urbanMSP

How tall can you build in cross-laminated timber in MN? WA recently changed the building code to allow it up to 18 stories or so. It can make for a more cost effective building than concrete/steel, but certainly more than wood frame at 5 over 1.

The recently-approved TIMBR building in the North Loop is going to be ten stories of mass timber construction, so at least that tall. The limiting factor there is the historic district height limitations, though, so I'm not sure what the code maximum height is.

The current MN building code is based on IBC 2012 so 6 floors (example: T3) is the highest you can go with mass timber; 5 floors if residential . If you design per IBC 2021 by you can theoretically go 18 but obviously this requires an approved variance.

A little quick googling shows a height of 119 for TMBR.

Conventional concrete construction is an environmental disaster. The amount of natgas which has to burned to make the cement is huge, plus a lot of dirty diesel to haul it there and hoist all that weight into place.

Looks like they're planning on keeping the semi trucks pulling a 90° back in from Lyndale feature. Early stages but not a fan of this

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Looks like they're planning on keeping the semi trucks pulling a 90° back in from Lyndale feature. Early stages but not a fan of this

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Care to elaborate? Are they planning some form of retail large enough it requires semi parking/loading?

This guy tweeted some info.
https://twitter.com/peterschmitt34?s=09

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Looks like they're planning on keeping the semi trucks pulling a 90° back in from Lyndale feature. Early stages but not a fan of this

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Care to elaborate? Are they planning some form of retail large enough it requires semi parking/loading?

Twitter guy says 10,000 SF retail. Renderings look like pretty generic 6 story stick frame.

Here are the plans:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 221308.pdf

Do they have a strategy to monetize all that parking, I wonder, or is it just there to mollify the neighborhood group? Will parking be a $200 a month add-on for your $1300 a month tiny apartment?

Updated plans, I also believe projects like this highlight how badly we need better transit in this area.

https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20Ave%20S

I can't find the document but I think Route 4 is switching to high frequency in 2021.

"... Food Editor: You know, Homer, we need someone like you. Someone who doesn't immediately "poo-poo" everything he eats.
Homer: Nah, usually takes me a few hours....."

I feel that somehow it's my place, my duty to "poo-poo" projects that start out as a flashy, grand project and up a stick building of a shack-

So, POO-POO.

Go for it, Lisa! This project is another ESG dip into the boring, mundane and worse. POO-POO may be too kind for this one.
Sad, because this is a great location that could have taken a much more interesting project, perhaps something using the curve potential at the north end of the lot and stepping up with some drama into a tower - it wouldn’t have to be all that tall to make an impression standing above the highway maze. This project is simply two heavy handed masses dumped onto an available space with a collision where they meet. The dark, hulking block on Lyndale looks like they went through their files of late sixties and early seventies unbuilt projects and pulled this out laughing - with a slightly sadistic air of revenge that it didn’t get built in it’s day.

We obviously need more rental housing- but I was hoping it would have been of the more affordable type. Maybe renters in this new project will vacate affordable options for the rest of us who aren't salaried professionals. Also, I'm a sucker for the more vertical designs- especially the closer to core of a city a proposal gets.

Towers are nice, wish we had more, but you can't really argue with developers starting with low-cost, easy to flip projects like this one. Just too many poor land uses around to really expect towers to be shooting up all over.

If this were a smaller, more constrained piece of land, I think we might've seen a 10+ story proposal. But this is such a massive piece of land, they're able to get nearly 250 units out of a stick building. There's no incentive to go taller when they can build a massive stick building that will cash flow very, very well. As far as the greater Uptown/Wedge area goes, I'm most disappointed the Arby's site didn't get something better/taller/non-stick. Next up will be the cursed restaurant site just north of Uptown Transit Station. We should scream at the developer if they try to put a stick building there. Short of tearing down the YWCA parking ramp or McDonalds, that's kinda it for the core of Uptown. Much like this site, those are all designated "Transit 10" as well.

I'd have to agree that the current design looks like a cash cow. If I were an investor living in Florida I would be head over heels in love with it.

There are still a number of old structures on Fremont and Girard that could make way for more density. More difficult than the restaurant-not-a-restaurant but easier than the YWCA our McD's.

Not to mention the huge parking lots near Lund's, ACME Machine and Cub.

And the Calhoun Square vacant lot, of course.