The Eclipse

[John]

^^^ Take a look at the proposed mixed use residential project on the Franklin & Lyndale Redevelopment thread https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2048. Not a perfect design, but the developer has the right attitude with the initial proposal. Light years ahead of the Eclipse.

[Archiapolis]

"Wait, I thought this would be built across from 222?"

*zing*

Now that I've given proper credit for a funny cheap shot, now is the time for "us" to chime in with opinions is the point.

[mnmike]

All I am going to say is...this looks good to me!

[lordmoke]

Yeah, I'm not feeling the hate for this one. Street level could maybe be a bit better, but I'll reserve judgement on that until final renders. I love the big black slab. We don't have anything like this- hell, we don't even have a black highrise period. Next to the public housing, Dolphin Building, 222, and a bus shelter, this thing is a stunner.

[jennifat]

I can't say I'm a fan of a hulking, featureless black box towering over Hennepin, but the the design could be vastly improved with the addition of a crown, or some sort of accent or feature at the top of the building to soften the severity.

Lack of detail makes this look cheap, à la Hotel Ivy or Nic on Fifth.

[uptowncarag]

Hotel Ivy and Nic on Fifth do not look cheap.

[John]

All I am going to say is...this looks good to me!

If Stanton improves the street level and puts in an urban REI at the intersection of Henn/Washington, he will be my hero.

[Nathan]

Hotel Ivy and Nic on Fifth do not look cheap.

Debatable. It's obvious that they utilized the cheapest forms of architecture to keep costs down. Cheap is a heated word, but they are definitely not top notch.

[City slicker]

Like I mentioned a few pages back, this proposed building looks like a chocolate factory. It has no character or sleekness regardless of what minor Improvements it's given. It looks like something 3M should purchase and move to maplewood- it fits there. Height wise too. I'm confident A far better design could have come along with the same price as this turd nugget cost. It's ugly.

[Anondson]

Feels like a stylized NSA headquarters. But without the acres of surface parking.

[twincitizen]

Developer says condo project's viability tied to parking

Look, I get that condo buyers are going to want a parking space. The cheapest unit here is going to be, what, $300K? $275K maybe? Anyone who can afford that can easily afford a car, especially if they already have one. I don't expect that anyone will live here with zero cars.

However, the ratio of spaces to units is insanely high, without even knowing what the mix of 1BR vs. 2BR, 3BR, etc. While every single person living here may own a car, I think the City should challenge the "2 per unit" ratio that Stanton is insisting on. For some couples living here, even a wealthy couple, I could picture owning just one car. And for people living alone, does Stanton really think they are going to keep two cars?

Stanton is probably right that upscale condo buyers own cars, and they probably don't ride the bus, but his demands for two spaces per unit are unreasonable and the City is right to push back.

Some might argue, "It's his money, he's not asking for a subsidy, let him build what he wants". To that I'd argue that at this location, the City has a vested interested in a building that meets the needs of the population now and in the future. A building with a 25%-50% empty parking ramp doesn't do that. Not at Hennepin & Washington. If Stanton were proposing another building in the Mill District, or a hard-to-reach part of North Loop, I'd say let him do what he wants. But not at Hennepin & Washington.

[FISHMANPET]

The variance he wants is from 1.6 spaces per unit to 1.79 spaces per unit. From 576 spaces to 644.4 (I assume he's not going to build two fifths of a space, so 644). So that's 68 spaces he wants to build above what's currently allowed by code. I have no doubt that there is demand for some units with 2 parking spaces, and without knowing the mix of units it's hard to make any predictions on exactly how many spaces will be used. But the 68 spaces he's seeking a variance for aren't going to be the end of the world. There's a lot of room around here for new development, and these spaces will be used one way or the other. If they're not used by this development (and to be honest, I'm sure they won't all be used) they'll get used. Another building going up in the area can use excess spaces for their residents. They could be used for other kinds of storage. Looking at the plans, it looks like the parking levels will all be flat, other than the ramp between levels, meaning it shouldn't be too hard to retrofit the 2nd level into housing or office or commercial or something.

I know there are quite a few people here that live in the city and don't own a car, but in a city like Minneapolis, that's a lifestyle choice that makes a statement, and at the point at which you can afford one of these condos, you can afford at least one car, and let's face it, it's going to make your life a lot easier. This isn't Chicago where parking is $50 a day and you can stand on a street corner and spit and hit 20 convenience stores. The people in these units are going to have a car. A few of them will have 2 cars. Most of them will have 1 car.

For what it's worth, I did the math. If you assume that every spot is filled, at 1.6 spots per unit, that's 144 units with 1 car, 216 with 2 cars. At 1.79 spots per unit, it's 76 units with 1 car and 284 with two cars.

If nothing else, let Stanton build this and see how overbuilt parking is, and the market will have a better idea what an appropriate amount of parking to build is. The space in this building will be used one way or the other.

[uptowncarag]

Developer says condo project's viability tied to parking

Look, I get that condo buyers are going to want a parking space. The cheapest unit here is going to be, what, $300K? $275K maybe? Anyone who can afford that can easily afford a car, especially if they already have one. I don't expect that anyone will live here with zero cars.

However, the ratio of spaces to units is insanely high, without even knowing what the mix of 1BR vs. 2BR, 3BR, etc. While every single person living here may own a car, I think the City should challenge the "2 per unit" ratio that Stanton is insisting on. For some couples living here, even a wealthy couple, I could picture owning just one car. And for people living alone, does Stanton really think they are going to keep two cars?

Stanton is probably right that upscale condo buyers own cars, and they probably don't ride the bus, but his demands for two spaces per unit are unreasonable and the City is right to push back.

Some might argue, "It's his money, he's not asking for a subsidy, let him build what he wants". To that I'd argue that at this location, the City has a vested interested in a building that meets the needs of the population now and in the future. A building with a 25%-50% empty parking ramp doesn't do that. Not at Hennepin & Washington. If Stanton were proposing another building in the Mill District, or a hard-to-reach part of North Loop, I'd say let him do what he wants. But not at Hennepin & Washington.

I would love to live downtown and I would require 1 spot maybe 2. I would never give my car up. I commute to the suburbs and honestly I don't see how anyone can live without a car.

[John]

As far as Stanton getting his parking variance let's be clear: if he gets his variance, it will set a precedent that will be unstoppable. The suburban mentality is having a hard time being shaken out of this town.

[twincitizen]

FISHMANPET: The article quotes 360 units and 759 spaces or 2.1 per unit. That makes a huge difference. That's 321 units with two parking spaces and 39 with three spaces.

Regarding uptowncarag's reply to my rambling comment, I don't think we're disagreeing. I explicitly stated:

I don't expect that anyone will live here with zero cars.

I am pushing back only against Stanton wanting 2 spaces for EVERY SINGLE UNIT, whether studio or 3BR penthouse.

I know Stanton is a smart developer and everything, but something tells me that he sees no difference between the comparatively auto-dependent Mill District vs. Hennepin & Washington. It's all the same in his eyes.

[FISHMANPET]

As far as Stanton getting his parking variance let's be clear: if he gets his variance, it will set a precedent that will be unstoppable. The suburban mentality has a hard time being shaken in this town.

I don't think any developer is going to spite build parking, since parking is expensive. Stanton wants this parking because he thinks it's what the market wants. Either he's right, and Stanton will have set a precedent that the parking maximum is below the level the market demands (which is a legitimate policy goal), or he's wrong and the market demands less parking than the minimum, and future developers will take not.

And I don't see where he's asking for 2.1 spaces per unit. He's asking for a variance for 1.79 spaces per unit. There's 18000 sqft of retail, which I assume has its parking counted seperatly, which would account for the 115 space difference between the 759 spaces total, and the 644 spaces at 1.79 spaces per unit.

I'd love to just ditch the bottom floor of parking, I'm sure that would save a boat load of money for everyone. But if Stanton is the only one building at a price point nearly 80% less than the minimum anyone else will build for, what's that going to do to make housing more affordable?

[John]

I know Stanton is a smart developer and everything, but something tells me that he sees no difference between building in the relatively car dependent Mill District vs. Hennepin & Washington. It's all the same to him.

Same issue with his design proposal for Eclipse. Its basically a weaker version of Stonebridge. Absolutely no sensitivity to the context of the pivotal Hennepin/Washington intersection. This site should be built with sensitivity and the focus should be on selling condos for people wanting a more pedestrian/urban oriented lifestyle. Stanton doesn't have a clue!

[twincitizen]

Can we pretty please put the architectural criticism on hold until we get some better renderings? How many times does it have to be pointed out that the renderings we have are extremely basic and monochromatic? Let's wait until we get some clearer shots of the building, especially some better views of the retail bays and what it would look like from across the street.

Regarding my little parking snafu, FISHMANPET is probably right. I was basing my 2.1 calculation off of every story in the media, which includes no mention of retail parking, only the 759 figure. So shame on them for that, especially the recent Journal article I linked to. This development will almost certainly have dedicated parking for its retail tenants. Let's go with FMP's calculations then for future discussion.

For what it's worth, I did the math. If you assume that every spot is filled, at 1.6 spots per unit, that's 144 units with 1 car, 216 with 2 cars. At 1.79 spots per unit, it's 76 units with 1 car and 284 with two cars.

[PhilmerPhil]

The issue I have with building parking is not just the fact that it's there or that it has a high cost. It doesn't matter how masked it is or if it's market-priced when the fact of the matter is that if the city continues to allow developers to build more and more parking, we'll continue to see those cars come into and out of their storage, further congesting our streets and hindering the glimmer of hope for calmer and quieter streets that still flourish with non-automotive activity.

I say this knowing we'll never be Amsterdam, but I was just there in October for my first time and fell in love with the comfort of their streets. The entire city felt like a living room. Small businesses lining the streets, people everywhere, yet remarkably few cars. Crossing the street was a breeze. No need to wait for a break in traffic or for a light to tell you you're safe. You just cross, walk down the middle of the street, and enjoy the city.

I'd be thrilled if Minneapolis started moving in this direction, but if more and more private space to store cars is built, less and less public space currently devoted to using them will be turned over to more human scaled modes of transportation.

[FISHMANPET]

As much as I'd like that, developers have to want to build it first. Maybe there's some room for wheeling and dealing here. Does Stanton want to build taller? Maybe find a way to waive the development review so he can build more units in exchange for less parking (though I don't know if he'd want that).

My concern is that nobody is rushing to fill this particular market segment, other than Stanton. Are we happier with an empty lot here at this corner that could last another 10 years? Is Stanton too much of a curmudgeon to develop the kind of properties "we" (urbanists) want to see here? If somebody could build it, would anybody want to live in it? Maybe it's a chicken and egg situation here. There's no demand for car free housing because there aren't businesses to cater to the car free in that area because there's no car free housing. Maybe let Stanton build his shrine to parking, and as time goes on repurpose the parking (not really sure what you can do with 4 floors underground, even if the floors are flat).

I don't know much about parking garage construction. Could he drive the piles down for four levels of parking, but only build out 2 levels of parking, yet still have the option to dig up the 3rd and 4th levels if he's right about the demand? I just feel like there's got to be a creative solution here where everybody gets what they want to some degree.