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

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Wedgeguy » October 29th, 2013, 2:58 pm

Development would still continue in that part of town, but at a much slower and less grand scale.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 29th, 2013, 5:48 pm

Didier wrote:I think it's safe to make three conclusions:

1. Nothing significant was going to happen in Downtown East until the Vikings stadium situation was resolved one way or another.

2. Development in DTE was bound to occur once there was a stadium resolution.

3. That development is almost certainly occurring much faster and at a greater scale because of the billion dollar stadium investment next door.
I'll agree only with #1, because developers were waiting to confirm what would actually happen with the stadium site. Not because the stadium itself made the area that much more attractive to develop near. What attributes does a billion dollar football stadium on the site of a former football stadium bring to make development any faster and/or grander? Do you have examples from other cities that show NFL stadiums bring development?

m b p
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 198
Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby m b p » October 29th, 2013, 10:25 pm

other nfl stadiums are typically in the suburbs... so it's a different story. However, the Xcel Energy Center revived a dieing west 7th street in St Paul. That cannot be denied. Another example... on the same day the new Vikings Stadium design was released, there was a plan released for 450 million dollar private proposal next door.

You keep saying that the stadium has nothing to do with people wanting to build in the Mill District. Yes... people already wanted to build in the mill district, but there were things standing in their way (that ugly metrodome). Now that the dome is slated for demolition, people are moving ahead with plans to build in that area. To me, it seems like a pretty solid connection.

If they hadn't demolished the dome to build another structure, would the STrib blocks be developed? Maybe in another decade or two... when some other attraction/park was put there... but not now. Nobody has built next to the dome in 30 years... yet there are several proposals to build next to the new stadium. That cannot just be a coincidence. That cannot just be because the mill district was already developing. Without a new stadium, new proposals, of the same scale, would not be happening.

We'll probably never understand each other... so let's just shake hands :)

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 30th, 2013, 8:09 am

I just hope that we replace "that ugly Dome" with something that won't become "that ugly ice burg".

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 30th, 2013, 8:38 am

m b p - while many NFL stadiums are located in the suburbs, not all are. Indy, Seattle, Cincy, Cleveland, New Orleans, Charlotte, Denver, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Atlanta all have urban sites. Granted, some of these are in sub-optimal locations for development (on the other side of an urban freeway cutting through the city, across the river on former industrial land, or the like). But many aren't. Earlier in this thread I highlighted the development that's going up just north of Seattle's stadium, but that facility is over 10 years old (and broke ground in 1998) - what took so long?. Other stadiums in great location to the core (Indy, Atlanta, a few others) have only spurred further publicly-subsidized facilities like convention centers. For the others near their rivers, the recent trend for dense waterfront housing would seem a natural fit for redevelopment if NFL stadiums were the spark we believe them to be.

I guess my point is that, unless Minneapolis is vastly different in housing/office preferences and stadium location than other urban sites, I have an easier time believing that the timing of this development was simply due to a host of other factors that played a much larger role (changing preferences, transit investments, land becoming more valuable as nearby development occurred, etc). IMO, the announcement was done at that time to use the buzz and energy from the stadium design release and a way for certain politicians and leaders to perhaps justify the $150m city investment even if the actual link between the 2 was slightly weaker than advertised.

Either way, I'll take this development, even with my quibbles on some of the design elements and public contribution to parking/skyways. I won't harp on the stadium-as-development argument :)

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 30th, 2013, 12:29 pm

I tend to agree that any redevelopment in the immediate area is likely driven by naturally-occuring market forces more than it is driven by a new football stadium. I simply do not see the appeal of living next door to a stadium, especially football (baseball has some pros, but only if you can see the field or attend a lot of games). Let's not forget one of the key factors that makes this general area so attractive: the new park (The Yard?). Being next to Minneapolis' version of Central Park is what would drive me to live near there. That and the possibility of rising housing values.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 12:55 pm

Short of confirmation from somebody at Wells Fargo, there's no way we can say 100 percent.

That said, I find it highly unlikely that Wells Fargo would have selected a derelict part of downtown, next to a jail and little else, to invest in a massive park and corporate campus without the billion dollar commitment next door. The catalyst for developing here isn't eight NFL games; its a combination of factors that includes a massive new parking ramp, local infrastructure improvements (including transportation), and the fact that having a stadium nearby makes The Yard viable, which thus makes having a major presence on The Yard appealing.

I don't doubt that DTE would have organically developed had the new stadium been built elsewhere (I preferred Linden Avenue), but the nature of the development would be completely different. Your suggestion is essentially that, for Wells Fargo, developing a corporate campus next to the new stadium is the same as developing next to a hole in the ground that was once the Metrodome (still active, in that case, until 2016). I don't think the bank makes such a commitment to this space without the guarantee of another massive investment next door.**

**Of course, Wells Fargo hasn't actually committed anything yet.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 1:07 pm

min-chi-cbus wrote:I tend to agree that any redevelopment in the immediate area is likely driven by naturally-occuring market forces more than it is driven by a new football stadium. I simply do not see the appeal of living next door to a stadium, especially football (baseball has some pros, but only if you can see the field or attend a lot of games). Let's not forget one of the key factors that makes this general area so attractive: the new park (The Yard?). Being next to Minneapolis' version of Central Park is what would drive me to live near there. That and the possibility of rising housing values.
Do you really think The Yard would have been a viable proposal had it not been for the massive stadium bookending the far side?

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 1:14 pm

Also, this isn't a discussion of whether or not it would be nice to live next to the Vikings stadium. There was a massive four-block proposal for what will mostly be office space right next to the stadium, and I think it's almost unfathomable that the same proposal would have been made without the stadium investments next door.

This isn't a statement saying that the stadium will be a better long-term catalyst for development than an empty space; I'm simply saying that the nature and speed in which we are seeing the Star Tribune property being developed is almost certainly because of the stadium.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby David Greene » October 30th, 2013, 1:45 pm

I completely fail to see how you're making that connection. The development is assuredly happening now because the uncertainty around the land is gone but I don't think the fact that a stadium is going there makes any difference at all. I've seen the DTE plans for the Metrodome land had there been no stadium and that would support a park just as well. Heck, it *was* a park!

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » October 30th, 2013, 1:48 pm

Didier, the best evidence for your case that the stadium deal made this development happen is the actions of the Star Tribune. The Star Tribune executives, investors, and real estate people apparently believed strongly enough that the stadium would allow them the quickest sale at the highest price. I don't see why else they would have sacrificed their credibility as a newspaper to get the deal done.

The Observer article you linked to in the stadium thread put it pretty plain.
Another reason for the lack of real resistance to the stadium could be the near media blackout. One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the Wilfs’ history of litigation as well as his own proximity to the governor, explained it thus: “Minneapolis has become a one-paper town. And that paper, the Star Tribune, happens to own unsalable land that happens to sit where the proposed Vikings stadium will be built and happens to be majority-owned by the buyout firm Wayzata Partners, who happen to be the richest guys in Minnesota.”
I always held the Star Tribune in high regard, but their use of the newsroom and editorial board to push this deal on the public has been completely shameless.

That has continued with endorsements and this recent editorial by Lori Sturdevant expressing puzzlement why Minneapolis hasn't just gotten over it yet.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 27651.html
It’s a done deal. It ought to be a dead issue — especially in a city that has a population spurt, aging infrastructure, high property taxes and poor student achievement to talk about in this campaign. The view ahead for the city seems a lot more colorful and compelling than the latest of Minnesota’s many stadium fights, now receding in public policy rearview mirrors.

Yet candidates say that hostility for the deal that was struck at City Hall and the State Capitol 17 long months ago is still intense, especially in parts of Minneapolis known for populist tendencies. Notably, those are also places expected to generate high voter turnout on Nov. 5. Anti-stadium sentiment looks to figure somehow in the election’s outcome.
So yes, it apears this Ryan/WF potential deal is tied directly to the stadium. Yet, I'm far from convinced that this really is a good argument for the stadium. We don't know whether WF would have built elsewhere downtown and what would have happened with the Strib blocks if the new Vikings stadium was built in LA.

I actually appreciate you making the argument the stadium is driving development. It's much better than upthread when it was merely stated as a "safe conclusion."

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 2:28 pm

To be sure, I'm not suggesting that the stadium was the right decision because it will likely result in this development.

My suggestion is that this specific development is very much tied to the general goings on in this area.

As I said before, I think development in the area would have happened either way once there was finality in the stadium discussion.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 30th, 2013, 2:34 pm

If the argument is that development on those particular blocks is happening in this particular way (thanks in part to the municipally-funded parking ramps), but that development in the area would have "happened either way once there was a finality in the stadium discussion," that's a completely different take than "the stadium as a downtown amenity spurred office/residential development that otherwise would not have occurred." Unless I'm reading you wrong, help me out here. Yes, I'll agree that the actions going on forced the hands of the Strib, limited available parcels, and gave finality to the all-important ramp parking. But that doesn't mean that continued development in DTE wouldn't have occurred without the stadium.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 3:06 pm

I don't know that the Star Tribune's personal biases have anything to do with this discussion.

I believe that the stadium and affiliated infrastructure improvements made the four-block Star Tribune parcel into a much more intriguing opportunity for Wells Fargo than the same parcel would have otherwise been.

Had the Vikings stadium been built somewhere else, I don't believe we would have seen a major four-block proposal like this. There would have been little draw for major development in DTE, and infill over that many blocks could take decades.

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » October 30th, 2013, 3:15 pm

Didier wrote:I don't know that the Star Tribune's personal biases have anything to do with this discussion.

I believe that the stadium and affiliated infrastructure improvements made the four-block Star Tribune parcel into a much more intriguing opportunity for Wells Fargo than the same parcel would have otherwise been.
I can't reconcile these two statements.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 3:31 pm

Why can't you reconcile them?

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » October 30th, 2013, 3:59 pm

If the Stadium made the Star Tribune land into a more valuable development opportunity, and the Star Tribune used their unique position as this town's dominate newspaper to promote the stadium, how could the Star Tribune's pro-stadium bias be irrelevant to this discussion?

Rich
Rice Park
Posts: 413
Joined: June 30th, 2012, 7:12 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Rich » October 30th, 2013, 4:23 pm

One can argue objectively that the Metrodome site is the best of the available stadium sites. It’s centrally located. The environmental impact is known. It requires virtually no infrastructure improvements. It capitalizes on a confluence of freeways and rail lines. It’s the least expensive site to prep. So it’s not necessarily disengenous of the Strib to advocate that spot. The facts might have led them to favor it anyway.

One can also argue that the Strib’s editorials had far less influence over the site selection process than has been suggested.

I don’t necessarily fully agree with both of those arguments. But it seems to me if you want to reconcile Didier’ statements, those are two of the arguments you’d make.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » October 30th, 2013, 4:34 pm

I understand the Star Tribune has wanted to sell its land for years and has finally found a willing buyer. But what is the connection you are trying to make?

It seems like you are just pointing out that the Star Tribune showed bias in the overall discussion, which nobody disagrees with. I am saying that bias is not relevant to the discussion of whether The Yard/Wells Fargo would have emerged so quickly without the adjoining stadium.

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Viktor Vaughn » October 30th, 2013, 4:38 pm

Edit: This comment is in response to Rich.

Right. So the Star Tribune put their entire editorial weight behind the stadium on the objective merits. Selling the stadium land and paying down post-bankruptcy debt saddling the organization had nothing to do with it. I can see why you "don't necessarily fully believe" that argument.

I do think the Strib's editorials had far less influence than their newsroom coverage. I'd argue their reporting mirrored the institutional bias of the editorial coverage, although that's more debatable.
Last edited by Viktor Vaughn on October 30th, 2013, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests