urbanMSP

I thought a separate thread from the Valleyfair one would be worthwhile.

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/06/jus ... r-nothing/

Minneapolis developer CPM got a sweetheart deal for a collection of lots in downtown Shakopee, including the extant city hall location. They plan to build a 70-unit market rate apartment building in the mold of the Chroma building on the city hall site, and a 110-unit boutique hotel on the other lot at 339 and 321 First Ave. W. The city recently bought those parcels for $500k, so it's a little surprising to see them give everything away for next to nothing. The article even mentions using some TIF money to help the process along (....).

I've long felt that Shakopee's downtown and surrounding grid neighborhoods are among the best/most intact in the metro, especially given its location along the river. So it's nice to see continued development. It's not difficult to imagine just a couple east-west bus lines linking residents in the walkable grid to the jobs and entertainment starting at Canterbury - with a little bit of upzoning and public help you could give some nice car-lite/free households a place to live near the low-wage jobs Shakopee keeps attracting. I hear that's a problem we keep throwing money at.

I agree. We ought to be talking about places and scenarios like this more. Right now people hear "urbanist" and think "big city." The label itself is a problem. We're not exclusively about large or medium cities or cities of any particular size. We're about quality of life, efficiency and sustainability at the least. I really don't have much of a problem even with someone living in downtown Shakopee and driving to Canterbury, though obviously transit would be better. Even driving a short distance like that is a huge win over 30 mile commutes to the "big city." We shouldn't excoriate people just for living in the suburbs. We need to consider the whole lifestyle.

Nice long look at Shakopee’s subsidizing low wage jobs but refusing to subsidize housing for those same jobs.

http://www.swnewsmedia.com/shakopee_val ... ce4bc.html

I thought a separate thread from the Valleyfair one would be worthwhile.

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/06/jus ... r-nothing/

Minneapolis developer CPM got a sweetheart deal for a collection of lots in downtown Shakopee, including the extant city hall location. They plan to build a 70-unit market rate apartment building in the mold of the Chroma building on the city hall site, and a 110-unit boutique hotel on the other lot at 339 and 321 First Ave. W. The city recently bought those parcels for $500k, so it's a little surprising to see them give everything away for next to nothing. The article even mentions using some TIF money to help the process along (....).

I've long felt that Shakopee's downtown and surrounding grid neighborhoods are among the best/most intact in the metro, especially given its location along the river. So it's nice to see continued development. It's not difficult to imagine just a couple east-west bus lines linking residents in the walkable grid to the jobs and entertainment starting at Canterbury - with a little bit of upzoning and public help you could give some nice car-lite/free households a place to live near the low-wage jobs Shakopee keeps attracting. I hear that's a problem we keep throwing money at.

Dead.
CPM Cos. walks away from $24 million downtown redevelopment project in Shakopee
http://www.startribune.com/cpm-cos-walk ... 445762993/

The Shakopee downtown is a total dead zone with a couple blocks of minor retail in the historic buildings, some senior housing, the county building. The grid residential area is pretty low density as well. I can't fathom why the city would have any opposition to downtown development while they let the farms continue to be replaced by subdivisions.

http://www.startribune.com/canterbury-c ... 465258143/

Vote tonight on high density housing around Canterbury Park

4-1 in favor of the Doran $400M redevelopment, 600 apartments, 100 townhomes, and a 120 room hotel.

http://www.startribune.com/canterbury-c ... 465258143/

This is very yikes

To be fair, I expected nothing of urban value to be built here.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is it not urban oriented? Other than a few buildings set back from the main road.

Here is an opinion:

Whether or not apartments and townhomes are perfectly oriented in an urbanist placemaking wet-dream fantasy is pretty irrelevant in a place like this. These are auto-oriented places, with little-to-no regular transit service, and maybe some quality MUPs on the side of major thoroughfares. And that's fine. It's not that different than suburban places in Europe - somewhat dense housing with sometimes generous setbacks in pockets surrounded by major roads and segregated from big(ish) box shopping centers and/or mid-sized office buildings. Yeah, they often get the regional rail and local transit a bit better, but that (hopefully) comes after the density is built in places like this. It's not hard to imagine this being a neighborhood with a shop or two (hopefully with daily staples) within walking distance for residents, maybe some of them will even work nearby. It's also not hard to imagine in ~10 years or so some of the awful surface parking getting some additional infill, maybe the city even using some of that Scott County transpo sales tax money to run a 15 minute bus between here and downtown Shakopee.

But we also can't ignore the importance of a suburb like Shakopee allowing multi-family and SF-attached housing at much higher rates than many other suburbs. Yeah, much of it is only allowed on green/brownfield sites like this or butting up against 169, but even still. Shakopee's rate of rented housing units (24.3%) is higher than "edge suburb" peers like Chanhassen, Maple Grove, and Lakeville. They have more attached SFH and 2-unit homes (27.7% of all units) than any of those 3 as well, and housing units in buildings with 3 or more units make up 13.3% of all housing units, again the highest among those peers. Given all that, it's no shock that Shakopee has a higher rate of non-white residents than those peers at 27% (which is actually higher than the regional average of 20%!!). Shakopee is a more welcoming suburb than many, and developments like this help even if the urban form isn't ideal.

Could break ground this fall.

http://www.startribune.com/canterbury-p ... 480431583/

Canterbury Commons could get bigger.

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... could.html

https://www.swnewsmedia.com/shakopee_va ... ef567.html

Metro Millers announce plans for 8,000-seat stadium in Shakopee

Boo. Rebuild Nicollet Park instead.

A stadium not on an LRT line...

A stadium not on an LRT line...

If they build it next to the Union Pacific line we could change that.

Outrageous. I thought there was a rule about all stadiums being accessible from the Green Line.

Time to start lobbying a another green line extension.

I wonder if all this maneuvering is in response to the following report:
https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories ... gue-teams/

Yeah, it's possible the Saints might be moving into "Affiliated Minor League Baseball" and thus the Metro Millers may take their place in the AA.