urbanMSP

While this project looks great in many ways, it's unfortunate to see this corner go from probably a dozen storefronts down to a single restaurant space.

Cities need affordable commercial space too; it's what helps places like Lyn65 get off the ground. I wouldn't call that commercial strip blighted necessarily, as it seems mostly occupied.

It's hard to complain about more housing, but OTOH part of the reason people like to live in dense areas is to have things near them.

How about commercial rent control and some kind of right-of-first-refusal for commercial tenets like these? We could be getting new housing density while preserving the commercial density we already have. MN only pre-empts residential rent control in statute 471.9996.

During the work session for this, the senior city planner pointed out a previous study of downtown Richfield -- specifically focused on 66th & Nicollet -- that generally showed the area was "over-supplied" for retail/commercial space. Bear in mind that just east of the railroad, there are about 20 acres of extremely underutilized general commercial land at the Hub (it's mostly empty parking lot, and even what's built is half-vacant). That study recommended that that land at least partially pivot to mixed-use or residential.

There is also a building pad across the street for more retail on the back-side of Lakewinds. Remember that to the north, there was a similar strip mall that was demolished to become 100% residential Lyndale Plaza.

But, I think everyone realized that just because there's enough commercial space overall, that doesn't mean it will pair for *these* tenants' specific needs. And there was a lot of concern about how to serve small businesses in need of affordable space.

FWIW the developer said it is possible / likely that the commercial space would be divided in two. 8000 is pretty large for one restaurant. But yes, still a big reduction in commercial space on the site.

Did anyone specifically request that there should be more commercial space in the new development? Or that in exchange for getting TIF funding, some of the retail could be set aside for one of the existing tenants (at below-market rate, etc.)? With that much surface parking provided, it would seem the project has capacity to handle another 1k-2k sq. ft. of retail. More retail would also increase the amount of active ground floor space (and possibly reduce the parking frontage on 65th)

This reminds me of how Richfield dreams about demolishing all the affordable storefront space on Penn near 66th.

But, I think everyone realized that just because there's enough commercial space overall, that doesn't mean it will pair for *these* tenants' specific needs. And there was a lot of concern about how to serve small businesses in need of affordable space.

Yeah, that's the crux of it, and it's good to hear that they acknowledged that. Sure, more commercial space can be built in the area, but it's not going to be as affordable.

Maybe NOACS (Naturally Occurring Affordable Commercial Space) needs to be an acronym alongside NOAH.

Lunds apartment project approved by Richfield Planning Commission last night, moving to City Council. This is to be built on the north/west part of Lunds' very large parking lot.

There was some grumbling (also by me) about the large setback from Penn, and push toward Russell. But Lunds was pretty insistent they wouldn't consider a project that blocked the view of their store from the Penn-Crosstown interchange. It is pretty close to Crosstown itself, so if it gets built as is, it would probably have a pretty notable presence on that eastbound exit to Penn.

Building is 6-stories, all market rate, with a large second floor amenity deck and smaller rooftop deck. 127 units.

https://twitter.com/sdho/status/1189016850300051456

What's the story with the stub of 62nd Street just north of this site? Doesn't appear to serve anything.

Good question. They must have been anticipating taking it all the way to Penn, like the other 62nd St on the Minneapolis side? But as of 1971, it was dead-ended where it dead ends now. http://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/ ... 1-1229.jpg

I imagine if Crosstown is ever expanded or this interchange sees major work, they'd just make it a trail east of Russell.

Staff mentioned that Lunds had a concept where there was parking ramp access from that stub of 62nd, but they advised them to have access only via Penn. (Which makes sense -- a lot of concern about traffic patterns from neighbors to the west even with no access that direction)

That's a great photo. Sorry for straying north of the border, but does anybody know if Wagner's pre-dated the street grid in this area? I always had assumed that they'd expanded across Queen from an initial Penn Avenue frontage, but his image makes it look so randomly plopped down there.

EDIT: It appears that they would have pre-dated the grid in this part of town.
https://www.wagnergreenhouses.com/about-us/history/

Hey, Wagners is a Richfield business even if currently all in Minneapolis. (Owner used to live at 70th and Lyndale too)

The 1938 photo gives a good sense of it: http://geo.lib.umn.edu/minneapolis/y1938/MP-1-25.jpg. Looks like Penn is clearly established. 60th to north is in, 63rd to east of Penn is in, but the rest of the grid is pretty much non-existent. Some farm lanes.

It's interesting how this area of Minneapolis actually filled out quite a bit later than the grid in present-day Richfield. From a bit farther out, this 1937 photo shows the grid pretty well-developed around and west of Woodlake: http://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/ ... -9-774.jpg. The Fairwood area is the most obviously finished, with a lot of trees in addition to streets.

Could explain why that particular area of S Mpls (Sunrise Drive, Grasslake, etc) has more of an explicit mid-century vibe -- ramblers, deviations from grid, etc -- compared to most of S Mpls.

I also love how they used to scratch out fairly complete grids with only a couple of homes were developed. Of course, streets were built a lot more simply and cheaply (probably gravel with no sewers, curbs, lights), but compared to today where they'll only do one section at a time just to build those homes, it's nice to see the complete grid.

Richfield HRA, Council, and Planning Commission to have a work session tonight to hear more details on two proposals for 6501 Penn Avenue, the "Bumper to Bumper" site.

Proposals range from 40 to 140 units + ground-floor retail space. One developer is mainly interested in that corner property and has possible future phases. The other wants to include three houses on Oliver in addition, plus possibly a commercial property to the south on Penn.

City staff recommend the developer doing the smaller proposal.

http://www.richfieldmn.gov/home/showdocument?id=18730

Construction on Novo has begun — all houses were removed and the half-block of Queen Avenue is gone. Looking pretty sad with all those trees removed and just a vacant lot, so I'll be eager to see actual buildings and new landscaping going in.

One of the project partners has a project page up, including drone footage from midway through the demolition:
https://www.trinitydevelopmentmn.com/pr ... partments/

(Page also suggests final name of project is "Novo Southdale")

It's interesting how this area of Minneapolis actually filled out quite a bit later than the grid in present-day Richfield.

That’s the way it usually works, whether it’s the outer reaches of a central city meeting suburbs, or the outer reaches of the US meeting Canada: it ends up being the lowest density areas of the central city, but the highest density areas of the surrounding suburbs. It’s why France Ave. is basically Edina’s downtown, but Linden Hills is suburban Mpls.

I also love how they used to scratch out fairly complete grids with only a couple of homes were developed. Of course, streets were built a lot more simply and cheaply (probably gravel with no sewers, curbs, lights), but compared to today where they'll only do one section at a time just to build those homes, it's nice to see the complete grid.

I thought I read somewhere that Mpls sketched out its street plan before developers were allowed to develop, and they were forced/encouraged to match that street grid. Much like, say, Manhattan.

https://cms9files.revize.com/richfieldm ... ession.pdf

Tomorrow night: "Introductory presentation of redevelopment proposal for the HUB Shopping Center by representatives
of Brixmor Property Group."

https://cms9files.revize.com/richfieldm ... ession.pdf

Tomorrow night: "Introductory presentation of redevelopment proposal for the HUB Shopping Center by representatives
of Brixmor Property Group."

Owner of Richfield’s Hub Shopping Center eyes major redevelopment
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... rhaul.html
*UNLOCKED*


New:
~ 100,000 sq ft grocery (with expressed interest... Hy-Vee?)
~ 450 apartments
~ public plaza

Staying in the mix, but new:
~ Marshall's
~ Burger King
~ Walgreens

Overall this is a good start. I agree that they could definitely go bigger with taller more mixed-use items. But hoping for a SouthdaleEdina@TheHub ® doesn't mean that will come to fruition...

I love the housing addition (I actually think they could do townhomes where the apartments are planned (like by Target & Home Depot) with apartments with retail spaces as the anchor. But the funding options must not be in the mix for that.

It's basically a big box strip mall, except they replaced the old rainbow foods with an apartment block. You're all kidding yourself if you think any of this retail will be truly street facing.

It's a slight improvement, but it can and should be way better. Less surface parking, more mixed-use, but I realize suburbs can't exactly wrap their heads around that concept.

Thank goodness the Popeyes is safe!

Kind of interesting with Burger King, it looks like they're going to be in another shared building like they are now, rather than plopping down one of their new prototypes.

Does mixed use ever get built without TIF or other city subsidies or the overall project being so lucrative the city can force them to build it that way rather than the developer walking away?