urbanMSP

Maybe we should be requiring a minimum percentage of occupied retail rather than simply retail space. Again, my theory on this is that many large-scale management firms want to sit on space and ask top dollar, rather than slowly lower the rent until someone bites. They simply don't need the rent from storefronts, and they see it as a hassle compared to dealing with tenants leasing office floorplates.

Are those 1000's of SF of vacant on the mall or are we looking at side streets and as was said above, space that is not even actively being marketed to really get a tenant into it. Demanding top dollar when there is no market is silly to me. I can't believe that they could not rent lower and have a sliding scale for rent if rent around them do go up. IF you have nothing filled you have no market. If you slowly build up your market you are like NL where they are building a retail presence because there were stores there that have been there and are expanding with the number of households that is also expanding. Basic marketing is critical mass that bring the consumers in and makes them want to come back and shop there on a regular basis. The current mind fart is that we sit on empty space for 15 years and write it off as a loss on their taxes.

In the spirit of taxing what society finds undesirable, perhaps a property tax penalty is levied against empty storefronts on a sliding scale related to the amount of time they sit empty. Basically countering the tax write-offs. (How's that for adding another layer of complexity )

In the spirit of taxing what society finds undesirable, perhaps a property tax penalty is levied against empty storefronts on a sliding scale related to the amount of time they sit empty. Basically countering the tax write-offs. (How's that for adding another layer of complexity )

I'm all for that also. Makes a lot of sense.

This is going to be on the Planning Commission agenda for September 8th. No agenda has been posted yet, but it can be found in Finance & Commerce

Latest document: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 148254.pdf

I actually really like the retail space give in this building. Would've been even better if Xcel had a good retail corner as well.

Latest document: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 148254.pdf

I actually really like the retail space give in this building. Would've been even better if Xcel had a good retail corner as well.

I'm not super enthused about 40% of the lot getting a tower and 60% getting a parking structure (with some ground floor retail?). Seems like either there currently is or potentially could in the future be a better use for that 60%.

Having no understanding of the technical or cost details, I really wish all parking structures could be underground.

I'll try to be more positive with the things I like. The retail on Nicollet goes across most of the buildings front. With the skyway entrance in the 1st phase I would not expect to see a duplicate in the 365 tower. The front of that building (365) could be made for one or better two retailers to get more variety on that end of the mall. The last thing we need is two more restaurants alone at that end of the mall. Can we have some working together of the city, Opus, and United to get some critical mass to that area for retail. Whole Paycheck is less than 2 blocks away which makes for a very big anchor on that end of the mall.

Glad to see the retail added to the Marquette side of the building that should help build off the retail in the 510 Marquette, Nic's retail at that Marquette end, and the 4 Marq's retail that will be joining the area. You have how many people that get on and off the bus along that section of Marquette. It would only make sense.

The parking podium is still off putting, but I'm glad that along the mall they have apartment that screen out the parking ramp from many direction. Would have preferred at least some retail along the skyway. Maybe they can make it so those few parking spot that are next to the skyway can be converted for a small convenience store and maybe a retail store on the second floor with an entrance from the skyway. The biggest plus is they did not bury the skyway behind sheet rock, but over looks the mall which make that level appear active when you see people walking in the skyway. My best attempt at being positive about this project.

This is one of the staff recommendations

6. No shelving, signage, merchandise, newspaper racks or other similar fixtures shall be placed in front of the required ground level transparent windows.

I'm a little confused on this. Are they stating if a retail tenant, say a Nike store (unrealistic); wanted to go into this space, they couldn't have shoes in a display window or have sign in the window?

While I understand the intent of that recommendation, and it's very valid, it seems rather extreme in application. The language should allow for merchandise display that blocks up to maybe 20-30% of the window area, preserving the view between store and street around/through the display.

This is one of the staff recommendations

6. No shelving, signage, merchandise, newspaper racks or other similar fixtures shall be placed in front of the required ground level transparent windows.

I'm a little confused on this. Are they stating if a retail tenant, say a Nike store (unrealistic); wanted to go into this space, they couldn't have shoes in a display window or have sign in the window?

I think they're referring to things that would completely block the windows, like the Trader Joe's at Excelsior and Grand in SLP. Store displays that face outward, not the backs of shelves, are allowed.

I think the point is that you should be able to see into the store from the outside. So obviously shelves with their back to the window are out. But I would think so are displays like the Downtown Macy's where you can't see into the store. You could maybe put a mannequin in the window, if there wasn't anything behind it. But the direct reading of that sounds to me like even that would be banned.

I've seen it noted before that merchandise windows like Macy's has are technically not allowed in new construction downtown. I suspect that if somebody really wanted to do that, they could get it approved.

I've seen it noted before that merchandise windows like Macy's has are technically not allowed in new construction downtown. I suspect that if somebody really wanted to do that, they could get it approved.

Exactly. I'd rather have this be written, and grant exceptions, as opposed to having a percentage written into the application.

I think the updates and changes to this building look really great. I think it'll harmonize well with Marq4.

Sadly "do the right thing" can't really be codified into laws or regulations or enforced, so we end up writing voluminous regulations with burdensome exception process to end up with the goal of "do the right thing."

Then how is Walgreens getting away with all of the blocked out windows in the old Saks store?

Then how is Walgreens getting away with all of the blocked out windows in the old Saks store?

There are covered windows on the ground floor on the 7th St. side, but those are on the "mystery" space that may be a separate retail space, and the current coverings definitely look temporary. Are there covered windows on Nicollet on the ground floor?

The first floor windows are not covered.

I noticed from the Planning Commission documents that Opus has changed the name to "365 Nicollet".
Someone must've finally told them that 360 wasn't going to fly.

I wonder what they'll call the northern "phase II" building... could be 301, 333, etc.

EDIT: More importantly, this was approved on Tuesday: http://minneapolismn.gov/meetings/plann ... S1P-148642

How about "321 Contact" (on Nicollet)
...

...

3Point12 Pi in the Sky Apartments