urbanMSP

Since Prospect Park neighborhood discussions happen on a wide-circulation, but basically closed, email list rather than NextDoor or E-Democracy, I will just report that some people are concerned that the 17 story tower will detract from the visual prominence of the witches hat tower. Other people are not concerned ...

I'd say that's a fair concern, however after a brief Streetview assessment, you can't see the Witch's Hat Tower from either corner of the project site as is along university

They actually do a line drawing and semi transparent version of the renderings in the packet so you can see exactly how much it blocks the witches hat, and its actually very little.

They actually do a line drawing and semi transparent version of the renderings in the packet so you can see exactly how much it blocks the witches hat, and its actually very little.

That too.

Are they concerned with blocking views of the witch's hat from the corner? I'd assume it's more about the extended views, from by the river and such. You can see the water tower from all over.

Coming west along University tonight I was interested to note that you basically don't see the tower until you're nearly perpendicular to it, because the existing Art and Architecture building blocks it from view if you're at street level.

And yes, the renderings do show that it would barely impact the views of the tower from most directions.

Another exciting addition to this corridor. I love the massing, the location, the colors. It will be a better use of this tract of land, and of course, bring more people to Prospect park. The Witches Tower is up high enough that I don't think views are going to be affected too much. If the new building affects your view, just move to a different spot and look at it from there.

I don't think the view of the witches hat at the site, or on University Ave would be the concern, but rather the other places around the neighborhood, from a distance, Tower Hill and the Witches Hat are visible and 17 stories could sort of photo bomb that. Not end of the world, but sort of a loss. But there will be less places in the neighborhood you can look up and see Witches hat, from street, because of all the medium to tall buildings going up now.

That is extremely fine.

It's interesting the status quo bias at work here. If There was no water tower, and someone came along and proposed building a big structure like it in the middle of the park, there would be outrage.

Huh? There would be outrage about any private (and most public) development in any neighborhood park, and rightly so. The analogy doesn't hold at all.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, but here is some info on the Witches Tower and why it's there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Park_Water_Tower

Huh? There would be outrage about any private (and most public) development in any neighborhood park, and rightly so. The analogy doesn't hold at all.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

so you think the tower should never have been built?

Huh? There would be outrage about any private (and most public) development in any neighborhood park, and rightly so. The analogy doesn't hold at all.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

so you think the tower should never have been built?

No, I'm saying the analogy is flawed because:

1. We're talking literally over a century of change in the city (physical, societal, cultural, etc.) since it was built.
2. People loved it immediately -- it doesn't seem to have been controversial. That doesn't lead me to conclude it would be necessarily opposed today.
3. It's a public structure, beautifully designed and served a public purpose.
4. We don't need a water tower there today so opposition, if present, might well be focused on (non-)need, not the structure per se (it's not status quo bias, there's practicality at play here; see #1).
5. The A&A development isn't happening in a park, so why is this analogy useful?

fair enough

Huh? There would be outrage about any private (and most public) development in any neighborhood park, and rightly so. The analogy doesn't hold at all.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

so you think the tower should never have been built?

No, I'm saying the analogy is flawed because:

1. We're talking literally over a century of change in the city (physical, societal, cultural, etc.) since it was built.
2. People loved it immediately -- it doesn't seem to have been controversial. That doesn't lead me to conclude it would be necessarily opposed today.
3. It's a public structure, beautifully designed and served a public purpose.
4. We don't need a water tower there today so opposition, if present, might well be focused on (non-)need, not the structure per se (it's not status quo bias, there's practicality at play here; see #1).
5. The A&A development isn't happening in a park, so why is this analogy useful?

Well done

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I guess I put the analogy poorly. I think there is a bit of a status quo bias in the idea circulating that one shouldn't detract from the view of the tower, or take something away from it by being taller. If the high point there existed without the tower, and someone proposed a tower on the natural high point, there would be opposition to that.

I guess I put the analogy poorly. I think there is a bit of a status quo bias in the idea circulating that one shouldn't detract from the view of the tower, or take something away from it by being taller. If the high point there existed without the tower, and someone proposed a tower on the natural high point, there would be opposition to that.

So the part of the site where 17 stories going in is lower ground elevation, so what would be the top elevation to the 17-story building in relation to Tower Hill and the Witches Hat top?

Being so close to that park, seems keeping the top of the 17 stories below top of hill or at least the tower would of some value.

I wouldn't have any issue with 17 stories a few blocks to the north or closer to 280 but right next to park, single family homes it's a leap unless it neatles down in there.

Would love if we could see proposal on a Google 3d of neighborhood around there

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

slightly taller.

1080' tower, 1086' apartments (elevator/ amenity 1096')

Public consultation on this as follows. If you're a supporter, please especially consider showing up. IME with these things constructive contributions early on can really change the tone of the debate and discussion.

Thursday, May 3rd, 6:30pm at the Textile Center: Evening listening session, hosted by PPA, with Vermilion Developers and BKV. Topic: General overview of the project thus far, then listening to thoughts of the neighborhood residents.

Thursday, May 10th, 3:30pm at the PPA Office: Meeting of the PPA Task Force to discuss final pieces of the development, including a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Tuesday, May 15th, 7pm in the PPA Office: Meeting of the PPA Land Use Committee in the PPA office, Vermilion will present final plans they will submit to the City of Minneapolis, Land Use Committee will vote on MOU.