urbanMSP

Ok, I get it, you all have tiny attention spans and want something REALLY COOL!!! Why wouldn't the buildings of a certain time period look similar to others. Almost every building in our historic neighborhoods look exactly the same with slightly different brickwork or stone accents. Most people agree that they make for lovely communities. These new buildings, that are 'all the same,' aren't even stacked up right next to each other (in most cases). Personally I think they are really paying attention to the market and the community and giving it a great resource, while filling a difficult prominent parcel. I do hope that they build a quality building though. That's my main concern with most new construction.

Doesn't look bad. But it's the same design used on a dozen other projects around the metro.

Exactly. All these developers are just copying each other's formula. The designs are somewhat better than average to pass the planning commissions without too much fanfare (maybe that isn't such a bad thing). At some point in the near future this boom will turn to bust. The good news is this wave of apartment development will significantly increase the urban density of many areas of St Paul and Mpls, and get rid of sizable chunks of land that have been vacant for decades.

There is NO indication that the apartment boom is any kind of bubble. I have no reason to think this boom will "bust", but rather, just slow down in momentum at some point (we may already be at that point, as proposals seem to be reaching an apex).

Exactly. All these developers are just copying each other's formula. The designs are somewhat better than average to pass the planning commissions without too much fanfare (maybe that isn't such a bad thing). At some point in the near future this boom will turn to bust. The good news is this wave of apartment development will significantly increase the urban density of many areas of St Paul and Mpls, and get rid of sizable chunks of land that have been vacant for decades.

You keep repeating this stuff over and over. What exactly do you think will happen when this boom turns to bust?

Exactly. All these developers are just copying each other's formula. The designs are somewhat better than average to pass the planning commissions without too much fanfare (maybe that isn't such a bad thing). At some point in the near future this boom will turn to bust. The good news is this wave of apartment development will significantly increase the urban density of many areas of St Paul and Mpls, and get rid of sizable chunks of land that have been vacant for decades.

You keep repeating this stuff over and over. What exactly do you think will happen when this boom turns to bust?

Real estate development is cyclical with its ups and downs very mercurial. When the apartment boom wanes, developers will try to create and market some other building type to replace it in order to stay in business. Depends on the economy and supply and demand. It can be a risky business.

Exactly. All these developers are just copying each other's formula. The designs are somewhat better than average to pass the planning commissions without too much fanfare (maybe that isn't such a bad thing). At some point in the near future this boom will turn to bust. The good news is this wave of apartment development will significantly increase the urban density of many areas of St Paul and Mpls, and get rid of sizable chunks of land that have been vacant for decades.

You keep repeating this stuff over and over. What exactly do you think will happen when this boom turns to bust?

Real estate development is cyclical with its ups and downs very mercurial. When the apartment boom wanes, developers will try to create and market some other building type to replace it in order to stay in business. Depends on the economy and supply and demand. It can be a risky business.

But how is this a "bust"? Yeah, some projects might not get built. Rents might go down. You might get some condo conversions. Why is this such a looming problem?

I'm curious what this smallish, infill apartment building should have been that would be more acceptable?

But how is this a "bust"? Yeah, some projects might not get built. Rents might go down. You might get some condo conversions. Why is this such a looming problem?

That's a good question. If too many buildings/units are built, then it'll simply cause vacancies to rise and rents to fall. Unlike the condo/housing bust of a few years ago, this rental bust will really only hurt developers and financiers (not the avg Joe/Jane). If a developer can't meet the loan payments, then they'll lose the property. Banks will have to write off the bad debt. New owners will buy the property and things will move on with little disruption. Unlike houses, these buildings won't be sitting completely vacant and fall into disrepair (which would lead to demolition).

With the exception of a few high profile projects, most are privately funded as well. So there's little exposure to the public. And again, even if some of the publicly funded buildings "fail", they won't simply be demolished. They'll get sold off to a new owner, and the building continues on under new ownership. The only real downside is the new value of the property could be much lower than originally planned for, thus it'll pay less in property taxes and may not cover all the TIF financing and so forth. But I know Minneapolis and particularly St. Paul have pretty well funded TIF districts. In fact a big portion of the Penfield's funding came from other TIF districts that were over performing and were consolidated into one funding district.

I think the only folks who need to worry about the apartment bust, are the developers and the banks. The average citizen really won't be effected.

But how is this a "bust"? Yeah, some projects might not get built. Rents might go down. You might get some condo conversions. Why is this such a looming problem?

That's a good question. If too many buildings/units are built, then it'll simply cause vacancies to rise and rents to fall. Unlike the condo/housing bust of a few years ago, this rental bust will really only hurt developers and financiers (not the avg Joe/Jane). If a developer can't meet the loan payments, then they'll lose the property. Banks will have to write off the bad debt. New owners will buy the property and things will move on with little disruption. Unlike houses, these buildings won't be sitting completely vacant and fall into disrepair (which would lead to demolition).

With the exception of a few high profile projects, most are privately funded as well. So there's little exposure to the public. And again, even if some of the publicly funded buildings "fail", they won't simply be demolished. They'll get sold off to a new owner, and the building continues on under new ownership. The only real downside is the new value of the property could be much lower than originally planned for, thus it'll pay less in property taxes and may not cover all the TIF financing and so forth. But I know Minneapolis and particularly St. Paul have pretty well funded TIF districts. In fact a big portion of the Penfield's funding came from other TIF districts that were over performing and were consolidated into one funding district.

I think the only folks who need to worry about the apartment bust, are the developers and the banks. The average citizen really won't be effected.

Overbuilding the rental market may actually help the consumer by decreasing rents in a very competitive market. It would hurt the construction industry causing increased unemployment.

But how is this a "bust"? Yeah, some projects might not get built. Rents might go down. You might get some condo conversions. Why is this such a looming problem?

That's a good question. If too many buildings/units are built, then it'll simply cause vacancies to rise and rents to fall. Unlike the condo/housing bust of a few years ago, this rental bust will really only hurt developers and financiers (not the avg Joe/Jane). If a developer can't meet the loan payments, then they'll lose the property. Banks will have to write off the bad debt. New owners will buy the property and things will move on with little disruption. Unlike houses, these buildings won't be sitting completely vacant and fall into disrepair (which would lead to demolition).

With the exception of a few high profile projects, most are privately funded as well. So there's little exposure to the public. And again, even if some of the publicly funded buildings "fail", they won't simply be demolished. They'll get sold off to a new owner, and the building continues on under new ownership. The only real downside is the new value of the property could be much lower than originally planned for, thus it'll pay less in property taxes and may not cover all the TIF financing and so forth. But I know Minneapolis and particularly St. Paul have pretty well funded TIF districts. In fact a big portion of the Penfield's funding came from other TIF districts that were over performing and were consolidated into one funding district.

I think the only folks who need to worry about the apartment bust, are the developers and the banks. The average citizen really won't be effected.

Overbuilding the rental market may actually help the consumer by decreasing rents in a very competitive market. It would hurt the construction industry causing increased unemployment.

So not building an apartment would be better for the construction industry?

Exactly. All these developers are just copying each other's formula. The designs are somewhat better than average to pass the planning commissions without too much fanfare (maybe that isn't such a bad thing). At some point in the near future this boom will turn to bust. The good news is this wave of apartment development will significantly increase the urban density of many areas of St Paul and Mpls, and get rid of sizable chunks of land that have been vacant for decades.

You keep repeating this stuff over and over. What exactly do you think will happen when this boom turns to bust?

Real estate development is cyclical with its ups and downs very mercurial. When the apartment boom wanes, developers will try to create and market some other building type to replace it in order to stay in business. Depends on the economy and supply and demand. It can be a risky business.

Well, yes, obviously.....that's what developers need to do to remain relavent! But a "bust" suggest a "bubble", and I don't think this boom is related to a bubble (or manufactured prosperity). In 4-5 years Office space may very well become the hot commodity again, but it'll have been nearly 20 years since the last Office "boom", so it's less coincidence and moreso market timing.

I'm curious what this smallish, infill apartment building should have been that would be more acceptable?

I agree. I think this particular project is a nearly perfect fit! Others, not so much. Not this one though.

This looks to be another example of a property that is "stealing" somebody else's air rights by building right up to an interior property line with windows. I'm pretty surprised that adjacent property owners haven't caught on to this yet.

Good luck to the Fulton people should they every want to build something higher density on their block -- sorry, your neighbor built a building with residential windows right up to two of your property lines, so you're hosed.

Good luck to the Fulton people should they every want to build something higher density on their block -- sorry, your neighbor built a building with residential windows right up to two of your property lines, so you're hosed.

I get what you're saying but in the grand scheme of things, in terms of development and street scape, this building is more important than Fulton's future plans... It's on the corner. I'm sure something productive can be done with the current Fulton site in the future. maybe it continues to house cool start up independents who need lots of neighbors.

I get what you're saying but in the grand scheme of things, in terms of development and street scape, this building is more important than Fulton's future plans... It's on the corner. I'm sure something productive can be done with the current Fulton site in the future. maybe it continues to house cool start up independents who need lots of neighbors.

Short term and long term, the 6th Ave frontage is much more important that the 5th St frontage. And you'll have the same issue with the property to the north.

But regardless, that's not really the point. If the developer wanted to buy Fulton's air rights, then I've got no issue. But for the city to give them a variance that allows them to just take them, that's not cool.

Something no one's really talking about...

It really smells like garbage over there, ALL DAY LONG.

I work at Heywood Garage and walk to the Holiday for breakfasts, lunches, etc. The garbage smell from HERC carries pretty far down 6th Ave. Some co-workers and I were walking back from Corner Coffee and the stench was almost unbearable as it caught a headwind right into us. It's not really the burning garbage that stinks, it's the constant delivery of the "fresh" stuff.

I love this project, it's a great location with Target Field and the Interchange nearby. If a new building gets built on the reclaimed land from rounding off the Nascar curve from 6th Av to 5th St, that will help to visually screen the burner...That smell isn't going anywhere though.

A restaurant with outdoor seating? LOLZ.

Skip the patio seating and forget about balconies, get the rent slightly below market (for the N Loop area) and this might work.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've never noticed the smell, and I've walked around the area quite a bit. I guess I wouldn't be surprised that, under certain weather conditions, it were an issue. But there are lots of places that have unpleasant smells blowing in depending on the direction of the wind.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've never noticed the smell, and I've walked around the area quite a bit. I guess I wouldn't be surprised that, under certain weather conditions, it were an issue. But there are lots of places that have unpleasant smells blowing in depending on the direction of the wind.

About 25 years ago I lived in Mankato, not too far from a small rail yard and the cars would drop some corn along the way...come about July/August it would ferment, bake in the sun and smell like vomit for a month or so; good times.

With the new Interchange and other developments like this in the area, shouldn't the county really start to reconsider having this facility here or at least figure out a way to eliminate some of these odor issues? Would it work to have the trucks drive directly into a larger enclosed area where they can idle versus waiting outside? Do they do routine cleaning outside, like sweeping the lot and pressure washing?

At this point I think its pretty clear that HERC is going anywhere for a long long time.

At this point I think its pretty clear that HERC is going anywhere for a long long time.

no, but they could probably do more to control the smell.

Like I said, my observation has been that the smell is mostly from the trucks entering and exiting. Some of them are going to drive right by this apartment building on their route. And I agree, HERC isn't going anywhere, nor should it. The costs to build a new one would be prohibitive, and the location wouldn't be close enough to the center of the metro to be useful. I guess I'm just glad it doesn't stink at Target Field. Better landscaping and screening of the building on all sides could go a long way. I'm not saying this project shouldn't go forward, I think it's a great development! I do question the desire to put restaurant/commercial space in that spot though. I work a block away and would KILL for an eatery besides Holiday gas station. A restaurant on that corner can't survive on Metro Transit & Ford Center employees alone, especially if it smells like death on your way in & out.