The Eclipse

[Didier]

Can we get a little more baseless conjecture in this thread? I could really use some more ideas about how realtors will sell these units based on the false premise that the planned second tower visible in all of the plans and renderings doesn't exist.

[Archiapolis]

I agree with most of this post - mark it down.

In the end I think we generally all want the same thing - a livable, sustainable city. I would even include so-called "opponents" in that camp.

Now, as for you removing context from my post regarding "demanding better transit...and job centers outside the core", to that I say, "Well played; a good example of rhetorical aikido."
=^]

You probably know that I meant that we need better transit IN GENERAL, not specifically to serve reverse commutes from the city to those centers.

Actually, I didn't mean to remove important context so if I did that was a mistake. I also wasn't referring specifically to SWLRT. Bottineau obviously also fits the bill as does express bus service if it supported reverse commuting (which it really doesn't now).

My point was not to make some kind of "gotcha" moment but to illustrate that questions of transportation are complicated and simple statements like, "it doesn't serve the city," or, "there's too much parking," aren't helpful because they are so easy to refute. I try to apply that standard to everyone in a conversation, including myself. Due to time pressures and limited typing ability, we generally have to condense our views down and abstract the complications a bit but I always try to keep those complications in mind.

If you'll head over the SWLRT thread you'll see a post I just mode about how I could support some of the other options people have presented. In that project I am not wedded to 3A as such but rather to the principles of equity and access. I'm also wedded to practicality and getting things done. If 3A as it is currently isn't doable then obviously we'll have to do something else. I am in fact quite open to that if it comes to it. We're far from there, however.

This is the kind of back and forth that I was hoping for. Like I keep saying, I'm just a guy with an opinion, nothing more. I enjoy these philosophical discussions about urbanism. While I like to "drive my point home" if I can, I never mean to offend. Thank you for listening and engaging. I'll head over to the SWLRT thread for more...

[Archiapolis]

OOoookay.

I'm starting to see why fora have such a bad reputation...

Comment:
"Too much parking"

Response:
"Why are we talking about parking! This should be about the architecture!"

Comment:
"Too monochrome, too dark..."

Response:
"Bad renderings! Don't discuss the imagery, it's not done!"

Comment:
"Massing is bad..."

Response:
"Developer should be able to build whatever they want. Buildings are close to each other and stuff..."

I've made a statement that there is no precedent for new construction/architecture with this kind of relationship regarding proximity, height and depth in the city and I have yet to see an example offered to refute that.

I walk/drive through the Mill District every day and I can tell you that the streets are much wider than 40' (see 60' street right of way example already offered) and the courtyards are much wider than 40' PERIOD.

As for the North Loop, nothing approaching 13 stories, and few (if any) examples of 40' separation between residential multi-story buildings.

As for the single-family residential examples on offer they aren't even worth refuting.

I don't know how to stress this any further but this will be my last go: The *COMBINATION* of height, depth and proximity between Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined with a very equivocal and underwhelming "streetscape" makes for a very bad building proposal for a key piece of property for our city.

I'd say "best of luck" to the developer but I wouldn't mean it; I hope this proposal changes significantly or gets pulled off of the table - I think this proposal is a bad addition to this city.

[Didier]

I can give you a two-point breakdown for why you are losing fans in this thread:

1. You are developing very strong opinions about things that only exist conceptually.

2. You are hitting us over the head with those opinions over and over again.

Don't forget that your opinions aren't facts. They're your opinions.

[go4guy]

People dont like big wall massing that a single building would produce. The developer breaks it up into two towers, and we complain that some units will not have the best views. The condo on the same site as Aloft has some unit's windows facing the end of Aloft with less than 40 ft in between. That is an example. May not be taller, but not sure that matters. There are examples of this in Northloop as well as Loring Park. Not sure the big deal. I like how it breaks it up into two buildings. I think this is a valuable part of the design.

[Archiapolis]

I can give you a two-point breakdown for why you are losing fans in this thread:

Apologies. I doubt that I have/had any fans but I have posted a lot to this thread and I can see that the frequency could be annoying to some.

1. You are developing very strong opinions about things that only exist conceptually.

I thought urbanmsp existed to give opinions on architecture/urbanism. I apologize for the frequency of comments but other than offering evidence/examples to bolster my argument, I don't know what you mean by "strong opinions." Would it be better to say, "Meh" on a forum? Seems pointless but, noted.

2. You are hitting us over the head with those opinions over and over again.

Again, apologies for the frequency of comments. In the future, I'll try to limit my comments and not respond to logical fallacies or comments with little/no support. It is not one of my virtues to just accept when people make baseless claims regarding things that can be easily verified like physical dimensions which are not subjective.

Don't forget that your opinions aren't facts. They're your opinions.

I've made these very comments on multiple threads: "I'm just a person with an opinion" , "I'm nobody special", etc. I'm not offended by differing opinions, I enjoy the engagement and I hope that others view it the same way. I can see that a high volume of comments and attempts to support those comments could be misconstrued. Cheers.

[mplser]

80% of the windows in my condo face directly into the next building's windows, which are only about 3 or 4 feet away. it honestly has never bothered me, and that's a subsidized low-income building. some people care, and some people don't. the people who don't will buy those units for the cheap.

[FISHMANPET]

Some people want views and are willing to pay for them, some people just want light and/or aren't willing to pay for views, and I have no doubt that units will be priced appropriately.

[Wedgeguy]

Unlike Stonebridge, which sold several units in a very short time of being on the market. I do not see this building being built without at least 40% of the first phase presold. If you are a smart developer, you would want half of those 40% to be your difficult to market units to be among those that are spoken for. If I remember right there was close to 50% presold, Stonebridge, before the building even broke ground and as at 60% when it had started construction. I offer the Sexton as an example of not having part of your hardest to sell units presold. Maybe I should say less than premium units, those that lack sunlight and views. Figure out your break even point for them, as you may have to sell them close to breakeven, to get the building sold out. If you have a hard time preselling then you will have to make changes in your design to make it more marketable to your buyers. IF it takes you too many months to get 25% then you have to scrap and start over or make major changes in the design.

Don't take it personally Archiapolis, I get people p*ssed at me for stating what I see as the obvious. That is what makes for a good discussion. Just try and wait and put your ideas in one or two IM's vs several in a short amount of time. BTW I like your read, and I agree with a lot of what you bring to the forum.

[Nick]

Man, this thread, right?

[sushisimo]

Yeah, I'm lost. Is there a defined timeframe between Phase 1 and 2, or will whatever happens with 1 (horrible 40' views or not) click the domino onto 2?

[Archiapolis]

Unlike Stonebridge, which sold several units in a very short time of being on the market. I do not see this building being built without at least 40% of the first phase presold. If you are a smart developer, you would want half of those 40% to be your difficult to market units to be among those that are spoken for. If I remember right there was close to 50% presold, Stonebridge, before the building even broke ground and as at 60% when it had started construction. I offer the Sexton as an example of not having part of your hardest to sell units presold. Maybe I should say less than premium units, those that lack sunlight and views. Figure out your break even point for them, as you may have to sell them close to breakeven, to get the building sold out. If you have a hard time preselling then you will have to make changes in your design to make it more marketable to your buyers. IF it takes you too many months to get 25% then you have to scrap and start over or make major changes in the design.

Don't take it personally Archiapolis, I get people p*ssed at me for stating what I see as the obvious. That is what makes for a good discussion. Just try and wait and put your ideas in one or two IM's vs several in a short amount of time. BTW I like your read, and I agree with a lot of what you bring to the forum.

Thanks man. I am not hurt or upset at all because everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just confused.

I'm not going to come into a forum like this and hem and haw and write a bunch of equivocal things with no support for my opinion. I thought the entire raison d'etre of a forum is to offer an opinion, support that opinion and then have some respectful back and forth with detractors.

I have already gotten a lot out of this particular thread. It is a bit of a market study to see the input on buildings (even if one doesn't agree with the opinions) is important.

[Silophant]

This went before the planning commission on Thursday. They were also unimpressed with the extraordinary amount of parking.

[Konante]

I fully understand Stanton's concerns but he needs to understand his primary motivations are not perfectly aligned with the City's. He cares about right now and completing a successful and profitable project. Nothing wrong with that but Minneapolis is appropriately taking a long-term view as well. He is most certainly not, highlighted by this: "I’m not against your mass transit. In fact, it’s great that you’ve got it. Hopefully some of the people use it.”

[mattaudio]

I also thought that quotation was a little sketchy. Even though I support allowing Stanton to build as much structured parking as he thinks the market will bear, that quotation was out of touch.

[aeroknase]

That's honestly his quote? I find it pretty problematic that a downtown developer would even think to say "I'm not against mass transit" let alone qualifying it further with "your".

[John]

Just reaffirms my belief Stanton doesn't "get it" about either urban lifestyle or design. His project is in trouble.

[twincitizen]

That quote backs my theory that Stanton sees no difference between Stonebridge's location and Washington/Hennepin. It's all "downtown" to him and this project would have the exact same parking needs as anywhere in the Mill District.

[kregger22]

Maybe if he had competition in the condo market he might speak differently on the topic.

[FISHMANPET]

My biggest concern with parking in general is displacement of units for people, and increase in cost. Parking is underground, so it isn't displacing much of anything. And since Stanton's projects are generally much cheaper than other condos, it's hard to say that parking is pushing the price of this project higher than it should be.