Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[woofner]

I think that many of the blocks in the Wedge would be appropriate for Preservation Lite:

http://www.minnpost.com/two-cities/2012 ... ighborhood

Personally I would prefer a full-blown Historic District, but I'm not sure it is consistent or unique enough to meet requirements, and I don't know if the landowners would want the regulation.

[RailBaronYarr]

I guess.. call me a heartless curmudgeon. But making entire neighborhoods a preservation district, even a "Lite" version, means there's a reaction to a clear market demand. Almost all of these homes were the 'cookie cutters' of their day. They may have been SF at one point, perhaps built as multi-family originally. Either way, they have hit a point where their value has been exceeded. They used to be on the fringe. People with a taste for a little more space could afford more land there and so they built some homes. The natural cycle was somewhat interrupted by urban renewal and the freeways going in and a very large chunk of people desiring to pass over this area and move to the burbs. But now there are people clamoring to live here. It's dense enough for transit - although I'd hardly call our system of buses a superb network compared to other places. It is close to many things. People are willing to pay upwards of $1000/mo for a single BR apartment to live here. Why should we stop this from happening? With regard to Prospect Park - if we implement even a "Lite" preservation rule, will everyone still cry foul when the CC LRT under-performs at concentrating TOD around stations? I just really don't get it. People are actively trying to stop Minneapolis and StP from becoming real cities with good density and lower prices/commute times and lower total environmental impact simply to preserve the charm of some neighborhoods or a couple houses?

[woofner]

To be clear, I would support a historic district only on certain blocks in the Wedge, Isles and Whittier neighborhoods. Personally I would select those blocks that most cohesively and attractively characterize the wave of upper middle class residential growth that took place in the area between 1890 and 1910. Off the top of my head I would guess that no more than 10 blocks or half-blocks would meet that description, and I'm not sure that would even meet the requirements of the state historic preservation office for the establishment of historic districts.

In general I personally prefer apartments aesthetically, and as I mentioned long ago in this thread, I think that low-rise apts are more suited to the wide leafy residential streets of this city (think of Wilmersdorf in West Berlin). But the reality is that we have these houses here now, and while you may be accurate in characterizing many of them as cookie-cutter, the cookie-cutter of their era was mostly idiosyncratic hand-craftsmanship. Not only is it worth saving because it's beautiful, but it's worth saving because it is capable of creating an appealing and genuine mix of forms. Cities with variety are so much more interesting than cities where everything is the same. We're lucky we have that already and we can just preserve it instead of trying to create it.

So, if I'm permitted to brag, I think I have a much more nuanced position than most of the people in this debate. I think that Lander's proposal is completely appropriate in terms of the form and the density that the location absolutely justifies. But I also think that the neighbors have a point about the value of the historic resources. Unfortunately they didn't do the work to set up the restrictions beforehand, and I don't think they have a case that the resources are unique or valuable enough the city should take the exceptional step of intervening in the absence of that prep work. Hopefully they take it as a lesson that they should be proactive and start the public debate about what is valuable enough that we should create these restrictions. If they were to do so, I hope they would be reasonable about what they propose restrictions on (i.e. just those exceptional blocks or very exceptional individual resources, and not a blanket on the whole neighborhood).

Finally, I'll mention the idea of a zoning budget, which I think has come up in a few real cities (i.e. New York, San Francisco, DC) where development pressure has led NAs to lobby for downzoning. Applied to Minneapolis, I think the city could come up with a community-wide growth target (referring to CPED planning communities), and they could delegate to neighborhoods the task of designating which specific parcels within those neighborhoods get the growth and which don't. Obviously it would be more complex than that but I think this description suffices for a brief mention of the idea.

[RailBaronYarr]

Off the top of my head I would guess that no more than 10 blocks or half-blocks would meet that description

That is still a lot of blocks that supply of housing is artificially limited. We have a real good history of falling in love with stuff just about 100 years after it was built. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the architecture of the time. But I also appreciate the brownstones, craftsman style of the 30s-50s, the tudors that show up here and there, slightly larger apartment buildings with differing brick color/texture. None of this means we should be devoting a significant chunk of our potential land supply (if NAs had their way it would likely be 50+% of the homes out there) to houses simply because some people prefer the style.

Cities with variety are so much more interesting than cities where everything is the same. We're lucky we have that already and we can just preserve it instead of trying to create it.

I don't doubt that, but the only way to achieve it isn't to freeze our housing stock in time. The apartment facade du jour today is different than 20 years ago, and will be different than 10 years from now. If we free up some regulations on height and parking, maybe we'd see things evolve even faster. Maybe if the city allowed upzoning in other forms (like removing garage size restrictions and allowing for granny flats) we could increase density close to what apartments could provide without changing street view.

Furthermore, the idea that a city is more interesting when everything isn't the same implies that ones like Paris or Barcelona (where we see block upon block or avenue upon avenue of similar height/style) aren't interesting places to live or visit. It also implies that we're 100% sure that everything that will go up will be the same (I would point out this building looks vastly different than the ones down along the greenway in how it addresses the street, color, stone, setbacks, etc).

Lastly, I agree that simply removing buildings because there may be a better utilization of the land can cause a neighborhood's character to change. I don't doubt that the Painted Ladies in San Francisco are overpriced per sqft compared to what they could be because in general SF has limited development. But to remove them fundamentally would change the nature of the neighborhood and how it feels. I get that. But what's the greater good, so to speak? Allowing steep housing prices so a select few can enjoy a neighborhood frozen in time, at the expense of economic vitality and environmental friendliness?

As to this property, does anyone know the outcome of last night's review??

[seanrichardryan]

Unfortunately they didn't do the work to set up the restrictions beforehand...

That is not entirely true. The city and the neighborhood fought over the zoning of these exact properties in the small area plan several years ago. The city planning department didn't budge and Z&P shut down the whole process. The neighborhood organization is actively examining rezoning the northern wedge again : http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/ne ... properties The idea is to allow smart mixed-use growth at the edges of the Wedge, refurbishing our commercial corridors (perhaps by eliminating vast parking lots on Hennepin & Lyndale), while protecting our historic resources in the heart of the neighborhood.

[mattaudio]

That seems to escalate the concept of historic preservation more than appropriate. Isn't the point of historic preservation to preserve examples of certain historically significant structures? I don't think it's an appropriate for HPC or Z&P to prevent an entire neighborhood, except for main corridors, from experiencing incremental and natural growth on historic preservation grounds.

This is probably more the Linden Hills effect than a true desire to preserve specific historic examples, since homeowners realize that if they protect the SFH character of a neighborhood while it simultaneously sees a surge of demand, then supply is constricted and the equilibrium price rises. Hense, housing becomes much more expensive, increasing the investment returns of incumbent landowners and preventing people from moving into the neighborhood.

[RailBaronYarr]

..preventing people from moving into the neighborhood.

While few will admit this outright, this is a major goal for many people. They see "that element of people" coming in and ruining their neighborhood.

I agree that the grounds of Historic Preservation should be to protect a particular work of art, shining example of a period piece, or some extremely notable designer/architect (but limited to very few properties).

Again, not to sound like a curmudgeon (or as MNdibble would call it, 'no-fun Republicans'), but when we say we want to "protect our historic resources," what exactly are we protecting? We aren't San Francisco protecting a beautiful row of ornately painted houses that quite literally draws in thousands of tourists a year. We aren't protecting a building that someone notable was born or died in. I would say that none of the houses most people are so concerned about are producing any wealth to Minneapolis (you could definitely make a case that leaving them as is restricts wealth generation for more people). By protecting an entire area - be it a block or nearly a whole neighborhood, we're choosing to leave a particular age range and particular style there. Let's talk about some of the very notable mansions along Summit, or some of the remaining mansions in Minneapolis. I can make a case for those. But these are literally homes that happen to be old enough for people to start caring about. Nothing more.

[mplsjaromir]

I would totally be on board with a plan that outlines what specific structures need to be set aside and where specifically growth will be embraced. I feel that if any developer (master builder) tries to do anything the neighborhood association reflexively opposes. If a solid number can be agreed upon of how many new units are be allowed that would be a great start. Many question local opposition to new development, but if there is a clear path to realistically meeting market demand then those who question will have their suspensions assuaged. At this juncture I have seen nothing from anyone from LHENA who proposed a solution, other than "not in my backyard".

[WillB]

Yesterday, the HPC granted Mr. Christensen's appeal of the Planning Director's determination that 2320 Colfax did not qualify as a historic resource, nothwithstanding staff's recommendation that the appeal be denied. This action does not necessarily resolve the issue, as it can be futher appealed to additional city council entities. But it represents a significant win for those opposed to the destruction of the 2320 property.

[lordmoke]

Can't they just move the damn thing? There are a handful of empty lots within five or six blocks of here. Corner of Emerson & Franklin and just south of 22nd & Garfield are two right off the top of my head.

[RailBaronYarr]

Not to mention all of N Minneapolis. If it was economically feasible (albeit on a home purchased for $1) for Nicole Curtis to raise a house up and build an entirely new foundation, then completely rehab it, wouldn't moving the thing be a marginal increase in cost?

Does this ruling set any sort of precedent for future houses? Seems like any house from any era built by any designer in any style can be considered 'historic' if this is the case.

[mamundsen]

Not to mention all of N Minneapolis. If it was economically feasible (albeit on a home purchased for $1) for Nicole Curtis to raise a house up and build an entirely new foundation, then completely rehab it, wouldn't moving the thing be a marginal increase in cost?

I saw some of those episodes! Awesome to see a local on HGTV.

[Nathan]

Not to mention all of N Minneapolis. If it was economically feasible (albeit on a home purchased for $1) for Nicole Curtis to raise a house up and build an entirely new foundation, then completely rehab it, wouldn't moving the thing be a marginal increase in cost?

I saw some of those episodes! Awesome to see a local on HGTV.

She's not a local, she's from Detroit, but she does love her some Minneapolis.

[twincitizen]

Can't they just move the damn thing? There are a handful of empty lots within five or six blocks of here. Corner of Emerson & Franklin and just south of 22nd & Garfield are two right off the top of my head.

Maybe: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2013/ ... tential-ho

But should the developer have to pay to move it? IMO that cost should fall on those who want to buy/save it.

[mamundsen]

Was lots of this thread deleted?

[mplser]

When nobody wants to pay to move it and they still don't let them go through with construction, are the same neighbors going to complain about living next to a vacant house?

[RailBaronYarr]

Well at that point I'm sure the saint Nicole Curtis will come in and offer $1 for it, fix it up with whatever scraps she has lying in her garage, change it back to a single family home, and sell it for $600k. Then she'll have the gall to call out developers for being motivated by greed.

And the neighborhood shall rejoice because they won't have to deal with any negative "elements" moving in to their neighborhood (racism veiled in concern for maintaining our history or neighborhood character or whatever).

[mplser]

I'm not sure any sane developer would let someone kill their development and then turn around and hand properties away for free to that same person.

[alleycat]

Exactly. This house isn't city owned. Nobody's going to get it for a $1. Demolition costs are quite expensive. Whats the harm in using that money towards moving the house that's historic.

There has to be a middle ground between preservation and new development. With all the surface parking lots in this city, we have plenty of land. I wish developers would focus on those first and work around existing structures.

[RailBaronYarr]

I wasn't implying the developer would turn around and sell this place for $1, just giving a nod to the fact that she paid the city $1 for a different house in Mpls. My point is what you both alluded to - this property clearly would have to sell at far more than it would be worth to rehab it and make a profit, and the fact that it was on the open market already and this is who bought it shows that.

I agree - the developer could easily lower their costs by NOT demolishing it (at a cost) and actually selling the house to someone who wants to move it. The people who want to keep old homes get a bargain (the house is worth far less than the house+land, and moving costs still are low enough that bringing it elsewhere is cost effective. House gets saved, land gets better utilization. Everyone wins. If no buyers, then scrap out the components of the house and materials to not be environmentally wasteful. What's the problem?