urbanMSP

I see a lot of complaining about the amount of parking for this project. (not here, but online comments) All of the parking will be below the street grade of 5th, correct? My question is, what else could the developer do with that space that would be a better use than parking? Parking isn't cheap to build, and would seem to have a low ROI. But on a project like this where you have to go up about 50 feet to get to the street level, what else could you put there that would be functional?

Pretty sure the stadium has an access alley down there on one side, so that affects what can be done to have an alternate use.

I think the below grade as parking is fine. It’s an interesting thought experiment how much of that below grade space could be anything else besides car storage. But...

The trail/station side could have a more active face on the entire trail side. With a much more active station, either by adding more North Star service, or adding more commuter lines such as out to Buffalo or to Delano, some of the below-street space could be the sorts of things that fill an active station. That only fills so much.

A lot of indoor fitness and sports things don’t need window space. Basketball courts, bowling alleys, weight rooms.

Heck, there’s an old warehouse down the block that has been converted into a mini storage. Fill the below-street as mini storage, then do a loft conversion of the mini-storage warehouse at 3rd Ave and 5th St.

Some things I thought of was bowling alley, movie theater, and fitness center. Had never thought of mini storage. That would actually be a great reuse for some of the parking in buildings that don't need as many spaces as they currently have.

Some things I thought of was bowling alley, movie theater, and fitness center. Had never thought of mini storage. That would actually be a great reuse for some of the parking in buildings that don't need as many spaces as they currently have.

It would be great if that mini storage using street level frontage on Washington could be moved to a basement somewhere.

I inquired about the parking here and was told the lots would be closing for redevelopment in August. (!!)

This is on the agenda for next Monday's meeting of the CPC, after being on the agenda for the last two cycles and being continued both times. Here's the packet.

Based on the last few letters included in the packet, it looks like the Twins and the Minnesota Ballpark authority have been the holdup, with various concerns ranging from not wanting to share the Dock Street access point to being worried about a gunman shooting into the ballpark from a high floor of the tower, to concerns that advertising signage will be placed on the tower without the Twins getting a cut. Hope they have it all worked out, finally.

Based on the last few letters included in the packet, it looks like the Twins and the Minnesota Ballpark authority have been the holdup, with various concerns ranging from not wanting to share the Dock Street access point to being worried about a gunman shooting into the ballpark from a high floor of the tower, to concerns that advertising signage will be placed on the tower without the Twins getting a cut. Hope they have it all worked out, finally.

Hate to break it to the Twins, but they've had a parking ramp with a clear line of sight into the stadium for the entire decade of its existence. I suspect the first and third objections are their real complaints, and they added a whiff of "but what about terrorism!!!" just to make sure they got heard.

What does the forum think about this? Not everyday do we see a comment like this:

Unresolved Impacts to Ballpark Playability. The proposed Project, which is
approximately twice the height of the Ballpark and nearly twice the height allowed by the
Warehouse District’s design guidelines, is not only visually incompatible with the North Loop
neighborhood, but negatively impacts the playability of the Ballpark as a Major League Baseball
facility due to unresolved light reflection and glare originating from the Project. The Ballpark EIS
stated “the ballpark is consistent with the scale of buildings around it.” A light study to evaluate
the playability impacts to the Ballpark is underway, but until those impacts are known, and any
necessary design mitigation is agreed upon, approval by us and consideration of the Application
by the Planning Commission is prematu

What does the forum think about this? Not everyday do we see a comment like this:

Unresolved Impacts to Ballpark Playability. The proposed Project, which is
approximately twice the height of the Ballpark and nearly twice the height allowed by the
Warehouse District’s design guidelines, is not only visually incompatible with the North Loop
neighborhood, but negatively impacts the playability of the Ballpark as a Major League Baseball
facility due to unresolved light reflection and glare originating from the Project. The Ballpark EIS
stated “the ballpark is consistent with the scale of buildings around it.” A light study to evaluate
the playability impacts to the Ballpark is underway, but until those impacts are known, and any
necessary design mitigation is agreed upon, approval by us and consideration of the Application
by the Planning Commission is prematu

Sun reflection and glare off of glass is certainly a real concern - but there has to be precedent from other cities with large glass buildings around stadiums (I can think of San Diego for sure) where these issues have been figured out.

Anyone have the old renderings of the development the Pohlads originally proposed around Target Field? Pretty sure that also didn't meet the Warehouse District's design guidelines.

Twinsville?

I have a copy of the Twinsville handout from when they were pushing the new Twins stadium... but it is at the office which is closed due to SARS-CoV2...

Based on the last few letters included in the packet, it looks like the Twins and the Minnesota Ballpark authority have been the holdup, with various concerns ranging from not wanting to share the Dock Street access point to being worried about a gunman shooting into the ballpark from a high floor of the tower, to concerns that advertising signage will be placed on the tower without the Twins getting a cut. Hope they have it all worked out, finally.

Hate to break it to the Twins, but they've had a parking ramp with a clear line of sight into the stadium for the entire decade of its existence. I suspect the first and third objections are their real complaints, and they added a whiff of "but what about terrorism!!!" just to make sure they got heard.

I think it's fair for the Twins to be concerned about terrorism concerns for the new building. I don't know, but I'd wager a bet that they have a pretty comprehensive security agreement for any existing building that has a direct line of sight into the ballpark. Now that a new building is planned, this seems to be the appropriate public forum for them to express these concerns to Hines.

Based on the last few letters included in the packet, it looks like the Twins and the Minnesota Ballpark authority have been the holdup, with various concerns ranging from not wanting to share the Dock Street access point to being worried about a gunman shooting into the ballpark from a high floor of the tower, to concerns that advertising signage will be placed on the tower without the Twins getting a cut. Hope they have it all worked out, finally.

Hate to break it to the Twins, but they've had a parking ramp with a clear line of sight into the stadium for the entire decade of its existence. I suspect the first and third objections are their real complaints, and they added a whiff of "but what about terrorism!!!" just to make sure they got heard.

I think it's fair for the Twins to be concerned about terrorism concerns for the new building. I don't know, but I'd wager a bet that they have a pretty comprehensive security agreement for any existing building that has a direct line of sight into the ballpark. Now that a new building is planned, this seems to be the appropriate public forum for them to express these concerns to Hines.

They have been negotiating privately with Hines, and the appropriate venue is in those private discussions. The planning commission's job is not to evaluate mass shooting threats. The fact that the Twins brought it up suggests that they are trying to use it as a way to publicly pressure Hines to give them something else. Given the amount of text they devote to loading access in their letter, that's probably the main thing they care about.

What does the forum think about this? Not everyday do we see a comment like this:

Unresolved Impacts to Ballpark Playability. The proposed Project, which is
approximately twice the height of the Ballpark and nearly twice the height allowed by the
Warehouse District’s design guidelines, is not only visually incompatible with the North Loop
neighborhood, but negatively impacts the playability of the Ballpark as a Major League Baseball
facility due to unresolved light reflection and glare originating from the Project. The Ballpark EIS
stated “the ballpark is consistent with the scale of buildings around it.” A light study to evaluate
the playability impacts to the Ballpark is underway, but until those impacts are known, and any
necessary design mitigation is agreed upon, approval by us and consideration of the Application
by the Planning Commission is prematu

Get ready for exciting new features at Target Field, including a taller Left Field party deck and a new scoreboard that runs the length of the Left Field bleachers.

This was just passed unanimously by the CPC - hopefully they get their issues with the Twins worked out and can still swing financing to start in August as rhettcarlson found out that they were planning to upthread.

Here we go... I'll say it again. Look at the "Twinsville" proposal. I see tall buildings near the stadium. Do the Twins have any chance in blocking this project from happening?

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... s_headline

Well, the Twins will likely appeal the decision to the City Council. I really can't imagine the current City Council siding with the Twins and overturning the Planning Commission's approval. If the Twins are that concerned, they'll sue, but on what possible grounds? If the Twins sue and this project dies due to a drawn out fight or economic collapse, I will definitely be a little salty at the only sports team I follow / consider myself a real fan. Don't do it, Twins!

Regarding the Twins' concerns about hypothetical "ambush advertising" signs on the new buildings, that's purely hypothetical at this point. Land use approvals don't include any variances regarding signage - any large/rooftop signs that don't meet normal zoning regulations for size & height would require a variance, which would be a totally separate future application and public hearing, etc. The Twins are bringing up something that isn't even being proposed right now... maybe save that fight for the future? They probably just included the sign concern to add something more reasonable sounding to the scaremongering over the glare & "safety" concerns.

Gross. Maybe we should raise the rent on Target Field.