DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1563
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby HiawathaGuy » May 13th, 2016, 12:06 pm

There's a bit more of interest in the article than just that line. Here's a bit more:

A term sheet approved by the Minneapolis City Council in 2014 said that if the market for Ryan’s 25- to 35-story residential tower became financially infeasible, then Ryan could develop an office, hotel, residential or commercial project up to 20 stories on the site.

Now, Ryan, which has the right to extend its purchase option through 2022, is honing in on a specific plan, said Tony Barranco, vice president of development at the company. “We are evaluating a couple of different concepts and … our intention is to tighten down on a plan in about 60 days. We’ll be submitting a plan to the city at about that time.”

matthew5080
Union Depot
Posts: 396
Joined: January 23rd, 2016, 6:06 pm
Location: Eden Prairie

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby matthew5080 » May 13th, 2016, 12:21 pm

HiawathaGuy wrote:There's a bit more of interest in the article than just that line. Here's a bit more:

A term sheet approved by the Minneapolis City Council in 2014 said that if the market for Ryan’s 25- to 35-story residential tower became financially infeasible, then Ryan could develop an office, hotel, residential or commercial project up to 20 stories on the site.

Now, Ryan, which has the right to extend its purchase option through 2022, is honing in on a specific plan, said Tony Barranco, vice president of development at the company. “We are evaluating a couple of different concepts and … our intention is to tighten down on a plan in about 60 days. We’ll be submitting a plan to the city at about that time.”
Interesting. Thanks for posting that!

TroyGBiv
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 624
Joined: July 6th, 2012, 10:33 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby TroyGBiv » May 13th, 2016, 6:16 pm

These development agreements always have extension options to allow the developer enough time to create a viable project...

bapster2006
Foshay Tower
Posts: 937
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 6:53 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby bapster2006 » May 20th, 2016, 7:31 pm

I thought I'd provide a view of the development and alley.

ImageRadisson Red hotel downtown Minneapolis 5-20-16 by Matt Bappe, on Flickr

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby fehler » May 24th, 2016, 10:19 am

There are, like, actual people walking along 4th Street south of City Hall. None of them wearing Vikings jerseys. Its the damnedest thing to see.

KML_1981
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 115
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 11:15 am

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby KML_1981 » May 24th, 2016, 1:48 pm

Does anyone know what the deal is with the scaffolding on the west tower at the top?

Also, looks like outdoor patios on the top of those buildings for the workers. That's pretty sweet.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1378
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby acs » May 24th, 2016, 1:49 pm

Yes, yes they are.

relux
Metrodome
Posts: 64
Joined: September 27th, 2012, 9:08 am
Location: Capella Tower

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby relux » May 25th, 2016, 9:01 am

I know we all know of the incredible amount of signage down here but thought i'd share a couple shots. You can literally stand still in one spot and without moving your head see 11 Wells Fargo signs.

9 visible Wells Fargo signs:
Image

From the sky:
Image

matthew5080
Union Depot
Posts: 396
Joined: January 23rd, 2016, 6:06 pm
Location: Eden Prairie

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby matthew5080 » May 25th, 2016, 1:31 pm

Are we sure Wells Fargo is in the area? I haven't seen anything saying so... :lol:

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4001
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby Nathan » May 25th, 2016, 1:37 pm

With the stadium couldn't the neighborhood just be "Bank Town" with "The Bankton Commons" or like instead of the "west bank" it could be the "Bank Bank"

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » May 25th, 2016, 4:37 pm

matthew5080 wrote:Are we sure Wells Fargo is in the area? I haven't seen anything saying so... :lol:
Sorry for the length, but I thought this point deserves some explanation.

Rochelle Olson’s StarTribune article “Vikings Stadium Photo-Bombing Tussle not Subsiding,” from yesterday (24 May 2016) (http://www.startribune.com/vikings-stad ... 380658261/) was the first article I’ve seen on the “photo-bomb” issue that provided the central fact that frames the issue when reporting that “the Legislature gave the Vikings authority to regulate aesthetic and technical design in the stadium area.” This makes this issue (or should make it) a question concerning the operation of law having actually very little to do with the Vikings, its ownership, or Wells Fargo per se.

This is an issue that should (but not necessarily will) play out using the dry language of law -
  • “Party A with a statutory grant of intellectual property rights in a relevantly defined geographic area claims that its bundle of rights, themselves fully enumerated, are being infringed by Party B, who either did or did not act according to a use agreement that either did or did not exceed the agreed terms that are themselves framed by the statutory grant of a known and lawful property right.” This should be END OF STORY
This is standard fare for this type of stadium development program that brings with it a stable body of law that should define, in broad terms, how the issue plays out. As noted in the article,that Wells Fargo entered into negotiations with the Vikings two years ago confirms that Wells Fargo was within the affected area as, otherwise, they would not have been required to negotiate with them at all.

It also affirms both generally that Wells Fargo knew they were building a facility with signage restrictions that affirmatively gave the Vikings a right of refusal/approval and specifically that Wells Fargo entered into an agreement with the Vikings to allow signage under agreed-upon restrictions that WF agreed to. [It should also be noted that the Vikings are most likely taking the current course of action at the specific advice of legal counsel whose job it is to ensure that the Vikings intellectual property rights, conferred to them by statute, are protected; i.e., this is the course of action the Vikings must take to secure their interest in their legal rights.]

It is also important that the article states that -
  • “As part of the negotiation more than two years ago, the team could have prohibited all rooftop signs in the stadium district. Instead, as part of the deal, the Vikings allowed Wells Fargo to paint rooftop signs, the team’s motion said.”
Why? Because it further affirms that the Vikings had the authority to veto such rooftop signs and that Wells Fargo entered into negotiations on that basis. Some have argued on behalf of Wells Fargo that no-one should care because they are on rooftops and most folks will never see them. This is actually an argument that cuts in favor of the Vikings. How? By “free-riding” on advertising markets created by the Vikings brand (and the NFL's) that the Vikings were given a statutory right to commoditized by granting to third parties - in this case U.S. Bank. Who will see the Wells Fargo signs on the roof if the average person won’t when walking about Minneapolis? T.V. cameras panning U.S. Bank Stadium owing to Vikings games, Super Bowls, Final Fours, and other major sporting events. Who paid $200 million to the Vikings for an exclusive on this exposure? U.S. Bank! Who is paying nothing? Well Fargo!

If what the Vikings are alleging, that “If Wells Fargo had presented the (raised, illuminated signs) prior to the signage agreement, the Vikings would have refused to release Wells Fargo from the prohibition on rooftop signs – or even allow Downtown East to proceed,” is true, and Wells Fargo doesn’t appear to contest the fact, it appears that Vikings have a very compelling argument because, under the terms of the property rights they were granted, the Vikings claims seem reasonable. If the article is correct, the Vikings went so far as to grant an exception to the general restriction on roof-top signage at all. (I use terms like “appear” and “seems” because I am not a party to the actual affair and don’t have access to what was specifically agreed to. This discussion is simply following the general principles of the law in such circumstances as applied to reported facts.)

The questions for the court to decide will be whether the Vikings have the rights they claim (they clearly do), whether there was an agreement on terms (there was), and hence, whether Wells Fargo’s expansion on that agreement exceeds what was agreed to in the context of the rights conferred and how courts have so ruled over time - and if infringement is found, whether it is of such significance that it interferes with the Vikings intellectual property right. After all, it is possible that the court could agree with the Vikings that they are being “photo-bombed” but then also find that it is not significant enough to constitute infringement. Hence, the Vikings may have to prove damages. All U.S. Bank will have to do is call for a re-negotiation and that will prove damages with some degree of precision. From the reporting however, it seems as though the Vikings should have the upper hand both legally and otherwise.

The most important thing to come out of this tiff, however, will be a Federal judge’s order or decree that firmly sets the range and limitations of the Vikings intellectual property rights in this regard.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 899
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby go4guy » May 25th, 2016, 7:28 pm

Cripes man, give it a rest. We get it. You LOVE the Vikes and Ziggy.

Also, more people, many many many times over, will see the Wells Fargo rooftop signs on Google Maps or Bing than from any blimp shot that may occur a couple times a year.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » May 25th, 2016, 8:14 pm

go4guy wrote:Cripes man, give it a rest. We get it. You LOVE the Vikes and Ziggy.

Also, more people, many many many times over, will see the Wells Fargo rooftop signs on Google Maps or Bing than from any blimp shot that may occur a couple times a year.
Aside from your Google Maps and Bing analogy being ridiculous, it also doesn't change anything other than the media in which the infringing action occurs.

I remained neutral in the discussion above. Barring new facts that would change the trajectory of what was reported, however, not only did the Vikings act reasonably (in the legal sense of the term) by agreeing to extend signage rights they were under no obligation to extend, they became the genuinely offended party.

Regarding the Wilf's, my defense of them was never based on my "LOVING" them, but rather on the systematic unfair, hostile and irrational treatment they receive on this and a related forum. The very fact that this issue is almost a year old and yet not one Minneapolis media outlet has bothered to explain the underlying facts that explain that the Vikings secured rights that frame the issue so that readers would know from the beginning that the Vikings were acting reasonably, predictably, and in the way one would expect. In short, no reporting that reflected the Vikings bargaining position in a manner that properly framed this issue such that one would at least recognize that they are acting in the same manner that any other similarly situated sports owner would have acted.

Nobody attacks other Minneapolis sports franchises for taking government support - at least not on the same scale as the Vikings. No-one complained when the Twins had a street named after them. But I digress, . . .

MattW
Union Depot
Posts: 371
Joined: June 13th, 2015, 5:05 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby MattW » May 25th, 2016, 8:56 pm

1. There was plenty of squaking about tax dollars being funneled to the construction of Target Field. This board just wasn't around then.
2. Twins way was a newly created street when TF was built and is largely a service drive. The Vikings were going to completely rename Chicago Ave, not the much more common commemorative naming, A la Kirby Puckett Place and Bud Grant Way.
3. US Bank Stadium will only draw crowds of over 10k people, maybe, 20 times a year. Target Field pulls 10k plus at least 82 and was significantly cheaper.

We've made these points many times previously.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1378
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby acs » May 25th, 2016, 9:33 pm

MattW wrote:1. There was plenty of squaking about tax dollars being funneled to the construction of Target Field. This board just wasn't around then.
2. Twins way was a newly created street when TF was built and is largely a service drive. The Vikings were going to completely rename Chicago Ave, not the much more common commemorative naming, A la Kirby Puckett Place and Bud Grant Way.
3. US Bank Stadium will only draw crowds of over 10k people, maybe, 20 times a year. Target Field pulls 10k plus at least 82 and was significantly cheaper.

We've made these points many times previously.
Can't quibble with the first two, but you're third point is completely ridiculous. You do realize that up until recently NFL policy was to black out local coverage of games unless their stadiums sold out right? The Vikings play 8 home games a year, not twenty, and I can guarantee that each will be a sell-out. That's why they build the stadium to 65k capacity and not 165k in the first place. And yes, the twins average attendance is about 23k per game over 82 home games, but that's still only half the capacity of the stadium they built. Maybe we could have gotten an even better deal by only agreeing to build them a 20K person stadium for roughly $150 million like MN United is proposing, but that's not how this works.

MattW
Union Depot
Posts: 371
Joined: June 13th, 2015, 5:05 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby MattW » May 25th, 2016, 10:03 pm

The NFL ended their blackout policy because it didn't work so that's a non-starter.

I'm against public financing sports venues. I'm just trying to make the point that both the Twins and Vikings hosed taxpayers. The Twins just hosed us less.

Regarding attendance. US Banks stadium will be used for many more things than Vikings football. I did pull the 10k figure out of my ass but I say it'd be pretty fair to assume that across all events, 20 or less will pull more than 10k people.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » May 25th, 2016, 10:04 pm

MattW wrote:1. There was plenty of squaking about tax dollars being funneled to the construction of Target Field. This board just wasn't around then.
2. Twins way was a newly created street when TF was built and is largely a service drive. The Vikings were going to completely rename Chicago Ave, not the much more common commemorative naming, A la Kirby Puckett Place and Bud Grant Way.
3. US Bank Stadium will only draw crowds of over 10k people, maybe, 20 times a year. Target Field pulls 10k plus at least 82 and was significantly cheaper.

We've made these points many times previously.
I've got your points already and wonder if you're really serious about them they are so laughably insincere at the level you offer them. Attorneys love getting folks on the stand who rely too heavily on such insubstantial arguments; not to convince them of how ridiculous they sound, but rather to prove to the jury (this audience) how ridiculous they are - and not just the arguments themselves, but the people making them. These rationales are tissue-paper thin and faux, they would be eviscerated in the eyes of all who see except those who keep doubling down on them.

Chicago Avenue in front of U.S. Bank being changed will not cause an earthquake, its standard practice for urban centers to do undertake such name changes, Minneapolis has done it for other teams; and your reasons aren't the real reason its opposed (because there is not legitimate reason to oppose it).

What's more, when a Minneapolis city bureaucrat shot the Vikings down on a populist rant, it was not over any of your towering principles, but rather to get the Vikings to surrender rights they secured through negations that were ratified by the State legislature. If what Viking VP Bagley said was true, and there's no reason to think otherwise, the Vikings and the City had long since agreed on the name change in principle. The Vikings have delivered over 130% of what they were obligated to under the MSFA agreement. To any third party not involved in the issue, while it may have struck a populist cord for the city bureaucrat to say what he did, its close to bad faith (in the legal sense). It's just so shabby in a bush league kind of way.

The Vikings are easily the top Minnesota sports franchise with no two other teams combined matching it. And opposition to the Twins financing was nowhere near on the scale as with the Vikings and did not lingered into an intense sustained hate campaign against the home town owners that transcends reason. Where is all the vitriol wrt to the Target Center remodel?

When an argument is made that Vikings receive disparate treatment in similarly situated circumstances, that will be the sound of the gong coming down on the rationales you offer. The other side will make their counter-arguments, demonstrate they are true, and then hope folks like you retain the complete lack of situational awareness and sense of scope when offering those tissue-paper-thin (with gaping holes in the tissue-paper) arguments. It is sad that these arguments, peripheral in the extreme and administratively dealt with in any serious treatment of the facts, could serve as the case in chief that you believe will sustain a defensible high ground. When the other side cuts through such defenses with arguments that keep coming back to the phrase "similarly situated" while you continue to argue your 3 grains of sand, you probably still won't recognize that the other side has brought the entire desert, . . .

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby FISHMANPET » May 25th, 2016, 10:17 pm

Honestly I don't give a shit about your meandering diatribes about signage rights, but you're 100% factually wrong about the street.

The Vikings did not want a commemorative or secondary name for Chicago Ave, as Kirby Pucket Pl currently is. They wanted to change the primary name of the street. Which breaks all sorts of things that we don't even think about, which is why it's city policy to keep the grid contiguous. The current Twins Way is named because the construction of Twins Stadium severed 3rd St and city policy dictated that the street needed a new name, and since it was a minor side street that only exists for a few blocks, a name like Twins Way was of little consequence.

Honestly I don't care what Frey said or did or thought or ate because it's not really relevant. The name change was shut down by the CPC, and it pretty much ended there. Why did the CPC shut it down? Well lets let Planning Comissioner Nick Magrino chime in:
Nick wrote:So for the record, I, a person who does not really care about the stadium, made the motion to not rename the street because it...just objectively did not meet the criteria for a street renaming. The end! That's the whole game.

SkyScraperKid

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby SkyScraperKid » May 25th, 2016, 10:28 pm

Nathan wrote:With the stadium couldn't the neighborhood just be "Bank Town" with "The Bankton Commons" or like instead of the "west bank" it could be the "Bank Bank"
No that wouldn't work because US Bank has paid money for the naming rights to the stadium and transit station. Though I do like "US Bank Park" provided they fund the last remaining tab for the park, why not.

MattW
Union Depot
Posts: 371
Joined: June 13th, 2015, 5:05 pm

Re: DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Postby MattW » May 25th, 2016, 10:31 pm

SkyScraperKid wrote:
Nathan wrote:With the stadium couldn't the neighborhood just be "Bank Town" with "The Bankton Commons" or like instead of the "west bank" it could be the "Bank Bank"
No that wouldn't work because US Bank has paid money for the naming rights to the stadium and transit station. Though I do like "US Bank Park" provided they fund the last remaining tab for the park, why not.
Maybe as payback for pesky Wells Fargo and their roof signs! :lol:


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest