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

[Wedgeguy]

That 3 minutes could be the difference between life and death! Ask an ambulance drive!

[Rich]

Won't Chicago Av still be available to HCMC ambulances?

[Tom H.]

I think, if opposition to closing Park & Portland is too strong, that the current section of Chicago Ave in front of the Metrodome would be a good template for a compromise solution - it's halfway to being a woonerf there already.

[RailBaronYarr]

That 3 minutes could be the difference between life and death! Ask an ambulance drive!

Again, that 3 minutes is only at peak AM/PM rush hours, only M-F. That represents 12% of the total time in a given week. And again, that's a 3 minute delay 22 years out, assuming their predictions on vehicle count increases are right, and assuming their car-only traffic modeling software is 100% accurate. It is also my understanding that emergency vehicles have lane priority, signal priority, and everything else that would vastly minimize their delay vs a regular vehicle that happens to be traveling through the area.

Close Portland and narrow/woonerf Park. Great compromise.

[MNdible]

Close Portland and narrow/woonerf Park. Great compromise.

Can I just note, for posterity, that RailBaron and I agree on something?

I will also note that I don't agree with his skepticism regarding the increases in vehicle traffic -- it seems reasonable to me that if you're doubling the population of downtown over a short period of time, at the same time you're significantly increasing office and retail uses, that you'd see at least an annual .5% increase in traffic. This increase may not (or it may) be true globally, but in specific areas where you're significantly increasing use of the land, you're going to see more people traveling to/through the area, and the increases will likely be in every single mode.

[RailBaronYarr]

Close Portland and narrow/woonerf Park. Great compromise.

I will also note that I don't agree with his skepticism regarding the increases in vehicle traffic -- it seems reasonable to me that if you're doubling the population of downtown over a short period of time, at the same time you're significantly increasing office and retail uses, that you'd see at least an annual .5% increase in traffic. This increase may not (or it may) be true globally, but in specific areas where you're significantly increasing use of the land, you're going to see more people traveling to/through the area, and the increases will likely be in every single mode.

I think the AUAR notes trip generation from new residents to the area separately from the assumed overall 0.5% increase in vehicle traffic counts (ie they're additive). I have suspicions that doubling the population in an area like downtown would dramatically increase auto trips, given that a vast majority of people leaving their apartment/condo would do so on foot during rush hours with the majority of vehicle trips being for errands, visiting friends, etc. But yes, there will still be dual-earning families (or couples) where one works elsewhere and reverse commutes, some who just happen to live downtown but work elsewhere, or any other scenario (although reverse commuters' trips will be at different times than the rush hour traffic entering/leaving the city - something I question if their model takes in to account or not).

The 0.5% number seems to be de rigueur for any project going on to prescribe what local traffic would look like in the light of expected regional population growth and trip generation. This is the number I'm highly skeptical of given everything else going on, and a 0.5% per year increase represents a 12% increase in vehicle counts by 2035. Given falling trends, this means they may be overestimating by anywhere from 12 to 20++%.

[woofner]

On top of that the city has a goal to reduce work trips by car to the CBD by 30,000 trips, which should roughly offset any increase due to added residential units (especially given that these units are marketed to people who live downtown).

What I find remarkable was that the AUAR assumed 15% non-auto mode share for the retail in the project. Do people drive downtown to shop any more? I thought that was dead, leaving retail to stuffing the faces of those who go downtown to work or play and neighborhood service retail. (and of course transit riders, but we can just continue to ignore them)

[RailBaronYarr]

Just as a quick gut check, I used that nifty Census "On the Map" tool to do an analysis of where downtown residents (with jobs) work. Of the 11,498 people in my downtown polygon (including Loring Park, DTE, Elliot Park, and Warehouse District) - again, this is workers not total population, 4,821 of them work in downtown proper, St Anthony Main, or the U. That's 42%, so not a majority (I stand corrected). On the flip side, it doesn't include any locations well-served by bike or transit (among them Uptown area, downtown St Paul, MSP airport, etc). It's tough to do a formal analysis on everything, and obviously just because areas like Uptown or DTSP will be well-served by transit doesn't mean they all will use it. I'd say it's a good bet that 45-50% of the working population living downtown would not be generating any auto traffic during rush hours (and my guess would be that share would increase by 2035, but that's just me).

[talindsay]

What I find remarkable was that the AUAR assumed 15% non-auto mode share for the retail in the project. Do people drive downtown to shop any more? I thought that was dead, leaving retail to stuffing the faces of those who go downtown to work or play and neighborhood service retail. (and of course transit riders, but we can just continue to ignore them)

It's certainly not what it once was, but your cynical take of it isn't my experience - downtown department stores and shops have plenty of business on nice Saturdays from people who certainly don't live within walking distance. Most of them drive to get there. Is is enough to support the volume of retail downtown had even ten years ago? Probably not, but it's still quite a few people. Personally I try to do all my clothing shopping downtown, although I almost always take the bus from the U or the light rail from my house; but the stores are always busy when I do that.

[woofner]

That's nice to hear, but is that really 85% of downtown retail patrons? For the purpose of the AUAR bars and restaurants were considered retail, I believe.

[talindsay]

That's nice to hear, but is that really 85% of downtown retail patrons? For the purpose of the AUAR bars and restaurants were considered retail, I believe.

That, of course, we don't know and have to rely on the "experts" for. I'd agree that percentage does seem high.

[MS3]

A knowledgeable and reliable source is telling me the two Ryan towers will now top out at 361 feet

[Scott16475]

A knowledgeable and reliable source is telling me the two Ryan towers will now top out at 361 feet

Please forgive me for asking as I'm sure my answer is somewhere in the 59 pages of comments but I can't find the answer. Is 361 feet taller, shorter, or right on par to what we thought?

[Silophant]

I can't find the answer either, but I seem to remember 320 feet. So, a pretty respectable increase.

[m b p]

276 feet is the last we heard... with an option to go to nearly 300 feet.

So... this would be 85 feet taller.

[m b p]

before:


after:


I built up the "tower" portions of the buildings an additional 85 feet. I'm not sure how they plan on adding 85 feet to the buildings... whether they will be added to just the tower portions, as I've done... Or... if they will add 85 feet to the entire length of the buildings.

Here's the new google earth model... increased from 276 feet to 361 feet:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... 5&result=4
feel free to download it and explore in google earth.

[MS3]

Wikipedia has it listed as 360 feet under the Minneapolis proposals. All the other towers on their proposal list seam to be accurate. It would cool to know for sure, since 60'+ is a big difference in height from what was originally thought. That would mean 18' per floor.

[seanrichardryan]

I'd expect 85' spires.

[John]

Having the towers (or spires) a bit taller would be a nice revision and break up the massing better. However, if that doesn't happen, I still think this will be an attractive project with its art deco references to other buildings downtown.

[Minneboy]

I'd like to see the tops of the two towers have an arched bridge connecting them.