urbanMSP

Sorry for the poorly timed edit. You did quote me as then-written. Just for the record.

Certainly someone needs to be an advocate for future residents, especially when current ones, living in an already successful area, have little to no incentive to allow new development.

Put another way, of course they want new construction to be stopped. I also want things. I want a billion dollars. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the government to give it to me for no other reason than I want it.

"Of course?"

You are *way* too cynical about people. Do you seriously believe that there is a significant number of people in every neighborhood that wants to stop development just to keep people out or "just because?"

We do in fact need to listen to people we disagree with.

And asking for a billion dollars is not at all analogous to pushing back on development.

I'm only making the point that wanting something alone is not reason enough for it to be granted.

And I think the people most effected by a development will be the most likely to oppose it, because they will absorb a much greater share of the "harm" (harm put in scare quotes because everybody is going to perceive things differently so there isn't really a global concise definition of what "harm" is in this case) in proportion to the overall benefit. So under those conditions I'm completely not surprised when people oppose a new development (I don't assume they're being paid off by "Big Preservation" like some have assumed I'm being paid off by developers because how could anyone ever support development).

I also think the most vocal detractors are often afraid of change and will fight to protect a status quo (be it real or imagined) because they won't see a gain from it. But really the vast majority of people don't care or care very little in comparison. There's very vocal minorities on both ends and they lead the conversations.

You are *way* too cynical about people. Do you seriously believe that there is a significant number of people in every neighborhood that wants to stop development just to keep people out or "just because?"

I do. Ok, people will throw around all sorts of reasons. And there are sometimes definitely legitimate reasons, sometimes there's a gray area where we canrespectfully disagree on defining what a 'nuisance' really is, and sometimes people will say just about anything and grasp at straws and manipulate data and use scare tactics to get others who may not have been so vocal/cared to actually care, "just because" they don't want things to change. We need to separate the people/reasons out and not toss everyone under the same N*MBY blanket, but I do believe there is a "significant number" in many neighborhoods who fit the description.

Going back to the talk of the church, maybe someone can comment on Central Presbyterian church in DT St Paul (built 1889) and the high rise right behind it. I'd have to believe this is more analogous to OLoL than some of the post-1900 structures. Maybe not. Either way, the Church of St Louis King of France (1909) and it survived the construction of this 30+ story tower. Wondering if anyone has knowledge of the situation?

Updated plans for Committee of the Whole. Not sure if there are any changes: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 139940.pdf

As the staff report notes, that 5-story behemoth of a blank wall parking podium facing Lourdes is a pretty big concern. They're going to have to get a little more creative with the facade and screening on that side.

How about a big advertising mural if our city didn't have such ridiculous rules about those?!

Just to be clear, we've spent the past 40 years trying to get rid of billboards, but now we're supposed to embrace advertising murals because... because why, exactly?

A mural is a stop-gap solution to cover up a blank wall. Sometimes blank walls happen because an adjacent building gets torn down or something, but this is a planned blank wall that will be there in perpetuity. Slapping a mural (advertising or artistic) onto it isn't an acceptable solution. It demonstrates a lack of imagination and respect for the project's surroundings.

Billboards are much different than murals I'd think.

How are they different?

...ummm, the surface beneath a mural remains whether or not the mural exists, and serves a primary function unrelated to advertising: to hold up part of a building. A billboard is constructed for the sole purpose of advertising, and therefore takes space, views, etc. that would otherwise remain intact.

How about a big advertising mural if our city didn't have such ridiculous rules about those?!

FWIW, he did say advertising mural, which is completely different than a purely artsy-fartsy mural that most people enjoy.
One is a "sign" advertising a business or product, the other is not.

Don't we have plenty of blank walls (or at least we *did*) where building owners expected a property to go up next to theirs so they left it blank/without windows? The options for screening a parking garage are pretty limited. Mural? Living wall? Trees/shrubs? I guess are any of those really worse than what the parish house overlooks today (the ugly backside of old buildings and a parking lot)?

Don't we have plenty of blank walls (or at least we *did*) where building owners expected a property to go up next to theirs so they left it blank/without windows?

Sure. And as I said, in those instances a mural is a reasonable solution (although I'd argue it shouldn't be advertising). But that's not the same as a new building where you know nothing will ever be built against it.

I'm not saying that you even have to screen the parking ramp so that you can't tell it's a parking ramp. But just give it some architectural attention. Have openings and setbacks. Use decent materials and detailing. Stuff like that.

I'm making the point that it doesn't have to be blank. You can ban advertising murals but there's a cost to that.

Here's a somewhat visible blank wall for which some company might gladly pay good money to use as a place to advertise whatever products they want to sell, solving the problem of this being a blank wall at less cost to the building owner.

Sure, it comes at some generalized cost to some people's aesthetic sense, but not everyone shares that concern.

Minneapolis' rule against advertising murals makes it harder to enliven our city. It's been really striking to me traveling in Europe and Australasia this year how many more murals there are on buildings.

Don't we have plenty of blank walls (or at least we *did*) where building owners expected a property to go up next to theirs so they left it blank/without windows?

Sure. And as I said, in those instances a mural is a reasonable solution (although I'd argue it shouldn't be advertising). But that's not the same as a new building where you know nothing will ever be built against it.

I'm not saying that you even have to screen the parking ramp so that you can't tell it's a parking ramp. But just give it some architectural attention. Have openings and setbacks. Use decent materials and detailing. Stuff like that.

That's fine. In an abstract way (without getting into specifics), I'd be fine with requiring those type of things if it came with a relaxation of setback/height/FAR requirements zone by zone. Tradeoff: more respect to neighboring properties through design in exchange for allowing bigger/more.

And, I'd argue that the church is within its rights to build something in the place of the parish house. In fact, as a member, I'd actually advocate for it. Short on cash to maintain our 150 year old building? Build (or lease the land) a small apartment building on-site, reserve one unit for church functions, and rent the others out. Or, build an affordable/subsidized building giving a revolving group of people a place to live minutes from the largest concentration of jobs in the state.

Minneapolis doesn't ban advertising murals.

A thought: Maybe the developer is being shrewd? They successfully transitioned the public narrative from "OH MY GOD THEY'RE DESTROYING NYE'S" to "Well, they're moving Nye's," so maybe they're throwing out a blank wall by the church with the intention to change it as a concession? Idk as far as blank walls go, it's not horrible.

Are developers figuring out how to play the game?

I did kinda think it's odd that they were willing to move an entire historic building but the whole parking facade looks reeeally bland, very little thought put into it as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the wall facing the church barely looks different (in the grand scheme of things). This proposal does seem to be playing the game better than most - the up front bargaining chip in retaining the meaningful buildings (in exchange for the height), then work out the design facing the street/church.

Are developers figuring out how to play the game?

Oh, they've been playing the game well for quite some time. The 2320 Colfax developers were magnificent in their execution.

Went to Nye's tonight for dinner before we can't anymore. I have a far greater appreciation for the buildings now that I know a bit more about them. I still think it's too bad the institution of the place is going away. What a cool restaurant and AWESOME bar.