urbanMSP

The building is considered historic and there is a plaque out front. He would have to get the city, the HPC and the neighborhood to sign off before any demolition. The likely hood of that is nil.

I still want to see it returned to the library and a tunnel dug under Hennepin to connect the two buildings. It could make a nice reading room/cafe/children's space. All three are lacking in the current building.

Yes, yes, I know, maintenance costs...

Looks like Hornig is increasing their holdings in Uptown: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/01/fee ... ownstones/

Despite controlling a sizable percentage of Uptown/Wedge/Whittier rentals (like probably enough to dictate the market), their rents do seem fairly reasonable, at least the places I've looked at online. I'm sure several of you folks have had experience with Hornig or even rent from them currently. Any thoughts?

^I'm not a tenant, but my roommate's fiance is, so I've got some second-hand experience with her apartment (it's in the northern-ish Wedge). They do seem like a decent rental company and rent isn't much, especially for the Uptown market. Most of their places seem like nothing special - they're the types of aged apartments with outdated cabinets in the kitchen and the like. But it seems to be in good shape.

The unit she has is huge, especially the bedroom, which frankly could be shaved down a bit to provide for living room space, but it does have a great walk-in closet. Typical kitchen that's too small, an updated bathroom, and brand new carpet that doesn't seem like it's the cheapest crap they could find. The apartment also gets USI fiber, so that's a definite perk that she has brag about, while my roommate and I grumble about our slower and more expensive Comcast bill.

Overall, she's having a good experience, enough so that I think they're going to stay there when they tie the knot later this year. Only complaint she has is how boiling hot the unit gets...usually requires opening a window even on the coldest days to make it comfortable.

Eg&hhhhh. 1920s apartments are not 'brownstones'.

What are they?

I lived in two different Hornig buildings from 2008 to 2012. Both north of 25th St in the Wedge. They were both classic Hornig properties; 1960s/1970s-era buildings with open floor plans and carpet. I thought Hornig was a solidly good landlord. Responsive, and everything seemed to be maintained well enough.

Compared to my friends and for the amount of space I had, I always felt like I had some of the cheapest rent in the greater Uptown area. From 2009 to 2011 I lived in a 2BR (corner of Bryant and Franklin) and the unit had an updated kitchen and underground parking for around $925/month.

Likewise, the 1BR I moved into after that (24th and Dupont) was a good price at $650/month (2012) with parking included.

Urban Anthology bought the retail/residential buildings that contain Barbette, Winston's, etc. I assume they bought everything east of the "16Twenty" development. They are "busy working on plans to improve the properties."

Read more: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/01/jus ... buildings/ (locked)

They should start by putting the proper casement windows back on the 2nd floor.

Is the billboard still up on the roof of the westernmost building (dry cleaners)? I'd prefer they start by removing that.

In fact, I'd actually be ok with the western building coming down and being replaced by something else.

1970-

1939/1956- Pre-remuddling. It's always bugged me the way the current storefronts don't fit into the overall geometry of the building.

Three properties on Girard, immediately north of Flux appear to be lining up for redevelopment. I wondered why the owner of the single vacant lot (http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/def ... 2924430022) was keeping it vacant so long, but that property owner has since purchased the houses on both sides. I wonder if they'll try to acquire the 4th (and final) single-fam house on that block face (2809 Girard), and possibly the apartment building at the corner too, but I'd guess probably not. 2809 Girard just sold for 400k in July 2013, right when they started buying up the other lots, so I'd guess that ship has sailed. As is, they've got ~ 128' x 128' to develop, which could be a smaller project like 16Twenty, or potentially nearly as large as the Lagoon & Irving project. Flux actually steps down to 3 stories here, so that might provide a hint as to what the scale of the rest of the block might look like. I'd guess a 4-story project with some of the 4th floor stepped back.

EDIT: Then again, KLP Real Estate appears to have other single-fam/duplex holdings in Mpls, so maybe they actually do plan on holding these as is. I'd be pretty shocked if they simply slotted a new duplex or triplex on the vacant lot though.

I would the best they can do is a 4 story project as that is what most other project have as they try and blend in with the lower residential roof lines. Still that would be more than a few units with 4 stories over 3 lots. I'm sure that parking would be in the basement.

There's some scuttlebut in the neighborhood about these buyups (all along 28th, not just here). Some people claim that buyers are making false statements about eminent domain to pressure owners into selling. If that's true, it's despicable.

I'd welcome new development here but not if the properties are acquired under false pretenses.

I doubt the city would want to open that can of worms. Also I doubt the courts would side with the developers on the taking of property to take living space to create the same. You want a NIMBY massacre then you let them try and get away with that and you will have neighborhood rebellion. Nothing would be built as the neighborhood would vote no for any project that they brought forth . Developers don't like law suits and they would surely get a few out of trying that.

Some people claim that buyers are making false statements about eminent domain to pressure owners into selling.

Please elaborate. Why would anyone believe a claim that the government is interested in buying properties along 28th? And even if that claim were true, what possible effect would that have on properties that don't directly abut 28th anyways?

Some people claim that buyers are making false statements about eminent domain to pressure owners into selling.

Please elaborate. Why would anyone believe a claim that the government is interested in buying properties along 28th? And even if that claim were true, what possible effect would that have on properties that don't directly abut 28th anyways?

From my understanding, developers are telling owners pf homes south of 28th (not just directly on 28th) that the city will condemn their properties via eminent domain because the city wants new development there. Basically, the kind of actions that led to the Kelo decision. Of course that can't happen but nobody says developers don't lie at times.

Now, obviously take it all with a huge grain of salt. It's something I heard second-hand but I do know that a neighbor of mine who lives south of 28th told me his family is getting huge pressure to sell.

Keep adding 0's to the purchase price, I really doubt that the city can force a sale, or wants to get into a huge PR and legal battle to support it. One thing is it is an empty lot, another to tear down someone's home so someone else can live there. IF the owner wants to sell that is fine with me, IF the developer wants it that bad then they should pay the owner what the owner think is fair price. One of the fast ways to slow things down.

There is not public good that is being done here, roads or utilities, only a developers profit line, that is not the publics good.

David is correct that this couldn't happen here. Minnesota has a statute (passed after the Kelo decision) establishing that private redevelopment shall not be deemed to satisfy the federal constitutional "public use" condition. In other words, Minnesota voluntarily limits its own (and, by extension, its municipalities') exercise of the eminent domain power. Because Connecticut had no such statute, the city of New London was accountable only to the federal constitutional limitations on eminent domain, and was thus able to put forth its (ultimately winning) argument that enhanced tax revenue from a private redevelopment did constitute a "public use".