North Loop Neighborhood

[EOst]

I like how the existing building reflects almost the entire sweep of the area's history; built in the 1880s as a tenement building pre-railroad trench, converted to warehousing in 1920 when the area lost its residential character, added onto throughout the 20th century without ever fully obscuring its original design and purpose. I'm not entirely convinced by their historic study's argument that the building is non-contributing.

[seanrichardryan]

Landscape Research will write a historic survey with whatever conclusion best suits your desired outcome.

[twincitizen]

Proposal for a new building at 310 2nd Street North. 59 units, 124 parking spaces. Is this some kind of sick joke?

Let's not ignore that the proposal also has 1,400 square feet of commercial space, which could have anywhere from 5-15 spaces earmarked. I'm of two minds on this... On one hand, who is actually harmed by apartments including excess underground parking? It doesn't increase impervious surface, it doesn't add curb cuts or do anything else to harm the surrounding urban environment. On the other hand, it still seems like a no-brainer for the developer to ditch that lowest parking level (39 spaces) as a cost-saving measure. The remaining 85 spaces would be more than sufficient for 59 units and the small commercial space.

[alexschief]

Proposal for a new building at 310 2nd Street North. 59 units, 124 parking spaces. Is this some kind of sick joke?

Let's not ignore that the proposal also has 1,400 square feet of commercial space, which could have anywhere from 5-15 spaces earmarked. I'm of two minds on this... On one hand, who is actually harmed by apartments including excess underground parking? It doesn't increase impervious surface, it doesn't add curb cuts or do anything else to harm the surrounding urban environment. On the other hand, it still seems like a no-brainer for the developer to ditch that lowest parking level (39 spaces) as a cost-saving measure. The remaining 85 spaces would be more than sufficient for 59 units and the small commercial space.

As a matter of fact, I wrote about this exact question yesterday, on the subject of the Fed's proposed parking ramp.

We are all harmed by excess parking, because the research shows unequivocally that excess parking leads to excess driving. Excess driving, of course, leads to more emissions of carbon and other pollutants, more danger on the road, and a less vibrant neighborhood. If a developer wants to light their money on fire, that's their concern, but if a developer want to light their money on fire in a way that harms the environment, we all should get involved.

[Multimodal]

I presume this will be paid parking, not “free” parking, so it’s somewhat different from your (excellent) article.

[alexschief]

I think the Fed's ramp will be paid parking, and the proposed project at 310 2nd St will be "free to residents (obviously folded into the cost paid by the tenant). It doesn't dramatically change the analysis either way, unless they charge substantially more than the current market rate. Parking in Minneapolis is underpriced if you start adding up the externalities of what it induces.

[grant1simons2]

North Loop is finally getting a Lulu

http://mspmag.com/shop-and-style/lulule ... orth-loop/

[jtoemke]

The article said "NoLo" for north loop... is this another East Town moment. Why.

[grant1simons2]

Its much more socially acceptable to say Nolo. Nolo's kitchen, Nolo Flats, D. Nolo.

[thisisdeception]

Are we going with "no-low" or "no-loo"?