Rumors: A Historical Record of Mystery

[Tyler]

For what it's worth, I've never felt ridiculed here. And I agree with John and Go4Guy. Rumors are rumors. They almost always have a basis in fact though. I try to word things in a way that reminds us all that many things can trip up a project (For God's sake, roof signs, anyone?).

But what value are you bringing? As in, how are you improving my life?

It's amusing to me that the "ubranists" get so bent out of shape about this. As if every time someone posts about their love of tall buildings a bus shelter goes up in flames.

[FISHMANPET]

The fact that projects can and often do fail for a myriad of legitimate reasons makes rumors less useful to me I think. I definitely don't think you (Avian) or RetiredBanker are ever lying (I'm honestly not sure about nasa35 though) but I don't see much value in the rumor if there's usually a small chance of it coming to fruition. It doesn't help me form an accurate picture of what's going to get built or what the city will look like in the future.

I suppose it's interesting to me because I like to see how the sausage is made, so to speak, but due to the nature of things it's not possible for you guys to reveal all the nitty gritty details so it just becomes vague speculation that doesn't shine a lot of light on what's going on.

I've said it before that I really appreciate the work that retiredbanker seems to be doing based on his posts, trying to bring companies here to the Twin Cities. It sounds like you do the same work Avian, so good on you.

But like Viktor says, a lot of rumors posted end up not happening, so it unintentionally becomes a "Boy who cried wolf" type situation, where I can't really believe any rumor that's posted because so few happen. I know the Twin Cities are a dynamic area with lots of job growth and lots of people looking for space, I don't really need vague rumors to tell me that.

Anyway, my 2 cents. I think from talking with Nick that his personal view on rumors is closer to mine than it was to Nasa35's, but that doesn't mean he wants to turn this into some authoritarian wasteland where only a single opinion is allowed (unless that is what you want Nick, then feel free to purge me )

[uptown067]

If rumors are not useful to you, or you are annoyed by the inherently speculative nature of them, why are you reading the rumors thread?

[Avian]

^ Thanks Fishmanpet - I can understand your point and it's a good one.

For me, I like to hear (even if the project never materializes) how developers are thinking about the city and envision what it can look like for the future. Some people are perennially negative about developments and seeing how there are optimistic plans behind the scenes gives - at least to me - hope for the future of this area.

Yes, it's too bad that specifics of many of these projects cannot be divulged because of confidentiality concerns. But we can often glean the general zeitgeist from knowing bits of information such as the fact that several crane companies anticipate 5-7 years of work ahead in Minneapolis, or that there are multiple large entertainment companies interested in establishing a downtown presence. Take from these what you will or just ignore them. Either is OK. Again, for me, it's just nice to dream sometimes.

[FISHMANPET]

If rumors are not useful to you, or you are annoyed by the inherently speculative nature of them, why are you reading the rumors thread?

Because I'm a crazy person.

[trkaiser]

When I hear entertainment companies I can only think of things like Gameworks, Deja Vu and casinos. I've been trying to figure this out since you first said it, Avian. What are some other entertainment hypotheticals?

[lordmoke]

For me, I like to hear (even if the project never materializes) how developers are thinking about the city and envision what it can look like for the future. Some people are perennially negative about developments and seeing how there are optimistic plans behind the scenes gives - at least to me - hope for the future of this area.

Yes, it's too bad that specifics of many of these projects cannot be divulged because of confidentiality concerns. But we can often glean the general zeitgeist from knowing bits of information such as the fact that several crane companies anticipate 5-7 years of work ahead in Minneapolis, or that there are multiple large entertainment companies interested in establishing a downtown presence. Take from these what you will or just ignore them. Either is OK. Again, for me, it's just nice to dream sometimes.

This is one of the primary reasons I like to read about rumors/ spec.

And for the record, I think it's pretty silly that there's a debate going on here regarding whether posting about this topic is productive, when we've got an entire topic in the transit thread devoted to the pie-in-the-sky idea of an underground rail network in Minneapolis. Which, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see- but it's not going to happen. There are no plans, nor are there plans for plans. This is to architecture/ skyscraper geeks what that is to transit/ rail geeks, so can't we all just read the parts of the site that we're interested in and chill about the others? No one's trying to hurt you (I think.)

[Tyler]

Actually, I'm super intrigued about the hotel. If someone is considering bringing a true luxury hotel to the city that's extremely encouraging, IMO. Though kind of sad, considering cities like St Louis and Baltimore already have one. Not sure what "unexpected location" would make sense, though. Fun to think about...

[Didier]

I think if we're being honest, it's not the rumors themselves that are a problem. It's the schoolboy responses where certain posters overreact and then take those inflated outlooks into other threads, using out-of-context information from retiredbanker to complain that developers are stupid for not knowing to build taller, for example.

[FISHMANPET]

You know what, I think it's actually that that bugs me the most, is people taking rumors as hard fact, when we all know that a lot of the rumors just won't pan out.

[Avian]

^ I agree 100% with that!

[Scott16475]

I don't post too much on here but I do check the board on a daily basis - OK; I check the board multiple times a day. I like reading the 'Rumors!' thread because although some (most) of the buildings mentioned in this thread never materialize, it shows me that downtown Minneapolis is on people's radar. Think about all of the other downtowns around the country that currently don't have this type of discussion due to their lack of growth (Detroit, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc.). The fact that discussions are being had regarding the 'want' of downtown Minneapolis excites me. Every time someone 'in the know' has a new post in this thread, I feel like a kid at Christmas. Yes, I know that buildings may not materialize but it's exciting to read nonetheless.

Rather than be constructive in their responses, some folks on here ridicule and make fun of this thread as a way to temper their own excitement.

[twincitizen]

I think if we're being honest, it's not the rumors themselves that are a problem. It's the schoolboy responses where certain posters overreact and then take those inflated outlooks into other threads, using out-of-context information from retiredbanker to complain that developers are stupid for not knowing to build taller, for example.

This.

If rumors and speculation are confined to this thread, great. Everybody's happy. It's when they spill out into other threads and cannibalize those conversations that it becomes a problem.

[John]

And for the record, I think it's pretty silly that there's a debate going on here regarding whether posting about this topic is productive, when we've got an entire topic in the transit thread devoted to the pie-in-the-sky idea of an underground rail network in Minneapolis. Which, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see- but it's not going to happen. There are no plans, nor are there plans for plans. This is to architecture/ skyscraper geeks what that is to transit/ rail geeks, so can't we all just read the parts of the site that we're interested in and chill about the others? No one's trying to hurt you (I think.)

Yes, exactly. This is an excellent point. I think great care needs to taken not to have a double standard on this blog.

[mister.shoes]

There's a difference, though.

The pie-in-the-sky transportation ideas (whether underground rail or any one of the street/road redos) originate here and are telegraphed quite plainly as "this would be really neat if…" suggestions from outside the world of those who can actually make it happen. My ridiculous idea to redo the Lowry Hill tunnel can live next to Green Line news/info because there's no confusion about which is a reality.

Development rumors are entirely focused on what other people *might actually spend money to do* in this metro area. There's no obvious "this is just a dream" framework around those rumors. They don't originate here (usually) and have actual real-world implications. They need to be segregated from real projects to keep the speculation from mixing uncontrollably with the facts.

[John]

I think if we're being honest, it's not the rumors themselves that are a problem. It's the schoolboy responses where certain posters overreact and then take those inflated outlooks into other threads, using out-of-context information from retiredbanker to complain that developers are stupid for not knowing to build taller, for example.

That's your take on it and this really bothers you. Well, there are frequent rants and raves by other bloggers about all sorts of things all over this website. Yet, you and a few others choose to be quite selective about focusing on this to be hyper-critical about. I mean... it's time to get over it!

[City slicker]

My barber seems to think a large casino is going to me built in Minneapolis. It would be interesting to hear from folks on here about their opinions on a large hotel- casino downtown. If this is possible and how it would be beneficial to the city? Has anyone else heard of mention of this?

[Viktor Vaughn]

If it were politically possible it would have happened in 2012 to pay for the stadium. The coalition of anti-gambling social conservatives, the Tribe's Democratic allies, and anti-gambling-for-the-sake-of-the-poor liberals proved to be a coalition to formidable to overcome. Bob Lux pushed turning Block E into a casino to pay for the stadium. The most viable proposal, a Minneapolis casino benefiting the extremely poor White Earth Band, went absolutely nowhere.

My personal feeling is that a casino would be a big negative for downtown. Casinos are generally a move of desperation for a city, tend to spillover more problems than benefits, and make soul-sucking neighbors.

The merits of a downtown casino were debated extensively on this site, probably in the Block E thread.

[web]

hmmmm tell that to sydney and other world cities

[ECtransplant]

Like Detroit?