urbanMSP

Status today:

Love that curve, it's very bold and hip.

Looking at this building from the acres of parking lots and dirt lots at the northeast. The hotel is to the right. Almost done!

They have started painting some of the panels black. They started last week and are continuing this week. I don't understand why they wouldn't just have black material. I'll try to grab a picture tomorrow.

Any thoughts on why they chose to paint vs using black material? This still seems dumb to me.

Here is a picture from today. You can see the painting progress as they work around the building.

I do like the curved corner crown.

As far as I can tell this is complete. This week there has been only cleanup work as far as I can tell. Right now there are only a handful of cars in the construction parking area.

Judging by furniture on balconies, this looks to be about full already.


IMG_4124 by UrbanMSP, on Flickr


IMG_4123 by UrbanMSP, on Flickr

Judging by furniture on balconies, this looks to be about full already.

So you are saying people really want to live in this area? Someone tell the Mayor of SLP, he asked the developer of an adjacent parcel to reduce the number of units. (Dummy)

It is full according to the Star Trib article: http://www.startribune.com/business/218 ... page=2&c=y

“Literally, you can live here and walk to a very good office job, walk to the grocery store, then shop for clothes, eat at a restaurant and then go to a movie. It’s all within 600 feet of your home,” said Chris Culp, president of Eden Prairie-based Excelsior Group, which developed the Flats at West End in St. Louis Park.

That 119-unit project, now full, was 85 percent leased the day it opened. “The site lended itself to a walkable, convenient lifestyle,” Culp said. “That’s certainly what attracted us to it.”

It's great they are adding residents to these areas. Wouldn't be my choice of places to live, but I could think of way worse places.

But the photos make me wonder why developers are 3/4-assing these things. Why are there only cross walks on 3 of the 4 sides of the intersection? Is there no better way to incorporate ground-level parking than to have a long stretch of blank walls?

@exiled_antipodean: Could you offer some examples of how to "incorporate ground-level parking than to have a long stretch of blank walls?" I don't understand the question. Other than trying to articulate the facade with material changes, banding, engaged columns/massing changes, or using screening elements (as the Flats at West End has done), what could be done to a blank wall that encloses a tempered space?

Archiapolis, I noticed the other day that the back side of Mill & Main has ground level parking with windows looking in on the garage. It looks almost like apartments at first glance, yet you can see the cars in there if you look closely, but it's way better than a blank wall.

I'm not sure that approach would work so great elsewhere. What's unique about that spot is there's only a narrow old railroad right-of-way (since paved into a little plaza) between the parking and the back side of the soap factory and Stone Arch 2. I'm sure it would look horrible on the front of a building.

Couple of ideas, though I'm no architect, so ... The M-Flats (corner of Arthur and University Ave SE) have ground-level parking, but with windows and it does make for a slightly better engagement with the street.

The other thing I wonder about (again, not an architect) is whether these buildings can have some functions on the ground floor that front the street better than parking. Steps down from the 2nd floor apartments? A laundry room with windows?

A long stretch of blank walls is just not great urban design.

Meh. You're still trapped in by 394, 100, and sprawl. Not impressed. SLP is way overrated.

Yes, this sprawling suburban location an entire 3 miles from downtown Minneapolis.

Sprawl is a type of land use, not a measure of distance.

Meh. You're still trapped in by 394, 100, and sprawl. Not impressed. SLP is way overrated.

Seems to me like attempting to improve a site with a pretty nice location (as was stated above, <3 miles from DT Mpls) is better than the no-build alternative. No, it's not ideal, but it's a pretty nice incremental improvement.

For future reference, I think people on this board appreciate posts that are a little more productive than "That sucks".

SLP "sprawls" compared to Manhattan, but otherwise I wouldn't call it very sprawly whatsoever. For one thing, it's on a grid street system, which is THE most efficient way to build streets and layout housing (or other types of) plats. Secondly, I'd say the majority of SLP homes have no wider than 50 foot lots, and more commonly 40 foot lots -- very typical of what you see in much of Minneapolis or St. Paul. I suppose places like Pittsburgh, Philly, Chicago, et. have 25 ft. lots and in some cases as narrow as 15 feet, but I think that's also fairly extreme for a single family detached home.

"Sprawl" to me includes cul-de-sacs, wide lots, long set-backs from the sidewalk/street, long backyards, cookie-cutter homes with little/no distinction, the lack of sidewalks, roads (not highways) with speed limits greater than 35 mph and/or wider than 2 lanes in each direction, unwalkable (it would not be convenient or feasible to walk to the nearest store or park), parks with massive parking lots, office buildings without sidewalks around the building, (generally) chain restaurants with patios facing the parking lot, etc, etc, etc,......