Rumors: A Historical Record of Mystery

[twincitizen]

Moving on, I heard a rumor tonight that the building housing Dunn Bros at Lake & Bryant is being eyed for redevelopment. This would include the adjoining parking lot, but not the small commercial building across the alley (home of Lee's Shoe Repair and Circle H Barbershop). I don't know if I buy it...that's only .2 acres. There seem to be much more buildable sites in the immediate area that would go before this one. Sure, it is a great location, but still...I'm skeptical.

http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/m ... 2824110045

[John]

Do the owners of the Dunn Bros building also own the parking lot around it? Then I could see it be a pretty major development opportunity and would make great infill. I think there's also another very small building on that block and perhaps the entire 1/2 block fronting Lake Street is owned by the same person or company.

[Scott16475]

With the rumors of one or two (or more!) tall and skinny buildings coming to Minneapolis, I thought I would post this link. It displays some of the tallest and skinniest skyscrapers from around the world. I would love for Minneapolis to have any of these.
http://www.mnn.com/your-home/remodeling ... the-clouds

[John]

Nice link. Thanks. Totally agree Minneapolis needs more of this type of development. Having more vertical density with tall slender buildings not only looks nice aesthetically, but also increases pedestrian and retail activity at the street level.

[Nick]

Having more vertical density with tall slender buildings not only looks nice aesthetically, but also increases pedestrian and retail activity at the street level.

I don't want to get into a whole thing, but since you've said this a bunch of times, I feel like someone should point out that it isn't really correct. It isn't really correct. For example:

1.) Alatus Washington Avenue Proposal: 13 stories, 320 units.

2.) Nic on Fifth: 26 stories, 256 units.

Both have the same footprint. Which do you think will generate more pedestrian and retail activity?

[mattaudio]

Indeed. Most of the time the footprint is a giant parking pedestal.

[John]

Having more vertical density with tall slender buildings not only looks nice aesthetically, but also increases pedestrian and retail activity at the street level.

I don't want to get into a whole thing, but since you've said this a bunch of times, I feel like someone should point out that it isn't really correct. It isn't really correct. For example:

1.) Alatus Washington Avenue Proposal: 13 stories, 320 units.

2.) Nic on Fifth: 26 stories, 256 units.

Both have the same footprint. Which do you think will generate more pedestrian and retail activity?

Should this be moved to the Supertalls thread?
Anyways, my response is neither. But having two 40 story towers built on the same size footprints as either Alatus and Nic on Fifth would at least double the number of units on the same amount of land surface. Or how about taller buildings with multiple uses? That kind of density doesn't really exist here yet. All you have to do is visit the CBD's with strong retail like Toronto, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Vancouver, Boston, etc etc. to really experience and see how that vertical density positively impacts their downtowns.

[Nick]

Well, "neither" doesn't really work as an answer here. What does "vertical density" even mean? Density is density. Height is height. Though I'm not a businessperson, I bet that Alatus and Opus spent at least one (1) lunch meeting discussing "does it make sense to dump 700 very expensive apartment units into the market in one project?" It would appear that they decided that that did not make sense in Minneapolis, which is not Hong Kong or Midtown Manhattan.

There are a million, zillion examples along the lines of "Paris is much, much denser than insert-American-city-here even though the American city has a much prettier skyline." Or when they bulldozed huge tracts of New York City during urban renewal to build towers and the new towers actually housed fewer people than the three story walkups they were replacing. Words don't just go together automatically because you typed them next to each other. If you have $400 million dollars lying around, and you think there's a bottomless demand for Class A office space and $600,000 condos, go nuts and build a 1,000 foot building next to a surface parking lot.

[John]

^^^there are numerous nasty surface parking/and or parking ramps lots downtown that would be ideal for taller projects with small footprints. The lots at 4th and 5th and Hennepin, and the ramps at 9th and LaSalle and 4th and Marquette come to mind immediately. Having taller buildings on these sites would make great infill and yes create more density/activity than if a developer just built a 10 story building. These are really the type of locations in downtown I'm referring too. I wonder if you think I'm suggesting that every city block should be crammed with ten skyscrapers? No, not at all.

[Nathan]

neither the nic or the development on Washington would be considered a " skinny" building to the aspect ratio that was hinted at earlier in this thread.I think the implication is that developments forced to be tall and skinny (by smaller lot size) can add a lot to the street scape and the number of people in the area. there is still no need to be " creative" with space in Minneapolis, so we aren't seeing tall dense skinny development the way John imagines it.

[Didier]

Have you been to Toronto? There's tons of new high rise condos, but the lakefront area where most are going up is arguably the most sterile and boring part of downtown.

[John]

^^^I've been to downtown Toronto several times and the street level retail/entertainment districts are huge ( not to mention the massive Eaton Centre indoor shopping mall , and a vast underground system of walkways with hundreds and hundreds of shops). They abutt very high density blocks with office, hotel, and residential skyscrapers that act as feeders into the retail and entertainment districts. It's a very very dynamic downtown.

The point is in Minneapolis we have many vacant parcels where the aspect ratio of a skinny skyscrapers would fit. It's a strategy to create dense infill with a large concentration of human activity occuring on a very small amount of lateral space. It's an efficient and creative way to fill up more of the smaller gaps left by our city's bulldozing frenzy 50 years ago. As Fotoapparatic suggests, this type of development will probably be more likely as the larger parcels are filled up.

[City slicker]

I kinda agree with you John. Toronto is the NewYok of canada. Were you aware of all the upcoming proposals there? That city in 10 yrs could really be something.

[Nick]

The point is in Minneapolis we have many vacant parcels where the aspect ratio of a skinny skyscrapers would fit. It's a strategy to create dense infill with a large concentration of human activity occuring on a very small amount of lateral space. It's an efficient and creative way to fill up more of the smaller gaps left by our city's bulldozing frenzy 50 years ago. As Fotoapparatic suggests, this type of development will probably be more likely as the larger parcels are filled up.

Here's the issue that I'm having: In almost every argument you make for why we should build x building taller, if you replaced "the aspect ratio of skinny skyscrapers" with "paintball range" or "hot dog stand," the argument doesn't decrease in quality at all. Building paintball ranges is a strategy to create dense infill with a large concentration of human activity on a very small amount of lateral space. Hot dog stands are an efficient and creative way to fill up more of the smaller gaps left by our city's bulldozing frenzy 50 years ago.

If you like tall buildings: Neat. I like tall buildings too. But you don't need to justify liking tall buildings with logic that really just boils down to nice words lined up in a row. We're, in some sense, paying Ryan to build two 16 story office buildings, so I don't know what that says about the health of the overall office market. This isn't magic, there are actual numbers and spreadsheets and charts involved with spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build things.

[John]

I think the twin tower Ryan Project is great! The Alatus project is fine for that block. Stonebridge is fine at 12 stories . Most of the North Loop projects are the right size. Nic on Fifth could have been taller, but Marq4 is going to make up for that and add hundreds more residents to that block. I realize there are pragmatic concerns involved with development. Again what I'm talking about are very small parcels to build tall on that already exist. Take a look at the parking ramp on the southwest corner of 9th and Lasalle. That's the footprint I'm referring too. There will be a time when the economics of building them will work and be able to be privately financed. Why not build tall on them to create even more dense infill to help make the downtown core even stronger?

[trkaiser]

The point is in Minneapolis we have many vacant parcels where the aspect ratio of a skinny skyscrapers would fit. It's a strategy to create dense infill with a large concentration of human activity occuring on a very small amount of lateral space. It's an efficient and creative way to fill up more of the smaller gaps left by our city's bulldozing frenzy 50 years ago. As Fotoapparatic suggests, this type of development will probably be more likely as the larger parcels are filled up.

Here's the issue that I'm having: In almost every argument you make for why we should build x building taller, if you replaced "the aspect ratio of skinny skyscrapers" with "paintball range" or "hot dog stand," the argument doesn't decrease in quality at all. Building paintball ranges is a strategy to create dense infill with a large concentration of human activity on a very small amount of lateral space. Hot dog stands are an efficient and creative way to fill up more of the smaller gaps left by our city's bulldozing frenzy 50 years ago.

If you like tall buildings: Neat. I like tall buildings too. But you don't need to justify liking tall buildings with logic that really just boils down to nice words lined up in a row. We're, in some sense, paying Ryan to build two 16 story office buildings, so I don't know what that says about the health of the overall office market. This isn't magic, there are actual numbers and spreadsheets and charts involved with spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build things.

Well I don't see the point you're trying to make. It sounds like we're on the cusp of getting a decent number of taller buildings. He's excited about it. They'll add density to the CBD, beef up the skyline and add people/activity to the areas they go in... I like John's excitement and don't think he's off the mark saying increased development will boost street activity. And I know we're contributing to the park, but how is the city "paying Ryan to build two 16 story office buildings"?

[JMS9]

Former (or current) member Avian posted this at Skyscraper Page :

"From the confidential files: In the planning stages right now for downtown Minneapolis: 35-story, 38-story and 50-story residential towers, 43-story and 56-story mixed-use towers, 250,000 SF skinny office building and a 43-story "very-high-end" hotel in a surprising location with a major retailer. These are 2-5 years out right now. We may see an official announcement in a couple of months for one of them. And, although it sounds really crazy, there are conceptual designs for no less than 5 supertalls. I seriously doubt the office market can absorb that much space in a short time but these are 5-8 years out right now so we won't be seeing any announcements anytime soon. However planning has begun and the sites are available for 4 of them. If we see a major parking lot downtown change hands soon then the groundwork will be set for the 5th.
__________________

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthr ... ost6361003

If true - mind. blown.

[ECtransplant]

With the continued low vacancy rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see some residential towers. Would really love to see something break above the 792' mark though

[mplsjaromir]

Funny. In order to build to two 17 story towers Wells Fargo and Ryan needed a new Vikings Stadium, two whole blocks dedicated to parkland and a free parking garage. I am very skeptical that there are going to be any spec office building built. According to my copy of "Twin Cities Tenant" there is over 5.5 million sq ft of total available office space in downtown Minneapolis. I know its not all top shelf stuff, but lots of space available in some nice buildings. There has been a imminent Supertall announcement for the last seven years. I will not hold my breath.

[Avian]

Funny. In order to build to two 17 story towers Wells Fargo and Ryan needed a new Vikings Stadium, two whole blocks dedicated to parkland and a free parking garage. I am very skeptical that there are going to be any spec office building built. According to my copy of "Twin Cities Tenant" there is over 5.5 million sq ft of total available office space in downtown Minneapolis. I know its not all top shelf stuff, but lots of space available in some nice buildings. There has been a imminent Supertall announcement for the last seven years. I will not hold my breath.

I wouldn't hold my breath either. That's why I said "5-8 years out." No, there is no imminent announcement. And the other office buildings are not on spec. They are for specific companies.