urbanMSP

Continued to the Jan. 25th meeting, but here's the abbreviated packet anyway.

360 units, 222 parking spaces, you love to see it.

I mean, it's literally next door to a big parking ramp.

Which hasn't been near capacity since 1989.

Good news.

I mean, it's literally next door to a big parking ramp.

True, but that is a 30 year old parking ramp they don't own and can't control the costs of. What kind of selling point is that? "We have no parking, but there is a parking ramp next door. We cannot tell you how much parking will cost, or that the ramp will even be there in a year". If you are going to build a project, you are going to build adequate parking for your tenants.

I mean, who can see the future? Every other post on this forum suggests that Minneapolis will have eliminated cars by 2040, so problem apparently solved.

But seriously, if the developer thinks they'll have more demand for parking spaces than they're building, they can very easily negotiate a long term parking contract with the ramp next door. And if you're not using your car daily, as I suspect will be true for a significant fraction of the residents, it might be attractive for those renters to pay a lower monthly parking fee for a mildly less convenient parking option.

Market forces should naturally allow for allocation of parking and prices according to needs and demands. Yes, the ramp next door might come down someday, but there's always somewhere else to park. Might be a bit farther away and more expensive, but that is exactly how we ween off our SOV addiction in the long run.

This is at the Planning Commission now. No changes from the CoW.

Along with the 240 Portland development, a big week for long-suffering short towers. Wonder if they'll actually get built this time.

It's baaaaaack

Lol at those two projects getting equal billing.

I hope this finally moves forward!

The MHNA agenda is up, with a link to a collection of renderings that appear to be unchanged from the CPC presentation from two years ago. Apparently 20% of the units will be affordable at 60% AMI, and an additional 30% will be affordable at 80% AMI, which I think is new, though.

Yeah, they're apparently planning to access the city's Inclusionary Zoning TIF money to fund the project, which requires meeting higher levels of affordability.

The design has changed, it has lost the slight inward angle of the exterior walls. Not a major change, but it has lost some dynamics. The slight angle would have provided some interesting light play to an otherwise very static box.

Is the developer still Alatus? IIRC from a couple years ago after this switched to rentals and lost some height, it was going to be a different developer leading the project.

CA Ventures took this one over from Alatus.

I remember a friend of mine telling me Alatus was selling this project and the one by the convention center. Wonder what happened to that one? I liked both.

Alatus is still the sponsor - CA Ventures / CRG are no longer involved.

The building is 20% of units @ 50% AMI (rent and income), 30% at 80% AMI (rent and income), and the remainder is market-rate.

Really?! Wow! I hope they can make it happen this time.