Rafter - 333 Hennepin Ave E (290' - 26 stories)

[xandrex]

Most (all?) of Nicollet Island is Park Board land with restrictive leases, so they don't really have to worry about development anyway.

True. I was just mostly pointing out that they're kind of the anomaly of the neighborhood. Everyone on the "EB" portion of NIEBNA live in dense, urban-type housing. And it shows - they're probably the most development-friendly neighborhood in the city and they've got some pretty progressive ideas on urban design, zoning, transit/transportation, etc.

[lordmoke]

okay, not the Nicollet Island folks

Hey, now. Haha.

[grant1simons2]

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/05/mor ... nneapolis/

Unlocked story on this tower and others happening in the East Bank. Or Northeast? Or St Anthony Main?.. What are we calling this area again?

[acs]

How about Downtown St. Anthony? Because that's exactly what this would be if the cities hadn't merged in the 1800's.

[Wedgeguy]

How about Downtown St. Anthony? Because that's exactly what this would be if the cities hadn't merged in the 1800's.

That is what I call it. That is very fitting with history.

[Silophant]

I go with Old St. Anthony when it's important to distinguish it from the rest of Northeast.

U.S. Bank would have a small standalone building along First Avenue Northeast

That's potentially concerning, but I'll wait for the design to be released.

[mplsjaromir]

I say downtown Northeast.

[acs]

I do like that the neighborhood is pushing Mortenson to redevelop the whole block, but that will run into opposition because A) Cost, and B) Surdyk's is an icon. However the upside is it could be all underground parking, and I don't know about you guys but if there's one thing I'm sick of it's parking podiums.

[go4guy]

I would hate for them to develop the entire block. That never ends well. I would much rather see 3 separate developments over time.

[trigonalmayhem]

I call it niebna but only because I think it's fun to say.

[trigonalmayhem]

I do like that the neighborhood is pushing Mortenson to redevelop the whole block, but that will run into opposition because A) Cost, and B) Surdyk's is an icon. However the upside is it could be all underground parking, and I don't know about you guys but if there's one thing I'm sick of it's parking podiums.

Also surdyks owns its land right? And they don't seem willing to move or sell or redevelop. They love their stupid suburban drive in on one of the most urbane corners in the city.

[EOst]

You may think it's stupid, but have you ever seen the quantities of wine people buy there? I don't think their business model would work without cars and a drive-through.

[MNdible]

Also, Surdyk's is not serving just the immediate neighborhood. They're really operating on a regional level.

[xandrex]

Also surdyks owns its land right? And they don't seem willing to move or sell or redevelop. They love their stupid suburban drive in on one of the most urbane corners in the city.

Surdyk's isn't your local hole-in-the-wall liquor store. It's destination retail for the region. So of course they love having a parking lot. Of all the surface parking and abandoned lots, this one bothers me the least (in no small part because it's also fairly well-kept).

For what little it's worth, I talked to Victor a while back and he thought Surdyk's wouldn't mind selling for the right price, in no small part because they owner's children aren't quite so excited about running a retail liquor establishment.

[FISHMANPET]

Lunds just a block away shows that you can easily have your free surface parking for your retail store and build a big building as well. It's not like this isn't a solved problem.

[xandrex]

I'd call that structured parking, not surface parking. And I'd hate to see the Lunds parking ramp emulated - it's a hulking mass on Fourth that ruins the pedestrian experience both from an aesthetic as well as safety standpoint more so than the Surdyk's lot.

I certainly think you can redevelop the Surdyk's block. But what incentive do they have right now to get rid of their above-average lot for an expensive structured parking ramp?

[FISHMANPET]

To the customer it's surface parking, drive in, drive out, no ramps, no meters, no gates, etc etc. But there's no "backside" of that lot to dump the traffic into.

As for fourth St, I don't know, I'm not really there when it's busy, but it doesn't seem any worse than any other parking lot. Maybe if there was some retail lining 4th rather than just windows and grates?

[xandrex]

I'm confused. There's literally a ramp to a second floor of parking. How is it not structured? Sure it's not metered, but that's not a requirement of structured parking.

The problem with the ramp is that it completely blocks sightlines for traffic unless you literally pull over the sidewalk (which is also a blind spot) and sometimes into the traffic lane (if there's a car parked at the corner). At the Surdyk's lot, you can typically sit in the actual parking lot without blocking traffic and still see. That's definitely not an argument for keeping surface lots though. Just that the Lunds ramp is just pretty horrible in general. Retail really couldn't work because you'd maybe be able to fit one tiny spot on Fourth and you'd then have to completely rework internal circulation there.

I still haven't seen, however, any proof that Surdyk's is being obstinate and turning down offers, so we can't really say they're clinging to their "suburban" style lot. I generally agree with what I heard from Victor - they could probably sell the land and move into a mixed-use development in the future...for the right price.

[FISHMANPET]

The ramp is separate from the parking for the store. The ramp is for residents, the "lot" is for customers. A customer of Lunds doesn't interact with the structured parking. This isn't like the Downtown Target where you go down into a ramp and get a ticket and use your receipt to get out for free etc etc. Yes, the Lunds building has structured parking. No, Lunds customers don't really use it.

I'm wondering if you opened up those windows on either side of customer lot entrance if that would improve sight lines? I don't know, parking is hard. It's hard to tell someone like Surdyk's that they don't really belong on that lot anymore if they want to be a regional driving desitination.

[xandrex]

False. There are two entrances. One is for Cobalt. That's underground, structured parking. The other is the Lunds entrance. You can go in there and there's a ramp up to the second floor of parking. Which, as someone who pretty regularly shopped there for some time, gets used a lot because the first floor fills up quickly.

IRT Surdyk's "not really belonging": Is that really our decision to make? You might not like them there with their current design, but you pretty frequently use the notion of markets making decisions. Surely the market can figure this one out without shaming Surdyk's for having the luck of being in a generally shitty part of town that eventually became a pretty nice part of town.