urbanMSP

1. Where have those folks been parking for the past X years?

I lived at the Sexton for a year and parked in the Armory. It was a lot cheaper to be there than at Centre Village.

One annoying thing about this location is how much ambulance/helicopter noise you get. The Sexton maybe just had crappy windows that let a lot of noise in though. Hopefully they do a better job with a new building.

A lot more details: http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=273113941&c=y

The Skyscape development is nearly the exact same lot size and they managed to completely wrap their parking ramp with condo units and commercial. It is possible that commercial/retail may not be very successful on this site (i.e. good first floor uses) but I think it is terrible that the city is allowing the giant parking podiums downtown without being wrapped with residential. Grant Park also did a very nice job hiding a huge ramp. and then we get a giant ramp at Nic on 5th- terrible. City needs to require that ramps need to be screened by active uses.

From bapster's article:

“When the city wakes up and understands that you need more parking, then we’ll do something,” Stanton said.

Good luck with that, Jim.

This is fantastic news!
"...condo market is shaped by a lack of new supply and an increase in demand. There are now fewer than 200 condominiums on the market in downtown, and just across the northeast side of the Mississippi River, according to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. At the current sales pace, that’s enough supply to last just 2.4 months." Might make a couple of the proposed towers (either on the Opus block at Nicollet and 4th or the 40 story proposed across the river) more fast tracked to take advantage of this tight market!

This is fantastic news!
"...condo market is shaped by a lack of new supply and an increase in demand. There are now fewer than 200 condominiums on the market in downtown, and just across the northeast side of the Mississippi River, according to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. At the current sales pace, that’s enough supply to last just 2.4 months." Might make a couple of the proposed towers (either on the Opus block at Nicollet and 4th or the 40 story proposed across the river) more fast tracked to take advantage of this tight market!

One would have to have the insight, the guts and the money to back it up.

From bapster's article:

“When the city wakes up and understands that you need more parking, then we’ll do something,” Stanton said.

Good luck with that, Jim.

Well Mr Stanton, I hope you sell the Eclipse property in the future. You should really should stick with less visible sites like 516 S 8th Street. They're more appropriate for the caliber of your projects.

From bapster's article:

“When the city wakes up and understands that you need more parking, then we’ll do something,” Stanton said.

Good luck with that, Jim.

Maybe when Mr. Stanton wakes up and realizes this isn't Eden Prairie he can do something

Hey! You're right... the 3 car garage life serves well though

I love how we all criticize Stanton, and yet he's the only one who's been successful in building and selling condos in the past years. He's obviously on to something. I agree that downtown project shouldn't cater to people who want/need multiple cars, but that doesn't mean that those people don't want to live downtown.

Saying that he's the only one that's been successful implies others have tried and failed. He's the only one trying, period.

Mr. Stanton hates curves, and he dislikes angles and setbacks almost as much. A box is the cheapest thing to build. His buildings are bland, but the level of interior finish is generally excellent. His buildings are much nicer to look from than to look at.

This formula allows him to build projects that people want to live in for less money per square foot than anyone else, and it's a big part of the reason why he's rich enough to finance condo projects at a time when real estate investors are just nibbling at that market. None of this will thrill us urbanists, but from a purely business perspective, it's hard to argue with his approach.

^^^You got to give him credit for getting the job done. He's no nonsense. But unfortunately he's out of touch. When he makes the statement “When the city wakes up and understands that you need more parking, then we’ll do something,” it displays an arrogant attitude that's completely out of step with the values of the community.

I don't argue with his approach, indeed, I welcome this building. I only have a problem with it when he tries to put it on high-visibility lots like Washington and Hennepin. (Or fronting Gold Medal Park, but that ship's sailed.)

I live in the "community" and I value my car.

I live in the "community" and I value my car.

No one is opposed to cars. However, the city "woke up" and decided we should consider alternate forms of transportation other than the car and encourage TOD. This is a long term trend as the automobile as the dominant mode of transporation declines.

^^^You got to give him credit for getting the job done. He's no nonsense. But unfortunately he's out of touch. When he makes the statement “When the city wakes up and understands that you need more parking, then we’ll do something,” it displays an arrogant attitude that's completely out of step with the values of the community.

One could argue that Minneapolis's arrogance is on display when downtown has hundreds of surface lots, but hinders development over a few parking spots. Very negligable in my opinion. He owns the damn land, let him build on it and increase the tax base. I'd hate to see Minneapolis overplay its hand and deter developers from investing as much as they would have downtown.

The City can't "overplay its hand" when he never filed any applications. If he wants to build the Eclipse project with 1.8 spaces per unit, he'll submit applications and make his case to the city why he needs that parking variance. The plans are already drawn up, and he went to Committee of the Whole once or twice. Even if he were to be denied, the application fees aren't going to bankrupt anyone, let alone Mr. Stanton. On top of that, I really doubt the City would deny that variance. Staff would have to recommend against it, it would be contentious at the Planning Commission, and spur some difficult conversations and policy questions, but at the end of the day the City Council does not turn him down over a request to build his residents more parking. If the Eclipse project is truly financially feasible for Mr. Stanton, he'll submit the applications. Until then it's all talk.

^^^Yes, It's likely the 516 S. 8th Street project is much cheaper to build for Mr Stanton. Less inventory of condos to sell and no Phase 2 to deal with. Much less risk.

As I have stated before, these will be bread and butter condos, not any showcase condos like along the river. Not sure the market for really high end condos is there yet. If so, the Alatus proposal would satisfy that market for the time being. It is closer to the river and has views of downtown to really get the prices that they will want and need. Eclipse is caught in between these two. Really too far from the river, and too close to the core for good skyline views, and on a very busy intersection (noise) to be considered a premium site for condos. It is better than the 516 for location, but does not have the cashe' of the Alatus project.