The Eclipse
Re: The Eclipse
It would seem that the people who do not own cars never go anywhere. I take road trips and love weekend getaways. You can't do this without a car. I love living in the city but I commute to the suburbs. Stopping at the store and the gym on the way home makes rapid transit impossible.
Re: The Eclipse
Heh. What? You can't go on a vacation without a car?It would seem that the people who do not own cars never go anywhere. I take road trips and love weekend getaways. You can't do this without a car. I love living in the city but I commute to the suburbs. Stopping at the store and the gym on the way home makes rapid transit impossible.
But yeah, I own a car too. High five to us!
Towns!
Re: The Eclipse
http://www.amtrak.com/homeIt would seem that the people who do not own cars never go anywhere. I take road trips and love weekend getaways. You can't do this without a car.
http://jeffersonlines.com/
http://us.megabus.com/
http://www.mspairport.com/
http://www.enterprise.com/
I own a car too, for the commute to the suburbs that I until recently had. But saying that you can't take road trips or even leave the city without a car is absurd.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: The Eclipse
So are you in denial of the fact that a sizable chunk (18.5%) of Minneapolis households do not own cars? Or what exactly are you trying to say?It would seem that the people who do not own cars never go anywhere. I take road trips and love weekend getaways. You can't do this without a car. I love living in the city but I commute to the suburbs. Stopping at the store and the gym on the way home makes rapid transit impossible.
Most households own a car. Some do not. That split has been extremely stable in recent years, but is almost certainly going to trend towards the latter. Let's keep in mind that, until about 18 months ago, downtown had zero grocery stores. Now we have two. That factor alone makes the car-free life significantly easier.
Minneapolis will continue to be a city oriented around the automobile. We'll never be NYC, Chicago, or DC. I don't think anyone here is disputing that. I do predict the number of two-car households in Minneapolis is going to see a significant drop in the next decade as more people transition to transit, bicycle, car share, and all-of-the-above options, especially Downtown.
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 711
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am
Re: The Eclipse
And building a whole bunch of parking in a prime downtown location will help keep it that way. Living in the city means owning a car isn't just the automatic default. This seems relevant
I know there are quite a few people here that live in the city and don't own a car, but in a city like Minneapolis, that's a lifestyle choice that makes a statement, and at the point at which you can afford one of these condos, you can afford at least one car, and let's face it, it's going to make your life a lot easier. This isn't Chicago where parking is $50 a day and you can stand on a street corner and spit and hit 20 convenience stores.
http://m.startribune.com/?id=164700036
Re: The Eclipse
Stanton campaigned against 2626 W. Lake? No? Then I'm going with not relevant.
Towns!
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: The Eclipse
I swore I wasn't going to post again. This thread is in the crapper and I just keep flushing.
But something fairly important just sprung to my little planner brain.
Variances aren't (supposed to be) handed out willy-nilly. You (are supposed to) have to prove that there are unique circumstances/difficulties regarding this specific piece of property to be granted a variance.
Most developments outside of downtown require Conditional Use Permits to increase height, etc. Variances are not at all the same thing. The variances granted to other projects often have to do with landscaping, or side/rear setbacks or some other minor aspect that would physically constrain the development.
Wanting to build more parking than the zoning code allows isn't unique to this parcel of property or this development in any way. This isn't quite as simple as the City Council waving a magic wand because they want Stanton to build here. "I want to build more parking than code allows because I want to" doesn't meet the criteria. I guarantee that planning staff will recommend against granting a variance.
P.S. I'm deleting all the crap about people's crap storage in their condo parking stalls
But something fairly important just sprung to my little planner brain.
Variances aren't (supposed to be) handed out willy-nilly. You (are supposed to) have to prove that there are unique circumstances/difficulties regarding this specific piece of property to be granted a variance.
Most developments outside of downtown require Conditional Use Permits to increase height, etc. Variances are not at all the same thing. The variances granted to other projects often have to do with landscaping, or side/rear setbacks or some other minor aspect that would physically constrain the development.
Wanting to build more parking than the zoning code allows isn't unique to this parcel of property or this development in any way. This isn't quite as simple as the City Council waving a magic wand because they want Stanton to build here. "I want to build more parking than code allows because I want to" doesn't meet the criteria. I guarantee that planning staff will recommend against granting a variance.
P.S. I'm deleting all the crap about people's crap storage in their condo parking stalls
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4617
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: The Eclipse
Actually, St. Paul has figured it out. I have a friend whose father has a wood shop built in a parking stall in their condo building.I've always wanted a wood shop, but that'd be pretty hard in a condo building. Maybe that can be made possible?
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7759
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: The Eclipse
I swear I've been in condo garages in other cities or countries which feature individual garage doors. This makes them more the equivalent in form to garages on the outside of suburban apartment complexes rather than the inside of a parking ramp. Seems as long as there's proper fire break, it shouldn't be a big deal if people use parking space for something other than storing cars.This thread is in the crapper and I just keep flushing.
Re: The Eclipse
when I moved here (whittier and the wedge) after growing up in the suburbs and living in Phoenix for 3 years,I drove for about 90% of my trips. now after 5 years I drive about 10% of my trips. because I chose to walk and bike and transit, but I still have one car that sits in one parking space. I have started to valuesomething very different. my argument is that the physical number of spots doesn't encourage more cars or more trips. lifestyle is more csrs and more trips, what we need to figure out is how to get our new minneapolitan neighbors on our page, without seeming like anti car radicals.
Re: The Eclipse
Can we either get back to the topic for which this tread is talking about. The building, not parking spaces and car vs anti car or please lock this thread also!
Re: The Eclipse
Agreed on this. I grew up in northern Minnesota, where driving everywhere is a near necessity and parking is free. When I first moved to Minneapolis (or rather, first outside the dorms, where I had no car), I drove a lot. But over the years, I still have that car, but I bike, walk, and use transit all the time.when I moved here (whittier and the wedge) after growing up in the suburbs and living in Phoenix for 3 years,I drove for about 90% of my trips. now after 5 years I drive about 10% of my trips. because I chose to walk and bike and transit, but I still have one car that sits in one parking space. I have started to valuesomething very different. my argument is that the physical number of spots doesn't encourage more cars or more trips. lifestyle is more csrs and more trips, what we need to figure out is how to get our new minneapolitan neighbors on our page, without seeming like anti car radicals.
I live just outside downtown and have a "free" parking spot, but even if I lived downtown, I imagine I'd still pay for a parking spot, because it would likely be cheaper than relying on the occasional car2go and car rental (my car is paid for, insurance is cheap, and I don't use much gas).
In other words - a parking spot doesn't necessarily mean more driving...it certainly hasn't in my experience.
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 768
- Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am
Re: The Eclipse
I'm not saying parking stalls don't have value but *presumably*, your unit was advertised as having x stalls included in the price. Correct? If you have x+1 cars, then you either purchase a bigger unit with x+1 stalls (and pay more for the unit) or, you make the decision to purchase the extra stall. The argument is that the developer is making a statement that he "needs" this number of stalls and that is coming from indications he is getting from buyers that they "need" all of these cars <--this is where the city can and should have a say because it affects more than just this building (as myself and others have stated) If you have a car collection and the money, I don't care if you purchase all of the stalls available in a project - that isn't the point. The argument is related to how many stalls a PROJECT has and the effect that has on the city AND the precedent it sets for approvals for other projects. Do you see why these last two points might be a big deal?In what condo world do the parking spaces not have a value or cost money?Nailed it! If there is no up-front cost to these people, they will just take the car/cars they have and drive them right in without thinking about it. There are some great points being made that this has less to do with "the market" than it does about the direction of this city. These cars will be driving in and out of this building and adding MORE cars to streets in this city is NOT the answer. If this site "has to" have this high of a parking ratio then the floodgates will open.Part of it too is that people are coming into the move with their two cars -- it's not like they are purchasing two cars after they move in. A lot of people feel attached to their vehicle and may not necessarily sell it just because they move someplace where cars aren't as necessary. Wherever they go, the cars go with them.
In a lot of big cities parking spaces are treated more like property than they are treated like amenities. When my folks lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago they had to purchase the rights to the two parking spaces they required for both of their cars, and I want to say that the cost to own the rights to those spaces was like $20K per space! I mean at what point does car ownership become so expensive and such a hassle that it's no longer worth it to have two cars, or even one?
And no, it's not simple or easy or desirable to live downtown with no personal transportation. There are so many great parts of this city that are not easy to get to via public transportation...
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 768
- Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am
Re: The Eclipse
Obviously if this thread needs to be locked then so be it but how do you separate the issue of parking and "discussion of the building?"
Putting aside the aesthetic, isn't the proposed parking a big deal? I guess I'm in the minority who thinks that it is...
Putting aside the aesthetic, isn't the proposed parking a big deal? I guess I'm in the minority who thinks that it is...
- FISHMANPET
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
- Location: Corcoran
Re: The Eclipse
The great UrbanMSP divide rears it's ugly head, those who want Urbanism, and those who want pretty buildings.
Re: The Eclipse
For the record, I think this building has too much parking. But obviously the one man/company who has the money and has been successfully building condos in Minneapolis since the recession seems to have a successful formula. Personally I would sacrifice that amount of parking for more dynamics in the architecture, and a more activated street presence, but again, just me.
-
- Landmark Center
- Posts: 212
- Joined: October 2nd, 2012, 3:11 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: The Eclipse
I guess I don't subscribe to the theory that if this developer gets all these parking spots then every other developer will do the same. I think it's more demand driven than that. It costs the builders money to include more spots so every developer isn't just going to throw in a bunch of extra spots if they aren't needed or wanted. If downtown continues down the path we all hope for then the cars in this project won't be used as much and other developers won't include as many when they build.
Either way, I would bet he settles for something in between what he's proposing and what the maximum is.
Either way, I would bet he settles for something in between what he's proposing and what the maximum is.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7759
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: The Eclipse
I agree with fotoapparatic. I think we're getting caught up on the number of parking spaces, not what parking represents. If we can get an activated street presence out of it, that seems better to me. And the overbuilt car sewer nature of our downtown streets has much more to do with how many cars are accommodated rather than how many parking spots there are in one condo project. Personally, I think this is too much parking. But I'm not Stanton, and I'm not a prospective buyer in his building. Let's focus on calming our downtown streets and improving the sidewalk realm.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests