urbanMSP

Now some of you may laugh when I say that Chanhassen is a suburb, but today I realized how much it really is growing. There are 2 new retail strips being built during the summer. Both will be taking over existing gas stations that are off of highway 5. One will take over a place called Ivans http://goo.gl/8iPuWx, a bad gas station across from a McDonald's (in my opinion an area that needs some boost). Managed to find a crappy render of the spot, it would be called Dakota Retail, looks to be housing 3 business's http://goo.gl/8hCaes. The other will be taking over a BP http://goo.gl/9pbfjq that is right off of the highway and close to just a block from Chanhassen Dinner Theater and the Southwest Transit Station that just went in last summer. Couldn't find anything on the Chan Newspaper website but there is a rendering in front of the current site, I'll take a picture of it tomorrow. Along with there 2 buildings going in, there is also a 1.3 acre plot of land up for grabs also off of the highway and intersecting with CR 101.
After some more research I also found that the City of Chanhassen has grown 3.9% (about 1000 residents) since last census, but is expected to rise with new developments in the area.

Everything that helps evolve Highway 5 through EP and Chanhassen (between 212 and at least the Arboretum) from what it is now into even something like France Ave in Edina or Excelsior Blvd in SLP would be a good step to making the corridor livable and attractive to development of things residents must drive far away to get. It doesn't need to be major mover of vehicles through the region, 212 parallel to it does it.

https://i.imgur.com/Nq41uvf.jpg

got a picture today. Looks pretty cool for the spot

Looks like every other relatively new one story building in any suburb. There are people who don't consider Chanhassan a suburb?

Heck, Victoria and Waconia are practically suburbs these days. When there's more land in a city used for auto-oriented sprawl, mostly serving regional commuters, than there is an actual core of a town -- it is a suburb.

Looks like every other relatively new one story building in any suburb

Yes, but this is a new thing in Chanhassen. They currently have 3 very outdated retail strips and 2 are now in the planning, one is already in.

It's just that anytime I see something like this proposed in cities like Woodbury or Eden Prairie, I get a little bummed out. I suppose it might be better than nothing but it is only promoting more sprawl.

But it matches very well with the natural area around it. Especially with the wetlands and lakes in Eden Prairie. Chanhassen is very similar in that way

Hard to get a good shot of it from streetview but I gave it a try, here's one in EP http://goo.gl/P3FdVS

And another on that's next to the Southwest Station http://goo.gl/8ZYWep

There are also some new town homes going up next to the P&R off 212 & 101. That's kinda TOD in a way I suppose... I don't really see 1 story retail buildings in existing suburbs as promoting sprawl. The real culprit would be projects like Hwy 212, or sewer and waterline expansions. Not everyone is going to want to live in a city, some people will always prefer suburban living- but that doesn't mean that it has to be unsustainable. There are plenty of things suburbs can do to create more a environmentally friendly way of living. Tearing out a dumpy gas station to provide retail and making an area more walk-able is never a bad thing in my mind, no matter where it is.

Hi by the way...

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/10/ret ... hanhassen/

The reason why this is good development is because it's not only reachable by stroads or on any stroads. Most of the new retail development is near the main street which is a 30 mph 1 to 2 lane blvd. Chan is trying to stay small while still growing its retail scene

I have a friend who lives in Carver and tipped me to this project (though I had heard something on Twitter): http://www.cityofcarver.com/carver-crossing/

It's directly south of a new SWT bus station, across a 55 mph arterial from townhomes. It's receiving an MHFA tax credit to lower costs & qualify for workforce housing requirements. Also got a Met Council LDCA grant. Phase 1 would be 68 apartment units ranging from 1-3 BR, phases 2-3 would bring the final total to ~190 units (though a townhouse option for those phases is a potential).

Receiving heavy opposition from locals who fear impact to property values (via crime & school degradation) & higher municipal costs thanks to likely high police call rates. https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveCarver/

Save Carver! LOL. Save it from subdivisions.

Oh this thread! An update on some of my things. The a little retail store is finishing up. It actually looks alright for something out here. Not entirely basic, some stones and nice brick. Right now all it has is a potbelly. And I also heard Davanni's is opening up in Chan soon.

This same developer proposed Section 42 housing in Richfield and Savage. For what it's worth, this design is much better than the one proposed on Savage, but not as good of frontage as the Richfield proposal. In both those communities, Ron Clark was defeated. General community impression is either "all subsidized housing is bad" or the more nuanced-sounding "we should only have mixed market rate-subsidized".

At the very least, Ron Clark seems to need to do a better job selling communities on the value of their projects.

The opposition group has a website, http://mycarver.com. There they have a number of documents with suspect arguments to "prove" that this development will adversely affect their property values.

I particularly like this, where they show a bunch of townhome developments built at the peak of the housing bubble, and -- guess what -- after the bubble burst, their SFH values went down: http://mycarver.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... dsheet.pdf. Blame the multi-family housing!

They also cite this meta-analysis: http://mycarver.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... nesota.pdf, which finds that public housing projects have a negative impact on property values, but that those managed by for-profit companies (like this development) actually have a *positive* impact. The paper also notes that most of the studies examined are from large east coast cities and may not translate well to other environments.

The only really good arguments, in my opinion:

1. Rather abrupt scale change from surrounding, no mixed use or logical "village" node
2. Should be mixed-income for long-term vitality.

Yeah they're cherry picking data like crazy, ignoring any other effects, grasping at any anecdote they can (sheriffs from Shakopee said crime!), and ignoring the bevy of research showing very slight to no impacts on property values/school performance/etc etc. I want to write an open letter, because lord knows someone should speak up for the people who would live here, but I'm just not sure it's my place. It's easy to say some pretty nasty things about people when they don't have a known name/face/kids/etc.

Yeah I've got no dog in this fight either. I cringe at the opposition's tactics, but I'm also not sure that high-density development in a cornfield makes a lot of sense, short of a little garden city. Nor am I sure I support 100% workforce housing.

The location is a groaner. Farmland, trees, houses, and a park-and-ride which I have trouble believing anyone will actually use -- a nearly hour-long bus ride into downtown Minneapolis or UMN, though at least it makes a couple of stops along the way (I doubt anyone would get off at the Great Plains Blvd stop in Chanhassen, though some might use it for Southwest station in Eden Prairie).

I'd say no to this if it was in my power, along with any more single-family development in Carver until they can manage a mixed-use node somewhere. Ordinarily I'd focus on the historic town center, though that's pretty constrained by levees and bluffs in this case. Just plop a proper grid somewhere and allot some space for businesses.

It'd still be an interesting exercise to visualize this building complex in the old town center -- it has a pretty big footprint compared to the historic city blocks. Is there anything that could be done to squeeze the footprint a bit more? Or should it be set up to take up more than one block, with public streets between?

Why don't we all go get a steak sandwich at Harvey's Bar in Carver and discuss it? Mmmmm

We can do that while we're on our way down to Wells. I'd love to see some more mixed use development in Carver. Once one goes in a people realize that absolutely nothing bad happens, then a good percentage change their minds on the issue. There are the people who will still whine on the next project though, those are the funny ones