urbanMSP

We have small store fronts. We have a shortage of affordable small store fronts. As I've said before, large-scale development management often see providing these as a necessary inconvenience rather than a component of a successful development. They'd rather hold out and have empty storefronts with a high asking lease than actually reduce the lease to get occupancy. Look how many storefronts downtown have been vacant for years or even decades, even on Nicollet Mall.

Many of the areas that grrdanko mention are not high rent. Hennepin and the Mall, yes. But there are up and coming retail nodes that already have the better foot traffic than this section of Marquette. These stores are really isolated and have not got the retail type foot traffic that they need to prosper. I agree that some landlords leave spaces empty for either a possible better deal , that like you say, have not come along in how many years. Or as a tax write off, for under performing losses, or both.

If landlords just sit with empty properties thinking that by some miracle they will get high rents when there is no critical mass to draw consumers to the area. Then they will eventually be bankrupt.

Where is this in the approval process?

I know it's been to Committee of the Whole, but it has not actually been approved by the Planning Commission yet, has it?
And has the building demolition been approved by the HPC? From the sound of that Strib article, the HPC would have no recourse but to approve demolition, considering the prior court ruling that it was not historic, or was not part of the historic Handicraft building.

Interesting article on why this is being torn down and why other old buildings face similar prospects:
http://www.startribune.com/marquette-de ... 311562521/

In short, it comes down to small size, high property taxes, and low rent. That makes this property a money loser even before the deferred maintenance needed to bring the building up to modern regulations.

10th and marquette model

Wow! Well done!

Amidst the excitement, you may have missed that the developers are petitioning the Planning Commission to allow them to use EIFS on this beauty [PDF]. The examples they provide are less than inspirational -- a rogues gallery of bad design.

I can't imagine why the Planning Commission would allow them to, unless they really liked that Disneyland, film set look.

If I were the PC, I'd consider rejecting the petition simply because of the attempt to use Atlanta as an example of a similar climate as Minneapolis.

Personally I don't think eifs is nearly as criminal as cement board, especially if it's installed correctly. It can be a slick modern material as well. It's on the majority of the elan buildings...

Amidst the excitement, you may have missed that the developers are petitioning the Planning Commission to allow them to use EIFS on this beauty [PDF]. The examples they provide are less than inspirational -- a rogues gallery of bad design.

Oh, man. Not only will it make your building hideous it's only guaranteed for 5 years! Woohooo!

I agree with Nathan, EIFs is not as criminal as cement board and if done well can look nice. I think it could give this a building a smooth modern look. Don't get me started on the odd stepping at the base...is historic driving this?

Except that cement board would never be a realistic option for a building this tall, so you're really comparing EIFS to metal panels or something like that.

orginal block e had EIFs didn't it. exhibit A why this petition should be denied.

Mondrian & the golden ratio are the inspiration for the glazing? I see...

Mondrian & the golden ratio are the inspiration for the glazing? I see...

No, greed and building it as cheaply as possible is the inspiration

It might just be the angle of the pictures but wow the building looks dinky compared everything around it. Especially the Hilton across the street.

I would like to see more windows on the short ends of the building as well. Seems like wasted space and is highly visible from that angle. Perhaps worried about future structures blocking the views?

I would like to see more windows on the short ends of the building as well. Seems like wasted space and is highly visible from that angle. Perhaps worried about future structures blocking the views?

It looks awkward and creates a highly visible 18 story blank wall, especially on the south side. Not very attractive.

This could potentially be a really cool project, but that means spending more $ to refine it and use better quality materials. If they are going to tear down the last remaining historic storefronts on Marquette, its the least they can do...

I don't care as much about the materials. I'd rather just see the Marquette sidewalk-fronting units be easily convertible to live-work spaces that could, eventually, provide much greater sidewalk activation.

I don't care as much about the materials. I'd rather just see the Marquette sidewalk-fronting units be easily convertible to live-work spaces that could, eventually, provide much greater sidewalk activation.

I like the idea of work/live spaces on the street level, but somehow this location doesn't feel like the right place for it. Really they should have retail along here.