urbanMSP

There was an article in F&C that noted that it was the increase in North Loop rental rates that finally made the financing on the renovation possible.

Anyone want to print that out for the next time people say gentrification is bad for historic preservation at a meeting?

Win!

There was an article in F&C that noted that it was the increase in North Loop rental rates that finally made the financing on the renovation possible.

Anyone want to print that out for the next time people say gentrification is bad for historic preservation at a meeting?

Probably is the exception that proves the rule. How may times has a scenario like this played out, vs. a teardown and new building?

Probably is the exception that proves the rule. How may times has a scenario like this played out, vs. a teardown and new building?

You're kidding, right? Because there's the Hewing Hotel. The Arctic Cat HQ. The Sex World project. The Maytag. The Cameron. The foundry proposal.

This is how historic preservation is supposed to work. Keep the structures until the economics work to reuse them.

No, I'm not kidding. I really want to know, what's the ratio between teardowns and "reuse after rents rise high enough?" Keep it post-1980 to avoid the Urban Renewal B.S.

I know this is more complicated than it sounds. Buildings are often torn down because they're functionally obsolete (single story, etc.). But the more hard data we have, the more compelling the argument. My initial reaction is exactly what you're going to get from resisting neighbors.

206 N Washington might be getting demolished to make renovations on 200 Washington easier. Short term it'll be a grassy lot, but long term it opens up some interesting redevelopment opportunities:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 202015.pdf

Apparently there's retail space in T3... and apparently 200 types of whiskey.

http://www.journalmpls.com/news/biz-buz ... orth-loop/

Fast-casual Asian restaurant planned for Minneapolis' North Loop

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... d-for.html

Anyone know what's going next to the Spyhouse in Brunsfield? Paper up on the windows and construction equipment.

No, I'm not kidding. I really want to know, what's the ratio between teardowns and "reuse after rents rise high enough?" Keep it post-1980 to avoid the Urban Renewal B.S.

I know this is more complicated than it sounds. Buildings are often torn down because they're functionally obsolete (single story, etc.). But the more hard data we have, the more compelling the argument. My initial reaction is exactly what you're going to get from resisting neighbors.

I had an interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago with someone who was involved in renovating historic buildings in the North Loop. This person complained that even with historic tax credits, it would have made more sense financially to tear down and build anew. It occurred to me, however, that what gave enough value to the property to spur redevelopment was the historic preservation of the North Loop neighborhood as a whole. In other words, what appears overly restrictive on the micro level, for that building alone, makes great sense at the macro level by greatly increasing the value of all property in the neighborhood.

More philosophically, this is a struggle we're facing in many realms of society today. Rules that appear oppressive or restrictive at an individual level sometimes make absolute sense when generally applied. Where we draw the line between appropriate regulation and undue restrictions on individual freedoms is a discussion that tends to draw out the hottest passions.

Hm. Not sure about "make absolute sense."

One outcome from historic preservation is land (and usable structure) scarcity that adds to property values and makes reuse possible. That's great if what you're most interested in is preserving old buildings.

I'm no fan of the g-word, but this can also mean gentrification and displacement. Instead of inexpensive old buildings that can house low-rent businesses and housing, you get expensive rents and the kinds of businesses and people that can afford them.

I think that's fine when we're talking about preserving something truly historic (for the most part, North Loop qualifies for me), but it's really hard to see how something like the proposed Homewood historic district is anything but bad. The best case outcome from historic preservation is that the existing (not particularly remarkable) single family homes turn into really expensive single family homes, potentially displacing current residents.

Heh, heh, amiller. Good catch. After I posted, I thought about editing to remove the "absolute" as well as the "great" before "great sense at the macro level". Using superlatives doesn't make it so. But it's just a forum thread, right?

In any case, I agree with you about high rents and gentrification. I remember when humble artists could afford to live in the North Loop. Still, if every property owner could go with the desire to tear down a historic structure whenever the cost of building anew was less, a good many of our best remaining buildings would be gone and the financial value of owning a building in a historic district would have vanished into the rubble.

The point I was trying to make is that the balances are complicated and unsteady, and it seems that as a society we're increasingly uncomfortable with all the on-the-other-hands. It's so easy to just dig in and shout.

One outcome from historic preservation is land (and usable structure) scarcity that adds to property values and makes reuse possible. That's great if what you're most interested in is preserving old buildings.

I'm no fan of the g-word, but this can also mean gentrification and displacement. Instead of inexpensive old buildings that can house low-rent businesses and housing, you get expensive rents and the kinds of businesses and people that can afford them.

That's certainly been true for the North Loop, but I wonder how much the historic district had to do with it. If you're looking for a control you couldn't do much better than Downtown East, which had few historic restrictions and acres of developable land but produced similar prices per unit.

^Which also puts a hole in the claim that historic preservation of the North Loop as a whole is what made it valuable enough to spur redevelopment. People are paying for proximity (jobs, transit, cultural stuff downtown, regional centrality, the river, etc) and current or hoped-for local shopping/dining amenities, not necessarily living in an old building in a neighborhood of old buildings.

This seems like a pretty big road reconstruction project scheduled to take place in the 2019 construction season. I'm surprised none of the pedestrian improvements are along Washington; specifically where 394 merges. That intersection is terrible... maybe that's a separate project?

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cip/future/WCMSP-200196

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cip/fut ... provements

Washington is a county road (152), and this is a city project.

A perfect time to do something about breaking up the superblock between 4th and 5th St N right?

Not sure if this has been mentioned...looks like they scrapped that 11 floor office building. Fine with me, really.

http://www.journalmpls.com/news/develop ... -building/

Sweet!..is that a bike lane I see within the office space? I presume it's for decoration given that I don't believe this building is that big.

Not that it was reason enough to scrap the project, but @mosphere has to be one of the worst proposed building names yet.

Not sure if this has been mentioned...looks like they scrapped that 11 floor office building. Fine with me, really.

http://www.journalmpls.com/news/develop ... -building/

I actually think what they're doing with this building in the neighborhood will fit in well (similar to what they did with Inbound).

Now if we could only make Holiday nicer somehow...