urbanMSP

Courtesy of a link on the Save Dinkytown Facebook page. I kinda want to go to the meeting, to pick up acting tips from anyone who, with a straight face, can call a 6-story building sharing a block with Riverside Plaza a "monstrosity".

I don't wanna be that guy, but since the community group supports the development, I'm really curious why a bunch of mid 20s white kids think they need to save the Somali population from itself.

I'm not gonna post it on the Save Dinkytown page or that event page, but I think this advocacy is super racist.

Just for fun, I'd like to post this, on the extreme side of defending capitalism as a means to greatest good for all:

http://marketurbanism.com/2008/07/07/ur ... evelopers/

I agree that calling a 6-story building next to Riverside a 'monstrosity' a total joke. Oh well. Who wants to have a bunch more people living close to 2 transit lines, bike trails, the U, etc anyway?

Is anyone grouchy enough to attend this and see what's going on? I'd really like to go, but I'm leaving town tomorrow and have to spend tonight getting ready for that.

I don't have much going on tonight, so I might head over there. While I didn't agree with them, I at least understood the Save Dinkytown arguments about the parking lot and small businesses. But starting a neighborhood movement to save an empty lot and run-down old building next to a skyscraper? I'm befuddled.

Well, I just got back, and I was pleasantly surprised, since I was expecting an atmosphere akin to the SD FB group at it's most toxic. (I try to go into things with low expectations, so I'm rarely disappointed.) Though only seven people including me showed up, and they all knew each other fairly well except for me, they were mostly saying things I can agree with, like trying to get developers and the city to fit in with the neighborhood and not try to change it. They weren't against Cedar-Riverside changing, but just want to see it done smartly.
Other notes:
A couple expressed concern that the neighborhood is already crowded enough, which still doesn't make sense to me, but different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
The woman who set up the group, Nicole, apparently talked to Cam Gordon today and heard that A) They're planning to break ground in December, and B) This is Phase 1, obviously. Phase 2 would tentatively be a mid-rise tower and the at-this-point-theoretical Phase 3 would be a high-rise.
No one seemed to have any idea if this would be market rate, luxury, or affordable housing.
I asked what they thought would be an acceptable addition to the neighborhood, and they all said more retail on the ground floor, which I certainly can't argue with.
Nicole also said she was going to try to keep a positive tone going through this, which is awesome. We don't need another Save Dinkytown-style mess.

All in all, it was an interesting meeting, and I'll be keeping an eye on this whole thing as it goes along.

Thank goodness we saved the West Bank.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Where would they fit a mid and high rise tower?

*Edit- I suppose there is a mid and high rise next door on 3/4 block.*

I believe they said the high rise (phase 3) would go on the old Bedlam theatre site, kitty-corner from the park and adjacent to the LRT station and bike trail. This was immediately after the "Cedar-Riverside is already too crowded" comments, so I didn't feel comfortable sharing how I think that would be a slam-dunk location for a high-rise.

And it's gone.
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 2521_n.jpg

What's the source on that picture?

Bill Lindeke. Thought I pasted a link to the facebook post which showed it, rather than the direct image.

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/11/sta ... m=facebook

I guess I had missed that this thing was getting $5M in TIF funds, a $1.2M city loan, and $30.8M in tax exempt multifamily housing entitlement bonds. Whoa.

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/11/sta ... m=facebook

I guess I had missed that this thing was getting $5M in TIF funds, a $1.2M city loan, and $30.8M in tax exempt multifamily housing entitlement bonds. Whoa.

http://v.qwikcast.tv/view.aspx?q=81YKN

This project was suppposed to start in December 2013, did that happen (to anyone who frequents the area or drives through here)? Also, is there ANY update on 2nd and 3rd phases of this project (the mid-rise and high-rise portions that were still unapproved)??

Still hasn't broken ground. All they've done is demo the previous structure. At the rate this has been moving, I would say that any additional phases are 3-5 years out at best.

A bit obnoxious to demolish the contested historic structure if they weren't really ready to begin, isn't it?

Maybe, but given the recent Dinkytown decision, it looks like it was a prudent choice.

A bit obnoxious to demolish the contested historic structure if they weren't really ready to begin, isn't it?

Hahaha, that's funny actually! It's a total dick move but I think Silophant is onto something and the developer would rather just destroy it now than to have ANY chance whatsoever in reigniting that Dinkytown-esque fire!

Might also have something to do with the costs & liabilities of maintaining a vacant building. It can be a hassle re-closing a building after each break-in, getting the police to search the building to make sure you aren't locking anyone inside, etc...