Stadium Parking Ramp Development Site - 25 stories / 294'

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby mattaudio » February 6th, 2014, 2:54 pm

If anything could possibly detract from the hideous design of the Vikings stadium next door, it would be something hideous like a London-esque "shard" or "gherkin."

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Didier » February 6th, 2014, 3:42 pm

I think the Burj Khalifa would fit nicely here. I'm surprised nobody proposed it.

uptowncarag

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby uptowncarag » February 6th, 2014, 4:29 pm

If anything could possibly detract from the hideous design of the Vikings stadium next door, it would be something hideous like a London-esque "shard" or "gherkin."
The stadium is not hideous. I thought I would correct you.

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby John » February 6th, 2014, 6:27 pm

I was really surprised to see that there was not a hotel AND residential mixed use for this site, seems to me to be a great spot for something like that.
100% agree. Really if they combined both Ryan's and Mortenson' proposals together we would have a worthy project. We need to bring A LOT of people into DTE to make it really work. The denser the human activity the better for that too happen.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2719
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Downtown, Minneapolis

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Nick » February 6th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Nick Magrino
[email protected]

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4471
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Silophant » February 6th, 2014, 8:29 pm

If anything could possibly detract from the hideous design of the Vikings stadium next door, it would be something hideous like a London-esque "shard" or "gherkin."
The stadium is not hideous. I thought I would correct you.
Neither is the Shard. The Gherkin... eh. I think it's interesting.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby John » February 7th, 2014, 12:53 am

No, the developers need to go for it. The former Mayor said something "iconic" should be built here, and the city requested retail wrapped around the ramp. So in response all they basically did was copy Nic on Fifth and the Hampton Inn project, plop it on top of this ramp, and call it a proposal. I guess if Ryan and Mortenson can't come up with the caliber of a project that was called for, that's an issue of their capability as professional developers. It has nothing to do with my personal architectural fantasies, etc.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby min-chi-cbus » February 7th, 2014, 7:37 am

No, the developers need to go for it. The former Mayor said something "iconic" should be built here, and the city requested retail wrapped around the ramp. So in response all they basically did was copy Nic on Fifth and the Hampton Inn project, plop it on top of this ramp, and call it a proposal. I guess if Ryan and Mortenson can't come up with the caliber of a project that was called for, that's an issue of their capability as professional developers. It has nothing to do with my personal architectural fantasies, etc.
But what can you reasonably expect with such a short time table? Most of the other developers didn't even try to turn in a proposal that fast!

Which, btw, tells me one of two things:

1. The City has unrealistic expectations of how long it takes to come up with a development RFP, or;
2. The City and Ryan are behind-the-scene partners and they knew by providing such a small window of opportunity for RFPs that really the only developer who would come forward is Ryan, who already has a big head start on the specs and such.

I'm starting to believe the latter.....the question is, why?
Last edited by min-chi-cbus on February 7th, 2014, 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby mattaudio » February 7th, 2014, 7:38 am

We have a 28 story residential proposal, or a 300 room hotel, on a single block, 10 blocks away from the downtown core. Not bad. But that does little for the street life in this wasteland. We don't need all our eggs in one basket in DTE. Why would we want a megablock here, but barren frontage of the "Yard" along 5th St? Why would we want to cement 3rd St as a canyon of inhospitability between the existing Mill District residents/visitors and the yard? We need to push for decent frontage, not "iconic" starchitecture. Iconic plans will come in 20-40 years when there's no more vacant surface lots in the area.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby talindsay » February 7th, 2014, 7:51 am

We have a 28 story residential proposal, or a 300 room hotel, on a single block, 10 blocks away from the downtown core. Not bad. But that does little for the street life in this wasteland. We don't need all our eggs in one basket in DTE. Why would we want a megablock here, but barren frontage of the "Yard" along 5th St? Why would we want to cement 3rd St as a canyon of inhospitability between the existing Mill District residents/visitors and the yard? We need to push for decent frontage, not "iconic" starchitecture. Iconic plans will come in 20-40 years when there's no more vacant surface lots in the area.
Agreed. A huge project here would do more harm than good right now. Either of these would be great because each turns what would otherwise be a parking ramp into an active use generator, but this project can't be too big or it will fill too much of the demand by itself - we want what demand there is to be spread across buildings and across uses so we can develop an active area.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Didier » February 7th, 2014, 8:06 am

How do you know it's not iconic? All we know are the numbers.

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby John » February 7th, 2014, 9:55 am

But what can you reasonably expect with such a short time table? Most of the other developers didn't even try to turn in a proposal that fast!

Which, btw, tells me one of two things:

1. The City has unrealistic expectations of how long it takes to come up with a development RFP, or;
2. The City and Ryan are behind-the-scene partners and they knew by providing such a small window of opportunity for RFPs that really the only developer who would come forward is Ryan, who already has a big head start on the specs and such.

I'm starting to believe the latter.....the question is, why?
Yes, I think this is very possible what happened. And Ryan and Mortenson came up with proposals that are basically clones of the Nic on Fifth and Hampton Inn projects maybe in haste. Perhaps "behind the scenes" something better will come about. As Mattaudio and Fotoapparatic mentioned, the street level in particular needs to be addressed better. This is imperative or otherwise we will have our first 21st century version of Center Village.

Just a quick aside. I'm always perplexed at how some people on this blog perceive people who are skyscraper fans as somehow not concerned about the pedestrian realm of a project. All we care about is how it looks in the skyline. This is a preconceived judgement that comes out of some sort of ideological disdain I guess (you should save your anger for crappy developers!). But whatever. And just an FYI, I have never, never spoken with anyone who likes tall urban buildings who isn't also passionate about creating/maintaining a strong pedestrian realm in a city. So stop stereotyping us please.
Last edited by John on February 7th, 2014, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3695
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Nathan » February 7th, 2014, 10:40 am

personally I'd rather have the apartments here, I'd like to see permanent residents on the park, not just weekend joy walkers. I'm trying to remember exactly who but I think it was Stanton who already proposed another hotel a block or two away... So Idone think we'll have to worry about attracting hotels if they're needed.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby talindsay » February 7th, 2014, 11:01 am

personally I'd rather have the apartments here, I'd like to see permanent residents on the park, not just weekend joy walkers. I'm trying to remember exactly who but I think it was Stanton who already proposed another hotel a block or two away... So Idone think we'll have to worry about attracting hotels if they're needed.
I agree that permanent residents are more important than visitors here, but remember that the main Ryan proposal already includes lots of residential in multiple phases - and my Jane Jacobs tells me that mixed types of active uses and groups of people make for a more vibrant area.

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby mattaudio » February 7th, 2014, 11:12 am

John, I understand you and many of the other skyscraper fans on here care about the overall urban experience here. I have no doubt that you care about the sidewalk realm. My point is just that, given a certain amount demand for things like hotel rooms and apartment units (yes, it's growing rapidly, but there's not unlimited demand) there are only a certain number of options to satisfy that demand. More hotel rooms or housing units or whatever on one block mean less on other blocks at this point in time. I wish we could have our cake and eat it too, but I think we need to make a choice about whether we want to be iconic when it means less of other things we also value.

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

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby John » February 7th, 2014, 11:23 am

^^^I'm in 100% agreement about the sidewalk realm of the parking ramp. That should be the priority in creating a good design for the project. And that is an ideological opinion. I don't like the concept of building massive parking ramps at all! They're antiquated lol.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3695
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Nathan » February 7th, 2014, 12:17 pm

personally I'd rather have the apartments here, I'd like to see permanent residents on the park, not just weekend joy walkers. I'm trying to remember exactly who but I think it was Stanton who already proposed another hotel a block or two away... So Idone think we'll have to worry about attracting hotels if they're needed.
I agree that permanent residents are more important than visitors here, but remember that the main Ryan proposal already includes lots of residential in multiple phases - and my Jane Jacobs tells me that mixed types of active uses and groups of people make for a more vibrant area.
How is saying that there is future residential phases a block away any different than saying there are future plans for a hotel a block away when it comes to Jane Jacobs theory of mixed types of uses? The Ryan Proposal has residents and retail, the hotel is just a hotel. And there are plenty of nearby blocks for it too. Other developers could be waiting to announce hotels the same way Ryan is waiting to develop more of it's residential units.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby talindsay » February 7th, 2014, 12:48 pm

personally I'd rather have the apartments here, I'd like to see permanent residents on the park, not just weekend joy walkers. I'm trying to remember exactly who but I think it was Stanton who already proposed another hotel a block or two away... So Idone think we'll have to worry about attracting hotels if they're needed.
I agree that permanent residents are more important than visitors here, but remember that the main Ryan proposal already includes lots of residential in multiple phases - and my Jane Jacobs tells me that mixed types of active uses and groups of people make for a more vibrant area.
How is saying that there is future residential phases a block away any different than saying there are future plans for a hotel a block away when it comes to Jane Jacobs theory of mixed types of uses? The Ryan Proposal has residents and retail, the hotel is just a hotel. And there are plenty of nearby blocks for it too. Other developers could be waiting to announce hotels the same way Ryan is waiting to develop more of it's residential units.
Fair point, but we *know* that Ryan has already submitted plans to develop residential and we currently don't have any hotel directly on the newly-planned park. Honestly, I don't really care one way or another - I think they both sound appropriate for the current state of DTE - I just think the hotel guarantees a use that's currently not planned while the residential duplicates a use that's already planned, so I prefer the hotel. That's all. And if somebody announced intent to build a hotel right next to this tomorrow, I might change my mind. I just want to see a broad mix of uses at a scale that makes the streetscape inviting and interesting. Any development that masks the parking ramp and provides an active use is better than not having one.

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 717
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby nordeast homer » February 7th, 2014, 1:54 pm

If anyone has ties to a large amount of capital and to the Minneapolis planning department, I'd gladly combine the two proposals. I'll have my wife draw up some preliminary plans, heck, I'll even throw in a planetarium.
I can't believe they could have been less imaginative...

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Stadium Parking Ramp Air Rights Development

Postby Wedgeguy » February 7th, 2014, 3:45 pm

After going last night to the DMNA meeting I wish I had good news for you all. But I'm afraid that most of you will be disappointed as I was. There are 2 proposals with:
Mortenson Development: they plan a 300 room hotel that will carry dual brands as AC by Marriott and SpringHill Suites by Marriott. The building will be approxiamately 189,000 gsf and cost $63M.
Ryan Companies; they plan a 28-story apartment tower with ground floor restaurant/retail facing forth street. It will have approximately 344,000 gsf of residential with approximately 6,000 gsf of retail. Cost would be $104M. There is talk of some sort of pocket park on 4th. But that only made me feel less sure about what was happening on 4th.
The disappointing part is that when I pressed the CPED representative about how these building would intersect at street level, it does not sound very promising. The only street with retail will be 4th. Though supposedly with the Ryan project a restaurant is supposed to wraparound the corner that faces the stadium and there will be a green wall similar to that used at the Mosaic being done on Chicago. Does not sound like either of the proposals will hide the fact that they are build on a parking ramp. So if you are hoping for an exciting and walkable street scape, it is not coming at this point. The Mortenson project will have the usual lobby, restaurant, bar facing 4th street. I would assuming some fitness center, meeting rooms would fill out the linear floor plates 2-6, until you get to the room floors above the parking garage. They are not doing anything on the other 3 side of the parking ramp. Ryan's tower will cover approximately 1/2 the parking ramp. I do not know if they pan to make a outdoor area like Nic on 5th did or not over the top of the exposed parking garage. Again when I pressed about the exterior of the ramp portions I could not get much of any real response. Not sure if that is because they have not tackled that yet in the planning. But I'd say that it is a subject to bring up to your council person and mayor.
Only other thing I learned last night about the project was the approximate completion dates. January 17 for Mortenson and August 17 for the Ryan project.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests