urbanMSP

Saw this, felt the need to post immediately:

Is this NIMBY'ism or a legitimate complaint?

I would think any developer would have a hard time rezoning this to all residential, and why would they want to? Anybody would include street-level retail on that site, given the neighborhood's growth.

Um, yes, this building should certainly be saved from the wrecking ball, it is a beauty! haha.


No loss there, but I do think any housing should have retail on the first floor in that location.

I would mainly hate to see the loss of the Podium and the Book House. I can't remember a Dinkytown without them there. It seems unlikely that these two businesses would be in the mix of any new retail placed in that spot.

I would very much miss the businesses, but I'm scoffing at the idea that the House of Hanson building is historic and worth saving. Also, I don't get why they seem to be implying that this building wouldn't have first floor retail, given that Sydney, 1301, the Dinkydome, the Chateau, and the building replacing the UTEC building all do.

Maybe they can find some way to save the Podium and the Book House. House of Hanson can go, as far as I'm concerned. Between CVS and the proposed UTEC grocery store, it's probably not going to last much longer anyway.

The House of Hanson owners also own the three parcels of parking lot behind the building. These parcels form the majority of the Dinkytown parking lot used by many if not most of the businesses in the area. It seems likely that any sale of the building would include these parcels, as the building itself has a pretty small development footprint.

House of Hanson has been in Dinkytown at that corner, in some form, since the 1890s I think.

the owners of the House of Hanson are looking to sell

Well you can say all you want about character and blah blah, but if they want to sell their property...there's nothing anyone can do about it. A small grocery store isn't going to be the most profitable use of this land. Losing unique businesses is always a bummer, but I'd wager there are vacant spaces in other older (low rent) buildings in the area. Might not be as prime of a location as this, but no one is literally being "forced" out of business.

We believe housing should not be put in the main business district

Well that's just an ignorant thing to say. There are apartment buildings kitty corner from this and UTEC across the street soon will be too. If* the new building has retail on the ground level and housing above, what difference does it make if there is housing in a business district?

*Obviously this is going to have retail. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting it wouldn't.

For the record though, I will lament the destruction any building when there are still acres of surface parking to build on first before we start tearing things down. Unfortunately, McDonald's and the liquor store probably aren't looking to sell their parking

I'm fighting with the Book House on Facebook about this, because in their post about it they made an appeal to "people who hate condo development and all it entails." Here is the description of the proposal that they posted (minus the jumbled half-understood planning concepts): "On 5th st., they would like retail at ground-level, with several stories of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments above. Private parking underground, and a decreased amount of public parking on the south end of the parking lot above. We recall the mention of ground-level town-homes on 14th avenue as well. When you picture this, you should also picture a structure of similar design in the place where the UTEC building currently stands, directly across 5th street."

My guess is that they will ask for a rezoning to C3A from the existing C1 zoning. I'd predict they'll get it because the comp plan supports it (Dinkytown is designated as an Activity Center, with the curious exception of McDonalds and the liquor store) and because Diane Hofstede isn't on the Z&P Committee (and seems to not be able to get much done in general).

Personally, despite their insulting demeanor in our Facebook fight, I'll be sad to see the Book House's building go. But the rest of this corner of Dinkytown will be vastly improved by just about anything that Opus puts up. And I have a hard time believing that either the Podium or the Book House will be put out of business by a forced move, although maybe the Book House will decide that a bricks-and-mortar isn't worth it.

Having read the Facebook argument, a small part of me wants this project to go through just to stick it to all the people who are getting into snits that a student neighborhood isn't exactly the same as it was 40 years ago. Most of me wants it to go through because it'll be good for the area, and hopes that the book house can move and stay in business.

Honestly I have tried and I can't understand why these people are in such a huff. It's not even actual criticism. People are just upset about a) "wealthy" developers b) "yuppie" condo-dwellers c) "free" parking reductions

Isn't this pretty much a textbook example of gentrification in progress? We all know that a new construction building here is going to price out the old businesses. Unless you're dying to bring a Papa Murphy's and a Noodles.

I guess I don't see gentrification as a dirty word like some others. I also never went to the U or spent much time in Dinkytown, so I don't have the same attachment to the businesses/locations which have defined the Dinkytown culture for a half century.

Editorial from the Strib. Doesn't actually take a firm stance on the issue, but points out the fallacy of acting like this specific project will destroy the "small-village feel" of an area that already contains a suburban style McDonald's and a 20-story apartment tower.

Just realized my first apartment and the college magazine offices I worked at are both in the path of the apartment boom. I still can't believe the UTC wasn't turned into lofts. As for the Victorian that's coming down, it had seen better days.

Another Daily article on the changing nature of Dinkytown:

http://www.mndaily.com/city/business/20 ... y-evolving

What's interesting to me is the article acknowledges that things have changed over time yet spends much of it interviewing people who don't want change (or ignore the fact that a lot of the change in the past 30-40 years has left giant parking lots in the area).

I also like the quote “The last thing we want to have happen is to … have each block be completely occupied by mixed-use developments that are right up to the sidewalk and straight up five or six floors.” Haha, yeah, just terrible!

Or... " “For Ciatti, who grew up near the area, the separation of business from residential properties is essential to Dinkytown’s character. “It pisses me off,” she said. “It’s OK to put in housing around us, but when you move into the business district … that is so wrong. It’s the beginning of the end.” "

Good stuff, as always.

Putting residential buildings in a business district is the formula for a business district's failure. It's also the formula for pissing me off! And don't get me started on buildings that go right up to the sidewalk!

But seriously, it would be nice to see some more variations in building size.

I think the biggest barriers to that are 1) zoning/codes that require certain amenities that add fixed costs making smaller/skinnier/etc buildings less profitable and 2) lack of ways for smaller firms, local residents, etc to get funding to actually do some very small infill like that. It is frustrating that development seems to be all-or-nothing, at least anywhere near the center of a node.

It is frustrating that development seems to be all-or-nothing, at least anywhere near the center of a node.

This is really the crux of the issue for me. I'm not fundamentally opposed to redeveloping Dinkytown, especially the areas in desperate need of redevelopment. I just don't want to tear down Dinkytown and replace it with four giant buildings.