Vikings Stadium Miscellaneous Discussion

[Ubermoose]

Regarding development of these lots, I think three big things have changed:


Second, and I think more importantly, is that the Metrodome was hosting over 100 major events every year (by major events, I mean an event bringing in more than 15,000 spectators, not rollerblading). The new Vikings Stadium will host only, perhaps, 12. I'll assume that they get into the playoffs every once and a while and will host a Pink Floyd concert occasionally..

I'm not sure that is factual. After all, they just finished going over the dimensions of the field for the Gophers baseball team to play in spring games. I'm also fairly certain that it will also still be used for high school football and soccer tournaments, as well as other functions that the Metrodome hosted.

[MNdible]

You've been to a Gophers baseball game before, right?

There will be a lot of events, no doubt, but an event that only attracts 2,000 people will have absolutely no bearing on the economics of area parking lots.

[Rich]

A reminder to those obsessed with parking who may not be aware…in 1999 the city banned new commercial lots. And in 2009 they nixed minimum parking requirements for new development. So for most of the Metrodome's life, policies with regard to parking lots were more favorable than they are now.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... ml?refer=y

[RailBaronYarr]

You've been to a Gophers baseball game before, right?

There will be a lot of events, no doubt, but an event that only attracts 2,000 people will have absolutely no bearing on the economics of area parking lots.

Totally agree. In fact, for events like that, I would think there could/should be enough street parking to handle a good chunk of the demand for such an event. Honestly, 2,000 people bring, what, 800-1,000 (or fewer) cars, assuming all arrive by car. WHat will happen when people really start riding transit to get around?

[moda253]

Second, if the zoning was changed ten years ago and absoultely nothing has been developed since then, that doesn't support the notion that zoning was holding back development.

Well how about teh economic climate we've been in since around that change? Remember it takes time for development to happen so the slag of 2002-2005 followed by the worst economic period in a LONG time probably has had some effect not to mention the uncertainty of exactly what was going to happen with the metrodome.

Several area leaders wanted all sorts of things to happen around this area, from a park, to a medical corridor to a lake!

[John]

Does anyone know when the renderings for the stadium design are going to be unveiled? I think someone on this thread mentioned the month of March. I'm getting impatient!

[moda253]

Does anyone know when the renderings for the stadium design are going to be unveiled? I think someone on this thread mentioned the month of March. I'm getting impatient!

Me too. though I expect when they are released people will freak out and call it ugly. Like they did with the excel energy center and target field.

[John]

Me too. though I expect when they are released people will freak out and call it ugly. Like they did with the excel energy center and target field.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident this is going to be the best HKS stadium design so far. I'm thinking all parties involved in this project want this to be a winner.

[Viktor Vaughn]

I don't want to get into this too much, but it really did seem like the "well, we didn't want development over there anyway" line got thrown out kind of randomly in the midst of things. I think I (and by extension many of our long time posters) am pretty aware of the city and its history, but I had never heard of that until about six months into the stadium debate. Not saying it isn't true, but the first time that popped up in a StarTribune article I was kinda like "...oh...huh...really?"

You summed up exactly where I’m coming from on this issue. The claim seemed incongruent with everything I had heard before, seemed a bit too self-serving, and just had the ring of total bullshit.

But again, being the same age as the Metrodome, I was hardly following city planning issues in the years following construction. But I would think someone on this board would remember the city purposely restricting development.

And my initial reaction was much like yours “huh…really”, but then I see it repeated months later on this board like it’s some kind of indisputable fact because the Star Tribune printed it. It just makes we wish that the Star Tribune didn’t have a $50M conflict-of-interest on this issue, or at least wish they had reported on the Vikings stadium objectively because of some old-fashioned journalism ethics. I know a lot of people here just think we should “get over it.” But the way this stadium got done is a perfectly quintessential example of democracy subverted. The result is a lasting loss of public trust, whether you’re tired of thinking about it or not.

Regarding development of these lots, I think three big things have changed:

First, the Strib isn't demanding all of the surface parking that it used to.

Second, and I think more importantly, is that the Metrodome was hosting over 100 major events every year (by major events, I mean an event bringing in more than 15,000 spectators, not rollerblading). The new Vikings Stadium will host only, perhaps, 12. I'll assume that they get into the playoffs every once and a while and will host a Pink Floyd concert occasionally. This will completely change the economics of the parking lots over there.

I completely agree. But it’s funny how this idea runs somewhat contrary to conventional wisdom. The theory is -- more events increases traffic for businesses, which supports more development. And Target Field has certainly increased business for the DT West entertainment district. But the frequent event parking in Downtown East actually made the parking lots profitable enough to restrict development. Perhaps the best thing for development in the area would have been if the Vikings stadium was built elsewhere and the dome was replaced by the park with a lake proposal that was floating around.

But only a dozen big events a year plus cheap weekday parking revenues is probably enough of a decrease to pressure some of these lot owners to sell or redevelop.

Finally, there's obviously been some modest redevelopment in the area which puts upward pressure on land prices. On one hand, redeveloping a surface lot automatically makes the lot next door more valuable by decreasing parking supply while it simultaneously increases demand. On the other, every development makes the neighborhood more attractive to the next development.

Exactly. I do agree with Rybak’s assessment that this area is primed for redevelopment (unlike in past decades). The Mill City is filling in and could jump Washington, Elliot Park could expand North, the CBD could expand East, the Armory could be redeveloped, the Ryan/WF proposal could go through, and some parkland may be built, so this vast wasteland of surface lots could be developed in the next 20 or 30 years.

[Avian]

.....
Exactly. I do agree with Rybak’s assessment that this area is primed for redevelopment (unlike in past decades). The Mill City is filling in and could jump Washington, Elliot Park could expand North, the CBD could expand East, the Armory could be redeveloped, the Ryan/WF proposal could go through, and some parkland may be built, so this vast wasteland of surface lots could be developed in the next 20 or 30 years.

Hey, a great spot for an Olympic Village.

[Didier]

I tend to be less skeptical of the claim given the context of history. Really until the last couple years there was no market for any private developer to build up those parking lots, so it's not as if 1980s zoning in downtown east would be a frequent news subject.

Of course that's just my take, though.

[Jfuss]

We might not see renderings until early April if Charley's timeline is correct.

From Charley Walters..

Three retractable features are under consideration: a roof, a wall and a window. Word surfaced Thursday, March 7, that if one doesn't fit into the budget, a combination of the others might. So if a roof doesn't fit, the stadium still could have a movable wall as well as a retractable window.

Mortenson's analysis is expected to take at least a couple more weeks before it's known what's financially feasible.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_227 ... -ex-gopher

[lordmoke]

Not REALLY news, but it does confirm what we'd already surmised:
http://finance-commerce.com/2013/03/vik ... -in-april/

[woofner]

Sorry to link to Marlys, but her most recent post has a quote that picks at my pet peeve. David Fields, "development director" of the Elliot Park NA, repeats the old canard that "a zoning designation of "light industrial" crippled the area for years. It was so restrictive, he says, "that you were lucky if you could get an abandoned warehouse to be used by an artist.""

If light industrial is so restrictive, how did the North Loop add thousands of residents despite largely having been zoned I1 (light industrial) until 2009? While it's true that the Industrial Living overlay was only added to the code around 2000, before which residential uses would have been prohibited, light industrial zoning actually permits a great deal of commercial uses, and is one of the least restrictive districts in terms of form. Besides, how hard is it to get a rezoning in this city? Especially considering the area has been represented by a very pro-housing councilmember for the last 15 years, who has actually steered development into the east side of Downtown (though specifically into Elliot Park).

Point being it wasn't zoning holding back East Downtown for all these years, and cranes aren't going to sprout from a simple change in zoning.

[moda253]

Because it didn't also have a huge stadium sitting there which surface lots could be used for gameday parking for a venue that was being used year round? IF DTE had zoning that didn't make the ability to sit on surface lots so apealing then perhaps we would have seen more development?

[Rich]

I don't think anyone means to suggest that the sole reason for the lack of development is zoning. But I also don't think that there's much question that zoning exacerbated an already difficult situation.

The environment is much better now. Parking lots are a bit less profitable due to the lack of Twins games. The real estate market is rebounding from the collapse of '08. There will be multiple light rail lines in place. And the fact that the stadium situation is settled once and for all should comfort wary developers who may have been delaying plans until they had a better sense of what the future of the area would be.

[seanrichardryan]

Narrow streets, wider sidewalks, greenspace-

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/03/blo ... ue+Reading

[RailBaronYarr]

For these things to happen the city will need to drastically reduce parking requirements and how they zone areas (or don't).

[MNdible]

For these things to happen the city will need to drastically reduce parking requirements and how they zone areas (or don't).

City parking requirements are not driving any of this.

[Jfuss]

Don't know if this rendering has been posted before...