Nicollet-Lake - greater Kmart area

[mulad]

Meh. There's a Noodles & Co. in front of the University Avenue Target in Saint Paul. People go there.

[seanrichardryan]

That was a bit of a broad brush.

[min-chi-cbus]

The difficult part will be creating affordable retail spaces in new construction. I don't see another Apple store or even a Noodles & Co. with their flexible corporate dollars opening here. The intersection is currently almost exclusively a lower income retail node drawing from the working class population that surrounds the area.

I WANT it to be lower-middle income retail establishments that cater to entrepreneurs! I'm not sure what it takes to make that work with new development -- like you mention -- but I'd be very happy if that kind of model could ever forge a profit!

[seanrichardryan]

Subsidies make it work.

[mulad]

Finance & Commerce covers the topic: http://finance-commerce.com/2012/07/cit ... -nicollet/

There's mention of the "complicated" land ownership situation, which doesn't strike me as all that complicated. There are two parcels, each owned by different entities. Those entities respectively lease the land to the retail tenants, Kmart and Sullivan's Supervalu (not part of the Supervalu corporation, however -- independently owned). They did get a quote from the Sears Holding Corp. spokeswoman saying that the Kmart is under a long-term lease, though no mention of the lease length or what an early termination might cost. Still, I don't really see why that matters -- shouldn't Kmart/Sears be able to do pretty much whatever they want with the land while it's theirs? I guess the only big issue I can think of is that it might prevent subleasing, but maybe I'm lacking in imagination.

For both parcels, the land is worth more than the buildings. The Kmart building is assessed at $1.6 million, while the land is $4.9 million ($6.55 million total). The article doesn't give a breakdown for the Supervalu site, but it's overall value is $2.66 million. Not quite $1 million per acre -- the Kmart site is 6.95 acres while Supervalu is 2.88. I suspect a chunk of the Kmart site's acreage would effectively disappear if the street goes back in -- not that they're putting the land to very effective use right now, of course...

I dunno -- it just seems like there's plenty of money to be made here, and I don't know what's causing people to think that's not the case.

[minntransplant]

Finance & Commerce covers the topic: http://finance-commerce.com/2012/07/cit ... -nicollet/

There's mention of the "complicated" land ownership situation, which doesn't strike me as all that complicated. There are two parcels, each owned by different entities. Those entities respectively lease the land to the retail tenants, Kmart and Sullivan's Supervalu (not part of the Supervalu corporation, however -- independently owned). They did get a quote from the Sears Holding Corp. spokeswoman saying that the Kmart is under a long-term lease, though no mention of the lease length or what an early termination might cost. Still, I don't really see why that matters -- shouldn't Kmart/Sears be able to do pretty much whatever they want with the land while it's theirs? I guess the only big issue I can think of is that it might prevent subleasing, but maybe I'm lacking in imagination.

For both parcels, the land is worth more than the buildings. The Kmart building is assessed at $1.6 million, while the land is $4.9 million ($6.55 million total). The article doesn't give a breakdown for the Supervalu site, but it's overall value is $2.66 million. Not quite $1 million per acre -- the Kmart site is 6.95 acres while Supervalu is 2.88. I suspect a chunk of the Kmart site's acreage would effectively disappear if the street goes back in -- not that they're putting the land to very effective use right now, of course...

I dunno -- it just seems like there's plenty of money to be made here, and I don't know what's causing people to think that's not the case.

Yeah, it seems odd to me as well. The out-of-town owners/investors don't want to invest in the K-Mart parcel, not because they "don't know what will happen," but because the current arrangement is likely sufficiently profitable and easy to manage.

I don't know enough about land use/zoning law, but what prevents the City of Minneapolis from creating a small area plan and simply "taking" the parcels in furtherance of the plan. Seems to me like there are legitimate reasons for doing so--and from what I do know, courts generally defer to local government land use decisions.

[Nick]

I don't know enough about land use/zoning law, but what prevents the City of Minneapolis from creating a small area plan and simply "taking" the parcels in furtherance of the plan. Seems to me like there are legitimate reasons for doing so--and from what I do know, courts generally defer to local government land use decisions.

Eminent domain always sounds so dirty when used with a specific example...

[MNdible]

It would be hard to support eminent domain based on the redevelopment plan, but I would think that the larger infrastructure need to reconnect Nicollet Avenue would justify it.

[ECtransplant]

I am not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that after the Kelo decision, it wouldn't be a big deal, legally, to just eminent domain it, especially given the greater infrastructure needs beyond just redevelopment. Politically, well, that's another story . . .

[twincitizen]

As much as I don't support streetcars on Nicollet (rapid bus just makes more sense in every aspect, not the least of which is paying for it)...I have to believe that a streetcar line and the federal money behind it would get this street re-opened.

I think we need to have a larger discussion about whether Nicollet should be open to all vehicle traffic though. Is it worth discussing re-opening Nicollet, but only to bikes/peds/transit?

I'm not the only one that shares the opinion that upper Nicollet "Eat Street" flourished because of the low vehicle traffic and pedestrian friendly environment. Blocking it off at Lake creates a bookend for the district that has actually worked quite well. Look at the areas around Nicollet & 26th becoming a new Uptown-esque node. I kinda like pushing vehicle traffic over to Blaisdell and 1st Ave S.

In conjunction with the Nicollet project, I think we also should be talking about converting 26th, 28th and Blaisdell to two-ways. These one-way pairs of mini-freeways should be a thing of the past.

[twincitizen]

Also, why isn't this in the Uptown forum? (half-serious / half-trolling)

[mattaudio]

As much as I don't support streetcars on Nicollet...

Is that because you support mattaudio's plan of LRT under Nicollet to Richfield/Bloomington, and moving the Southwest line to Nicollet then north on a shared underground alignment through downtown?

[mnmike]

Also, why isn't this in the Uptown forum? (half-serious / half-trolling)

Because Lake and Nicollet is not uptown. At all.

[mulad]

I forget where the discussion has come up before, but yes, I think it'd be a really good idea to only reopen Nicollet as a bike/ped/transit mall. Let the car traffic continue to flow around rather than through, and that should actually enhance the land value quite a bit. With a dense enough wall of buildings and maybe some foliage, you could easily be fooled into thinking that I-35W has disappeared even though it's only two short blocks away. Ideally the transit system would also have some noise mitigation going on, either with electrically-powered buses or with streetcars. But even with regular buses, it should be quieter than Nicollet Mall in downtown since there'd only be one or two routes through the area.

[seanrichardryan]

26th and 28th work exceedingly well. I believe this discussion was in the Park/Portland thread, but we all can't hop on a freeway to get across the city, and shouldn't have to. As for Nicollet, the lack of a regular vehicle connection into downtown proper should help keep traffic counts lower. No one is proposing widening the road so the experience will be the same if not better. Take Lyndale Avenue S. for example- they timed the lights so poorly, no one wants to drive on it. Perhaps all the vacant land south of 26th could actually fill up with something rather than weeds.

[mattaudio]

26th and 28th are great one ways, but could use improvements such as bumpouts, more green space, the occasional turn lane where warranted, and maybe only two through lanes. It's really excessive to have four lanes in each direction on the eastern parts.

[Nathan]

I really like the idea of restoring the grid to all sorts of traffic. It's very confusing for people driving there for the first time, visitors etc...

But I was thinking about the Multi-Way Blvd that was discussed elsewhere. What if they created something like that here, just for the block, one lane of traffic each way, then parking and really pedestrian/bike friendly regions between the blvd and new buildings?

Most people who know the city and plan to drive/commute from DT or Wittier to South already know it makes sense to take Blaisdell or 1st because they are faster for cars. And they would continue doing so in my mind.

[MNdible]

Yes, I don't think it makes sense to not allow any car traffic through this stretch, but I do like the idea of really throttling it down and still using the one way pair to support it.

[PhilmerPhil]

Is it just me or are multi-way boulevards being suggested for just about every street in Minneapolis lately?

[min-chi-cbus]

Is it just me or are multi-way boulevards being suggested for just about every street in Minneapolis lately?

They're nice! In Shaker Heights in the Cleveland area, they're everywhere -- sometimes they're TOO wide! Boulevards also make it easier to make it halfway across the street and re-assess how you're going to duck and weave across the 2nd half of the road (like Frogger).