Rumors: A Historical Record of Mystery

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
skyrab

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby skyrab » October 22nd, 2013, 8:57 pm

Mod note: The entire following conversation was moved here, from the TCF Atrium topic. Please try to stay on topic. Rumors are exactly that: just rumors. This is where they belong. Believe it or not, we have yet another topic for you to drool over supertalls: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=383

-twincitizen

@ at40man, I would agree with you, the TCF atrium is under-utilized, needs some life to it. Perhaps the renovation will be when the block south of the Campbell Mithun tower gets developed, creating more traffic flow through the building. And @ Matt Steele, you mentioned a "1000-footer" in singular terms (maybe you're referring to the old Ryan Co. proposal for that site), I would prefer to use the 1000-footer in plural terms. Depending on final designs, the probability of multiple tall towers is "highly likely." As quoted previous on this site, building super-structures are very complex, a developer/financier can't afford to make a mistake on design/construction. A person also needs to keep in mind, a super tall tower doesn't need large floor plates, which is the case of several of the designs I'm well-acquainted with concerning downtown Minneapolis. There is w/o question, developers who are looking to reach-for-the-sky in Minneapolis. Without naming names, I was in discussion with a major investor this past May about a particular situation his firm was involved with. He later asked my opinion about a proposal that his firm is in the conceptual stage of, after stating my thoughts, he kept saying "taller", I again gave him another opinion, he said, "taller, yet." The person finally stated what he was thinking of concerning design/size/height and it floored me. If the firm is serious about that development which I believe they are, dynamics will change dramatically downtown, considering financing will not be an issue. Patience is a requirement on major development, in my humble opinion, downtown Minneapolis development is only in Stage/Phase I. Downtown is in for a "very long" period of development over a period of decades.
Hi retiredbanker! Great post, forgive my tardiness, I am a new-comer to this site so just reading things as "brand -new thoughts"...Just wondering, without disclosing confidential information, are these "major investors" also concerned about aesthetics/iconic architecture when they keep saying "taller"? And do you have a gut feeling from your experiences as to when one of these "supertalls" or even "taller-than-what-we-haves" might come to fruition/announcement? From what I've read on several threads, you have a decent grasp on reality while at the same time you remain optimistic, I too believe that patience is warranted; yet, excitement in knowing about positive progress feels so good:)

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 23rd, 2013, 12:26 pm

@ at40man, I would agree with you, the TCF atrium is under-utilized, needs some life to it. Perhaps the renovation will be when the block south of the Campbell Mithun tower gets developed, creating more traffic flow through the building. And @ Matt Steele, you mentioned a "1000-footer" in singular terms (maybe you're referring to the old Ryan Co. proposal for that site), I would prefer to use the 1000-footer in plural terms. Depending on final designs, the probability of multiple tall towers is "highly likely." As quoted previous on this site, building super-structures are very complex, a developer/financier can't afford to make a mistake on design/construction. A person also needs to keep in mind, a super tall tower doesn't need large floor plates, which is the case of several of the designs I'm well-acquainted with concerning downtown Minneapolis. There is w/o question, developers who are looking to reach-for-the-sky in Minneapolis. Without naming names, I was in discussion with a major investor this past May about a particular situation his firm was involved with. He later asked my opinion about a proposal that his firm is in the conceptual stage of, after stating my thoughts, he kept saying "taller", I again gave him another opinion, he said, "taller, yet." The person finally stated what he was thinking of concerning design/size/height and it floored me. If the firm is serious about that development which I believe they are, dynamics will change dramatically downtown, considering financing will not be an issue. Patience is a requirement on major development, in my humble opinion, downtown Minneapolis development is only in Stage/Phase I. Downtown is in for a "very long" period of development over a period of decades.
Hi retiredbanker! Great post, forgive my tardiness, I am a new-comer to this site so just reading things as "brand -new thoughts"...Just wondering, without disclosing confidential information, are these "major investors" also concerned about aesthetics/iconic architecture when they keep saying "taller"? And do you have a gut feeling from your experiences as to when one of these "supertalls" or even "taller-than-what-we-haves" might come to fruition/announcement? From what I've read on several threads, you have a decent grasp on reality while at the same time you remain optimistic, I too believe that patience is warranted; yet, excitement in knowing about positive progress feels so good:)
He doesn't post here anymore, but I can try to relay the message.

skyrab

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby skyrab » October 23rd, 2013, 3:53 pm

Thank You min-chi-bus, too bad though, I'd really be interested in hearing more from him.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 23rd, 2013, 7:56 pm

Thank You min-chi-bus, too bad though, I'd really be interested in hearing more from him.
I relayed your message and I'll let you know if he wants to share anything.

skyrab

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby skyrab » October 23rd, 2013, 8:21 pm

In the spirit of exchanging ideas and dreams, let us not shoot the messenger! Thanks min-chi-bus, very cool:)

SKOL
Block E
Posts: 8
Joined: September 5th, 2012, 9:39 pm

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby SKOL » October 23rd, 2013, 10:30 pm

Thank You min-chi-bus, too bad though, I'd really be interested in hearing more from him.
I relayed your message and I'll let you know if he wants to share anything.
I'm on here daily, and particularly enjoy Retired Banker. Just had to put that out there.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
- Samuel Johnson

Orbi
Block E
Posts: 17
Joined: October 6th, 2012, 5:10 pm

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby Orbi » October 24th, 2013, 8:39 pm

Me too...

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby go4guy » October 25th, 2013, 6:44 am

Me too. Really liked hearing Retired Banker's thoughts on here. Wish he was back on here.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 25th, 2013, 7:13 am

Hi retiredbanker! Great post, forgive my tardiness, I am a new-comer to this site so just reading things as "brand -new thoughts"...Just wondering, without disclosing confidential information, are these "major investors" also concerned about aesthetics/iconic architecture when they keep saying "taller"? And do you have a gut feeling from your experiences as to when one of these "supertalls" or even "taller-than-what-we-haves" might come to fruition/announcement? From what I've read on several threads, you have a decent grasp on reality while at the same time you remain optimistic, I too believe that patience is warranted; yet, excitement in knowing about positive progress feels so good:)
Okay everybody, hold on to your hats......here's his response to the above post (*note: this may be one of THE most interesting and exciting insider posts I've ever read!):

-What kind of timeline can we reasonably expect to START to hear public info about these currently private projects?

I'm acquainted with about 30 downtown high-rise projects, all in different stages of development. One particular development I was hoping that could possibly be announced, yet, this year. That is difficult to say because of multiple developers wanting the same site for the same purpose, all having a 'significant' structure designed. That particular project would be the catalyst for about 10 other projects alone, which would appreciatively enhance multiple areas of weakness downtown, especially the retail component. Which is vital for the success of downtown in the years ahead.

-How much space would the average supertall in question require (1.0M SF? 2.0M SF?), and how much of it would need to be pre-leased?

Concerning the square footage of the 'significant' projects vary greatly. Keep in mind that all these new towers have incredibly beautiful and ornate crowns/spires that will make each tower a signature building. It's no secret that both Hines and Target do intend to exceed the 1000 ft. barrier on their sites. There are 3 other towers with conceptual designs exceeding 1000 ft. as well. Now, the final designs might very well be reduced, however, all the developers know the significance of having a signature building, helping it appeal and lure better tenants to their projects.

On the amount of space that needs to be pre-leased also varies, due to the fact that they'll all (the 3 other significant towers) be self-financed, which provides greater flexibility to the developer on structuring the lease and their rates, both office and retail space. Developers and financiers need to look far more ahead than just a few years, the development must be able to enhance the value to the neighboring buildings to keep the lease rates high enough to have the project cash flow and be viable for any potential buyer in the years ahead.


-What is the biggest threat these types of projects face in the current environment (micro or macro)?

I believe what is solely needed is patience and when the market conditions are such, each project will move ahead. Certainly, the city needs to be far more flexible in the building requirements (FAR rates) in some locations concerning even the mid-rises which are plenty. Perhaps, what the developers would like to see is more positive movement towards patronizing retail downtown, which has been hurt since the opening of the Mall of America. People can't simply talk about wanting a particular retail store downtown for their convenience and not shop there. Online shopping is probably the biggest obstacle hindering expansion of retail downtown (and elsewhere).


-In your personal opinion, do any of the proposals that you have seen meet or exceed the asthetic benchmark beset by any of the current buildings in the city (i.e. will they be iconic)

Every conceptual design that I've seen of the about 30 or so projects are all quite appealing, developers have been very cognizant of design and being street/pedestrian-friendly. That has definitely slowed progress on projects, since there are numerous obstacles to overcome, such as full-block parking ramps that create dead zones. However, by developers working together on projects to coordinate their developments to help each projects success, hopefully will be enough to make the final result/investment work.


Just wondering, without disclosing confidential information, are these "major investors" also concerned about aesthetics/iconic architecture when they keep saying "taller"?

I believe that I tried to answer in the previous question.


And do you have a gut feeling from your experiences as to when one of these "supertalls" or even "taller-than-what-we-haves" might come to fruition/announcement?

I believe that I tried to answer that in a previous question, as well.


Every weakness of downtown in this enormous comprehensive plan (for the entire downtown area, DE, the Core, North Loop, Loring & Elliot Park, the riverfront and what is remaining) has been acknowledged and attempted to be solved. I've never been more confident of downtown Minneapolis development success in my lifetime like the present. Many cities are dying or stagnant, some are going through and always in a transition mode, however, Minneapolis will move from transition mode to entire transformation over the next 15-20 years. Developers, financiers and the business community from throughout the world looks at Minneapolis much differently than they do other cities of comparable size and even larger. Minneapolis is unique and they all know it and will invest accordingly.

Hopefully, this response addresses your questions. Stay positive, Minneapolis has its best days ahead of it.

MS3

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby MS3 » October 25th, 2013, 8:42 am

Awesome post. Hopefully most of these upcoming projects and visions will get the green light and move forward. Would like to see Minneapolis on the verge of this kind of success and growth.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 25th, 2013, 8:57 am

If even 1/4 of this is true, Minneapolis needs to make some major changes to all sorts of transportation and housing policies and infrastructure. Near-downtown neighborhoods will need to be allowed to grow. Not just some BCV development, but some serious infill and re-dev south of I-94, allowing density to spill out from the North Loop neighborhood, etc etc. Serious investments in segregated N-S bike lanes in greater Uptown, similar investments in N and NE Minneapolis, and really putting the squeeze on Met Council and MnDOT for dedicated bus lanes on major corridors. This type of development downtown could spur a host of great residential/commercial development just outside the core (particularly near the lakes), and Minneapolis should be ready.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 669
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby Minneboy » October 25th, 2013, 9:02 am

" Minneapolis will move from transition mode to entire transformation over the next 15-20 years." Bummer I'll be dead by then. Most likely.

zumf
Block E
Posts: 9
Joined: September 9th, 2013, 11:59 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby zumf » October 25th, 2013, 9:14 am

Does anyone know how many sites Hines owns downtown?

spearson
Landmark Center
Posts: 291
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 2:29 pm

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby spearson » October 25th, 2013, 10:16 am

I wonder if St. Paul will get any high rise development love. It needs a little!

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1242
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby woofner » October 25th, 2013, 10:25 am

Certainly, the city needs to be far more flexible in the building requirements (FAR rates) in some locations concerning even the mid-rises which are plenty.
Too bad RB isn't around, I'd really love to know how the city could be more flexible than they already are. I'm not trying to be a skyscraper hater, it just looks to me like there are a dozen ways that FAR can be increased up to 36 points, which by itself would be enough for a supertall:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/11490/ ... RRAPR.html

Some of them are as simple as including a skyway or some public art, although a few would probably be dealbreakers or of limited applicability like including residential or historic preservation. And this is on top of the generous FAR of 16 that covers most of downtown already, which would likely allow a 60 story tower on a full block lot and probably even more (for comparison, the highest max FAR as of right in any district in NYC is 15).

So if anyone wants to pipe in with a recommendation for how to make FAR regulations even more flexible than they are, please don't hold back.
"Who rescued whom!"

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: TCF Tower atrium

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 25th, 2013, 11:04 am

If even 1/4 of this is true, Minneapolis needs to make some major changes to all sorts of transportation and housing policies and infrastructure. Near-downtown neighborhoods will need to be allowed to grow. Not just some BCV development, but some serious infill and re-dev south of I-94, allowing density to spill out from the North Loop neighborhood, etc etc. Serious investments in segregated N-S bike lanes in greater Uptown, similar investments in N and NE Minneapolis, and really putting the squeeze on Met Council and MnDOT for dedicated bus lanes on major corridors. This type of development downtown could spur a host of great residential/commercial development just outside the core (particularly near the lakes), and Minneapolis should be ready.
I think that's what he was referring to when he was talking about the Comprehensive Plan and getting all of the pieces to work together. It's also possibly why his timeline for transformation is 15-20 years out (which is still fairly soon).

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 717
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: Rumors!

Postby nordeast homer » October 25th, 2013, 1:27 pm

The 90's into the early 2000's really reshaped Downtown Minneapolis. That period had a lot of visible growth as well as propelling us from fly-over land to a midwestern version of Seattle. We gained a lot of national and international respect. It's amazing to me to see some of the companies that are here that read "offices in Hong Kong, New York, LA and ...Minneapolis".
The posts on this today give me hope that we have another one of these exciting periods right around the corner! We've already seen the investment in adding housing downtown, we're in the middle of adding more and better transportation options, and the Ryan development will hopefully signal the beginning of a commercial development push.

emcee squared
Metrodome
Posts: 66
Joined: December 18th, 2012, 8:46 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Rumors!

Postby emcee squared » October 25th, 2013, 7:21 pm

One can only hope! I have great faith in Minneapolis and the region, but mostly, I want something to surpass the IDS in height. Let us break through 800ft!

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Rumors!

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 25th, 2013, 9:27 pm

Maybe I'm the only one but I for one do not necessarily care anymore about having a 1000 footer (or 5). I'd much rather have a downtown that's flat out awesome: landscaped sidewalks loaded with all walks of life at all times of the day and night, architectural masterpieces block by block, the metro's majority of office space, and entertainment amenities galore from the best restaurants to fun shops to amazing museums and theatre.

Whatever fosters THAT is what I'm down for, along with the ability to actually afford to live in such a place, which is so incredibly rare in this world.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Rumors!

Postby mattaudio » October 26th, 2013, 11:33 am

Indeed. When I think about my favorite city centers, none of them have a thousand footer. DC, Paris, Barcelona, Rio de Janiero, etc. Cities to be enjoyed from within, rather than a view from a distance.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests