urbanMSP

Don’t know anymore detail, but this sounds like a good thing. Let’s get something better built there. The least they could do is wrap the parking garage in Apartments.

Does anyone know why the heritage preservation committee is recommending denial of the permit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the report that was linked on the last page, staff explains their findings. In short, they take a dim view of the proposed design's conformance with the historic district guidelines. They object on just about every point related to the design, but some of their objections specifically apply to the project's awful proposed use. The key paragraph:

"The applicant has submitted an analysis regarding the infill building guidelines that states that the “guidelines were written to address property types other than parking ramps.” While staff recognizes that the guidelines are not easily applied to a parking structure, the guidance still applies. Per the policies above, the proposed building is not compatible with the required architectural character and detail as described by the guidelines. The building does not have a primary entrance facing the public street, nor does it incorporate traditional façade articulation techniques. While the site has unique characteristics, it does have frontage on 2nd Ave N and West River Pkwy. The proposed parking structure is set back from both streets and does not contain any active uses."

I'm glad to see city staff pushing back on the lack of active uses. I hope that if this advances to further layers of review, there will be an opportunity to talk about climate impacts.

It also appears that residents of the Renaissance on the River townhomes (which were themselves a significant land use mistake) did not get notification of this project until it was submitted, and are angry about it an mobilized en masse to submit comments. A lot of new complaints about height and shade. There are a few new, amusing letters in the back of the packet. I enjoyed the comment from one letter writer who asks whether the Fed has properly explored alternatives to building a giant ramp (thinking face emoji), and this great comment from a near neighbor who writes:

"It seems to me the current parking lot is more than adequate (I have a direct view from my kitchen window), many days it is only half full."

Does Kashkari drive in from some suburb in an SUV?

According to my friend that works at the fed, the ramp is more for visitors than workers. "it's more about the need for parking for our guests when we have events...our internal data suggest that only 3-4 hundred employees will use it....not much since we have about 1000 employees total"

(Not that I agree because there is a ramp right accross the street, and and more within 3 blocks...)

I parked in that ramp across the street last night for a pretty big event at Aria, tons of room, I have no idea what Eric Dayton is going on about with any kind of parking crunch in that area that a new ramp would help with.

226 pages of comments, and somewhere between 10-15 comments in support:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 219617.pdf

This thing needs to die.

226 pages of comments, and somewhere between 10-15 comments in support:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 219617.pdf

This thing needs to die.

Can we please all look at page 63 where it says that during the parking lot survey there were 80 & 86 AVAILABLE SPACES ON BOTH DAYS.

226 pages of comments, and somewhere between 10-15 comments in support:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 219617.pdf

This thing needs to die.

Can we please all look at page 63 where it says that during the parking lot survey there were 80 & 86 AVAILABLE SPACES ON BOTH DAYS.

Or even just head to page 3 where the report calls out, "As of the writing of this staff report, the submitted TDMP does not include an analysis of current transportation mode share among Federal Reserve employees. The TDMP is also missing information on current parking behavior for employees who drive. The TDMP consultant conducted counts at three points in time which found more than 80 unused parking spaces in the existing surface parking lot at each count. As submitted, the TDMP does not include information that indicates parking demand exceeds current available parking supply at the site."

Yikes.

5-4 no vote (whew) by the Planning Commission,

http://www.startribune.com/north-loop-p ... 512449722/

but the Fed plans to take the fight to the City Council.

I was struck by a couple things:

1. The Federal Reserve's presentation took forever and contained very little of substance. Mr. Carter gave an entire presentation about the function and work of the Fed, as if he were addressing a visiting group from a middle school, it was extremely odd. At one point he went into a long digression about how the bank had been shot at and how their security staff responded, which I think was intended to rebut city's staff's concern about a lack of active uses and casual surveillance of the area, but it mainly just seemed to confuse everyone. Later, the Fed's architect got up and rambled his way through the entire design of the ramp.

2. The Fed presented basically no research on how their lot is currently used, which was very odd. At the end of their presentation, a commissioner asked them how the 6,000 people who visited during Open Doors Minneapolis managed to park, and Mr. Carter answered that they had opened their existing lot, completely missing the point. Obviously only a small fraction of the 6,000 visitors used the Fed's existing lot, it would've been a mathematical impossibility for their tiny lot to serve those thousands of people, but that didn't even seem to register. The Fed also presented data that they had collected showing that the number of nearby parking spaces had shrunk from 3,000 to 300, but really didn't present any evidence that their new parking was actually needed. They did not explain why their own traffic consultant had found that over eighty spots were vacant on summer weekdays and that the current lot never approached full capacity. Given that this is an organization of economists, it was pretty stunning that they had not done any kind of modeling to compare the costs of building the ramp, versus applying different subsidies to change commuter behavior. They have the people in the building who can do this!

3. There were a couple of people from the local business community who testified in support, mainly because they want the 100 public parking spaces that the Fed has pledged to provide. That seems a low price to exchange for a property that could otherwise be the permanent home of hundreds of people, but it's not surprising, there's evidence that shows that business owners habitually overestimate the number of their customers who drive to their business and their need for parking directly out front in order to be competitive.

4. The Fed is pretty confident that they will eventually get this through the city council, and they're probably right. They probably have four to five definite yes votes. So to finally block this project, it's going to take a lot of writing to councilmembers, explaining why this ramp is such a bad project.

5. Regardless, I'm amazed by how little effort or thought the Fed has put into this project, and how easily it would've been approved if they had simply added a retail space, or some apartments, or a design that wasn't so egregiously dull. Goes to show that when you cut corners early on, it can lead to bigger costs at the end.

It's kind of wild that people who don't understand basic parking economics are in charge of managing economic growth and inflation for our entire economy.

Pretty sure the Fed’s economists aren’t just sitting around thinking deep economic thoughts about the north loop’s parking situation. At least I would hope they’d delegate that to an administrator.

Pretty sure the Fed’s economists aren’t just sitting around thinking deep economic thoughts about the north loop’s parking situation. At least I would hope they’d delegate that to an administrator.

It's completely within their wheelhouse to investigate. No reason why studies about the North Loop would not be broadly generalizable. Parking policy is fertile ground for economic research if they were interested in it.

It's a lot easier to close your eyes and cover your ears when it's something you want

It's kind of wild that people who don't understand basic parking economics are in charge of managing economic growth and inflation for our entire economy.

To be fair, it's micro versus macro. Or I assume. I'm not entirely certain what the people in the regional banks actually do other than research.

I can picture the council caving in to th Fed on this. It is strange that the Fed would manage this whole project so badly, and then down to the planning commission - although it is clear that many people do not understand the many functions of the Federal Reserve Banks. This is not just a research facility, but a complex mechanism that actually keeps cash moving and being renewed through all of the banks in the region. The banks is a decent, even attractive building that provides a nice element to the entry to Downtown from Northeast. Too bad they couldn’t come up with a project that was much more complementary to both the bank and the neighborhood.

I think they understand the economics of the situation. But I don't think they care. Nor is it surprising that they don't. Logic and reason only gets you so far in these situations.

It's kind of wild that people who don't understand basic parking economics are in charge of managing economic growth and inflation for our entire economy.

Their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with basic parking economics. Why would any team from the Fed waste time away from projects they are assigned as part of their jobs, to look at parking?

Their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with basic parking economics. Why would any team from the Fed waste time away from projects they are assigned as part of their jobs, to look at parking?

So that they sound passably intelligent in presenting their request to the city. You're right at a functional level, but perception is important and the Fed knows this more than anybody (our currency is backed by confidence after all). The Fed appears almost like an oracle to most people, and so in a situation where people can see them taking concrete action it would bolster their reputation and the public's confidence if they looked like they could apply their own economic mastery to their request. It wouldn't take them much effort. As it is, they look either unaware or arrogant, or possibly both.

Couldn't there be some sort of compromise here? Like wrapping the ramp with apartments and including substantial ground floor retail? Or is this too valuable a piece of property to waste on parking at all? Honestly just curious on people's thoughts.

Given its prominent river and trail frontage, having an activated and attractive street frontage doesn't minimize the harm a giant ramp would do to this area enough to make that a satisfactory compromise.