x stalls included in the price. Correct? If you have x+1 cars, then you either purchase a bigger unit with x+1 stalls (and pay more for the unit) or, you make the decision to purchase the extra stall.

Perhaps all this arguing is the result of a misunderstanding, the condos I looked at back in 2006 all included zero parking spaces; one of the few cases where prices of parking are *NOT* hidden, a condo owner who wanted one space paid separately for one space and one who wanted two paid separate spaces.

Updated Google Earth model for Eclipse:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... 5&result=4

So impressive.

It's paying respect to the architectural style of its neighbor a block south on Hennepin.

Updated Google Earth model for Eclipse:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... 5&result=4

This looks like Google Earth pooped (that must have hurt, ouch!)

Man I'm getting torn apart for creating this model. sorry.

I think it's a pretty good model to give an idea of the massing, and pretty bad for what it will actually look like (because I don't think we can know for sure from the few renders we've been given).

Also I'm pretty amused by that bus shelter sinking into the parking lot.

I personally dislike the design of the Eclipse ( of what we've seen so far), but I appreciate your model very much. It gives a nice sense of scale and how it fits into the city around it. You do great work and keep doing what you do m b p.

I think it's a pretty good model to give an idea of the massing, and pretty bad for what it will actually look like (because I don't think we can know for sure from the few renders we've been given).

Also I'm pretty amused by that bus shelter sinking into the parking lot.

It's an exact model to give an idea of the massing. Viewing the floor plans, I built it up floor by floor, with the exact dimensions. Yes... color... who knows. I just made it dark gray... and tried to pick a pale gold color for the trim. As for the bus shelter... once you place the model in google earth and view things at street level (without entering 'street view'), details of surrounding areas can start looking odd.

People get that this is not just a picture... but a google earth model right? you open it in google earth...

Man I'm getting torn apart for creating this model. sorry.

Your model is awesome (forgive me); I'm definitely not shooting the messenger here.

^I agree. Keep up the good work m b p! The models are terrific. Even if the architecture is questionable.

The model is great at putting the massing into context. One of the problems with the model is it only has 2 colors, which is not a fault of you. But if windows were be added in for some reflection that would help a bit to break up the mass. More details on the street levels would add to the visual, but you can't know what that detail really is yet. When both of those are done it would make it less of a monochromic scheme. m b p you did a great first step, once we can start adding details to the building hopefully it will lose some of it's bulkiness. m b p please do things like this, even if it is only a starting point. It helps the rest of us gain a better perspective of what we are talking about. Great job!!

My comment was no offense to you mbp.

Thanks for the model, MBP. After looking at it, I have to ask, what do they plan on doing with the space on the pedestal that is blocked in? If the top level is just open-topped parking it will look pretty gross, but at the same time, how popular will a roof top deck be that is boxed in on all sides?

It's an awkward site, but it's really too bad they couldn't figure out a better massing for the towers.

Thanks for the model, MBP. After looking at it, I have to ask, what do they plan on doing with the space on the pedestal that is blocked in? If the top level is just open-topped parking it will look pretty gross, but at the same time, how popular will a roof top deck be that is boxed in on all sides?

It's an awkward site, but it's really too bad they couldn't figure out a better massing for the towers.

Stanton wants the city to grant him an increase in the parking ratio variance for The Eclipse. They can do so with conditions. That's really the best way for the city to get some leverage to modify the design (i.e. massing). I'm hoping that happens even though I'm not happy with the increase in parking stalls. The problem is we're dealing with a developer who has very little understanding or concern about good urban design.

Is there any possibility that the ratio has anything to do with the viability of this project. In other words, is Stanton thinking that this much parking revenue is needed as part of the funding source to pay down debt?
I'm more inclined to think that he believes it will be a selling point versus a revenue stream, but I could be wrong.

Is there any possibility that the ratio has anything to do with the viability of this project. In other words, is Stanton thinking that this much parking revenue is needed as part of the funding source to pay down debt?
I'm more inclined to think that he believes it will be a selling point versus a revenue stream, but I could be wrong.

I think you're on the right track. His point is that there are quite a few people who want to buy condos downtown, but many of them are put off by the fact that they would have to change their life style to do so. Yes, there are restaurants, shops, and dozens of other amenities withing walking distance, but what happens when the husband wants to go golfing and the wife has a lunch date with her friends in Edina on a Saturday.

People who are willing to pay for a $350k condo are not the same people who want to jump on a bus. They would rather pay an extra $25k for a parking spot for their car.

If we were talking about market rate condos with two bedroom units going for $180k, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Is there any possibility that the ratio has anything to do with the viability of this project. In other words, is Stanton thinking that this much parking revenue is needed as part of the funding source to pay down debt?
I'm more inclined to think that he believes it will be a selling point versus a revenue stream, but I could be wrong.

I think you're on the right track. His point is that there are quite a few people who want to buy condos downtown, but many of them are put off by the fact that they would have to change their life style to do so. Yes, there are restaurants, shops, and dozens of other amenities withing walking distance, but what happens when the husband wants to go golfing and the wife has a lunch date with her friends in Edina on a Saturday.

People who are willing to pay for a $350k condo are not the same people who want to jump on a bus. They would rather pay an extra $25k for a parking spot for their car.

If we were talking about market rate condos with two bedroom units going for $180k, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I think this is the clearest description of what is happening with this building. The "market" that this developer is looking for is exactly as described - people that can afford a big price tag and aren't really willing to embrace "urbanism." What I am trying to say (and many others) is that there are implications for the CITY that go beyond this developer's market and that now is the time to push back in an effort to shepherd the city in a more urban direction that is less car oriented. Just because this developer wants something based on his own pro forma, doesn't necessarily mean he should get it.

I don't know who said it but to think that the parking counts on this project wouldn't set a precedent is extremely naive. Our entire legal system is based on "precedent" and "case law." To think that the next developer wouldn't point to this and say, "But HE got a parking increase, why can't I?" is ludicrous. I have yet to meet a residential developer working in this metro who didn't want more parking than they were allowed. If there are architects from firms working in this market who have a different experience, I'd love to hear about it.

Did these parking maximums exist during the Condo boom? Was there any pushback against them back then? It's not like he's going to be the first person to build a condo building in downtown.