Page 11 of 66
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 6:35 pm
by Anondson
What is needed is for this group to organize our own NIMBY movement that is against minimal heights.
Developer shows up with plans for short heights, we show up telling them to go back to the drawing board and return with something serious about being in an urban setting. In the appropriate neighobrhood, give us transit-supporting density or get the heck out!
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 6:48 pm
by MS3
I have really enjoyed reading these last 3 posts by retiredbanker, zumf and Anondson. Totally agree with you guys and appreciate your insight and positive thinking!
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 7:36 pm
by Nick
I also need to address what Nick posted, "It's just silly to see the same posts over the past, I dunno, eight years or so, of this group of people promising "big things just around the corner" and so far none of these hypothetical insiders have really nailed anything particularly well." I, for one, am taken back and insulted by such a statement, at least if you're addressing that to me.
Basically just nasa35.
Now, just to provide an example of a recent project that nobody ever even heard a rumor about, that was quietly negotiating to get a lead tenant was the site of the proposed 4Marq tower (another project that nobody knew of, although I was well aware of it.). The original project was to be a 46-story office tower with 395,556 GSA. The 621-ft. tower with a spire that would of reached 700 ft. in height was to be a niche building, designed for its lead tenant. There were 2 reasons why it wasn't built, the lead tenant actually has grander plans with a better a long-term strategy/solution for its space needs, the other reason will remain private. The tower was to be self-financed and profitable from the get-go. I've discussed with developers and other financiers over the years that the media/press is a nuisance, a distraction. Once a project development plans are rock solid, iron-clad, then an announcement can be made, and no sooner. That is perhaps why there are no renderings released or publicity. Once again, it comes down to expectations, a developer doesn't need distractions when putting the project together, otherwise it comes down to ego, where there is never a need for that in business.
This is exactly what I said. Things are always being planned, other things happen.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 7:42 pm
by Nick
Otherwise, I just think that people shouldn't be surprised when there's a bit of ridicule towards ramble-y posts about, for example, the zestful playfulness of transformative paradigm shifting revolutionary-ness of a new convention center hotel somehow overcoming the market realities of dumping 1,000 new rooms into the market. There are lots of good arguments on all sides of most issues, but you have to make them or it just looks silly. Just saying a bunch of words doesn't make a good argument.
If you look at the Transportation subforum, there are all kinds of great nuts and bolts conversations that you could read for hours and learn a ton from. The Dinkytown stuff has also been awesome lately too. The Downtown Minneapolis subforum (maybe due to actually having lots of things to talk about?) hasn't been blessed with that level of conversation for a while.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 7:53 pm
by Nick
And one last thing,
What is needed is for this group to organize our own NIMBY movement that is against minimal heights.
Developer shows up with plans for short heights, we show up telling them to go back to the drawing board and return with something serious about being in an urban setting. In the appropriate neighobrhood, give us transit-supporting density or get the heck out!
After reading the comments by “retiredbanker” about possible development, I was hoping to see comments such as “that’s really cool! Is there any way we can help?”. This website could be used as a powerful marketing tool to show a very engaged community looking towards the future.
Negative comments towards visionary leaders will not help our city grow. I’m not an urban planner, but I found this site. How many developers are reading these posts as well? Words are powerful, especially to those on the fence. Let’s be a little more positive about our community, do a little dreaming, and help our dreams become reality.
We actually did do this a couple months ago for the Opus development in Dinkytown. It worked.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 7:55 pm
by FISHMANPET
Basically just nasa35.
I saw somewhere a post from nasa35 on Minnescraper from at least 5 years ago that said a new super tall was just around the corner, and he's continued that line ever since. Obviously the economy happened but there's no supertall, and he keeps saying there's one around the corner. I have no doubt that everything RetiredBanker says is true, but nasa35 always struck me as the boy who cried wolf.
I'd love if this subform had a lot of in depth analysis of market conditions and such, rather than complaining that six story buildings are ugly and that anything proposed should be taller.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 8:07 pm
by zumf
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 8:12 pm
by FISHMANPET
Also since we're double posting, I'm amused by the idea that developers are making investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars based on some Google searches. And while we like to joke here that NIMBYism is really bad in this metro, that's just a joke, and I think it's just as bad everywhere. Seattle has all sorts of NIMBYs, and I'm sure Denver does too.
But realistically speaking in the core I don't think you're going to get a lot of NIMBYs anyway, but if a developer wants some proponents the best thing they can do is come here and engage us. Nick's right, we came together for the Opus development in Dinkytown. The development was approved, and I don't know if we actually made that happen in any way, but we were there, to provide a positive voice for development, to at least give an opposing view to the people who usually speak at these meeting, which are people in opposition.
Even now a number of us are still involved. There were a few of us at the most recent meeting for the Dinkytown Small Area Plan, and we're there to provide an opposing viewpoint to those wanting to block development. There will probably be some of us at the next Z&P meeting to talk about the Loring Park small area plan.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 8:17 pm
by FISHMANPET
That looks like a site with tons of good info. I'm not the type to follow blogs but if you see an article posted there, feel free to post a link to an appropriate thread here. Those posts look pretty technical, which is good, because an article like that can start a discussion that can educate us all. I think my biggest criticism of the anti-development movement in Dinkytown is that it ignores a lot of market realities, so I'm always open to learn more about those realities.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 8:39 pm
by MNdible
Our friends at Wikipedia offer a crash course on
the all-important Cap Rate, which is what's in the back of every developers mind.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 8:44 pm
by John
One thing I get out of Retiredbanker's comments is the almost precarious nature of planning a large scale urban development. The planning phase can be pretty far along but circumstances change fast and the project is cancelled or shelved. A few years back we saw this with the Target Tower proposal at 11th and Nicollet. There was very serious consideration on Targets' part to build a signature tower, but I think their rapid growth and need for more office space (in a shorter time frame) put that proposal on hold They decided to build in Brooklyn Park.
I appreciate Retiredbankers comments on this forum. For one thing he has a business perspective with a wealth of experience and insight into development many of us here don't understand very well. He also has a very strong sense of good urban design and is an ardent supporter of pedestrian-friendly architecture which are we all passionate about.
Nick, you had to bring up the convention center hotel! lol! Once again, this is to increase tourism and attract more people to come to our city and use our convention center. This is still a major player in our downtown economy. It is not intended nor will it close down any other hotels that are solidly run. Unfortunately, many cities are now building new convention hotel facilities and we are not stepping up to the plate. It will have a negative effect on our city.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 10:04 pm
by Didier
I understand the sentiment, but we have no hope for the future if multimillion dollar developments are being axed due to comments on a message board.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 10:40 pm
by min-chi-cbus
Hi guys. Have to post a few of my thoughts here. Bear with me, please.
First, I came across this site by accident after finding out about the LPM apartments, Nic on Fifth, and Ryan downtown east project. These projects got me real excited. I love architecture and urban planning, even though I work in medical and am an electronics tech. I got that from my father and his buddies in urban planning at a university. So, as I said, these projects really caught my eye and I wanted to find out more. Inevitably, they led me to this website, which has an awesome amount of information on just about everything one could want to know about buildings, transit, and everything else in my adopted home. I am originally from South Dakota.
It helped me discover the North Loop building boom before it appeared in the news. I’ve learned about “stick” buildings versus concrete, etc. Believe me, this website is a powerful tool. Here’s where the problem comes in.
I’m not a developer, and I don’t have a billion dollars, but I do understand a little about marketing. If somebody (say a rich developer), is interested in building here and does a little web searching, they may come across this website. Let’s say this person has x amount of dollars to spend and they are considering three cities: Seattle, Denver, and Minneapolis. They study the other two, hear great things (as they will), and then studying the third they see a thread related to what they are considering spending money on. I.E. downtown office market. They read about some very positive possible developments, but also hear some very troubling negative comments like “boils down to nonsense”, and NIMBY’s will never allow it to happen.
You may or may not mean to cause harm, but those words are now in plain view for all the world to see. Those words might stick in the back of the head of the developer, and that may be all that’s needed to make a choice not to build here. After all, why build in a city where the primary urban planning website thinks it’s impossible to get another grand skyscraper?
After reading the comments by “retiredbanker” about possible development, I was hoping to see comments such as “that’s really cool! Is there any way we can help?”. This website could be used as a powerful marketing tool to show a very engaged community looking towards the future.
Negative comments towards visionary leaders will not help our city grow. I’m not an urban planner, but I found this site. How many developers are reading these posts as well? Words are powerful, especially to those on the fence. Let’s be a little more positive about our community, do a little dreaming, and help our dreams become reality.
I like what you have to say and agree to a large extent, except I do not agree that some big-shot business people who are looking to invest in Minneapolis are going to PUBLIC forums and getting a feel for the business climate based on the perceptions of those forumers. I'm sorry, if anybody does this and is somehow a billionaire they won't be for long!
What you may or may not know about this forum and Minnescraper before it was that there was a lot of conjecture about this or that "next big thing" in the works for Minneapolis, only for none of them to actually occur (whether that was driven by market forces, bad information, or whatever, it still irks many people). People LOVE hearing conjecture and speculation....I know I do! I love hearing about what the insiders hear and see (even if it's at a very high level) and I listen knowing that only a small fraction of what I hear may actually come into play. It's when people throw out words like "guarantee" or "next supertall" etc. that those things need to be taken equally carefully on forums like these, because city and skyscraper enthusiasts alike will literally fall in love with some of these notions and become very attached to them.
I think a certain level of common sense needs to be applied in serious doses here, as does a certain level of respect for those who are willing to disclose information not necessarily privvy to the rest of the public audience. To doubt that Minneapolis would build a supertall that rivals anything West of Chicago is frankly common sense, as it's never happened before and there is no precedent to think it would happen now (or soon). I think that should go without saying, and I think that's also okay (if done respectfully).
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 11th, 2013, 11:20 pm
by nordeast homer
I keep hearing we're going to get rain too, and eventually we will. In the same vein I have heard some information about growing firms not being offered concessions in lease negotiations and other rumblings about companies looking to move up in the world and I can't help think that we will eventually get that tower taller than the big 3.
In my opinion it's not a matter of if, but when. We waited almost 20 years for IDS to get some company, we waited over a decade to build Target Field, this will take a little more time too, but I believe it will happen, and when it does we'll be focused on the next on, and so on.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 7:15 am
by mullen
you know i don't feel it's pessism and negativity. i think it's just people being real about the economic capacity of our city and it's future growth. we all want a really really tall buidling. i remember being a kid in the 80's and being totally bummed out that the original Cesar Pelli designed Norwest Center design was scrapped and a shorter tower was built. (cleveland later basically had this tower built in their city) economics had shortened Pelli's original vision for mpls. and this was in the "big" 80's when skyscrapers were sprouting like trees all over U.S. cities.
the original norwest center would have sprung up like a huge icicle towering over everything. it would have been a massive symbol of the future of this modern city. the tower that was built is beautiful in it's own right but it's not the tallest buiding in the state. once again there was deference to IDS.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 12:11 pm
by MS3
It was suppose to be 1100 ft.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 2:03 pm
by Avian
It was suppose to be 1100 ft.
Actually "just" 950 feet.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 2:22 pm
by Nordeastmpls
I'm so glad we didn't end up getting that. It looks bulky and kind of jarring.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 2:22 pm
by Silophant
Cool article. Though I very much wish it had stayed at 950 feet, instead of being "respectful" to the IDS, I think the building that was built actually looks better than that design. Maybe just because I see it every day. I do wish the observation deck had survived the cut, though. Its something Minneapolis sorely needs, (the Foshay doesn't really count) and I desperately hope any future supertall includes one.
Also, that article was written by one R.T. Rybak. Cool.
Re: Downtown Office Market
Posted: September 12th, 2013, 2:28 pm
by MS3
My mistake- I believe it was Capella that was originally designed for 1100. It would be interesting to see what the skyline would look like if the heights were not lowered. (Capella at 1100 and WF at 950)
