urbanMSP

That’s awesome about the building being converted to affordable apartments. We can always use more of those.

Unrelated question: what’s the latest on the property located just south of 10th St. and west of Hennepin Avenue? I thought they were going to be putting in two hotels there. Haven’t heard anything in a long time about the project though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard that JR Hospitality and Hawkeye Hotels plan to break ground on at least one of the hotels this summer.

The Northstar Center is getting a NRHP nomination for some godforsaken reason:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 178752.pdf

Even worse, they're codifying the 1960's changes made to the Pillsbury Building as the historically significant period, so the metal spandrels will never be coming back. Gross.

I ran into this NRHP filing through a different link, https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/16000441.pdf

It really seems odd to have a place designated where the narrative talks about how much of downtown was destroyed via urban renewal and how this exemplifies that period.

Does anyone know what the double-level bridge-looking thing is on Marquette on p 39 of that pdf?

Got off the Northstar this morning and it looked like there was a boring crew on the 408 4th Ave N Hines lot. They were in the corner close to the station and the bike trail. Probably nothing, but I know Hines once had a nice rendering for this site..

Heard a rumor of 42 stories... don't quote me on that

That was the concept I had heard from some in the community. Not trying to stir anything up, just that's what I was told.

*checks thread for nasa35 or retiredbanker**

Oh geez. Stirring up trouble!

(What’s zoned heights here set at?)

Would be in line with this vision about 10 years ago

Speaking of that rendering, does anybody have any idea what the deal is with Target Field's player/VIP parking area southwest of the ballpark (to the right of that image)? My recollection was that the team had rights (and maybe on obligation) to develop that land. Does that ring a bell with anybody?

Is it just me, or do others think that someday we might regret building on top of the rest of the rail trench without any provision for more passenger rail platforms?

I still remember the plan for the "Phase 2" of the Interchange, calling for a new passenger terminal above the Northstar tracks.....

Though since we're getting into the realm of fantasy, I don't think this will be a huge deal long term if we...
- Build a double-level tunnel under 5th or 6th St where Blue+Green LRT is on L1 and a pair of heavy rail tracks are on L2.
- Connect heavy rail on a new alignment from the NP#9 bridge and Dinkytown Trench on the east and a new railroad cut in place of the 3rd/4th St viaducts on the west end, connecting to the old NP tracks that reach Plymouth then across the NP-BNSF bridge north of Broadway, creating a new passenger mainline that allows existing and future trains such as Empire Builder and NLX to through-route downtown Minneapolis towards St Paul and beyond.
- Redevelop the garbage burner with below-grade stub tracks and platforms as needed.

I would love to see that viaduct go. It wastes a huge chunk of land between 10th and Plymouth for the ramps.

Twinstown is my favorite “what ever happened to”.

Oh geez. Stirring up trouble!

(What’s zoned heights here set at?)

It's currently zoned B4S-2, which specifies no maximum height, a minimum FAR of 2.0, and a maximum FAR of 8.0.

The 2040 plan calls it out as Transit 30 - building heights should be 10-30 stories, or taller if it furthers Comp Plan goals (which, it's hard to see how maximizing density adjacent to the commuter rail station wouldn't do that).

But (of course there's a but)...

The lot is part of the Rail Yards subarea of the warehouse historic district. There's not much for specific guidelines in the Rail Yards, since there were never buildings there, but the document does have this to say about height:

Requirement:  4.18. The height of new buildings shall not exceed 20 stories.
Other Considerations: 4.19. Additional height will be considered if evidence is provided that shows the additional  height is compatible with adjacent historic resources and the other contexts of the district. 

I think it would be a winnable fight, but it would be a fight regardless.

They were out there again this morning, opposite side of the parking lot (I think a 405 parcel).

I picture them building something comparable to the surrounding structures. Would this be accessed in a similar fashion as T3?

I love the idea that Hines is thinking about developing those parcels shouldn't the city/county make a massive push to tear down those god awful viaducts first? I feel like there is a possibility if those the lots are developed before the viaducts come down we could be stuck with them for damn near ever.