Kraus-Anderson, HQ Apartments, Finnegans "Brewtel" - 9th St S/5th Ave S

[EOst]

I don't think we're really in disagreement; a lot of this work was manufactured in the past, but no longer, so it would require either a new factory (unlikely) or craftsmen to do it just for the project. A quick Google suggests redoing the facade on a brownstone in NYC costs 3-500k; even taking into account lower costs for brick instead of stone, cheaper detailing, and new construction rather than a retrofit, it would still be more than the market could probably bear. Heck, the new "modernist" rowhouses they've been building in a couple places in NYC (like these) have been hugely expensive, and not just because of the land value.

That said, I don't know why we aren't building new rowhouses more generally. I know there are some (the ones that screen Skyscape's garage, for example) and it doesn't seem like they have trouble selling, but perhaps our zoning codes discourage them.

[mattaudio]

We don't build things like that anymore because tastes and styles have changed.

It seems to me that we don't build quality things anymore because people are too cheap to have pride in what they do. Seriously, the housing market (especially in the sun belt) has devolved to building the largest stick shed you can afford to keep your shit out of the rain. The same philosophy is definitely in place upmarket and in commercial projects, just looking at how we built things a century ago compared to now.

Regarding cost of brick, I'm a huge fan of Hope For Architecture / Clay Chapman... He's hand-building structural masonry homes for $80/sf. http://www.placemakers.com/2012/10/15/t ... ebuilding/ http://hopeforarchitecture.com/blog/

[kiliff75]

It seems to me that we don't build quality things anymore because people are too cheap to have pride in what they do. Seriously, the housing market (especially in the sun belt) has devolved to building the largest stick shed you can afford to keep your shit out of the rain.

I find this very relevant, having just moved from a new townhouse in the outer burbs to a 90-year-old craftsman home in south minneapolis....i shudder to think about the condition of that townhouse in 90 years....

[aeisenberg]

We don't build things like that anymore because tastes and styles have changed.

It seems to me that we don't build quality things anymore because people are too cheap to have pride in what they do. Seriously, the housing market (especially in the sun belt) has devolved to building the largest stick shed you can afford to keep your shit out of the rain. The same philosophy is definitely in place upmarket and in commercial projects, just looking at how we built things a century ago compared to now.

Whether a house is "built well" depends on a) the quality of the materials used, and b) the quality of the labor doing the work. Since these are both notoriously variable, I think it's impossible to generalize.

However, I can tell you as a Realtor, I'm in a LOT of century-old homes, and I feel like people who say older homes are "better" are simply judging "quality" through a very specific lens. Do older homes have better wood and craftsmanship? Yes, usually. Do they have better ornamentation? Yeah, absolutely. Great! Enjoy that. They also have a lot of uneven floors, crappy plaster, leaky foundations, outdated safety and electrical systems, antiquated heating systems/infrastructure, etc. And often times, the quality people talk about in reference to old homes is really a result of overbuilding to account for the imprecision and the uncertainty in older building techniques.

Modern homes, when done right, are engineered much more precisely, with better techniques, systems and infrastructure, higher safety standards, more attention to drainage and waterproofing, etc, etc. Are they as charming? No. They're not, not even close. But this idea that old houses are inherently "better" is just, I think, based on a very narrow idea of what "better" means.

[mattaudio]

Yes but how often do you find a modern home done right?

[nate]

Swinging back to the KA building, I agree with the POV that a single use, four story building is appropriate at this location IF there is a real attempt to open the building up to the street by placing active uses at street level and providing plenty of transparency.

From the rendering, it appears that the street level is a largely opaque brick wall, hidden behind shrubbery/landscaping, with a main entrance oriented towards the parking lot. That's not something to be accepted without criticism anywhere in the city limits, much less this close to the CBD.

[FISHMANPET]

Spec built is probably going to suck, but a custom home where you watch the contractor is going to be pretty good.

Anyway.

[Nathan]

I've worked on plenty of spec homes with good builders that have nice finishes, it's all about price range, and the builder, you don't have to sit over thecontractors shoulder. plenty of people lived in crappy finished homes and apartments in the "old days" too, they've just been demolished and aren't represented in our current perception of homes and lifestyle during that time period.

[aeisenberg]

Yes but how often do you find a modern home done right?

Depends on the builder. Depends on the price. Just like in the old days. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

As for KA's proposal, I feel like they should just wait until they have something more substantial to build here.

[TroyGBiv]

I have to say that it has always seemed a little weird that they are planning on building a small headquarters when they could use their space needs as a part of building a larger building and securing a lead tenant.

[go4guy]

I would think it is becuase they are too far away from all the other commercial towers. Would probably be hard to get a large enough tenant. With the rest of the block slated for residential, it is kind of telling what would work here.

[Unity77]

Edit: Nevermind

I didn't see the following:

"The new plan was scheduled to be heard Oct. 14 by the city's Planning Commission, but the Elliot Park Neighborhood Association objected to it, prompting the Planning Commission to hold off until its Nov. 10 meeting."

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... again.html

[acs]

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/11/kra ... d-for-now/

Withdrawn from the planning commission meeting, on hold indefinitely. Talk about overplaying your hand...

[mattaudio]

How was this overplaying of one's hand?

[Unity77]

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/11/kra ... d-for-now/

Withdrawn from the planning commission meeting, on hold indefinitely. Talk about overplaying your hand...

My initial post was regarding the fact that Kraus-Anderson withdrew their plans. My question was did they withdraw because they are going back to the drawing board or are they thinking about relocating somewhere else within the Twin Cities? I hope they are not planning on the latter, but I would certainly understand if they do.

[twincitizen]

FWIW, staff was recommending approval of their revised plans. I hardly doubt they are going to abandon all hope due to "neighborhood opposition". They pulled this *before* the planning commission meeting, so nothing was even voted on yet.

[TroyGBiv]

I just wonder if they realized that land use in that area should probably focus on larger structures than a 4 story building.

[twincitizen]

No, from the sound of the F&C article, they have not realized that. Opposition to this project has absolutely nothing to do with building height. It's about suburban architecture, lack of entrances that face the street, blank walls/no doors at the building corners, etc. However, they have not called the project off entirely. It could return next spring. After reading the full article, it seems K-A was trying to rush this project through before construction costs escalate further. They figured out what their space needs are and wanted to crank this turd out ASAP before it blows the budget.

I suspect they will have some more discussion with city staff and the planning commission before moving forward. The surface parking issue was (mostly) solved by issuing the Interim Use Permit that would expire in 5 years. I think that's a pretty reasonable timeline to give them to figure out what they want to do with their own property. It's not like it isn't surface parking today...so they wouldn't be making anything worse than it is today. If they can't find partners/financing to build residential/mixed-use on the remainder of the block within 5 years, they should just sell anyways.

The main issues that they didn't resolve with the planning commission and neighborhood are architectural compatibility with the 9th St historic district and lack of active building entrances at the street corner(s).

[twincitizen]

The good news is that K-A is still interested in a downtown HQ. http://finance-commerce.com/2015/06/kra ... wntown-hq/ (locked)

The bad news is that whatever revised proposal they eventually bring forward will probably still be underwhelming. They should honestly just sell half (or 3/4) of the block now, as it will reduce the area they can cover with surface parking. Without any demonstrable demand for new spec office space, it still seems very likely that K-A is still going to propose a short office building in which they are the sole tenant (80,000 sf). There's probably nothing that can be done about that. What really matters in their forthcoming revised proposal is what they propose to do with the rest of the block, and whether they still propose covering it in surface parking in the interim.

Best case: maybe they figured out how to do their planned 4-story/80k sf office building with hotel or residential component above it, taking up half the block or less, and they sell/hold the rest for future development. They should honestly be able to fit 80k sf of office space in pretty much any mixed-use scenario... [This is all speculation BTW, not from the article]

[acs]

They already tipped their hand:
http://www.startribune.com/on-east-side ... 299384281/

Last fall, Kraus-Anderson tried to gain approvals on its new headquarters from Elliot Park and the city’s Planning Commission, but received pushback for not developing out the full block. The company is now working on a feasibility study to test if the market could handle a larger, mixed-use project for the entire site.

“We are spending money to figure this out,” said Michael Korsh, director of real estate development at Kraus-Anderson. “If the market says it’s not the right time, we will go to Plan B,” which would likely be a new office building on about a quarter of the block.