urbanMSP

That is disappointing, both the reduction of density and the boxing in of the auto shop. I had been fairly optimistic that that that would get bought out for the third tower, but now there's no particular reason that it won't stay a low-density auto use in an increasingly dense and pedestrian oriented district for the foreseeable future.

Would the remnant auto shop lot be big enough to fit another 5 over 1 if/when they're ready to sell?

What the? Remind those of us with short memories. What were phase 2 and 3 supposed to be? Tall and taller?

The original proposal for Phase 2 was a 26-story tower. I don't believe we ever saw anything about Phase 3.

I may be in the minority, but I actually like this proposal.

And could Phase 3 still go where the auto shop is? Seems to be the perfect size for a tower at the corner, which i think would be a better spot. A tower right next to the existing tower always felt a little awkward to me, but that is just me.

...and hilariously leaving auto shop intact.

This is not a bad thing.

Let's be real here. Had we not seen a teaser photo for another 26 story tower, we'd be peeing our pants over this development.

Regarding the auto shop, I'm sure they were offered a pretty lump of cash, but were just not in the market to sell. Fair on them.

I’m assuming the auto business is doing decent business where they are. How many locations nearby are even available to relocate for them if they took the payout? How do denser European cities handle these kinds of necessary businesses? They can’t all be relegated to their versions of suburbs or industrial districts?

Sometimes that type of business is built into the mixed use building.

...and hilariously leaving auto shop intact.

This is not a bad thing.

I actually don't think it's a bad thing! The way the development interacts with the auto shop reminds me of this house: https://eatballard.com/edith-macefield- ... n-ballard/

And it'll allow a smaller future development at some point (hopefully) that will break up the streetscape better, even if it means the auto shop sticks around for a while longer.

The reason for the revision? Construction costs.

https://finance-commerce.com/2018/04/wh ... olis-plan/

Tidbit in the article. Phase 1 is only 37.5% leased! (175 vacancies). I wonder how this neighborhood is going to cope with phase 2, and the USBank site, and eventually the condo tower. That's a big increase!

The tower just opened this month, so that's right on track, I believe.

I also heard than many of the units are not even completed yet. And with their proposal adding more units, they must be happy with the demand.

May the rise in construction costs signify that we're peaking within the current building boom? I strongly suspect this also has to do with the disappointing Gateway proposal.

May the rise in construction costs signify that we're peaking within the current building boom? I strongly suspect this also has to do with the disappointing Gateway proposal.

Not to go off-topic - but Minneapolis has one of the lowest (if not the lowest) apartment vacancy rates in the entire US. If demand continues, building will continue (look at any other large city!). And as for Gateway, I think your hypothesis is a bit off - that proposal, as has been discussed many times, is for the same height that it was always planned to be. Penciling out the numbers for that block are far more difficult for a multitude of reasons vs. most anywhere else around town. So I don't know that your disappointment with that proposal necessarily reflects right construction costs. Just my 2 cents.

I'd imagine construction costs have gone up because of material and labor scarcity in a booming construction market.

People are also currently freaking out about the tariffs, and there are on-going and long term problems with the labor supply in the construction trades.

My brother in-law works in the steel industry - he buys and sells to large manufacturers like Carrier in Indiana... he said that Trumps whole tariff stunt has created chaos. It's made it so volatile. It was so fragile before and this has been terrible. Such a bummer right now because the market demand is so high.

May the rise in construction costs signify that we're peaking within the current building boom? I strongly suspect this also has to do with the disappointing Gateway proposal.

It would support the notion that the high water mark for the current wave of cheap easy money has been established and that we're moving toward a stagflation phase. I'll admit I'm not a professional and I just study this stuff as a hobby, but when you combine ballooning federal debt with an isolationist trade policy, I don't see any way to get a different result.