urbanMSP

To my knowledge, the only developer that has proposed exceeding parking maximums is Shamrock (Stanton), with the Eclipse condo proposal. There are parking minimums, and there are parking maximums. The maximums are fairly high and it's really unlikely to come up often.

North Loop needs additional structured parking for the same reason downtown core has a lot of structured parking - there are lots of office workers. Walk-bike-bus for downtown hovers around 40% - I'd guess the stats for North Loop aren't that much different, perhaps higher walk & lower transit ratios than the CBD. A shared goal of the City & Metro Transit is to get this number to 60% by 2030. Even if that goal is attained, there will still be a share of downtown (and North Loop) workers who drive.

This structured parking is simply replacing surface parking, and probably not even at a 1:1 ratio, considering there is still a ton more surface parking to develop in this area.

As far as zoning is concerned, a parking structure is a different "use" than wanting to include 2 spaces for every residential unit. That makes sense, since the purpose and usage patterns are completely different. They'll need a CUP for a principal parking structure, or however Minneapolis defines such a use.

As long as they design and screen it appropriately, I don't see what the problem is. If it were fronting Washington, I might feel differently, but it's not even on a corner. That would be great if they proposed to wrap the "park" side in apartments. I presume the side facing 7th Ave N will eventually be screened by a building once Duffy Paper gives up that parking lot.

While we're at it maybe we can get the parking ramp at 10th & Washington to be open 24/7 rather than only during the day. Kind of sad when streets are jam packed during a Twins game or at one of Jaeger's themed nights, and you have to park blocks away while this huge empty ramp sits there all night.

Is that still the case today? You'd think the new owner, Goldman Sachs (since ~2/2014), might want to make money off of it, considering the astronomical price they paid for the Tractorworks Building and that ramp.

Two critical pieces that are currently missing if downtown/North Loop has any meaningful aspirations to become a place for families: a decent play park and a school.

Unfortunately, this park proposal isn't family-friendly. At the minimum it needs a set of swings and a climbing/sliding facility. If we're serious about attracting families to the North Loop, playground equipment is a must.

While we're at it maybe we can get the parking ramp at 10th & Washington to be open 24/7 rather than only during the day. Kind of sad when streets are jam packed during a Twins game or at one of Jaeger's themed nights, and you have to park blocks away while this huge empty ramp sits there all night.

I know the valets from Bar La Grassa use the lot to park valet cars in the off hours, even when it is is closed. I doubt the lot is full from their cars, so I'm not entirely sure what the rationale for keeping it closed might be. I've always wondered the same.

Is that still the case today? You'd think the new owner, Goldman Sachs (since ~2/2014), might want to make money off of it, considering the astronomical price they paid for the Tractorworks Building and that ramp.

It is true that the TractorWorks ramp is closed on evenings and weekends. I think the reason may be that it is a non-staffed/automated ramp (you swipe a credit card to enter and have to swipe the same card when you leave, unless you're contract), so maybe they don't want to deal with security during non-office hours - they close the garage doors to secure everything during the off hours. If you are a contract parker, you can enter the ramp during off hours, but only if you borrow one of the garage door openers.

Parks, schools, & desirability of North Loop for families/children sub-conversation moved to "North Loop Neighborhood" thread. Until there is more specific information about this private park/plaza and what it will/won't include, please try to keep the parks/schools stuff out of this thread.

THANK YOU.

Adan Voge tweeted this development may lose the park... because of parking;

https://twitter.com/VogeMN?original_ref ... 6146589697

Terrible lede/headline (Sorry Adam!). The problem has nothing to do with the proposed quantity of parking, or anything like that.

The entire problem is that standalone parking ramps are prohibited by Minneapolis zoning code. Which, when you think about that as an urbanist, is an excellent regulation for a city to have. Everywhere else, we bemoan existing standalone ramps and seek to tear them down whenever possible. CPED staff are strongly against a standalone parking ramp that is not screened/mixed with a building in any way. Again, in theory, I think we all agree with that. All the developer has to do here is line the ramp with housing, put retail/office on the ground floor, etc. and this entire development is good to go. It sounds like they are working toward that compromise and a revised proposal could appear soon. The opposite outcome could be that both the parking ramp and park are dropped from the current plan and only the apartment building gets built. Existing surface parking will remain as surface parking for its existing users.

Go pick up a print copy of Today/Tuesday's F&C while you still can. Guarantee you won't be disappointed by the full article...lots of good stuff in there. I think it's only $1.50 or something.

Terrible lede/headline (Sorry Adam!). The problem has nothing to do with the proposed quantity of parking, or anything like that.

The entire problem is that standalone parking ramps are prohibited by Minneapolis zoning code. Which, when you think about that as an urbanist, is an excellent regulation for a city to have. Everywhere else, we bemoan existing standalone ramps and seek to tear them down whenever possible. CPED staff are strongly against a standalone parking ramp that is not screened/mixed with a building in any way. Again, in theory, I think we all agree with that. All the developer has to do here is line the ramp with housing, put retail/office on the ground floor, etc. and this entire development is good to go. It sounds like they are working toward that compromise and a revised proposal could appear soon. The opposite outcome could be that both the parking ramp and park are dropped from the current plan and only the apartment building gets built. Existing surface parking will remain as surface parking for its existing users.

Go pick up a print copy of Today/Tuesday's F&C while you still can. Guarantee you won't be disappointed by the full article...lots of good stuff in there. I think it's only $1.50 or something.

Can't please them all, I guess...haha!

You're right, though, and just to be clear that's not really what I was going for. It's not that there are 330 proposed new parking spots, it is the fact that it's a standalone ramp which doesn't fit under city code. Jacob Frey says in the story, for example, that he's more in favor of the ramp + development than everything standing pat.

So when I write the park could go away "because of parking," I mean that the developers say they need the new parking ramp and would otherwise leave the lots planned for the park if they don't get it. They can't replace parking with development without adding new parking, because they're the ones using that parking in the first place.

I hope that makes more sense -- no worries if it doesn't change your mind on the lede/hed! Glad to hear you thought the story was worth it on the whole.

Thanks for reading and yes -- come pick up a copy of Tuesday's paper today! F&C is at 8th St and 2nd Ave, in the Baker Center, for anyone not familiar. Only $1.50, I believe.

Terrible lede/headline (Sorry Adam!). The problem has nothing to do with the proposed quantity of parking, or anything like that.

The entire problem is that standalone parking ramps are prohibited by Minneapolis zoning code. Which, when you think about that as an urbanist, is an excellent regulation for a city to have. Everywhere else, we bemoan existing standalone ramps and seek to tear them down whenever possible. CPED staff are strongly against a standalone parking ramp that is not screened/mixed with a building in any way. Again, in theory, I think we all agree with that. All the developer has to do here is line the ramp with housing, put retail/office on the ground floor, etc. and this entire development is good to go. It sounds like they are working toward that compromise and a revised proposal could appear soon. The opposite outcome could be that both the parking ramp and park are dropped from the current plan and only the apartment building gets built. Existing surface parking will remain as surface parking for its existing users.

Go pick up a print copy of Today/Tuesday's F&C while you still can. Guarantee you won't be disappointed by the full article...lots of good stuff in there. I think it's only $1.50 or something.

That site seems quite large. Without knowing too much about it, it seems that a "screened" ramp with active uses is totally feasible. I believe that ESG is the architect...if so, they'll find a way to get it done IF that is the direction that the developer wants to go. Hopefully the park stays but I don't have high hopes because money.

Heh, thanks for the reply Adam!

I guess it wasn't actually the headline or lede, just the wording of that initial Tweet that didn't settle with me. "...Because Parking" made it sound like there wasn't enough parking or something. Great article though! Appreciated all the various quotes from North Loop developers, CM Frey, etc.

I guess it wasn't actually the headline or lede, just the wording of that initial Tweet that didn't settle with me.

But it got you to click the link. And that counts for something.

Update on this. Lost the parking garage, but also some green space as well.

Here's the journal article: http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/un ... akes-shape

Update on this. Lost the parking garage, but also some green space as well.

Here's the journal article: http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/un ... akes-shape

Can't wait until I can see what the new design will look like. I really want that sea of asphalt gone and to have an urban canyon in that area of Washington.

I'll wait until the new design is revealed but from the sound of it they are going with a parking podium. Not good.

I'll wait until the new design is revealed but from the sound of it they are going with a parking podium. Not good.

Seems to me (looking at the originally rendering), that parking in the base was always a part of this project... maybe I'm wrong, but it sure looks like it.

Old Image (notice the large 2 or 3 story blank wall facing the multi-level parking ramp):

I'll wait until the new design is revealed but from the sound of it they are going with a parking podium. Not good.

Seems to me (looking at the originally rendering), that parking in the base was always a part of this project... maybe I'm wrong, but it sure looks like it.

Old Image (notice the large 2 or 3 story blank wall facing the multi-level parking ramp):

If there is going to be a parking podium, they will wrap it/hide it on the Washington Ave side with active uses. Is it a big deal to have the back of the building as screened parking?

Updated renderings:









And updated plans submitted to HPC: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 142111.pdf