urbanMSP

One thing is that she probably speaks for many ill-informed people. Somehow they believe turning a plot of land that has never been residential into multifamily housing logically means fewer homes for people to live in. (I swear it is sometimes she is trying to be the voice of the curmudgeons.)

Maybe she could be asked if the city itself, due to any of its regulations, is preventing developers from building housing that is "affordable". Maybe the city could look at allowing SROs in certain locations near mass transit and near amenities.

Or she could be asked what she thinks of the Met Council's prediction that St. Louis Park will grow by 51% in population in the next thirty years and exactly what single family homes in the city they will fit in if not multifamily? Asked how a population of nearly 70,000 people means fewer children than a city of 44,000 of today?

Wait, SLP is projected to grow to 70K people in 30 years?! That would be amazing, frankly! How big is SLP -- 10-12 square miles? That'd give it a population density similar to Minneapolis or St. Paul (today). I'd really love to see that!

Wait, SLP is projected to grow to 70K people in 30 years?! That would be amazing, frankly! How big is SLP -- 10-12 square miles? That'd give it a population density similar to Minneapolis or St. Paul (today). I'd really love to see that!

Hopkins was estimated to grow from about 18,000 today to 27,000+ in 30 years, too. All in four square miles.

(There was a website that let folks put in their municipality in the metro and it popped out the Met Council 30-year-prediction. Can't recall where I saw it. Edina was predicted to go to 70k, I think Minnetonka to 90k. I mostly checked the western suburbs up and around the SWLRT.)

That said, a prediction by the Met Council isn't some manifest destiny or Hari Seldon-like psychohistory. The cities have to let it happen. But I wonder what Sue Sanger thinks is going to happen around the SWLRT stations if not new multifamily multistory buildings? Perplexing.

SLP is 10.8 square miles, so the density is over 4,200 per square mile today. Not too bad. If Plymouth had that density, it would have over 150,000 people. This development fits in West End.

Here is the Met Council's page on their 2040 forecasts:

http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/stats/forecasts2040.aspx

They are remarkably aggressive, and it's interesting to consider how much they differ from the last round of forecasts. Here are the numbers from the two forecasts combined:



The last forecast was done by a relatively conservative council (under Ted Mondale I think), but honestly it seems like the conservative councils have a better track record with forecasts than the progressive ones. As you know, a forecast won't make it so, but at least they have some positive incentives in place (TOD and brownfield grants) to encourage growth in those rings that were previously left for dead. Now they need to get some negative incentives in place on the fringe so that those areas actually see the level population the council projects for them.

Edina, Hopkins and St Louis Park's forecasts seem to me ambitious but doable, especially if average household size turns around, but Minnetonka's seems pretty far-fetched. I don't see how their sliver of SWLRT station area and Ridgedale will combine to accommodate 25,000 more people (Mtka actually lost about 1500 between the last two decennial censuses).

Minnetonka might have some places to add into might be in the Glen Lake area and the TH 7/101 area. There may be a few more scattered pockets of unattractive spaces that are around, like the forested plot in the SW corner of Minnetonka Blvd and 169 that is proposed for a multistory apartment with views of the Minnehaha creek. Maybe the met council figures the suburbs will overcome their phobia of residences taller than 6 stories and will provide them in quantity.

But spaces like this SLP proposal that is between existing high density and an interstate highway, this is responsible in so many ways as long as traffic and utility services aren't overwhelmed. And the reports for West End actually provide for this many more housing units being proposed.

Even if she had her way, who in their right mind would want to build a SFD here?

Perhaps, her train of thought should be:

Build multi-family housing, presumably geared towards the young/middle-aged higher income working class
They will fall in love with the greater St Louis Park community
They then choose to purchase a SFD in STL Park once they are ready to raise a family
The number of kids in the community then increases

It's not rocket surgery.

Project was approved last night at SLP City Council meeting.

Nice. Estimate date for ground breaking?

Looks like Chili's was demolished over the weekend.

Looks like Chili's was demolished over the weekend.

Completely devoid the context of this thread, that's one of the nicest sentences there is.

Here you go if demolition turns you on. I sure have a lot of fun memories at that Chili's over the years. Used to sit in the bar area with friends many dozens of times.


Chili's demolition 2-11-14 by bapster2006, on Flickr

This file shows the West End fully built out. Including the long talked about 4 new office towers for 1.5M sq ft of space. (Around pg 20)

http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/fil ... 7_22cs.pdf

It also shows this apartment building will not effect Olive Garden. This thread title is misleading.

Driving by this I noticed that excavation has begun.

They are putting in the big steel beams or whatever into the ground now.

They are putting in the big steel beams or whatever into the ground now.

It's called "beam and lagging." Driven steel "H piles" (also known as wide flange steel) into the ground to a certain depth/impact rating, then heavy wood timbers (lagging) placed in between the steel to retain the earth. Sometimes there are concrete impregnated "nails" or helical piles (steel auger looking things) inserted diagonally for additional retention/shoring of surrounding properties depending on the circumstances. THEN, they can dig a proper hole for footings/foundations. Probably more than anyone wanted to know about a hole in the ground.

But awesome to have you share!

If you don't mind a tangent... What are the reasons this gets chosen over alternatives? And what are alternatives that might be used in a project in our region?

Sheet piling is also fairly common. These are the interlocking steel corrugated profiles. Recently, we've seen a few projects use the sheet pilings as part of their foundation work and parking garage exterior walls.

Another option, if you have enough room, is just to slope the sides of your excavation hole back up to grade.

Sheet piling is also fairly common. These are the interlocking steel corrugated profiles. Recently, we've seen a few projects use the sheet pilings as part of their foundation work and parking garage exterior walls.

Another option, if you have enough room, is just to slope the sides of your excavation hole back up to grade.

The latter option here is called "open cut" which is simplest, easiest and cheapest but isn't possible in many cases as collapse of the hole is a possibility or moving equipment on site is a problem.

Sheet-piling has it's advantages, one of which is that it can become a permanent wall as the earth is removed from the
hole and then concrete can be poured against the sheets to compose the structural wall. The other advantage is that sheet piling *can* be removed after concrete framing has been done below grade. This is a much less expensive option than the permanent sheet-pile wall and is preferred in terms of cost. Sheet-piling can be done on a tight site which is another advantage over "beam and lagging"...

They aren't keeping the lake.

Dolce West End 6-1-14 by bapster2006, on Flickr