urbanMSP

I too thought this project had died a thousand deaths, but like a hideous zombie it lives!!

Maybe this is where the McDonald's can relocate: Gaviid'oh! Commons I.

however, one could argue that they approved it without good reason 4 years ago

I think it's interesting that a developer that has built, and is building, several nice looking and urban oriented projects would want to build this.

If you read the city's argument for denial , it's clear they want them to go back and "urbanize" the design. I suspect Lupe realized this from the get go, and they can actually build the project pretty much the way they want with a few modifications to appease the city. Sneaky

Is it that bad? It's a terrible site, next to the tracks and ugly light industrial buildings. Not exactly a pedestrian paradise anyway. I'm not convinced that we need a shining example of New Urbanism on this site- simply getting anything developed here is probably an improvement.

^^^I think as far as retail development goes, the era of strip mall design in this city is over. It's a positive shift in values away from a car oriented culture and this is very appropriate for the increasingly pedestrian and public transit orientation of Minneapolis' urban core. I think this project should at least minimally address the contemporary needs and values of our community which are very different than 30 years ago. Plopping down a suburban style design in the center of town just doesn't fly anymore.

Is it that bad? It's a terrible site, next to the tracks and ugly light industrial buildings. Not exactly a pedestrian paradise anyway. I'm not convinced that we need a shining example of New Urbanism on this site- simply getting anything developed here is probably an improvement.

This line of thinking is probably part of what led to the approval back in '09. Sure, that was only 4 years ago, but the North Loop has come SO FAR in that 4 years. 4 years ago I can see why policymakers would have taken the "any development here is good development" mindset. Not anymore. The recession is over and the evolving urban form of the North Loop demands a better outcome for this site. This building could be the linchpin that continues redevelopment northward, beyond Plymouth Avenue even!

I wonder if Steve Minn realizes that by ignoring the half-dozen comp plan policies encouraging urbanism and pedestrian-oriented development, he's making the strongest possible argument for a form-based code? Personally, I'm not necessarily in favor of a form-based code so clueless developers like this bum me out.

Btw, it sounds like a big reason CPED is opposing is that they'd prefer industrial development here, which doesn't exactly have a good urbanist track record either.

I'd rather have a strip mall than industrial development, even if it does fly in the face of the historic scrap metal district.

^I'm on board with that. The strip mall is at least an amenity to the neighborhood (assuming it is made to be more pedestrian-friendly). My primary concern is: does this building encourage the recent awesomeness of the North Loop building boom to continue north? If "North Loop style" development cannot leap northward beyond Plymouth Avenue, well that's just disappointing.

Well, in my eye, the North Loop Style is basically just 6-story residential, which I don't think would go on this parcel. Maybe. Sure, I look north of Plymouth along 2nd and wish it didn't look like Sanford & Son went beyond the Thunderdome. But, I don't see those businesses going anywhere, or much 'humanist' development past Plymouth.

Probably overly optimistic but I could see office here. Could be a cool curved glass building. I had thought Coloplast would be a bit of a model for downtown-lite office development in this area -- those looking for a centralized location close to housing but cheaper than downtown. If it's going to happen, this is the next logical place, I think.

Well, in my eye, the North Loop Style is basically just 6-story residential, which I don't think would go on this parcel. Maybe. Sure, I look north of Plymouth along 2nd and wish it didn't look like Sanford & Son went beyond the Thunderdome. But, I don't see those businesses going anywhere, or much 'humanist' development past Plymouth.

You'll have to pull my Bauer Bros.from my cold, dead hands.

This lot is certainly a little more complex in terms of required cleanup, location and potential. At VERY least, I would like to see this proposed development hide its parking under or in back and push the building to the sidewalk. The fence-parking lot-building sandwich is incredibly unfriendly to an otherwise walkable urban area. I think there is energy and interest in community business created in areas like these where the pedestrian pathway is adjacent to the building. Otherwise I would welcome the small retail spaces as long as they're geared toward north loop resident interests and not pawn and payday loan stores.

^I normally hate these kinds of projects but it all depends upon the businesses that will locate there. If the businesses are an "in-and-out" type like a dry cleaner, fast food or convenience store then the doors to these businesses will likely face the parking lot. That argues for the current plan. If the businesses attract "lingerers" like a restaurant or coffee shop then sure, the building should front the street with parking in the rear.

I think the former scheme is the one in mind here. It's location is meant to capture traffic from Plymouth. In-and-out convenience will probably trump the preferred urbane design.

I think Lupe will return with a revised design that addresses some of the city's concerns, and will then be approved. It just needs to have a better balance to work for the likely pedestrian customers ( i.e. people living nearby in the North Loop) who will patronize the stores. IMO , if that happens it will be acceptable.

According to the Steve Minn quote in F&C it won't. He's playing hardball and this is what he's offering. He said a building pulled up to the street with parking in back would be a dealbreaker and the site will remain vacant. Unbelievable that a former elected city councilperson could be so stubborn, and not be remotely aware of good vs. bad urban design. For someone who presumably cared about the city enough to get elected, his lack of concern for the future of the city and lack of respect for adopted policies is repugnant.

According to the Steve Minn quote in F&C it won't. He's playing hardball and this is what he's offering. He said a building pulled up to the street with parking in back would be a dealbreaker and the site will remain vacant. Unbelievable that a former elected city councilperson could be so stubborn, and not be remotely aware of good vs. bad urban design. For someone who presumably cared about the city enough to get elected, his lack of concern for the future of the city and lack of respect for adopted policies is repugnant.

Mr Minn was known to be quite an ...hole when he was on the city council with a bad temper. Because the project was denied I'm sure he's pissed. But after he chews on it for awhile he may eventually come around ( if he can overcome his anger issue).

No matter what, he will still have to pay taxes on the property and insure the property for at least liability. With that he might have to invest in fencing to keep the bad things off his property. I don't think that he will sit on it all that long. I doubt that he owns the property outright. So if he is making payments, he will have to get some cash flow from some where, another of his projects to keep current. That would not work well for investors in his other projects.

All the north Loop association has to do is not give their approval and it will make it more difficult for him to proceed. He know what will happen and the delays and issues he will have if he wants to hold out. In the end game he will probably have wasted or had lost income that would have paid for a better building. But some people don't see it that way.