RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[grant1simons2]

Apartment market might be? But if you go on Edina Realty and check out recently sold to currently for sale, it's almost dead even with a few more recently sold than for sale. Portland tower is doing well, but that's Stanton.

Could it be that United should stick to offices? Maybe. I'm not sure how well Greystar knows our downtown market either. They might be looking at uptown and thinking, "It's probably just like this downtown". There are a lot of weird things about this project so I can totally relate to upset council members.

[acs]

Also, let's put it this way. If a developer had the power and drive and money and ability to build a 900 ft building, they could do it wherever they wanted in the city. If not winning this rfp stopped them, that's a good sign it was never meant to be.

8 years ago I would have agreed with this. We had acres of full-block surface lots and nothing on the books preventing someone from creating more. Nowadays, there's only maybe 5 full block lots left where you could realistically build something taller than the IDS. The ritz lot is getting Nic on 5th II and III, we have this underwhelming proposal, one would require demo-ing a couple historic buildings, another is locked up long-term for parking and that leaves Thrivent's lot with some real promise.

Nowadays the city would never allow a developer to demo some shorter buildings and bank the land to eventually build something iconic, which is a good thing. So the one block out of the 5 where the city has some actual control they really need to flex some muscle.

[trigonalmayhem]

I honestly don't think the market is by any means saturated for downtown housing units. Maybe they can't read our local market correctly because greystar isn't familiar with it and united doesn't really do residential much (at all?). But plenty of others are still moving ahead full steam with multiple projects to add twice as much housing per project and they don't seem concerned. If this group of development partners are too afraid to be bold or even play it at the same risk level as the rest of our risk-averse local developers why the hell did they get the deal for this site?

[EOst]

8 years ago I would have agreed with this. We had acres of full-block surface lots and nothing on the books preventing someone from creating more. Nowadays, there's only maybe 5 full block lots left where you could realistically build something taller than the IDS. The ritz lot is getting Nic on 5th II and III, we have this underwhelming proposal, one would require demo-ing a couple historic buildings, another is locked up long-term for parking and that leaves Thrivent's lot with some real promise.

You don't need a full block to build something tall. Look at the Capella building, which only has about 2/3rds of its block, or the TCF redevelopment on basically a quarter-block. There are also the private ramps (eg. Lasalle & 9th, Marquette & 4th) and at least a couple buildings in the 60s Gateway that could be knocked down.

If the financials ever pencil out for a supertall in Minneapolis (and they may never!), I really doubt the absence of a full 1/8 mile square on which to build will be an impediment.

[TroyGBiv]

The Duval plan foot print would fit on a lot the size of the parking lot on the Young-Quinlan block. Duval had some blue chip experience at Portman and associates and had been the lead in some massive projects in China. The issue was he didn't come up with the require financing plan and that is really problematic for the city. But it was also a fairly fast timeline for to proposals and it worked against any national or international developers from pitching. May be a good learning opportunity for the city if they ever try this again.

[trigonalmayhem]

Yeah it seems like the short timeline meant they were limiting it to developers who would self finance or have an easy line of credit handy. Sometimes projects take a while to cobble together financing, especially if they wanted something big and fancy.

[FISHMANPET]

Lol watercooler chat in my office over here about the Duval proposal.

[Michael]

Somewhat different slant:

"United Properties: We will deliver ‘iconic’ Minneapolis tower"

Read more: http://finance-commerce.com/2016/01/uni ... z3wWPmaQFB


http://finance-commerce.com/2016/01/uni ... lis-tower/

[Archiapolis]

The Duval plan foot print would fit on a lot the size of the parking lot on the Young-Quinlan block. Duval had some blue chip experience at Portman and associates and had been the lead in some massive projects in China. The issue was he didn't come up with the require financing plan and that is really problematic for the city. But it was also a fairly fast timeline for to proposals and it worked against any national or international developers from pitching. May be a good learning opportunity for the city if they ever try this again.

Well said. The timeline is the reason that things have been and still appear to be half-baked on this site.

With that said, I can tell from this rendering that this is nowhere near what the final proposal will be - I'm not saying everyone will love it but ESG is a very capable firm and this design (and the rendering) are not what they would normally bring to a meeting of any magnitude. The height/size are not driven by the architect as everyone should know so the onus is on United Properties and "the market." Let's take a deep breath and see what the next iteration looks like; my bet is that it will be fully developed with imagery to match.

[FISHMANPET]

Frey said this was just a massing diagram, not a final design render. They should have just made it a grey blob instead of a glass clad blob, so that people would be clear on what it was.

[Zmike]

Just once I'd like to see something built that isn't shrunk Down 5-6 stories and resembles some of the classic character of architecture this city saw in the mid-80s through the mid 90s. Even when the city calls for "iconic" the same old story happens in Minneapolis. Two or three years ago, somebody posted on this forum, and I don't remember the user name, that Minneapolis would never see another building over 400 feet ever. I remember all the controversy that stirred up. However I think this person, who seemed to have quite a bit of insight is correct. I know they don't post here anymore, but I'm starting to see the reality of their prediction.

[NEeaster]

Article in the strib today said the sale went through. Also mentions updated images/design that was seen but won't yet be released to the public

[seanrichardryan]

They also amended the terms to get more say on the final design-

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/01/min ... ted-tower/

[Silophant]

Just once I'd like to see something built that isn't shrunk Down 5-6 stories and resembles some of the classic character of architecture this city saw in the mid-80s through the mid 90s. Even when the city calls for "iconic" the same old story happens in Minneapolis. Two or three years ago, somebody posted on this forum, and I don't remember the user name, that Minneapolis would never see another building over 400 feet ever. I remember all the controversy that stirred up. However I think this person, who seemed to have quite a bit of insight is correct. I know they don't post here anymore, but I'm starting to see the reality of their prediction.

First, welcome to the forum! Sorry for letting your post sit in limbo for more than a week.

However, I don't agree that we'll never get another >400' building. While it won't be this one, the condo tower proposed for 200 Central (Washburn McReavy site) is planned to be 467', and the mixed-use tower proposed for 8th and Marquette (TCF building site) is likely to be north of 600'. Neither of them are a sure thing, but there's also no particular reason to assume they'll both fall through.

[Wedgeguy]

Seeing that the city council is finally growing a backbone and following through with wanting quality in design and density with the Nicollet block. I can only hope that this is a shift to get the density that they talk about and the increase in the number of people living in the city. You can increase the number of people with out density, and you can do it with 6 story stick built apartments, Which for some is still too tall. I'm hoping that the 200 Central will find a way to get built. Either by moving the building or the city over ruling the HPC on this one. With the grain elevators in the area you can't complain that there is not presidence for tall structures in the area. It only helps to increase the customer base for the Old St. Anthony shopping district, which is a plus for all that shop in that area. They is the only way more retailers will move into the area, is if there are enough households to make it feasible. Give them enough people so that someone with deep pockets will buy Riverplace and Spend money to get it out of the 80's and filled with tenants again.

[Nathan]

https://www.facebook.com/events/469919293211352/

Looks like they're having an event to reveal this. As well as the Hennepin Ave redesign.

[Qhaberl]

I thought the Hennepin Avenue we design wasn't going to occur until 2020, is the Hennepin Avenue redesign design a separate project from the Hennepin Avenue reconstruction?

[intercomnut]

I thought the Hennepin Avenue we design wasn't going to occur until 2020, is the Hennepin Avenue redesign design a separate project from the Hennepin Avenue reconstruction?

They're seeking a federal grant, so they need to have a general sense of the street design by this summer.

[matthew5080]

https://www.facebook.com/events/469919293211352/

Looks like they're having an event to reveal this. As well as the Hennepin Ave redesign.

Thanks for the info! I'm excited to see what they have in store.

[Qhaberl]

So, since they are going to be showing renderings of the building proposed for the Nicolette [sic] hotel block, does that mean that construction could start this year? Obviously that's assuming that the planning commission approves it and everything. I'm just curious to know if anyone has any insights on a timeline.