RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[xandrex]

What the city planning commission has shown time and again, is that it does not know how to see beyond the near term. For all this talk about building the downtown population and creating energy, they sure put some water on the fire that was building.

We can argue whether a taller building would create more energy, but Duval's proposal didn't add any more residential than UP's.

[TCfusion87]

Exactly. The city did not even allow it to make it to a public forum or meeting. While dreaming, imagination, and creativity do not "literally" get steel and glass out of the ground, it forms the foundation for what can lead to a sense of community and civic pride. What the city planning commission has shown time and again, is that it does not know how to see beyond the near term. For all this talk about building the downtown population and creating energy, they sure put some water on the fire that was building.

What would have been the advantage of a public forum?

The advantage would be to involve the community and value what we have to say. Perhaps the people that actually live nearby or in the city itself would have suggestions/input that the planning commission would not even think of. This just comes off as "we know what is best for you" mentality. If they truly wanted to create something "Iconic", however you view that phrase, then it would take opinions from a larger array of the interested public.

[FISHMANPET]

Short of passing around a hat to raise funds, what would a community meeting to do prove Duval has financing in line?

[EOst]

The advantage would be to involve the community and value what we have to say. Perhaps the people that actually live nearby or in the city itself would have suggestions/input that the planning commission would not even think of. This just comes off as "we know what is best for you" mentality. If they truly wanted to create something "Iconic", however you view that phrase, then it would take opinions from a larger array of the interested public.

Okay, so let's say they held he meeting. Let's suppose some vast majority of attendees voiced support for the Duval proposal. Would that have made it prudent to accept it even without documentation that they had the money to actually build it?

[TCfusion87]

The advantage would be to involve the community and value what we have to say. Perhaps the people that actually live nearby or in the city itself would have suggestions/input that the planning commission would not even think of. This just comes off as "we know what is best for you" mentality. If they truly wanted to create something "Iconic", however you view that phrase, then it would take opinions from a larger array of the interested public.

Okay, so let's say they held he meeting. Let's suppose some vast majority of attendees voiced support for the Duval proposal. Would that have made it prudent to accept it even without documentation that they had the money to actually build it?

A vote of confidence by the city would go a long way into enticing or creating more financial support for a proposal that has been approved. It is all about the bigger picture. If the city is so worried about the viability of such a project, then they should be more clear with their intentions. Even if they selected the Duval proposal and for some reason it was not able to come through, what would stop the city from putting a stop to the "new" proposal. At the end of the day, they have almost more power than necessary.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm not sure what's more clear than
1) Require proof of financial viability
2) When proof is not delivered, give a second opportunity to provide information

[EOst]

A vote of confidence by the city would go a long way into enticing or creating more financial support for a proposal that has been approved. It is all about the bigger picture. If the city is so worried about the viability of such a project, then they should be more clear with their intentions.

Evidence of financial viability was one of the primary requirements of the RFP. I hardly think you can accuse Minneapolis of springing this on them.

Even if they selected the Duval proposal and for some reason it was not able to come through, what would stop the city from putting a stop to the "new" proposal. At the end of the day, they have almost more power than necessary.

Because they would no longer own the land?

[TCfusion87]

Even if they selected the Duval proposal and for some reason it was not able to come through, what would stop the city from putting a stop to the "new" proposal. At the end of the day, they have almost more power than necessary.

Because they would no longer own the land?[/quote]

Just because you own the land does not mean you can build whatever you want on it. Still needs a final approval, proper permits, etc.

[xandrex]

Yes. And they could just...sit on it. Or leave it as the parking lot it is. Or start building and lose financing and we'd have a foundation just sitting there like we did in the North Loop over on First Street.

[sushisimo]

That would be Ironic Iconic.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm sure that part of giving away the land the city would structure the contract such that they have more power over the site than they would a normal privately owned site.

And that being said, there's no legal basis that I know of for denying a planning permissions because we don't like the height, shape, massing, materials, etc. As long as it conforms to relevant zoning and safety codes it basically has to be approved.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Even if they selected the Duval proposal and for some reason it was not able to come through, what would stop the city from putting a stop to the "new" proposal. At the end of the day, they have almost more power than necessary.

Because they would no longer own the land?

The city would be able to structure the sale contract in such a way to ensure the project is built. And if the project isn't built the city would retain ownership of the land.

[TCfusion87]

Yes. And they could just...sit on it. Or leave it as the parking lot it is. Or start building and lose financing and we'd have a foundation just sitting there like we did in the North Loop over on First Street.

While I understand peoples reservations, is this really a healthy approach to anything? If you look at it that way, any of the proposals could lose financing. No one knows what the future holds, so there is risk involved with anything. Does that mean you dismiss it because you deem it "too risky"? Playing it safe will get you exactly that, safe. While not all risk is good, it does not mean we should be afraid to push ourselves a little further. That is what makes people, places, ideas unique. Dare I say, Iconic even. How about we try to be a little more positive and realistic at the same time. It's ok to dream and want more, no need to be so overbearingly realistic that it makes you stuck in your old ways, or even worse, unable to trust the future.

[5th Ave Guy]

Why he didn't just start a Kickstarter campaign? Everyone on here would've put in a few bucks. Financing... done.

[Silophant]

Financing and preleasing in one go!

Pledge $24,000 or more
(1 of 1 available)
Live in Unit 5308 for one year!

[FISHMANPET]

I'm just a dude with a car loan and student loans and other debt etc etc. If I made this proposal and printed out my most recent bank statement as proof of financing, I'd get metaphorically laughed out of the room.

If I brought this to the table and popped open a briefcase with $100 million in cash, I'd get the opposite response.

Short of bringing a briefcase of cash to the table, everything is risky (and even that's risky, what if I take it to vegas tomorrow?). So really everything is risky. But obviously one of the scenarios I laid out above is more risky than the other. All risk is not created equal. Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but let's not treat all levels of risk as being equal.

[xandrex]

While I understand peoples reservations, is this really a healthy approach to anything? If you look at it that way, any of the proposals could lose financing. No one knows what the future holds, so there is risk involved with anything. Does that mean you dismiss it because you deem it "too risky"? Playing it safe will get you exactly that, safe. While not all risk is good, it does not mean we should be afraid to push ourselves a little further. That is what makes people, places, ideas unique. Dare I say, Iconic even. How about we try to be a little more positive and realistic at the same time. It's ok to dream and want more, no need to be so overbearingly realistic that it makes you stuck in your old ways, or even worse, unable to trust the future.

The problem is that there is lost opportunity and risk assessment. If they give it to Duval and he fumbles and it never gets off the ground, all of a sudden the city hasn't collected just about anything off of the land in property taxes (if any, depending on the ownership structure) and everyone else has packed up their designs and gone on to other projects. There's no guarantee that Mortenson, United Properties, or anyone else would have the ability, want, or capacity at that point. So it sits for even longer, still not collecting any money for the city. All because they decided to "dream" instead of, you know, be realistic.

It's okay to be disgruntled that Duval didn't win. That's fine. But pretending that the city should have thrown all caution to the wind for a guy who clearly treated this process with more flash than substance just so we can "dream" is being a height fetishist, plain and simple.

[TCfusion87]

I am more disgruntled with the people in this world that give up and have no ambition to change things for the better. I would rather "dream" than settle for second rate. I am all for building something of substance that is the most well rounded and interacts with the surrounding area. I respect the other proposals, but by no means are they what most of us would consider "iconic". Yes, I do like height, but I think most of us would agree that the elements in the Duval proposal were far more ambitions and fitting for what the city was aiming for compared to the others. It would be wise for certain individuals to not go around labeling people for having a difference of opinion. Agree to disagree. Moving on.

[FISHMANPET]

Yeah, but nobody's saying that the Duval wasn't the most ambitious proposal, or that we would prefer it not get built. But it takes more than just "wanting it" to finance a building, and Duval wasn't able to do that, or at the very least wasn't able to prove he could do that.

End of story. Full stop. That's it. This is a discussion about how Duval couldn't bring the money to the table, nothing else. Trying to make it about the height or the design is irrelevant, because that's not what it's about.

[xandrex]

For what it's worth, I'm quite sad Duval couldn't build this. It's the design I wanted. But with some tweaks, I would be very happy with the United Properties proposal.