Minneapolis Armory

[EOst]

As I understand it, it does actually. Minnesota has a state law, anyone familiar?, that states any structure that contributes to the national history of our country shall not be destroyed. I believe that law was created in 1995 to save the armory, it's the same law we used to save peavey plaza once it was on the national historic registry.

They're defined as natural resources by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. That means anyone in the state of Minnesota has a right to bring a lawsuit to stop the destruction or impairment of a historic resource unless the defendant can show that there "is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare... [and] Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a defense hereunder."

[FISHMANPET]

MERA protection of historic properties is shaky at best. It's not mentioned specifically in the text of the law, and the only court case where it's been used to stop a project going forward was one where a historic building was being replaced by a parking lot. It was used to try and save 2320 Colfax but the judge kept throwing them out of court for being crazy and never ruled on the MERA claims.

[EOst]

MERA protection of historic properties is shaky at best. It's not mentioned specifically in the text of the law, and the only court case where it's been used to stop a project going forward was one where a historic building was being replaced by a parking lot. It was used to try and save 2320 Colfax but the judge kept throwing them out of court for being crazy and never ruled on the MERA claims.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the use of the MERA for historic resources in 1979 (Powderly, 285 N.W.2d 84), when the court ruled that a pair of rowhouses in Red Wing were historic resources but that the court had no means to force the owner to renovate them, eventually leading to their condemnation and demolition. The standards are very similar to those used for the National Historic Register. And it has been used, most notably (though certainly not only) when it was used to stop the Armory being torn down for the new Hennepin County Jail. In that case (Archabal), the court takes it for granted that the Armory is a "historic resource" as defined in the act, and therefore finds that the law gives an affirmative defense (ie. it's historic but needs to be demolished) "an extremely high standard for defendants to meet" and that even significant economic costs were not enough:

the loss of the jobs and tax base from one of these parties is purely economic — i.e., it is a compensable loss. Although cost must enter into the calculus of whether an extraordinary community disruption has occurred, economic considerations alone are not sufficient to make out an affirmative defense under MERA.

But also, IANAL.

[acs]

Story in the paper about the protection fight.

http://www.startribune.com/mpls-seeks-t ... 366096561/

Ned Abdul isn't happy:

Abdul said the move to establish landmark status for the building “throws a wrench” into the plans.

“Hopefully it doesn’t kill the project. We’d love to see this thing on to its next life,” Abdul said. “But if the city isn’t amenable and folks aren’t amenable, we will finish our exterior stabilization on the building and the thing will continue on with its former use as parking, which would be disappointing. We hope that’s not the case.”

The city’s architectural historian, John Smoley, said Abdul was working with the city to ensure the building was restored in a way that preserved its “historical character.” But renderings of some large additions on the outside of the building raised eyebrows.

“He proposed some additions that seemed very concerning to staff members here at our end,” Smoley said. “We were concerned that the additions would damage the property’s ability to communicate its historical significance – the additions were so sizeable.”

Has ANYONE been able to find any plans submitted to the city?

[uncle phil]

They've had THIRTY years to get the Armory properly designated...and they wait until well after Abdul has started work on it? That's absolute B.S.

[EOst]

It's disingenuous for Abdul to suggest that this is being sprung upon him. Officially designated or not, he's smart enough to know that the HPC can grant interim protection quickly and that such protection would likely survive legal scrutiny. If he was really counting on being able to do whatever he wanted to this building after the preservation fights it has inspired, he's a bigger fool than I thought.

[BikesOnFilm]

Is the HPC really that short sighted that they think using the Armory as a concert venue with some modification is somehow worse than restoring the building to their standard to be a fancy, properly preserved parking lot?

[EOst]

Is the HPC really that short sighted that they think using the Armory as a concert venue with some modification is somehow worse than restoring the building to their standard while it continues to be a fancy parking lot?

What? The windows are fine. Read the article again; city staff are concerned about "some large additions on the outside of the building...[that] would damage the property’s ability to communicate its historical significance – the additions were so sizeable.”

[BikesOnFilm]

I read it wrong and corrected my post, I missed that line and was thinking about the photos that had been posted in this thread earlier. Even if the additions are sizable, it still seems using a historically significant building as a parking garage damages it's historical significance more than any addition could.

[EOst]

Got it, sorry to jump on you. I disagree, though. As long as the exterior is stabilized, using it as a parking lot leaves open the possibility of a thoughtful adaptation which preserves its historic characteristics. It's hard to go back from major additions or changes, though.

[MattW]

Got it, sorry to jump on you. I disagree, though. As long as the exterior is stabilized, using it as a parking lot leaves open the possibility of a thoughtful adaptation which preserves its historic characteristics. It's hard to go back from major additions or changes, though.

True that. Think old Yankee Stadium.

[Nathan]

Let's not pretend for one second that Abdul didn't know he had a historic structure and would have to play ball if he wanted to alter it.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I've longed thought that historic preservationists should start walking the walk when it comes to their beliefs. They've been allowed to sit on the sidelines and micromanage little details to owners and developers who actually take the risk and use their own money to try bring new life to old spaces. This seems like a perfect project for preservationists to step up and put their own money on the line to make this project successful using their ideas.

Everyone can see the economic future of this building is an event space of some sort, if historic preservationist really believe that their ideas are better this would be a great first project for them to take on and tackle. Yes they would have to buy the building but if the HPC is able successful in stoping Abdul efforts I'm guessing he would be more than willing to sell.

[Archiapolis]

I've longed thought that historic preservationists should start walking the walk when it comes to their beliefs. They've been allowed to sit on the sidelines and micromanage little details to owners and developers who actually take the risk and use their own money to try bring new life to old spaces. This seems like a perfect project for preservationists to step up and put their own money on the line to make this project successful using their ideas.

Everyone can see the economic future of this building is an event space of some sort, if historic preservationist really believe that their ideas are better this would be a great first project for them to take on and tackle. Yes they would have to buy the building but if the HPC is able successful in stoping Abdul efforts I'm guessing he would be more than willing to sell.

-1

[Anondson]

Where are the drawings of his offending additions?

[EOst]

I've longed thought that historic preservationists should start walking the walk when it comes to their beliefs. They've been allowed to sit on the sidelines and micromanage little details to owners and developers who actually take the risk and use their own money to try bring new life to old spaces. This seems like a perfect project for preservationists to step up and put their own money on the line to make this project successful using their ideas.

We do. They're called tax credits.

This isn't preservationists vs. developers. The state has long recognized that it has a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of historic structures.

[amiller92]

I'm pretty skeptical of historic preservation overall, but this is not a hard case. This is an actual historic structure, not just an old one, and protecting it should not be controversial.

[mattaudio]

I'd really like to see drawings of the additions. I suggest long ago in this thread https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f ... age#p54072 that it would make sense to modify/expand on the "wing space" east and west of the main structure.

In addition to understanding what's so controversial about what is now proposed, I'd also like to see if we're going to finally remove loading access off of 5th St to facilitate future conversion of 5th Street into a transit/people-exclusive corridor. Remember, the garage wings facing 5th St are a 1960s addition and are probably not historic (though, as I suggest far upthread, I think they would be a killer dining room/patio arrangement for a Commons-oriented restaurant).

[BigIdeasGuy]

I should have been clearer I 100% support saving the Armory. I think it's an amazing art deco building, I know it PWA Moderne technically but close enough. I think it's going to be an amazing event space when finished that will be able to host an incredible number and variety of events. My bigger problem with preservationist in this case is that Abdul has taken a building thats been decaying for decades and bringing it back to life something the preservationist community has been wanting for decades and yet have still found a problem the plan.

As for the tax credits, Abdul has very little choice but to follow HPC guidelines, as they are the law, when rehabbing the building. He can't decide to ignore the HPC and do whatever he wants with the building, if he do so he would be risking large fines, etc. In return for restoring and preserving the building the government offers tax credits. Yes he can decide to turn them down but he's a businessman and taking risk, you can't blame him for making the economically sound choice and taking advantage of tax credits offered to him. Now if the tax credits are needed to make the restoration work economically to me that's a fault of historic preservation not the developer using them.

[Archiapolis]

I should have been clearer I 100% support saving the Armory. I think it's an amazing art deco building, I know it PWA Moderne technically but close enough. I think it's going to be an amazing event space when finished that will be able to host an incredible number and variety of events. My bigger problem with preservationist in this case is that Abdul has taken a building thats been decaying for decades and bringing it back to life something the preservationist community has been wanting for decades and yet have still found a problem the plan.

As for the tax credits, Abdul has very little choice but to follow HPC guidelines, as they are the law, when rehabbing the building. He can't decide to ignore the HPC and do whatever he wants with the building, if he do so he would be risking large fines, etc. In return for restoring and preserving the building the government offers tax credits. Yes he can decide to turn them down but he's a businessman and taking risk, you can't blame him for making the economically sound choice and taking advantage of tax credits offered to him. Now if the tax credits are needed to make the restoration work economically to me that's a fault of historic preservation not the developer using them.

-1

Also, this is probably my favorite building in Minneapolis. I want the renovation/re-use to be a home run in terms of design/land use, etc.

Luckily I've only been on the periphery on historic projects so I've not had to navigate the HPC, National Parks, etc meat grinder. When viewed from this periphery the whole process of working on historic structures seems incredibly onerous, time-consuming, and expensive. However, I do value the outcome (in most cases). I just think there has to be a way to streamline the process for everyone involved.