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

[BigIdeasGuy]

Vikings have agreed to let Wells Fargo have the rooftop signs.


Vikings stadium: Team won't fight Wells Fargo signs near site

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... argo-signs

Does the fact that the Vikings aren't going to fight the signage make it more or less likely that Wells Fargo is going to purchase the naming rights to the stadium? Or could there be a deal already in place but they just have to go through the public part of the process of selling the rights before announcing it?

[mpls_tc]

I don't know about the stadium but as far as this project going forward it looks as though there is plenty of momentum . I wouldn't be surprised if this project is approve within the next few weeks.

[talindsay]

I'm betting they dropped their opposition because Wells Fargo wants to buy naming rights to the stadium too.

[nBode]

But would Wells Fargo do both their office rooftop signs and stadium signs?

I thought the whole idea of the signs was for publicity. If they had a huge sign on the stadium roof there's not much point in two smaller ones nearby, is there?

[mpls_tc]

Would Wells Fargo have to pay the Vikings a fee for having the signs?

[mpls_tc]

But would Wells Fargo do both their office rooftop signs and stadium signs?

I thought the whole idea of the signs was for publicity. If they had a huge sign on the stadium roof there's not much point in two smaller ones nearby, is there?

Yeah, I can't see the need for 2 smaller signs either. I'm thinking the Vikings will be charging wellsfargo some kind of fee for the right to have those signs visible during football games.

[matt91486]

I don't see how the Vikings have any say over anything visible during football games not immediately connected to the stadium. The Twins got annoyed by a new ad put up on the Target Center that you could see from the seats, but what could they do? It wasn't their building.

[Tyler]

Didn't you read section 272 of the stadium bill? Wilf was appointed Czar of DTE in exchange for Minneapolis getting 20% of any money he makes doing public speaking.

[Didier]

It's kind of amusing how the Vikings seemingly didn't win any concessions, but Lester Bagley conveniently updated his rhetoric to say that the team is now ok with "limited" signage.

[mpls_tc]

I don't see how the Vikings have any say over anything visible during football games not immediately connected to the stadium. The Twins got annoyed by a new ad put up on the Target Center that you could see from the seats, but what could they do? It wasn't their building.

Wellsfargo would be using the vikings to promote their own agenda. Maybe those signs being visible from the rooftop would draw attention away from who ever will have the naming rights for the stadium.

[Didier]

So is this like the Lion King now, where anything Zygi can see from the giant retractable window is his kingdom?

[matt91486]

So is this like the Lion King now, where anything Zygi can see from the giant retractable window is his kingdom?

Block E is the elephant graveyard.

[MNdible]

I feel like this "agreement" was just a away for the Vikings to save face after somebody pulled big-brain Lester Bagley aside and explained to him that they had no possible standing to object to this.

[gpete]

It could also be that the Vikings don't care about the rooftop signage anymore because they have reached an agreement with a stadium sponsor. Maybe they have a preliminary naming-rights deal in place, and the stadium sponsor doesn't care about the rooftop signs.

[twincitizen]

Zoning & Planning Committee meets at 9:30 today. Ryan Co is appealing two conditions of approval from the Planning Commission:
Conditional use permit:
• There shall be no signs located on the non-primary building walls of the mixed-use buildings facing South 3rd Street.
Site plan review:
• The sidewalk on South 5th Street, adjacent to the “stand-alone residential building,” shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width.

And of course, the big kahuna burger: Ryan is appealing the HPC vote to block demolition of the Strib building. I could see that vote being 4-2 or something (Cam Gordon and maaaybe another against demolition), but the Strib building is coming down folks. Speak now (at the meeting, not here) or forever hold your peace.

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/tv/79

[RailBaronYarr]

According to Eric Roper, "Strib demolition passes committee on voice vote. CM Gordon lone no vote. Still needs final approval from full council."

With that in mind, a clever/thoughtful re-use of the facade as an arch (as proposed) or park feature of some sort would be really cool. Also, some org (MN Historical Society or similar) should make sure to get a LOT of photos and videos of the building and grounds for future reference.

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, this:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 117911.pdf

Full costs to the city are expected to be $84.25m. I asked Roper via Twitter how this relates to stadium funding since the ramp ($48.95m) is required by stadium legislation. He confirmed that none of these costs go toward the city's $150m obligation for the stadium.

I was under the impression the whole time that one of the key benefits of the public involvement was that the parking spaces were going to be built anyway and therefore is a great shared cost between the 2 developments. I'm, well, disappointed.

[MNdible]

Well, at least in theory, the bonds that are being sold to build the parking ramp will be paid for by the parking ramp. Without doing the financial due diligence, I'm not sure that I believe this, but if true, it appears that Ryan is simply using the city's bonding authority for cheap financing.

And even if not, the city is still light years ahead because of the increased property taxes that the WF Towers will pay, to say nothing of any increased property values due to the presence of the park.

[helsinki]

Regardless of whether or not a net benefit does accrue to the city from this subsidized parking ramp in an immediately discernable financial sense, by increasing the glut of parking the city is retarding the growth of this area.

If there is one thing DTE absolutely in no way requires any more of, it is parking ramps. Not just parking, mind you, but specifically ramps. Parking lots are essentially greenfield development opportunities. Parking ramps, though, will be with us for a long, long time.

The Star Tribune blocks are, quite literally, ringed with parking ramps. Stroll along 5th avenue from 6th St to Washington; to your left will be (1) a parking ramp (immediately opposite the Armory, used as a parking ramp; immediately adjacent to another parking ramp, fronting 4th Avenue), (2) a jail, (3) a parking ramp, and (4) a parking ramp. All the new residences accross Washington have their own parking ramps. The Guthrie has its own ramp. The hospital has at least three.

There's even a parking ramp underneath the LRT station! Some genius thought park-n-rides belonged downtown, where the whole point is to access high-volume public transit on foot. I can see the thought process on that one: "Well, LRT stops should have park-n-rides so that people can get to the train, so let's put a park-n-ride here since there's space." Brilliant. Thanks. Putting those planning-smarts to good use.

DTE will never be a lively urban place if we build enough parking to accomodate all the people we want to be there. The autocentric playbook isn't going to work. The dominant mode here should be walking, and the city shouldn't actively be thwarting that by subsidizing autocentric development.

[RailBaronYarr]

Well, at least in theory, the bonds that are being sold to build the parking ramp will be paid for by the parking ramp. Without doing the financial due diligence, I'm not sure that I believe this, but if true, it appears that Ryan is simply using the city's bonding authority for cheap financing.

And even if not, the city is still light years ahead because of the increased property taxes that the WF Towers will pay, to say nothing of any increased property values due to the presence of the park.

I think that's the point. If this ramp were such a slam dunk given its ($10.3m) connection to both the WF towers and the stadium, it would be worthwhile for Ryan to develop on their own. If the funding had come out of the city's $150m stadium contribution, I would have been miffed but could at least understand since the legislation required it. Yes, Ryan is guaranteeing revenues for 10 years to basically break even, but the concern is the 20-30 years after that where the bonds still need payment (and then what to do when it needs major overhaul).

Just cuz I'm bored/interested... the current taxable value of all the parcels on blocks 1-5 (since I'm not sure how the LRT plaza will play out tax-wise) is ~$895k/year. It's difficult to estimate what the Ryan development will be valued at, but they say 580k sqft office, 10k retail, and up to 150 units residential per block. Fifth Street Towers I isn't a perfect comparison, but is has over 590k GFA and is taxed at $2m/year. Let's be generous and estimate each block brings in $2.5m in taxes since it's 1) newer, 2) mixed-use, and 3) park-adjacent. I'm assuming the parking ramp brings in $0 in taxes like the stadium, but development on top of that could change the equation.

Let's assume that the parking ramp brings in enough to pay its bonds/ops costs every year (a risky assumption). The rest of the public's up-front funding (park, skyways, random) comes to $35m. Bonded over 30 years @ 3.5% interest (guessing...), that's $1.89m a year. Park programming was estimated by streets.mn folks to be $2.5-5m annually - let's take the low end and assume corporations fund half of it through donations/sponsorship. By my math, we have a comparison:

Today: Net property taxes: $895k to city
Proposed: Net property taxes: $5m. Increase in property taxes to surrounding area: ? Net expenses: $3.14m

Without development atop the new ramp, the city is coming out ahead by $965k/year in this conservative estimate. Increase in value to surrounding areas may bring in more as well (though very tough to predict, especially since most of the surrounding built form is gov't owned or parking ramps, or just as close to other parks (Gold Medal, Elliot).

Doesn't seem like a bad deal for the city, just a very risky, all-in type of deal (what happens if WF leaves/fails/etc). I wonder if the city would be better off (risk-wise) buying the lots themselves and selling off land in smaller chunks to the highest bidder.

Sorry for the rube post.