16Twenty - 1620 W Lake St

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Lake & James

Postby John » August 1st, 2013, 9:30 am

I wonder why they didn't go for 6 or 8 units. Even at those prices, I suspect those 4 will be gobbled up quickly. The location is unbeatable. There's probably enough rich folk already living in the area that are looking to downsize from an equally expensive house. I'd think they'd have no problem selling another 2 or 4 units. Clearly there is precedent for 5 or 6 stories in the area. Or they should have at least started that tall and then "bargained" with the neighborhood down to 4 stories ;)
The massing of the project has some sensitivity and connection to the beautiful old building housing Barbette next door, so I think anything larger could be problematic. Certainly , there are many other sites in Uptown where taller buildings are appropriate, especially east of Hennepin and Lake. This area still has a lot of surface parking lots or underutilized parcels that need high density devlopment.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby David Greene » August 1st, 2013, 10:18 am

Certainly , there are many other sites in Uptown where taller buildings are appropriate, especially east of Hennepin and Lake.
Why only east of Hennepin? Why can't East Isles, Lowry Hill, CIDNA and God forbid Kenwood take some density? I mean, the Wedge has taken the most density of any Minneapolis neighborhood over the last eight or so years. We've been happy to do it but our lots are filling up and it's time for others to help out.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Lake & James

Postby RailBaronYarr » August 1st, 2013, 11:13 am

Why only east of Hennepin? Why can't East Isles, Lowry Hill, CIDNA and God forbid Kenwood take some density? I mean, the Wedge has taken the most density of any Minneapolis neighborhood over the last eight or so years. We've been happy to do it but our lots are filling up and it's time for others to help out.
Maybe the correct stance to take is not that density is something to be passed from one neighborhood, street, etc to another.. that it's a tit for tat 'if we take this project, someone else has to take some as well' situation.

My guess for why things haven't gone in west of Hennepin is because the structures on the lots in many of those neighborhoods are more valuable as they are today.. A quick scan of price for homes in those neighborhoods shows many at $800,000+. Obviously the land holds a little more value - you're that much closer to the lakes while still being within walking distance of all Hennepin has to offer. But the houses themselves sit on slightly larger lots with things like pools, bigger homes, (presumably) much more lavish interiors, etc etc. I think there's probably stiffer opposition to losing any of those historic (read: old) homes in lieu of higher density buildings that could justify the price of buying out several lots (which in itself would be difficult given the higher % of owner-occupied housing vs areas east of Hennepin). It could obviously be done, but the options would be short buildings with luxury condos (similar to Linden Corner/Crossing) or bigger footprint and/or taller buildings with lower priced rental units. My guess, based on the failures of the 5-story Linden Corner and Colfax apartment complex would give insight to the likelihood of larger rental buildings going in due to neighborhood opposition.

So there you have it. High acquisition price and stronger possibility of neighborhood opposition (moreso than the Wedge, Whittier, Ecco, Carag, etc) drive developers to target certain areas. Just my take. I like this project but agree it seems like it could be taller - can anyone explain what height has to do with the Shoreland Overlay District? Wouldn't lot coverage be the bigger issue (and realistically, coverage is less important than runoff as a metric)? Or is there something else?

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Lake & James

Postby John » August 1st, 2013, 12:20 pm

Certainly , there are many other sites in Uptown where taller buildings are appropriate, especially east of Hennepin and Lake.
Why only east of Hennepin? Why can't East Isles, Lowry Hill, CIDNA and God forbid Kenwood take some density? I mean, the Wedge has taken the most density of any Minneapolis neighborhood over the last eight or so years. We've been happy to do it but our lots are filling up and it's time for others to help out.
No, you are misinterpreting. To clarify, I'm referring to the parcels in Uptown such as Cheapo, Planned Parenthood, Arby's, the vacant lot next to Calhoun Square etc. I also think denser and taller development is fine in other places, such as the Wells Fargo lot west of Hennepin on Lake. But for Lake and James specifically, they did a great job fitting it in and respecting the building next door. This is good!

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby David Greene » August 1st, 2013, 6:06 pm

John, thanks for the clarification. I agree that those lots need to be redevelopment. There's not much left after that, however.

RBY makes good points wrt the property cost. Houses in the northern half of the wedge ae going for half a million these days. One on my block in the southern half sold for > $350k so the property cost is going up everywhere in the area.

I don't mean to make density a bad thing to push off on others. I love density and I love what's going on south of 28th in my neighborhood. I'm simply trying to point out that there's opportunity for more density west of Hennepin before we start tearing down houses each of Hennepin. There are lots of,er, parking lots on Lake around Lunds, Sons of Norway, etc.

John, I know you weren't talking about tearing down houses, but others have in other places.

mplser
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 659
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:43 pm
Location: Elliot Park

Re: Lake & James

Postby mplser » December 5th, 2013, 2:03 am

the views in the renderings for this thing are hilarious Image

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 5th, 2013, 10:06 am

Wow! That's blatantly incorrect!

For those who aren't connecting the dots, Lake & James is supposed to be a 4-5 floor building in Uptown Minneapolis. Whatever they chose for the backdrop in the above picture has to be at least 15-20 floors above ground (I've lived as high as the 11th floor and the views weren't even close to what they are showing there). Furthermore, I can't say with any certainty that the city in the backdrop is even Minneapolis -- something doesn't look quite right....

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby Archiapolis » December 13th, 2013, 1:11 pm

Cut the architect/render person a *little* slack. These elevated views are really hard to come by for use as background out of a window of a building that doesn't exist. Short of getting a bucket out there and getting lifted into place, on a summer day where the lighting is good, etc. you just aren't going to be able to acquire an "accurate" image that is usable for a marketing render of this type. I agree that this isn't accurate but I'd wager that the architect/developer would say that it's "conceptual." If you want to get into a semantic argument about concept and what it means in terms of accuracy and deception and so forth, it is fair to take up just suspend disbelief a little bit and consider that the goals may not be so nefarious. Would the perception of "accuracy" be any different if this was an even MORE generic elevated view of a city that had more depth of field, more atmospheric perspective, less height, etc? The "concept" being put forth here is floor to ceiling glass, open plan and whatever the view is, it will be broad and expansive. My $.02.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Lake & James

Postby MNdible » December 13th, 2013, 1:13 pm

Except that it won't be broad and expansive, because this building isn't notably taller than it's surrounding neighbors.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 13th, 2013, 1:44 pm

That's my primary point: that the "conceptualization" is essentially selling a view that NOBODY will be getting, and if you want to get technical, that's "false advertising". I see your point, but I'm surprised you don't see mine, Archiapolis.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Lake & James

Postby John » December 13th, 2013, 3:07 pm

Well, whatever about the views. This is a great infill project that fits the scale of the buildings around it rather nicely, and has a low key but beautiful modern design. Will be a positive addition to Uptown and I'm sure will be a great place to live. Hope it gets built.

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Lake & James

Postby Archiapolis » December 16th, 2013, 12:48 pm

@MNdible:
Fair point.
@min-chi-bus:
No, I see your point completely and it is an important one. The position that we are often in goes something like this:
Client - "Put the city in the background."
<shown realistic view out the window of the "city in the background">.
"Whoa, you don't see much, can you raise that view up?"
Architect - "Well, sure but that isn't really..."
Client - "It's fine. Just raise that up and we'll take it from there, thanks."
The point that I'm trying to make is that it is difficult to find source material for aerial views at just the right height to begin with but there is also a client/developer aspect to this where they are in control of the marketing. Often, these "marketing renderings" are not even done by the architect but instead by a third-party who contracts directly with the owner/client/developer who then controls the final output. Your point is well-taken that there is marketing spin here, I'm not denying it, just trying to illustrate how it works...

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Lake & James Mixed Use Development (northeast corner)

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 17th, 2013, 12:29 pm

Interesting how that works!

lordmoke
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1331
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
Location: George Floyd Square

Re: Lake & James Mixed Use Development (northeast corner)

Postby lordmoke » February 13th, 2014, 4:25 pm

From the CoW:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 120718.pdf

This should be renamed 16Twenty. Ugh.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Lake & James Mixed Use Development (northeast corner)

Postby mister.shoes » February 13th, 2014, 4:49 pm

"Tequila Mockingbird" = clever.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 16Twenty - (1620 W Lake St)

Postby twincitizen » February 13th, 2014, 4:58 pm

Interesting change, but not surprising: they're now proposing 6 modestly sized condo units, all on the 3rd floor. The earlier version called for just 4 units, but much larger and spread over 2 floors. A clear sign that interest in $1MM+ units here was tepid? I'm eager to see how the more modest units will be priced.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 16Twenty - (1620 W Lake St)

Postby John » February 13th, 2014, 6:10 pm

Well, at least no one can complain its too tall or contributes to terrible traffic congestion! It still looks good, although I thought the 4 story version had a little more visual impact and gave a better feeling of density along Lake Street.

mplser
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 659
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:43 pm
Location: Elliot Park

Re: 16Twenty - (1620 W Lake St)

Postby mplser » February 13th, 2014, 8:04 pm

I was disappointed at first to hear it won't be as tall, but the shorter one is actually much more dense with more units, and includes office space, too. definitely a win-win

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 16Twenty - (1620 W Lake St)

Postby John » February 13th, 2014, 8:12 pm

^^^Yes, It's still very attractive and the street level is great. No controversy here. Should have smooth sailing through the city approval process.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: 16Twenty - (1620 W Lake St)

Postby seanrichardryan » February 13th, 2014, 9:10 pm

What is the current density on the site between the three houses?
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests