urbanMSP

I'm glad for them they got a six-story-wall that blocks sunsets for all of them instead of the 11-story that would leave sunsets for half. They deserve it. You can drag a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Design has been slightly modified

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 126272.pdf

Whatever restaurant goes there, I hope they use the sign in the renderings!

^^^The restaurant should be called "Nimby's"

B.A.N.A.N.A. Splits! LOL

I like the new rendering much more. I still say that the NIMBY's (neighboring building) hurt themselves by asking for a 6-floor height limit, but all they have to do is look to the East to get an idea of what that impact will feel like.

I am going to be sad when Funk Night with DJ Dan goes away during construction.

I like the new rendering much more. I still say that the NIMBY's (neighboring building) hurt themselves by asking for a 6-floor height limit

They also hurt everyone else that would have used the Greenway-accessible greenspace.

The irony in all this is the NIMBY's blocked a much higher quality project that would have endured for decades. Not to mention creating a lovely green space that would have enhanced the desirability and monetary value of the property around it. Unbelievable foolishness.

The irony in all this is the NIMBY's blocked a much higher quality project that would have endured for decades. Not to mention creating a lovely green space that would have enhanced the desirability and monetary value of the property around it. Unbelievable foolishness.

This system needs a serious overall in my opinion. Step one: someone from CPED should be required to be at these neighborhood meetings.

For example, when people stand up to complain about their view being "taken away", CPED representative intervenes to say that there is no such thing as a RIGHT to a view. If residents want to complain, they should be made aware that views are not protected. Also, CPED could reiterate/reinforce larger plans for the city (i.e. density goals). Residents should be allowed to have their say but their comments should have a time limit and CPED should be there to give proper context and foster better understanding of zoning, PUDs and CUP parameters. The problem is that by the time these proposals go to CoW or Planning Commission, the neighborhood groups have been worked into a froth over issues that they don't fully understand. The toxic environment then pollutes the process vis-a-vis developers, neighborhood groups and the city. Residents deserve their say but context should be provided by the city and broader goals should be communicated much earlier in the process BEFORE said pollution occurs. If residents aren't happy, then they should support/elect CC members who represent their views on urbanism.

The problem is that by the time these proposals go to CoW or Planning Commission, the neighborhood groups have been worked into a froth over issues that they don't fully understand.

That's not the problem. The problem is one of worldview and values. People generally don't respond to technocratic arguments. They respond to things that resonate with their daily experiences.

Rather than a technocrat decoding acronyms, what neighborhood groups need is someone other than the developer to talk about how the project benefits *them.* Ideally, that person would be from the neighborhood and would not be condescending.

There certainly is a problem with wealth and power on this project, too. The people living in this area have a lot of influence. But that's a larger and much more complicated problem to solve.

Sure, but people are extremely likely to have angst over loss, find it very easy to predict the likely outcome of negative consequences, and yet disbelieve the potential for positive outcomes (or disregard them if they may not directly affect *them*). Take the Frank/Lyn development. By most new design standards, this was a huge win (I won't name them, we all know them). Neighborhood residents DID testify, explaining these to the neighborhood group. I doubt a many (any?) dissenting opinion was changed, nor how heated the opinion was (though I may be wrong).

We also need to keep in mind that sometimes "technocratic" speak does have a place. When people say things like "new construction isn't green!" or "this will only make everyone's housing prices go up!" or any other emotional, black/white comment, a nuanced, research/data-based comment or response (in some form or another) needs to be heard on the public record. People can't be allowed to simply steer the conversation based on emotional claims that may have very little shreds of evidence. Yes, the trick is to do so without being condescending or just as emotional, but that shouldn't exclude it from the conversation.

And no, sometimes the benefits to a project won't relate to a given individual. A hypothetical someone living next to this proposal who likes their view of the lake, drives to work in EP, drives to meet their friends in the suburbs, and dislikes modern architecture, and only shops at the stores that may be closed as a result of new dev will find very little positive that resonates with their daily experience. Consequently, larger issues of affordability, climate change, etc etc probably also won't sway them.

We also need to keep in mind that sometimes "technocratic" speak does have a place. When people say things like "new construction isn't green!" or "this will only make everyone's housing prices go up!" or any other emotional, black/white comment, a nuanced, research/data-based comment or response (in some form or another) needs to be heard on the public record. People can't be allowed to simply steer the conversation based on emotional claims that may have very little shreds of evidence. Yes, the trick is to do so without being condescending or just as emotional, but that shouldn't exclude it from the conversation.

Certainly. I didn't mean to say it doesn't help. I was (inadequately) trying to push back on the notion that technocratic information magically makes people happy. "If only they knew..." usually isn't enough.

As you note, some people will never be happy and that's ok. No one can please everybody.

The problem is that by the time these proposals go to CoW or Planning Commission, the neighborhood groups have been worked into a froth over issues that they don't fully understand.

That's not the problem. The problem is one of worldview and values. People generally don't respond to technocratic arguments. They respond to things that resonate with their daily experiences.

Rather than a technocrat decoding acronyms, what neighborhood groups need is someone other than the developer to talk about how the project benefits *them.* Ideally, that person would be from the neighborhood and would not be condescending.

There certainly is a problem with wealth and power on this project, too. The people living in this area have a lot of influence. But that's a larger and much more complicated problem to solve.

You certainly have a negative view of the city. When you characterize CPED staff as "technocrats" you appear to be using the term as a pejorative.

I have to disagree that "this isn't the problem." I've sat in these meetings across from the NIMBYs. I've been in rooms pitching projects to the NIMBYs. When someone stands up with a ridiculous appeal for a three story brick condo at a major node, the architects/developers shouldn't be the only ones explaining why that doesn't make sense and is antithetical to the city's density goals.

Do you honestly think that architects and developers should be defending/substantiating the city's vision?

Residents should absolutely have their say. They should pushback on issues (density/materials/quality of the streetscape, etc.)

However, if a crazy person stands up in a meeting and says, "I want a water park at this commercial node in Minneapolis!" We shouldn't be the only people explaining why that is not a good idea. Betsy and several CC members campaigned on their vision for growth. Increased population isn't going to happen with granny flats built into people's basements and ONLY building on vacant parking lots in Downtown East and SOMEBODY at the city should be standing up to point that out. It isn't complicated and doesn't require any acronyms actually. If residents want to delve into it more deeply then fine, schedule a follow-up but moderation at these meetings needs to happen. Period.

How would you propose demonstrating value to residents? This is the goal of EVERY presentation.

You certainly have a negative view of the city. When you characterize CPED staff as "technocrats" you appear to be using the term as a pejorative.

Not at all. Just couldn't think of a better term. CPED does have a somewhat myopic view of things but that's to be expected. They do need to listen to communities a bit more.

I have to disagree that "this isn't the problem." I've sat in these meetings across from the NIMBYs. I've been in rooms pitching projects to the NIMBYs. When someone stands up with a ridiculous appeal for a three story brick condo at a major node, the architects/developers shouldn't be the only ones explaining why that doesn't make sense and is antithetical to the city's density goals.

Generally, opponents don't give a rip about the city's or anyone else's goals. They care about their own situation. It's how we all look at things. Reality is not the ivory tower.

If residents want to delve into it more deeply then fine, schedule a follow-up but moderation at these meetings needs to happen.

It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Some people will never be satisfied. I've seen this at pretty much every single community meetings I've ever been to, and I've been to a LOT.

How would you propose demonstrating value to residents? This is the goal of EVERY presentation.

A good start would be CPED talking to residents about what they want *before* major proposals come forward. Even then, CPED often completely ignores the hard work and long-term plans residents have put together, plans even passed into the comp. plan. Serious, serious plans have been put together that the city has completely ignored. That tends to piss people off. Stop pissing people off.

Sold to a real estate developer.

http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2015/01 ... eekend.php

http://www.trammellcrow.com/EN/o/chicag ... polis.aspx

Hoping for a 2Q construction start. Opened for 3Q 2016

I suppose it's better than what was on the site before, but man is it an ugly building. A shame they couldn't convince folks nearby to go with a tower.

I suppose it's better than what was on the site before, but man is it an ugly building. A shame they couldn't convince folks nearby to go with a tower.

Extremely short-sited and foolish. The irony is the 11 story proposal would have been a much higher quality project and actually provided a much larger amount of open space.

Even if they wanted to go with a six-story building, I feel like they could have spiffed up the design. I usually give new buildings a pass on designs for new buildings, but this is just atrocious looking.