urbanMSP

That parking ramp half-block development is unfortunate, but at least it improved from the first presentation to the second. Parking ramps wrapped with apartments are at least better than surface lots of parking lots unwrapped. But perhaps there is now an option for the public to have input on the development of that block. This County consolidation also opens up some other sites to redevelopment, especially the Family Justice Center. I wonder if Opus, having developed the Ritz and Marq buildings right next door, might be interested in developing that block as well. My great dream is that the County will vacate the Medical Examiner and (especially the) JDC/CPH buildings, to allow opportunities to redevelop the south end of the Commons Park.

In downtown east, the spotlight is now on Thrivent to build a headquarters on the block opposite that isn't awful. Given how their first building turned out, I'm not sure I trust them to do that, but hopefully there is some development interest on that block to build real mixed use. There is space for Thrivent's headquarters and a few apartment buildings. The KA Block shows that it can be done, even with a company whose initial plans were less than inspiring.

Oh, and someday I hope that horrible red glass and steel will get replaced and repainted. The building wouldn't be half as awful if it weren't tinted so garishly.

If Thrivent is building a new headquarters on the open block, why are they still interested in building a parking ramp / apartment building on the east half of their current block? Is it to have enough parking for their executives while they build the new headquarters and lose those surface parking spaces? That seems like terrible land use to take that half block for a relatively low density development... any thoughts?

I think if they had their way they'd just build a ramp period, but they're trying to read the room by covering it with apartments. There's no other reason they'd have picked Interstate Parking as the developer.

good point

I know there are much bigger happenings with this plan. But, it'll be great if we could keep the trees that surround the half block where the ramp will go. They're some of the healthier and larger trees Downtown. Maybe they could leave some of them on the exterior of the ramp or if there is green space with the new HQ they could move them? I doubt that's possible however.

Here is the packet for the half block parcel:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 206881.pdf

It will be interesting to see where this one goes. It's gone from completely unacceptable to mostly but not completely terrible. The Downtown Neighborhood Council rescinded it's support of the project on the grounds that it was too small essentially. Elliot Park supported the project but their letter was very clear that they have huge problems with the project, which were more or less the same as DTNC.

It will be interesting to see how the council proceeds especially with the community opposition and with a new Mayor and Council in January how that will effect things.

I'd make exceptions to build this one out of tinfoil and balsa wood. It's supposed to be temporary, right?

After a brief glance, I would rather see the retail portion be at ground level as opposed to in the skyways. I'm not sure that a residential lobby will necessarily activate the street and put eyes on the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's not great.


Looks like the DMNA officially rescinded their support on the grounds that it's not dense enough. Good for them!

Yeah, that's not great.


Looks like the DMNA officially rescinded their support on the grounds that it's not dense enough. Good for them!

How much weight does that have?

This development is very meh to me.

Oh, probably next to none, but it's nice to see that there's at least a couple of neighborhood associations out there that understand the need for more density instead of always going to the mat to fight for only single family homes forever.

After a brief glance, I would rather see the retail portion be at ground level as opposed to in the skyways. I'm not sure that a residential lobby will necessarily activate the street and put eyes on the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of the original proposals did have ground level retail. Not sure why they made this change:

UPDATES SINCE CoW MEETING.
...
• Replaced ground floor commercial space with residential lobby space;

Proud of the DMNA for speaking out against this project. I worry about them sometimes as a neighborhood association being so large. It would be nice if they could be vocal about wanting the surface lots in their neighborhood filled up with 10+ story buildings.

Grant, isn't this property zoned for much higher density? Why would a developer worth its salt want to build just a 6 story stick built apartment building in the the CBD of a prosperous and growing city? ? Won't the city loose out on a significant amount of property taxes given the potential of this site? It seems like a very weak proposal given all these factors...

The developer is Interstate Parking. They're only doing apartments because they know a naked ramp won't get approved by the city.

The developer is Interstate Parking. They're only doing apartments because they know a naked ramp won't get approved by the city.

It's very poor land use/utilization of this property. The city should ask them to go back to the drawing board like they instructed KA with their original proposal a few blocks away.

I wanna go to the meeting and say this doesn't fit the neighborhood character

it will RUIN the CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING???? yeah lets all go to the meeting lol

it will RUIN the CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING???? yeah lets all go to the meeting lol

This seems like an opportunity for a hilarious streets.mn outing, is there an actual meeting we can go to?