urbanMSP

I remember this. Skyscraperpage has a diagram of it, just not sure how acurate it is to what was being proposed at the time.
IDS II
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-mo ... 476308383/

With a 4 star hotel, more condos should be a no brainer. I mean, here in Rochester, they will be building a 4 star hotel with 15 floors of condos above it branded with the hotel. How in the world can't that work at this location? Baffling.

There were soil borings being taken last Friday near this along Hennepin.

Does anyone know how much the marginal cost goes up per floor as you go from 30 floors towards 40 and 50? It may be that there is demand for more condos and etc in a building like this, but the financial gains are moot given the extra costs per floor as you reach notable heights. It seems like we're topping out at 30 to approx. 40 stories with anything beyond that perhaps cost prohibitive.

For me, Capella is our tallest.

I'm looking at them from my office window and Capella clearly looks clearly taller. Of course, it's several blocks closer.

I'm not particularly concerned about getting a new tallest, just making good, high-value use of our downtown land.

Capella is the tallest actually. That was established a few years back... they had to raise their roof as a result of changes to their HVAC system...

Does anyone know how much the marginal cost goes up per floor as you go from 30 floors towards 40 and 50? It may be that there is demand for more condos and etc in a building like this, but the financial gains are moot given the extra costs per floor as you reach notable heights. It seems like we're topping out at 30 to approx. 40 stories with anything beyond that perhaps cost prohibitive.

Not sure what causes it, but there seem to be harder limits at certain heights where you must need to install something extra, so it's not worth it to add one or two more floors, you have to go at least four more. For example, we've gotten a few 26-story residential towers, a couple 30-story towers, and proposals for two 40-story towers now, but nothing for, say, 28 floors or 35 floors.

And I'm not sure how much of that is floor-count related vs height related. With the additional height of the office floors, this will probably be about as tall with 33 stories as the two proposed condo towers are with 40 stories, so maybe they're running into the same wall that's leading Alatus and Ryan to top out there?

I presume it's something with height and elevators.

I would think the elevators would have to do more with density and not height. But in a project like this, wouldnt the condos already have their own elevator?

I thought I once heard that the cost really doesnt go up that much per floor until you get much taller than these tower proposals. Would be interesting to hear from the Alatus rep who visits this site.

Elevator banks take up floor space so the smaller the floor plate and the taller the building = more elevator banks. I think the equation becomes how much rent you can charge per square foot competitively. The office market is improving but it isn't crazy so the economics probably don't support taller structures with smaller floor plates/square footage.

I'm prepared to support this project, though I do have some questions about the ample parking supply and lack of additional condos.

The lack of additional condo units can really only be two things: perceived lack of demand & lack of financing (we think we can only sell 18 multi-million dollar condos here) and/or structural/height/elevator issues (the costs of going higher skyrocket so quickly that it won't pencil out, even for a $10M penthouse or two).

The plans include 540 parking spaces underground. I'm wondering how many spaces are required on site in the agreements with Four Seasons and RBC, respectively. Obviously RBC is requiring some amount on site, as is Four Seasons, but 540 is eye-popping. This project is required to be connected to the skyway system, meaning access to existing public parking (Library, Nic on 5th, etc). Furthemore, the hotel could presumably valet off-site to a cheaper parking ramp (Gateway,etc)... hence why I question the need for 540 stalls in the building.

It would seem that parking supply isn't holding back additional condos. Another 18 units (assume 2+ parking spaces each...these are millionaires we're talking about) would only claim another 36-40 parking spaces out of 500 remaining (assuming 40 claimed by the first 18 condos).

In conclusion, while I wouldn't oppose this project, it is frustrating that we can't get a good answer as to why they can't add another measly 5 stories / ~18 condos.

P.S. The presence of Four Seasons alone makes this an iconic project [mic_drop]

My guess is Four Seasons has a requirement for onsite parking since they're a very high end hotel and their average guest isn't willing to wait 10-15 minutes for the valet to run a few blocks away to retrieve their car. Plus the nearest large ramp (1st & Hennepin) is at capacity and there is a lengthy waitlist for monthly parking. Shorenstein has many of their tenants at Washington Square utilizing that ramp for parking.

Yep, there's lots of anecdotal evidence that parking is getting pretty tight in this part of town, especially if we have hopes of ever tearing down that terrible Post Office ramp.

Four Season hotels make a lot of money from special events... so I wonder if this is almost more related to gala / fundraiser type uses. If that is the case... I can see why they would want to have more onsite parking... also RBC has a lot of very high paid employees... that may also stipulate the number of on site parking places...

I have heard that the 18 condos is due to a few reasons. The city has a minimum height in the agreement of 30 stories so UP is adding a few floors of condos to get to that height. They are only doing 18 because the plan is for them to be exclusive and if you get too many then they are no longer exclusive. I am guessing these are going to be the most expensive residential property in the state on a per square foot basis. Finally, all the parking is required to be underground and these units will require 2 spaces per unit so for every unit they add they need to find room for 2 more spaces which gets tough when the water table/ bedrock limit how far down you can go.

Our thinking about parking is so messed up. I'd bet good money that if you surveyed our existing luxury condo and apartment towers you'd find that far fewer than two parking spaces per unit were in use, and yet no one could possibly imagine that we don't need that much for the rich people.

I'm not enthusiastic about it either, but I don't think they're getting built because we're overestimating the demand for parking. People like to have more space than they need 'just in case'. How many spare bedrooms or 3rd garage stalls sit empty/are filled with exercise bikes etc.?

I think you need to accept that there's a very real difference between a "luxury" apartment complex that's targeted at young Target employees and a building that features multi-million dollar condominiums. They are completely different worlds.

Two parking spaces are a huge deal. My building isn't luxury by any means, and if you have less than two spaces it's a significant hurdle to sell. People try to buy a second one just so they have an easier time selling the unit.

I'm not "luxury" by a long shot but two parking spaces would be a baseline requirement for me. We have work cars and a weekend vehicle. Even in a utopia of walkability I still will need to drive for a significant portion of work and leisure. I'm not overestimating...this is what it is.