urbanMSP

I'm not talking about building their own building, just being a tenant in a private building which would be less government not more. They could use their needs to vacate their own properties and sell the land for tax-generating uses and become a tenant in a private development that may include other tenants and uses. The idea is to leverage their demands to generate more economic activity rather than merely building their own building.

I don't want the taxpayers at the mercy of a private building owner, who almost certainly would take advantage of how much of a bureaucratic nightmare it would be to relocate a second time.

7–10 story “tower” that will last the test of time.

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/08/mor ... -building/

So, the plan to move the fire station into this building as well was scrapped? Too bad, it seems like the existing fire station is an impediment to redevelopment of that block of Washington.

Also, lol at a block-long 10-story building being referred to as a tower.

So, the plan to move the fire station into this building as well was scrapped? Too bad, it seems like the existing fire station is an impediment to redevelopment of that block of Washington.

Also, lol at a block-long 10-story building being referred to as a tower.

They call anything over 6 floors a tower in articles like these.

How about divide up the parcel. 20 story city offices, paired to a work force housing tower on the remaining portion? Put the city-owned land where their professed values are. Housing right next to an LRT station even.

I still say keep the ramp and integrate the city offices into another building since the result here will most likely be underwhelming . Maybe the stalled United/Gateway project?

Also, lol at a block-long 10-story building being referred to as a tower.

So do you guys purposefully forget that construction costs rise exponentially as a building gets taller, or is that news here?

I want to see denser and higher quality development as much as the next person, but I also don't want to see the city blow tons of money just to build taller.

I still say keep the ramp and integrate the city offices into another building since the result here will most likely be underwhelming . Maybe the stalled United/Gateway project?

And I still say putting city government at the mercy of private building owners is a recipe for disaster.

Also, lol at a block-long 10-story building being referred to as a tower.

So do you guys purposefully forget that construction costs rise exponentially as a building gets taller, or is that news here?

Not at all. I'm content with the city building being 7-10 stories. I was honestly expecting five or six, so I'm just happy that it'll be tall enough to completely block the parking ramp. I was just pedantically pointing out that 'tower' means, or at least should mean, a structure taller than it is wide, so the city building won't be one unless they go with 30' ceilings.

Sorry about that, then. In that case, I agree.

So, the plan to move the fire station into this building as well was scrapped? Too bad, it seems like the existing fire station is an impediment to redevelopment of that block of Washington.

I would also like to know the answer to this part. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, Fire Station #1 was to be sold off as well, which would help with the private redevelopment of that block. It wasn't 100% clear if the Fire Station facility itself was intended to be incorporated into this office building, but early documentation at least mentioned that the current one would be sold.

Despite being in the heart of downtown, it's a very small station. Can a full-size fire rig even fit under those service doors? Is there less of a need for a full fire station due to the proximity of HCMC and other emergency services downtown? (i.e. don't need to take fire rigs out on every call, etc.) Is Fire Station #1 more office/storage space that a typical station? Is there another facility nearby that actual fire rigs would dispatch from?

Fire Station #1 covers a lot of downtown, including tall buildings, so needs large trucks. Putting the station at this site would require dedicating the street level and skyway level to the fire station, which would interfere with general plans the city has for their new office building. It's also not a great location for fire vehicles to have access to their service area, with the current #1 spot being better for that.

It's happening! A bid to demo the ramp at 501 4th St S!

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 205377.pdf

This makes me sad. For some reason I really like that parking ramp. Maybe even love it a little bit.

As far as parking ramps go, it's a really interesting one. But, that's a very low bar and boxing in the gov't center plaza and light rail stop should give the whole area a better vibe.

I do not understand any love for a stand alone parking ramp. Arguably, they're worse than surface parking lots in that they are harder to redevelop.

It's happening! A bid to demo the ramp at 501 4th St S!

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 205377.pdf

Correction: 501 4th Avenue South. I was super confused until others started talking about it being the ramp that is next to the plaza. I enjoy the way this is wrapped. It was unique. IF there has to be a ramp, at least make it look like art. I think the ABC ramps, and other ramps could do better.

I do not understand any love for a stand alone parking ramp. Arguably, they're worse than surface parking lots in that they are harder to redevelop.

It's great when the whole world can be sorted into binary piles. It shows that an ideology is pure and strong.

Yes, your love of underused structures is truly nuanced...

Colink, I'm curious, what is it that you like about the parking ramp?