urbanMSP

So why is everyone so upset about this again? Yes, it would have been an increase in density/ tax revenue.

Tax revenue, maybe, but density? This was a hotel, not housing. I for one am not shedding a tear. It would be nice, but certainly not some incredible development toward a sustainable city.

I have a 109-year-old house, which is quite a bit younger than the house in question, and I was darn lucky to find a house with the first-floor woodwork intact, mostly original windows and most of the exterior architectural features untouched. If the house in question has original interior detailing I think it's definitely worth saving.

It's worth saving if what replaces it is a 3-stall surface parking lot. If someone came forward with a 4-6 story structure that replaced this house and the Library, I wouldn't be concerned with it whatsoever. Again, with all the vacant lots in our city, why is moving these structures not really discussed?

Tax revenue, maybe, but density? This was a hotel, not housing. I for one am not shedding a tear. It would be nice, but certainly not some incredible development toward a sustainable city.

Having a hotel here means people who are already visiting the U (for football, basketball, hockey, visiting their kids, robot shows, etc) no longer need to drive in multiple times to do their business. Does a hotel make for semi-permanent residents the way an apartment building does? No.. but it certainly has benefits to the city (slightly removing congestion, need for daily parking, etc) and the small area (hotel guests will almost exclusively eat out and shop).

I'm in 100% agreement that the surface parking lots in Dinkytown should be targeted for development. But I'm not the owner of those parcels, and neither are the City or any preservationists, and we can't really force them to sell, re-configure their layout to face the sidewalk, etc.

Someone posted in the Save Dinkytown group posted that we don't need hotels on Campus because people will just stay downtown and take the hotel shuttle into Dinkytown and my eyes are rolling so hard at that idea that they've come full circle back to their original position.

I have a 109-year-old house, which is quite a bit younger than the house in question, and I was darn lucky to find a house with the first-floor woodwork intact, mostly original windows and most of the exterior architectural features untouched. If the house in question has original interior detailing I think it's definitely worth saving.

It's worth saving if what replaces it is a 3-stall surface parking lot. If someone came forward with a 4-6 story structure that replaced this house and the Library, I wouldn't be concerned with it whatsoever. Again, with all the vacant lots in our city, why is moving these structures not really discussed?

Just to clarify, by "saving," I didn't preclude moving it. I definitely think we can get better use of this particular lot.

Someone posted in the Save Dinkytown group posted that we don't need hotels on Campus because people will just stay downtown and take the hotel shuttle into Dinkytown and my eyes are rolling so hard at that idea that they've come full circle back to their original position.

Why? We've not had this hotel before and things seem fine. Where do people stay now? Maybe they stay near the airport, but if so wouldn't the LRT provide a reasonably convenient method to get to Dinkytown?

I'm not saying a hotel isn't a good idea, just wondering why it's needed *now* as opposed to ten years ago or 10 years from now.

If someone wants to stay at the airport they can stay at the airport and spend 45 minutes coming to campus and then leave when they're done with their business. If they want to stay on campus and be on the campus then they need to be on campus. Maybe it has been needed for the past 10 years, I don't know. Right now we've just got the Commons Hotel and the Days Inn farther up University and that's it for campus hotels. Just because nobody's tried to build one until now doesn't mean there isn't demand for one.

There's something to be said for being able to walk out of your hotel and be in the middle of it all, and that doesn't exist in Dinkytown currently.

Right now we've just got the Commons Hotel and the Days Inn farther up University and that's it for campus hotels.

There's also the former Holiday Inn on West Bank, as well as the University Inn extended stay on 10th Ave & 4th St.

I hope we see more hotels in neighborhood nodes in our city. People shouldn't be stuck downtown or at a suburban strip hotel. I know a lot of folks who travel to MSP to work on my projects would love to stay at urban hotels outside of downtown. Clearly the market is there for places like Uptown and Dinkytown to get hotels.

As somebody who's organized events on campus I can say that the dearth of hotel options is a constant PITA. Between the Commons Hotel and the new Courtyard (old Holiday Inn in Seven Corners) you can usually accommodate most, but further afield you only really add the Days Inn before you're having to put people downtown. The Aloft on Washington has alleviated some of the pressure, but it's still a good ways from campus, too far for most people to consider it walkable. Any hotel within walking distance of the main part of campus would be profitable, I'm sure; the challenge is figuring out where to put one, and hence this problem.

Latest Dinkytown Vote Leaves a Bad Taste in My Mouth

https://streets.mn/2014/02/26/latest-din ... -my-mouth/

Doran could do a similar project while preserving the historic facade (and any developer could add density onto our single story buildings, and commercial districts), it's just not as cost effective or as easy for them to accomplish. SO why not leave our arguably historic, ACTIVELY USED spaces as is until all of our (DUH!) surface lots and easier to develop cost effectively spots first. Then it will become more easy to digest the cost of preservation and creative use of space because there isn't anywhere else to go. Let's have our cake and eat it too. It's not like this is the only place a hotel could go in Dinkytown... in fact it's arguably NOT the best spot for a hotel in Dinkytown, IMO. I hate the argument that new dense urban development and preservation are mutually exclusive, because they aren't when both are valued in a community. I feel like articles like this streets MN article are just polarizing both sides of the argument and not bringing both closer together.

*just some anecdotal articles and imagery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/reale ... .html?_r=0

http://inhabitat.com/nrja-unveils-plans ... -addition/

http://fadedbackpacks.files.wordpress.c ... /1tall.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=385610

I hate the argument that new dense urban development and preservation are mutually exclusive, because they aren't when both are valued in a community. I feel like articles like this streets MN article are just polarizing both sides of the argument and not bringing both closer together.

Thanks for articulating my feelings exactly. As an urbanist and preservationist I can't understand why these two sides are waging a war.

Don't they call this concept (urban redevelopment while preserving the historical character of a building and/or site) "Adaptive Re-Use"?

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/03/dor ... rejection/

If anyone with a subscription can give a brief rundown, that'd be great..

My guess is that the reason they aren't suing is because there's a solution in the works (I've heard about it elsewhere).

My guess is that the reason they aren't suing is because there's a solution in the works (I've heard about it elsewhere).

Any details on potential solution?

a 12 storey hotel built next to mesa pizza?

I'd like to see a reimagining of the hotel plan that wraps around Mesa, and actually fills in the lot with the house on it. I've got no problems with demolishing an old house, but only if a building is built there, not a parking lot.

Just read the F&C article. Doran says if the study isn't complete in about 4 months, the project is likely dead. He isn't going to sue, but also questions the legality of the Council's decision. No word on any possible solution.

Honestly, as a grad student who sometimes eats at the restaurants that Doran wants to demolish, I don't really mind the idea of the demolitions themselves.

What I'm really afraid of, though, is that the rents on the ground-floor commercial spaces would be too high for those kinds of smaller restaurants. I don't think the buildings have any particular historic value--the Mesa one, despite being vaguely attractive, is actually kind of dumpy--but the U area really doesn't need another Chipotle, and I sort of suspect that's the only kind of business that would be able to move in.

If Doran could provide guarantees that the same kinds of businesses would really, truly be able to come back to the rebuilt space, I think cool a lot of the community opposition.