Theater Garage Marquee Apartments - (Franklin & Lyndale)

[clf]

I would love to see a development on this corner but I do have some concerns about this development
1. There are multiple vacancies of development projects in the area, it seems this would create yet another if Rudolph’s vacates their location to this new one.
2. The development would remove free parking to area businesses and replace with paid parking.
3. It seems there would be a considerable increase in the amount of traffic in a location that is already struggling with this issue.
4. The proposed rental rates, which was vaguely suggested, would be estimated to be somewhere around $1,200.00 to $1,400.00 a month for a one bedroom. (Calculated with the amount per square foot and plan square footage per unit provided at the meeting.) This estimate is twice the current rent in the area.
5. The building height is an important issue to the homes, condos and apartments in the direct vicinity.

Would you pay $1,200.00 a month to live in a building that is near three bars known for over serving customers, fights, shootings and drunk driving fatalities? This is a high traffic area and not just cars. Buses, trucks and pedestrians result in heavy noise pollution. For rents of this cost would a future tenant prefer another location or larger space? Is this truly a viable development plan or another situation that may result in a foreclosed development?

[FISHMANPET]

Here's Eric Roper's take on the meeting: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/245387921.html

[David Greene]

This lot is on several major transit routes, within walking distance of downtown in nicer weather, and in one of the State's densest census tracts. People who want cars to be given priority shouldn't be living there

Plenty of people live in the city and work in the suburbs. Given the state of our transit system, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live in this location without a car.

[David Greene]

One final thought about the meeting last night: Boy, that Anders Christensen really thinks he's something special, doesn't he?

I got pretty annoyed by his comments. I think anyone in the city should be able to go to these meetings and speak, so I have no problem with him showing up. I also think he brings something to the 24th and Colfax conversation because I believe he has some expertise in Healy houses. Whether one thinks those contributions are useful is a different matter.

But last night he directly questioned the integrity of the Z&P committee and the Wedge board and also questioned whether the developer actually lives in the Wedge. That's way over the top, especially for someone that doesn't live anywhere close to the neighborhood. It's OUR neighborhood board and we can run it however we damn well please, thank you very much. Of *course* we have conflict-of-interest rules. To even question that is totally ridiculous.

I like the fact that anyone can attend Z&P and moreover, membership on the committee is flexible and my understanding is that getting voting privileges is not too difficult (I haven't tried the process myself). That's a much better model than some neighborhoods use where things are much more closed off. It's more community-oriented.

[FISHMANPET]

This lot is on several major transit routes, within walking distance of downtown in nicer weather, and in one of the State's densest census tracts. People who want cars to be given priority shouldn't be living there

Plenty of people live in the city and work in the suburbs. Given the state of our transit system, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live in this location without a car.

There are plenty of other places that people can live if they want a car. If this isn't a place where we can give cars a lower priority, then what is? Nobody's forcing anybody to live here without a car, but at some point we have to say that in a particular area it's just not possible to give cars priority anymore. If that's what someone wants we have thousands of homes in the suburbs to choose from.

[mattaudio]

There are multiple vacancies of development projects in the area, it seems this would create yet another if Rudolph’s vacates their location to this new one.

First, welcome to UrbanMSP. Second, the vacated Rudolph's space would be great for more neighborhood amenities such as restaurants or shops.

The development would remove free parking to area businesses and replace with paid parking.

There's no such thing as free parking. Even the parking on residential streets is not "free" - someone is paying, even if it's not the person whose car is taking up space.

It seems there would be a considerable increase in the amount of traffic in a location that is already struggling with this issue.

Cities have traffic, because people want to be there. If you treat "traffic" as a problem, it will destroy the neighborhood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI

The proposed rental rates, which was vaguely suggested, would be estimated to be somewhere around $1,200.00 to $1,400.00

Assuming people have the freedom to rent other one-bedroom apartments for less money, this is not an issue at all. And in the long run, restricting housing supply will make housing more expensive, not less. The San Francisco effect.

The building height is an important issue to the homes, condos and apartments in the direct vicinity.

Okay, that seems like a reasonable concern. It would be nice if this stepped back from the alley on the top floor or two out of respect for the neighbors across the alley. Although it isn't *that* much taller than its neighbors across the alley, especially when the grade change is taken into account.

Would you pay $1,200.00 a month to live ..... Is this truly a viable development plan or another situation that may result in a foreclosed development?

Clearly the land owner and developer think people will pay that, and the decision (beyond addressing the public realm impacts) is theirs to make.

[David Greene]

Plenty of people live in the city and work in the suburbs. Given the state of our transit system, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live in this location without a car.

There are plenty of other places that people can live if they want a car. If this isn't a place where we can give cars a lower priority, then what is? Nobody's forcing anybody to live here without a car, but at some point we have to say that in a particular area it's just not possible to give cars priority anymore. If that's what someone wants we have thousands of homes in the suburbs to choose from.

I guess the question I have is, "What do you mean by priority?" Is consolidating surface ramps into a district ramp priority? Is voicing concerns about increased congestion priority? I think people would be *thrilled* if this project could get away with no parking and not cause problems with congestion and parking on side streets. The reality is that if people don't park in the ramp they'll park on the street. That's simply true, there's no "priority" statement there. I for one don't think people have an inherent right to park in front of their house so I'm not concerned about this particular problem but maybe it is "priority" to expect to park close to your destination. I could see that.

What's the priority you're concerned about? I think it's an important conversation to have to get clarity. I for one don't think we should turn down new city residents because they have to drive to work. That would be economically and politically foolhardy.

[mattaudio]

The thing with priorities is that they usually convey value. And value matches to a price. If people want to store their car close to their destination (whether on the street or in a ramp) they should pay the market price for that storage.

[clf]

"Assuming people have the freedom to rent other one-bedroom apartments for less money"

I live a block away and have a large 1 bedroom with a balcony for $740.00, I would never pay $1,200.00 to live at this place, which is a concern as there are foreclosed and vacant developments similar to this one. Yes, something needs to be done in this area, I just don't think this is a viable project as it is.

[FISHMANPET]

which is a concern as there are foreclosed and vacant developments similar to this one

I'm not sure what this means, are you saying there are new construction apartments that are vacant and/or foreclosed?

[mattaudio]

Nobody is forcing you to move.
Nobody is forcing you to invest money in a project you think is not viable.

[David Greene]

The development would remove free parking to area businesses and replace with paid parking.

There's no such thing as free parking. Even the parking on residential streets is not "free" - someone is paying, even if it's not the person whose car is taking up space.

*I* understand what you're saying here but from the perspective of customers, it is indeed free parking. I think it's true that if people have to pay they'll park on the streets. A solution to that is to install meters with permits for residents so they don't have to pay. Metered parking makes the hidden costs visible. I think residential permits are a reasonable requirement because it doesn't seem right to all of a sudden charge residents for parking their cars where they have been doing so for years. There are longer-term strategies to look at but I don't think this thread is the place to talk about them.

It seems there would be a considerable increase in the amount of traffic in a location that is already struggling with this issue.

Cities have traffic, because people want to be there. If you treat "traffic" as a problem, it will destroy the neighborhood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI

Again, I tend to agree but I don't think we can just dismiss traffic concerns. Either we have to explain clearly why we don't think increased congestion is necessarily bad or we have to show that congestion won't increase. We can't just point people to a video and say, "you're wrong."

The proposed rental rates, which was vaguely suggested, would be estimated to be somewhere around $1,200.00 to $1,400.00

Assuming people have the freedom to rent other one-bedroom apartments for less money, this is not an issue at all. And in the long run, restricting housing supply will make housing more expensive, not less. The San Francisco effect.

I 100% agree with this. Right now there is no housing on this site so I'm less concerned about rents. Higher rents here shouldn't boost rents in the surrounding area. I won't say the rents will reduce because frankly that's wishful thinking.

The building height is an important issue to the homes, condos and apartments in the direct vicinity.

Okay, that seems like a reasonable concern. It would be nice if this stepped back from the alley on the top floor or two out of respect for the neighbors across the alley. Although it isn't *that* much taller than its neighbors across the alley, especially when the grade change is taken into account.

The problem here is that there *is* no alley. If there was an alley there would be good buffer space between buildings. I didn't know this until last night but apparently none of the blocks north of 24th have alleys.

And 20ft is nothing to sniff at. It's two stories. Stepbacks at floor three or four would be better than a stepback at floor six.

Would you pay $1,200.00 a month to live ..... Is this truly a viable development plan or another situation that may result in a foreclosed development?

Clearly the land owner and developer think people will pay that, and the decision (beyond addressing the public realm impacts) is theirs to make.

True, but the concern is valid because the area has seen other developments flop, be foreclosed and are now a blight on the neighborhood.

[David Greene]

which is a concern as there are foreclosed and vacant developments similar to this one

I'm not sure what this means, are you saying there are new construction apartments that are vacant and/or foreclosed?

Yep. Le Parisien for one.

[David Greene]

Nobody is forcing you to move.
Nobody is forcing you to invest money in a project you think is not viable.

You're missing the point. If the project flops it's a detriment to the community, not just the developer.

Projects like this affect everyone and everyone has a right to express opinions, concerns and ask for answers.

[mattaudio]

The parking lots are a detriment to the community. There's absolutely now way anything like what is proposed can be a detriment to the community, even if it goes through default and someone snatches it up. People have a right to express opinions, but I have a right to note that they are not constructive.

[mattaudio]

So you'd rather have a vacant lot instead of Le Parisien? Even though it went through fcl? The complex, which is still standing, provides negative value to the neighborhood?

[FISHMANPET]

which is a concern as there are foreclosed and vacant developments similar to this one

I'm not sure what this means, are you saying there are new construction apartments that are vacant and/or foreclosed?

Yep. Le Parisien for one.

Is this currently blighting the neighborhood?

[clf]

I just personally can not think of anyone I know that would like to pay that amount of rent in a location like that when there are less expensive available units in the area. If people don't fill up the place what happens? Foreclosure. Another ugly vacant building on Lyndale. Could someone give a few reasons on what would entice a prospective tenant?

[woofner]

I think it should be a pretty high bar to get a variance to build something like the proposed project three feet from someone's property. If I'm in one of the condo buildings, I can practically touch this thing from my window. That's a little too close for comfort.

EDIT: It's true that some of the existing buildings have small setbacks approaching what the developer wants, but these older buildings are much smaller so they don't create a wall like this project would and being around a century old should be cut some slack and grandfathered.

Just to keep this discussion moderately fact-oriented, the proposed building will actually be 13' from the closest building to the west. It will be a bit over 3' from the west property line, but Eric Roper's article quotes a resident of the adjacent building on Frankin as saying that it will be 13'. 13' is a pretty typical distance between neighboring buildings in this part of the city.

Again, as I stated upthread, in terms of height above sea level the proposed building will only be about 20' higher than the buildings on Aldrich. It is not atypical to have 20' differences between neighboring structures in Minneapolis. In Seward I lived in a 3-story house right next to a 1-story house.

Question: it sounds like the developer presented the west wall as blank? What happened to the trellised green wall on the plans?

[mattaudio]

You do realize that if a beautiful new building goes through foreclosure, the financiers lose - not the neighborhood. Someone would buy it at the mortgagor's loss, and rent it out with cheaper rents.