Vikings Stadium Miscellaneous Discussion

[Wedgeguy]

Moda, I agree with your assessment. I do think that we can't replicate what we already have. THe market is not large enough. Does thsi meab there can't be bars and restraunts and stores, no. I'm saying that they will have to be things that the DTE neighborhood will be the main users of. This is why housing and some office will need to be worked in together to make this area work as a whole. Creating a new district will lead to another block E fiasco.

[RailBaronYarr]

Not sure how you would blame Zygi himself as he got here 25 years after it was built, but maybe you mean blame him for keeping it in Minneapolis which wouldnt really belong at his doorstep either (ahem... arden hills)...

The idea of creating a bar district around the area sounds great.... but it isn't going to work. At all. We already are trying to create that with North Loop and the existing 1st avenue area. I simply don't think there is enough demand to try and create another entertainment district in the downtown area that wouldn't pull from the other for half the year and vice versa the other half.

Now shopping...... that could definitely work. IF it can beat out two things. MOA (the original killer of downtown retail) and the fact that brick and mortar shopping is quickly becoming more and more a thing of the past. Brick and mortar shops are becoming viewing galleries for items that people end up buying online (See Best Buy).

Does the area need to generate money to be successful? I'm not sure about that. Housing can and should be increased in the area. But what about just accepting that this part of downtown doesn't have to compete financially with the rest of downtown? I'd rather see more ameneties that draw people to living downtown. If you look at how much land this is going to take up and how much land is available it seems to me that parkland surrounding the stadium and then the next level surrounding it filled in with housing and thoughtful retail to serve said housing seems to be a good use to me.

Let the areas that are trying to thrive as entertainment areas continue to do so instead of trying to pull it back the other way cross town.

I blame Zygi (in part) for owning many of hte parking lots in the area and not choosing to utilize them for better purposes that increase the tax base and make for a better core downtown. Anything is better than surface parking. I blame him for continuing to want more of the same with a new stadium so he can maximize tailgating experience for fans.

I never said create a bar 'district.' I said the area should have many restaurants and bars in support of a neighborhood that could see as many as 10,000 more people (not that hard to imagine if there were a few condo/apartment towers and some 4-6 story buildings built on all the surface lots). This area doesn't need to compete with the Hennepin district for people. It could (or should) compete with the Eden Prairie Applebees bars/restaurants of the area.

I think most shopping downtown was dead long before MOA, and the failed attempts in downtown since the 50s have been because they tried to emulate the suburban experience in an area people found to be difficult to get to and park (ex City Center). I think we're both in agreement that housing surrounding some small park space at the stadium with retail, restaurants, and bars is the best use. I think the retail/bar/etc scene should be enough to support the residences going in (plus the ones in the Guthrie district who seem to be lacking in as many options as I would expect from downtown housing), plus maybe a tad more to handle Stadium events/capacity. I don't think downtown east should compete with the west end for entertainment dollars, persay, but a Vikings stadium and some of the other events going on in here certainly warrant a decent amount of localized entertainment surrounding their events..

[moda253]

Whoa yarr slow down a bit man I'm not arguing with you. You said "bars (LOTS of them), " I was just saying taht I don't think we can support a very dense area with lots of bars when we already have that going on downtown on 1st/Hennepin not to mention Nicollet mall and washington ave just across the freeway. Also I'm not entirely sure how many of those lots are owned by Zygi. He backed out of the deal that would have given him the strib lots... hence teh reason he had a hard on for Arden Hills.

And yes the type of scene that you just described sounds like an appropriate use.

[Rich]

To be clear, Wilf has just a sliver of land downtown. He bought 1.9 acres north of the dome in 2007 and wisely refrained from developing it pending the resolution of the stadium issue. Now that land will be part of the grounds of the new facility. He has no interest whatsoever in reserving parking lots for tailgating. None.

It's been mentioned many times but it bears repeating. For years city leaders deliberately discouraged development around the dome in favor of the central business district. Hence the preponderance of surface lots. Wilf had nothing to do with that.

[Minneboy]

Another thought, if parking ramps are a necessity I propose something like what I witnessed in San Diego a few years back while I stayed at the Omni next to Petco Park. There was a parking ramp across the street and the main level had an exposition space. In our case we had most of our meals there. Now my thought is why not rent these spaces out to the highest bidder, whether it's bars or restaurants. Or even better multiple bids allowing in a sense a smorgesboard of food and drink to try. If any of you have been to Munich for Oktoberfest you might get the idea of what I'm talking about. The tents at the parade grounds are awesome and fun. Also what about the possibility of having one of the open areas set aside for amusement rides of sorts. Could add to the festive spirit of game day.

[mullen]

why do people keep saying the city deliberately discourages development of surface lots? they're privately owned. the best example being the atrocities in front of the amex service center and next to the cowles center. the city can't force these people to sell the land or redevelop it. in the case of the lot near the amex center, it's owned by multiple individuals/families. it's stupid to suggest the city doesn't want this land turned into something other than acres of tar.

the star trib land is no different.

[Didier]

It's been widely reported that Downtown East was not zoned to encourage development in order to build up the CBD. Maybe the zoning has changed now, but apparently in the past it wasn't.

[Rich]

Last May Rybak said "the city had a strategy to zone this area to prevent much development because they wanted it all focused over in the core downtown." That characterization is similar to what Ted Mondale and others have said. Apparently now it's been rezoned, and I think we can be confident that the parking lots will start disappearing.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... ml?refer=y

[twincitizen]

The Strib blocks and most everything else directly surrounding the stadium site are currently zoned B4N – Downtown Neighborhood. The B4N Downtown Neighborhood District is established to provide an environment that promotes the development of higher density neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown office core with a variety of goods and services to support Downtown living.

There's a table of permitted and conditional uses that will give you an idea of things that are or are not allowed in B4N.

A really weird thing about B4N is that it requires a conditional use permit (planning jargon for give us more money and we have to hold a bunch of public hearings) to build anything over 10 stories/140 feet. This seems really arbitrary and not necessary. Also, nightclubs are not allowed.

The best thing I read is this: Parking garages: The ground floor of principal and accessory parking garages shall have commercial, residential, office, or hotel uses located between the parking garage and any public sidewalk except where frontage is needed to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the facility. Principal parking garages shall have all parking spaces located entirely below grade except where the garage includes integrated transit facilities within the structure.

The CBD (Hennepin to 5th Av S, 3rd St to 11th St) is zoned B4 - Downtown Business District. Surrounding that, there's a ring of B4S - Downtown Service District, which presumably allows for different things than a business district.

[min-chi-cbus]

why do people keep saying the city deliberately discourages development of surface lots? they're privately owned. the best example being the atrocities in front of the amex service center and next to the cowles center. the city can't force these people to sell the land or redevelop it. in the case of the lot near the amex center, it's owned by multiple individuals/families. it's stupid to suggest the city doesn't want this land turned into something other than acres of tar.

the star trib land is no different.

"Eminent Domain" is a phrase you should embrace.....cities do! (except by definition it's supposed to be for a PUBLIC use, but tell that to Richfield and Best Buy!)

[Viktor Vaughn]

It's been widely reported that Downtown East was not zoned to encourage development in order to build up the CBD. Maybe the zoning has changed now, but apparently in the past it wasn't.

I remember Rybak saying this last spring, but it sounds like BS. Can anyone provide a contemporaneous source that says the city actively discouraged development in East Downtown? If the zoning was in fact changed, when did that happen?

[Rich]

Not BS. Last year the CEO of the Downtown Council said "it was about 10 years ago that the zoning code around the Metrodome was changed from a high-tech district to a general multipurpose district, allowing anything from residential housing to retail."

From 1982 through 2002 it was zoned high-tech, now it's general multipurpose.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_20102156

[Viktor Vaughn]

Thanks for responding to the zoning question and providing the link. However, that quote from Sam Grabraski (in the height of last spring's stadium push) regarding not creating a competing entertainment district is not convincing.

First, I don't know what high-tech zoing entails but I'd guess that change happened during the tech-boom of the 90's in an effort to ATTRACT DEVELOPMENT to the area. Duluth built the "Technology Center" on Superior & Lake as part of the same fad. It'd make sense they'd change the zoning back to general after the tech bubble popped.

Second, if the zoning was changed ten years ago and absoultely nothing has been developed since then, that doesn't support the notion that zoning was holding back development.

Third, I heard nothing about discouraging developement in downtown east until the frenzy of the stadium push. It seemed to only serve to counter the argument, "the Metrodome didn't attract development with the Vikings, Twins, & Gophers, how will a new Vikings-only stadium do any better?"

The reasons there has not been development in Downtown East is because of lucrative parking revenue, large imposing institutions (metrodome & HCMC), wide hostile one-way streets, and an unattractive environment dominated by surface parking lots. I find the suggestion that any development would have happened if the city hadn't discouraged it completely ludicrous.

But I remain persuadable. I just want to see a contemporaneous source (from the decade or two after the Metrodome was built)saying this was city policy.

[RailBaronYarr]

I find the suggestion that any development would have happened if the city hadn't discouraged it completely ludicrous.

But I remain persuadable. I just want to see a contemporaneous source (from the decade or two after the Metrodome was built)saying this was city policy.

I don't think the city was discouraging development so much as not encouraging it. Low tax rates on unimproved land and the way the land was zones (which could always be fought if so chosen) allowed property owners to sit on their land, charge $4-10 to park (sometimes less), and still make a profit. The Vikings stadium has been pushed for HOW long, the Twins originally had a proposal for a ballpark near the current Guthrie site - these land owners were and are waiting (speculating) for the land to become SO valuable they could sell to a developer at outrageous prices (which would only cause them to build giant office or condo towers, the minimum required to make a profit on the uber-expensive land they just bought). That's my take, anyway.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Rich, where did you see it was zoned high-tech in 1982?

[mattaudio]

I don't have a source but I seem to remember that this was high tech too. That's why the remnants of this area were 80s era uses... sort of like a Minneapolis version of Energy Park.

[MNdible]

I don't have a source but I seem to remember that this was high tech too. That's why the remnants of this area were 80s era uses... sort of like a Minneapolis version of Energy Park.

Yep, Matt's right. I don't have all of the details, but you can search around a bit for the Industry Square redevelopment plans that essentially date back to the land deal that procured the Metrodome site. Very few people remember, but before PC's, when supercomputers were the best thing going, the Twin Cities was at the center of the computing universe. There are a few very 1980's looking buildings off of Washington Avenue that are reminders of this effort.

[Rich]

Viktor, I'm afraid I just assumed that the zoning status prior to 2002 had remained constant for at least as long as the dome's existence. I don't know the details. But as MNdible reminds us, the area was called Industry Square, so I s'pose it's not unlikely that it was zoned high-tech prior to 1982 as well.

[Nick]

I don't want to get into this too much, but it really did seem like the "well, we didn't want development over there anyway" line got thrown out kind of randomly in the midst of things. I think I (and by extension many of our long time posters) am pretty aware of the city and its history, but I had never heard of that until about six months into the stadium debate. Not saying it isn't true, but the first time that popped up in a StarTribune article I was kinda like "...oh...huh...really?"

[MNdible]

Regarding development of these lots, I think three big things have changed:

First, the Strib isn't demanding all of the surface parking that it used to.

Second, and I think more importantly, is that the Metrodome was hosting over 100 major events every year (by major events, I mean an event bringing in more than 15,000 spectators, not rollerblading). The new Vikings Stadium will host only, perhaps, 12. I'll assume that they get into the playoffs every once and a while and will host a Pink Floyd concert occasionally. This will completely change the economics of the parking lots over there.

Finally, there's obviously been some modest redevelopment in the area which puts upward pressure on land prices. On one hand, redeveloping a surface lot automatically makes the lot next door more valuable by decreasing parking supply while it simultaneously increases demand. On the other, every development makes the neighborhood more attractive to the next development.