urbanMSP

Also - vegan butcher shop opening next to Red Stag.

I have no problem with the business model. I also eat a fair bit of vegetarian food, though I am not a vegetarian. That said, I find the term "vegan butcher shop" to be preposterous and slightly offensive. I would purposefully avoid a business that promoted itself in this way. I realize I am not the target audience, but internet forums are designed for voicing meaningless opinions.

Also - vegan butcher shop opening next to Red Stag.

I have no problem with the business model. I also eat a fair bit of vegetarian food, though I am not a vegetarian. That said, I find the term "vegan butcher shop" to be preposterous and slightly offensive. I would purposefully avoid a business that promoted itself in this way. I realize I am not the target audience, but internet forums are designed for voicing meaningless opinions.

I think that title is silly, in a good way, but how is it offensive? I'm excited about it, and I'm not a vegan or vegetarian.

I've seen that. I tried looking it up and I can't find anything about it. IS is just a renovation?

I've been going to this location for a few years since I moved into the neighborhood. There used to be more employees working there on non-branch stuff (perhaps mortgages). They expanded their branch space into the office space about a year ago. The branch has remained open. I will ask them what's up next time I need quarters for laundry.

Also - vegan butcher shop opening next to Red Stag.

I have no problem with the business model. I also eat a fair bit of vegetarian food, though I am not a vegetarian. That said, I find the term "vegan butcher shop" to be preposterous and slightly offensive. I would purposefully avoid a business that promoted itself in this way. I realize I am not the target audience, but internet forums are designed for voicing meaningless opinions.

I think that title is silly, in a good way, but how is it offensive? I'm excited about it, and I'm not a vegan or vegetarian.

I did say "slightly", but it is mostly offensive because the only thing being butchered is the english language. I realize I'm being pedantic.

How about Earthly Proteins! Organic Proteins! Natural Flora Proteins... (The Butcher term always makes me think of big bloody knives)

My vegetarian girlfriend is completely uninterested in trying the Herbivorous Butcher, while I am very interested.

To her, the whole 'veggie meat' substitute thing is sort of like saying things taste like chicken (i.e., it's code language for 'this food is not unique and tasty enough to stand on it's own merits, so we gotta suggest it vaguely tastes like something else'). I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but she does have a point. That aside, I think sausages and wursts which rely on good seasoning/etc. might very well work. I mean heck, the school lunch cheeseburgers I ate growing up were practically vegetarian.

I suppose you could take the name to mean they're butchering vegans...

But as to the whole idea of vegan meat, I kind of have to agree with kirby's girlfriend in general, though I think you can find lots of situations where a vegan meet substitute is appropriate. Sausage is just as much about the spices and seasoning as it is about the meet, so that sounds like an interesting avenue to explore that isn't implicitly saying that meet is still superior. Then you've got things like burgers where being able to have a non-meet alternative is more of a cultural thing than it is a culinary thing.

But if someone's going to tell me that non-meet can be just as great as meet, you gotta cut it out with the veggie bacon and the non-meet ground beef, because you're just admitting that bacon and ground beef are superior and your veggie alternative is just a poor substitute.

Emailed the mgt. company for Riverplace about relighting Riverplace's large roof-top sign. She said unfortunately it would be a huge undertaking. I hope Riverplace is eventually bought out by a new company who can invest in renovations, etc. The interior is stuck in the original 80's design. The mgt. rep. also said they are marketing the former Mattie's on Main space for a restaurant - if I know of anyone interested - to email her. I can see a brew pub possibly working here - overlooking downtown Mpls. The space would still need to be reworked.

I've seen that. I tried looking it up and I can't find anything about it. IS is just a renovation?

I've been going to this location for a few years since I moved into the neighborhood. There used to be more employees working there on non-branch stuff (perhaps mortgages). They expanded their branch space into the office space about a year ago. The branch has remained open. I will ask them what's up next time I need quarters for laundry.

I asked them about it when I was in the branch last week. It's just going to be a different back office team, something related to tech instead of mortgages. Relocating from a suburban branch (Eden Prairie or whatnot, I don't remember).

Side note - the building has a full basement and it's ENORMOUS. Giant conference and seminar rooms, employee break areas, etc.

Tonight at the Marcy Holmes board meeting, they'll be discussing the General Mills lot. They say on their website that the site will be sold and developed, and that we might see a potential plan already.

Tonight at the Marcy Holmes board meeting, they'll be discussing the General Mills lot. They say on their website that the site will be sold and developed, and that we might see a potential plan already.

Let's hope for a tower or two on that block. There is plenty of space.

Multi-tower corporate headquarters for General Mills. Hey, we can hope right?

So, anything about the general mills lots come up at the meeting tonight?

The image grant tweeted showed all three blocks coming available.

They've said there are multiple interested parties and have assembled a task force to deal with any future development on the sites.

So I guess I'll go to twitter?

This is a general observation, but what is with all the intense pro-tower sentiment? If appropriate, yes, a well-designed tower is great, but first and foremost a project should be appropriately sized to market demand and integrated into the existing neighborhood. Is there a massive shortage in office and residential real estate in NE that I don't know about?
Not pointing fingers - I am genuinely curious.

There's market demand if a developer is interested in building this. I guess I fail to understand why anyone would be against a tower... This is on a block with a parking ramp, no existing residential units. There's no direct harm caused by the tower. It brings possibly nine figures of new investment to the built environment, hundreds of new residents, and all of the virtuous cycle that perpetuates - new businesses, services, etc. And by having a taller tower here, it preserves other land for additional housing/office demand rather than demand that could not be satisfied by this project if it shrank in scope. Thus, eventually the neighborhood will become even more dense and high quality. Seems like a win for everyone.

To answer your question about demand, yes, yes there is. The city added over 1,600 new residents in just the last year and over 24,000 since 2010 (think if everyone in Fridley moved into the borders of MPLS). That's more than just a "5 over 1" stick built apartment that "fits the neighborhood" here and there, it would require hundreds of them. We need all the density we can get wherever we can get it and that means *gasp* tall buildings in a city. The alternatives if you limit height are far worse. If nothing gets built to satisfy the demand for living space in the city, vacancy rates get extremely low (they already are) and everyone's rent goes up (or home prices, leading to higher property taxes) and that makes it much harder for the very people you want to protect, the existing neighbors, to afford living in the city. The other alternative to height is that vast swaths of single family homes have to be demolished to build enough 3-5 story projects to meet the demand. Neither is good.

I'm sure there's a bunch of other reasons i'm missing in this short post that other more knowledgeable members can fill you in on, IE tax base and financial well-being of the city, ect. Suffice it to say tall buildings in a city have numerous benefits and only specious drawbacks.

I didn't get the impression Brenns was against towers, but rather didn't understand people's obsession with them. Outside urbanist circles, that's a totally legit comment. I tend to agree too, even though I also love towers.