365 Nicollet (334' - 30 stories)

[uncle phil]

Perhaps, but look at any of the documentation and it's pretty clear...

[mattaudio]

Maybe the residential part of the Nicollet Hotel block can snag the 360 Nicollet address

[Silophant]

The planning applications report says that Opus is seeking a variance to have only 34% of the ground floor be retail on Nicollet Mall, instead of the required 60%. Additionally it confirms that the official address is 315 Nicollet, and that the building will be 30 stories. Great job, Opus. You're such an asset to the downtown and the city.


I'm sure they'll get their variances, but my hope would be that the city tells Opus that they got their variance for no ground floor retail at all in 401 Nicollet, so they can go pound sand for this one.

[grant1simons2]

I would love to hear their excuse why... Seeming that the CoW meeting on June 4th looked like an O.K. design for the Nicollet side.

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 141970.pdf

I'm really hoping that we can have a better group of developers by the time I get my arch certification.

[Archiapolis]

I would love to hear their excuse why... Seeming that the CoW meeting on June 4th looked like an O.K. design for the Nicollet side.

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 141970.pdf

I'm really hoping that we can have a better group of developers by the time I get my arch certification.

I've said over and over again that "we" as a city need to be harder on developers when they try to bait and switch (whether it is a reduction in retail or exterior materials, etc.). Until CPED starts denying these variances, nothing will change and they probably won't unless "we" start complaining.

After having said all of that, I hate to now say this...retail just isn't that great this far north of the traditional retail further south. I've said that any ideas about some great retail happening at the Nicollet Hotel block seems to be a long shot. I know that everyone here is an urbanist and walking 5-6 blocks from IDS or taking one of the many Nicollet buses and/or biking are the greatest options in the history of transit but to people that aren't urbanists these options aren't great. Slogging down Nicollet with a bunch of bags, while getting accosted by "undesirables" the whole way, waiting for buses back and forth with the unwashed masses, or bouncing back and forth to more bike-friendly streets just aren't great options for a retail experience that somehow stretches from Target to the Nicollet Hotel block. I get that not everyone will be traveling north/south on Nicollet.

The Opus Block/Nic On Fifth, Central Library, Nicollet Hotel Block etc. are kind of in a retail "no man's land" between the CBD and the hip/now/with it/wow North Loop.

I've been in the Whole Foods many times and it's a great experience and maybe that is enough gravitational force for something special to happen on the Nicollet Block but between Washington and 5th is pretty barren. When some of the retail in the "traditional" shopping further south on Nicollet isn't exactly going gangbusters, it's hard to imagine anything great at this end.

[mattaudio]

Two different kinds of retail. When you say "slogging down Nicollet witha bunch of bags" you make it sound like this shopping is for "people out shopping." Those people are probably in Edina or Bloomington or somewhere else. That's why even retail in the core blocks of Nicollet struggles.

The northern area of the Mall is different, especially with thousands of new residential units in the immediate vicinity. The skyway will likely reach this block, but it's not the same as the "core" skyway that's the retail heart of downtown. When "urbanists" say "retail" they don't necessarily mean department stores and boutiques and stores that simply sell goods. They usually mean businesses that serve the neighborhood. Thousands of new residents need places to eat at night, dry cleaners, maybe a bike shop, pizza/chinese takeout, a barber, etc. If my quiet litte neighborhood down by Lake Nokomis has streetcar corners with 8 to 10 businesses, I'm sure this "Core Washington" neighborhood can support that. Washington has already seen an increase in retail in the North Loop and the Mill District... this project and the blocks around it would merely represent filling in of that gap.

[amiller92]

After having said all of that, I hate to now say this...retail just isn't that great this far north of the traditional retail further south.

I don't think it has anything to do with where it's "traditional" to shop. I think it has to do with where the people are, and, as you point out, the day time workers will be farther south. Retail here is going to have to appeal to the additional residents in this and the other new buildings in the area.

Eventually, it will be a lot of units/people, but it's going to take some time. Is that a reason for a variance? I don't know.

[mnmike]

Well it was confirmed as 30 stories in the June 4th report that we have seen (Grant linked)...and I thought they were always proposing less than the 60% required retail? But maybe turning the tower to have the thin side face Nicollet had solved that in the last report we saw. Maybe they are now turning the tower to have the broad side face Nicollet again? Can't really tell if they are trying to decrease the amount of retail to even less than before, or if it is a orientation thing...because the original 12k with the tower having a full Nic frontage was definitely already well under 60%.

I don't really think it is a "bait and switch"...they were always proposing a disappointing amount of retail here...I am betting it is the same amount as they originally proposed, they are just now applying for the variance.

PS, yes, retail would probably sit empty here for awhile, unless it yet another destination restaurant that may or may not last. Nice to have the option there though. Also, what Matt said.

[MNdible]

Settle down, folks. Look at the site plan. Take a deep breath.

The 60% number makes sense for a building that's, say, a quarter of a block fronting on Nicollet. But even that's probably pushing it, when you consider all of the other things that are jostling for that critical ground floor real estate (lobby for apartment building, elevator cores, egress stairs, loading dock, parking garage access, dumpsters, etc.). But now, when you go to a half block site, only a very small portion of that ground floor footprint has access to the prime Nicollet Mall street frontage.

The intent of the rule, it would seem to me, is that the project have active retail fronting on the Mall. The revised plan seems to fully check that box.

Honestly, the 60% requirement should probably be ditched in favor of something that more closely corresponds to the actual goals the city is trying to achieve. Any type of mixed use development is going to have a very hard time meeting the current code.

[John]

It's a rather lame project for a site that really should having something much more architecturally ambitious with stronger interaction at the street level with Nicollet Mall. A wasted opportunity.

[Archiapolis]

Well it was confirmed as 30 stories in the June 4th report that we have seen (Grant linked)...and I thought they were always proposing less than the 60% required retail? But maybe turning the tower to have the thin side face Nicollet had solved that in the last report we saw. Maybe they are now turning the tower to have the broad side face Nicollet again? Can't really tell if they are trying to decrease the amount of retail to even less than before, or if it is a orientation thing...because the original 12k with the tower having a full Nic frontage was definitely already well under 60%.

I don't really think it is a "bait and switch"...they were always proposing a disappointing amount of retail here...I am betting it is the same amount as they originally proposed, they are just now applying for the variance.

PS, yes, retail would probably sit empty here for awhile, unless it yet another destination restaurant that may or may not last. Nice to have the option there though. Also, what Matt said.

My preamble was making the point that CPED will keep granting variances unless somebody speaks up. If people don't like the variance, voice that opinion to the city.

The point I was making regarding retail is that they could be difficult to lease in the short term (trying to be devil's advocate of the developers). Not saying that means "we" shouldn't demand something good for our streets...

[John]

^^^What I don't understand is why there is so little retail. There is this booming residential population all around it , in addition to hundreds of hotel rooms going up nearby. This site seems like such an attractive place for retail that caters to the demographic niche of both the North Loop and the other urban dwellers moving into the core. It's a no brainer. My hunch is Opus is not a very savvy. They are corporate and stodgy, and play it extremely safe. They have suburban, car centric values. Such a shame they are developing one of the best parcels downtown.

[HiawathaGuy]

^^^What I don't understand is why there is so little retail. There is this booming residential population all around it , in addition to hundreds of hotel rooms going up nearby. This site seems like such an attractive place for retail that caters to the demographic niche of both the North Loop and the other urban dwellers moving into the core. It's a no brainer. My hunch is Opus is not a very savvy. They are corporate and stodgy, and play it extremely safe. They have suburban, car centric values. Such a shame they are developing one of the best parcels downtown.

While I firmly agree with you on this warranting more retail space, there's obviously a reason the developers aren't adding it, and I don't think it has to do with being corporate or stodgy. I honestly believe that if they had solid numbers to back up the need, they'd be building it. These developers are all about making money - if there was rent to be had from more retail, they'd be adding it!

Perhaps in the future more retail space can be added by retrofitting some parts of this building. But if the desire for more retail is simply because we want it, I can't fault them for doing what they believe the market can support with their investment dollars.

[Nick]

Or maybe they spent an hour walking around town, noticed the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of square feet of vacant commercial space, and made the decision that more vacant commercial space is not the solution to vacant commercial space.

[Minneboy]

Because they charge so much for that space. If they made the rent reasonable they'd have a business in those locations and people would go to them. The street level retail is where the owners should charge very little to get that interaction and possible tenants because of the retail activity. Who wants to move into a building that has a vacant street life. Would you want to move into a town that has no businesses in it?

[John]

Or maybe they spent an hour walking around town, noticed the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of square feet of vacant commercial space, and made the decision that more vacant commercial space is not the solution to vacant commercial space.

I do agree there's a problem with a lot of vacant retail space downtown and Opus has done a great job contributing to that! Their retail component of their project Nic on Fifth will likely be vacant for a long time. It was poorly designed and they probably want way too much rent. So we will have the same set up at 315 Nicollet. Fantastic

[contrast]

Settle down, folks. Look at the site plan. Take a deep breath.

The 60% number makes sense for a building that's, say, a quarter of a block fronting on Nicollet. But even that's probably pushing it, when you consider all of the other things that are jostling for that critical ground floor real estate (lobby for apartment building, elevator cores, egress stairs, loading dock, parking garage access, dumpsters, etc.). But now, when you go to a half block site, only a very small portion of that ground floor footprint has access to the prime Nicollet Mall street frontage.

The intent of the rule, it would seem to me, is that the project have active retail fronting on the Mall. The revised plan seems to fully check that box.

Honestly, the 60% requirement should probably be ditched in favor of something that more closely corresponds to the actual goals the city is trying to achieve. Any type of mixed use development is going to have a very hard time meeting the current code.

Agree. But shouldn't ditch the 60% until there is a logical, better methodology.

[Wedgeguy]

The logical place to have a residential lobby is on 3rd and 4th where there are streets where vehicle travel is allowed to drop people off in front. This wasting interior space for a drop off seems very wasteful to me. There can be egress stairs to Nicollet, but to waste space on two lobbies is very poor planning.

[Archiapolis]

^^^What I don't understand is why there is so little retail. There is this booming residential population all around it , in addition to hundreds of hotel rooms going up nearby. This site seems like such an attractive place for retail that caters to the demographic niche of both the North Loop and the other urban dwellers moving into the core. It's a no brainer. My hunch is Opus is not a very savvy. They are corporate and stodgy, and play it extremely safe. They have suburban, car centric values. Such a shame they are developing one of the best parcels downtown.

While I firmly agree with you on this warranting more retail space, there's obviously a reason the developers aren't adding it, and I don't think it has to do with being corporate or stodgy. I honestly believe that if they had solid numbers to back up the need, they'd be building it. These developers are all about making money - if there was rent to be had from more retail, they'd be adding it!

Perhaps in the future more retail space can be added by retrofitting some parts of this building. But if the desire for more retail is simply because we want it, I can't fault them for doing what they believe the market can support with their investment dollars.

This eloquently makes the point that I was struggling to articulate.

[Archiapolis]

Or maybe they spent an hour walking around town, noticed the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of square feet of vacant commercial space, and made the decision that more vacant commercial space is not the solution to vacant commercial space.

This also supports the point that I was poorly articulating.