urbanMSP

Another article in the Strib. I swear the journalists look on UrbanMSP for their opinions....

http://www.startribune.com/housing/194525571.html

The rendering of the street level of Nic on Fifth continues to impress me as a magnificent addition to the streetscape of Nicollet Mall at that intersection. I also noticed in the article they refer to the 1368 Lasalle project as "LPM apartments". I wonder if that's its offical name?

Yes, the updated renderings are modern and functional. The LRT stop outside the entrance at 5th and Nicollet make this a prime location for urban commuters. This is a great example of how public investment in sustainable resources can and does spur private development.

Is there a thread for this? http://m.startribune.com/?id=200158471

Is there a thread for this? http://m.startribune.com/?id=200158471

Yes. Here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=164

Here's a map I made showing developments replacing lots that are either surface parking or open space. Really puts into perspective just how much surface parking there is. Yellow is under construction, blue is proposed.

I track the projects in the pipeline in Microsoft Excel, and here is a snapshot of what's going on in Minneapolis:

Minneapolis Total Units: 11,428
-"downtown" neighborhoods: 5,694
-"uptown" neighborhoods: 1,517
-"other" neighborhoods: 4,217 (U of M: 2,880 of that amount)

Anyone know the current approved + under construction total? (So taking out mere proposals)

Anyone know the current approved + under construction total? (So taking out mere proposals)

I have it but I'm 100% sure it's incorrect, as I don't have the access to update each project if/when it's approved. I also know I'm missing some projects, especially St. Paul projects (which weren't even listed). Most of the projects are approved/under construction that are downtown, uptown or the U of M. You can probably (crosses fingers) safely assume 80%-90% of what is listed will be built, barring any new recessions/depressions.

The only cancellation, which they claim is "on hold" is The Venue project near First Ave. WaHu is now delayed...I could see it getting scaled back at worst, but not outright cancelled. Everything else proposed right now seems likely to get built. In Uptown, Elan II and III are the only projects that are not yet under construction, but were fully approved by the City last summer.

None of these totals include any possible residential units as part of the Strib blocks.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/219280371.html

You lucky (local) bastards!!!

the annual project renderings/models presentation is next week, IDS. always cool to see this stuff up close.
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/219280371.html

I will be at that exhibit most likely on Thursday. If there are models I am taking pics.

I'm going to go Friday morning, but I have to be back on campus by 11am. I hope someone can make the rail projects talk Friday at noon, and give us a summary.

I saw PhilmerPhil there at lunchtime today. There are a couple of pictureboards that are new to us, one being some new diagrams of Mosaic 2. Not many models this year, but still plenty of information.I still thought it was worth my time to go.

I saw PhilmerPhil there at lunchtime today. There are a couple of pictureboards that are new to us, one being some new diagrams of Mosaic 2. Not many models this year, but still plenty of information.I still thought it was worth my time to go.

While I was happy to see drawings, most were limited to a single drawing. I was disappointed by the lack of models and limited amount of drawings for each development. Was glad that they did show what is also being developed outside the cities core, Mosaic 2 and others. Hope for better next year as this year is pretty well done now.

http://www.streets.mn/2013/08/27/does-n ... -the-same/

This seems as good a place to post this as any since it concerns current and proposed projects, especially the flurry of new apartments downtown and uptown. It's been a concern for awhile, it's great to see all this new development, but will the unoriginality and construction quality leave it all looking very tired in 10 years?

http://www.streets.mn/2013/08/27/does-n ... -the-same/

This seems as good a place to post this as any since it concerns current and proposed projects, especially the flurry of new apartments downtown and uptown. It's been a concern for awhile, it's great to see all this new development, but will the unoriginality and construction quality leave it all looking very tired in 10 years?

All you have to do is look at the 60's/70's apartment building for how well they will stand the test of time. Most have the same building material quality, except for the granite countertops and stainless appliances that will grow old too.

A lot of the 60's split levels were all-brick affairs on their exteriors. And although they may have been brick over wood, since they only tended to be three stories tall, the problematic differential movement between the masonry and the stick frame is much less of an issue. Also, somewhat obviously, a three story tall eyesore is less of an issue than a seven story tall one.

This may be an ambitious project, but with the Met Council coming out with estimates for population growth and recent threads here highlighting height restrictions throughout downtown and adjacent portions like Loring Park, North Loop, and all up and down the river, it made me wonder how much actual 3-dimensional space is there to build in to for all these people the Met Council sees being squeezed in there for work and for home.

I wondered if it would be easily possible to render a model of "air rights" available according to the height restriction district to show how much air there is to be built into. Maybe even color the exceptions where buildings currently exceed their neighborhood district height requirements. I don't have the tools or the skills to do this, but I wonder if this is something a hobbiest with the talent could produce?

The question I had that inspired this thought experiment was my dwelling on the idea that Minneapolis may be too aggressive or expansive with height restrictions and it could hinder future residential growth around downtown. Seeing the volume of available space that can be built into answers it quickly. Has such a 3-d model been produced?

I understand height restrictions and often they serve a great purpose. They can also create beautiful planned areas that end up costing more/SF than a free market would because of the supply restraints. However, I think creating ANY restrictions in the absence of hyper-growth/demand is a bad idea, because it just makes it that much harder for developers to invest in places where we want to see the most growth. I like control and planning, but not too much of it.

If I had a vote (and I don't), I'd prefer to see height restrictions like they are currently imposed in the Mills District and North Loop, but allow Loring Park and St. Anthony to have no limits, but impose other guidelines such as setbacks so that what does get developed fits in well with the existing fabric and does not take value away from the neighborhood. The CBD, including DTE, can and should have no limit.