Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 650
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby VacantLuxuries » April 21st, 2016, 10:16 pm

kiliff75 wrote:
twinkess wrote:
Didier wrote:I was hoping we were ready for a destroyer, but at least it's not a caravel.
Or worse: a trireme!
Or a frigate... :roll:

:lol:
We should stay focused on what's important here - we won't lose this unit to a sea or ocean tile.

MS3

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby MS3 » April 21st, 2016, 11:14 pm

dingo wrote:I swear it has been posted before, but does anyone know our current vacancy rate of downtown hotels? and/or average hotel room price?
Not sure but our convention center hotel has been shipped to Kansas City.. A 30 story 800+ room hotel with over 15,000 sq ft retail.
Another one bites the dust. It amazes me how Kansas City can support a convention center hotel of this size but Minneapolis can't, or is it that Minneapolis simply doesn't want it? At least we're getting all these little 10 story popcorn box hotels!

Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 868
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby Tyler » April 22nd, 2016, 6:54 am

Our 800+ room convention hotel has been here for 25 years.
Towns!

mnmike
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1096
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby mnmike » April 22nd, 2016, 8:07 am

It's true! 820 at the Hilton. Our convention center has over 1800 rooms directly connected to it within one block. And yeah, the Hilton was built as a "convention center hotel".

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1594
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby amiller92 » April 22nd, 2016, 8:23 am

Honestly, I have no faith that we can support another "convention center hotel" and suspect it would come with requests for subsidies we should reject.

Qhaberl
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 635
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Graves Downtown East Development - Washington & Chicago

Postby Qhaberl » April 22nd, 2016, 8:41 am

Very excited about this development. I think it's a great mix of uses. If my memory serves me right, that is the lot where the mega bus used to pick up. I remember standing out in the cold for several different occasions, waiting on the bus. Hopefully this has smooth sailing through the city processes. Maybe they can break ground this year. Very excited!

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3483
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Anondson » April 22nd, 2016, 1:12 pm

As Sam Black notes, could this be another stadium blimp-view photobomb? Check the logo on the rooftop.

https://twitter.com/mspbjsamblack/statu ... 9627551746

Not that there is a damn thing wrong with it, anyway!

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5982
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby twincitizen » April 22nd, 2016, 1:16 pm

What's up with that proposed angled "alley" connecting the Norm McGrew ROW out to Washington? I hope that is a one-way heading away from Washington...that would be a hell of a sharp right turn if you were trying to go alley > EB Washington.

Roughly here in Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9763783 ... 312!8i6656

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4218
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby grant1simons2 » April 22nd, 2016, 3:42 pm

That looks like just a pathway to get to the retail tenants that will be around the "corner" and the offices near the back.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » April 22nd, 2016, 8:06 pm

Anondson wrote:As Sam Black notes, could this be another stadium blimp-view photobomb? Check the logo on the rooftop.

https://twitter.com/mspbjsamblack/statu ... 9627551746

Not that there is a damn thing wrong with it, anyway!
There may not be anything wrong with it for two reasons.
  • First, the hotel may be outside the development zone in which the Vikings were given naming rights and associated advertising control. In the event the Vikings rights do extend to the Ironclad project, the advertising may be either granted by the Vikings or permitted by agreement owning to the advertising being non-competitive with the U.S. Bank brand.
  • With Wells Fargo, the building is within the specific zone where naming rights were granted to the Vikings and Wells Fargo is a competing brand to U.S. Bank.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 873
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby go4guy » April 23rd, 2016, 6:51 am

I have never heard of this zone before that grants the Vikings exclusive rights. Plus, the Well Fargo buildings were under construction way before US Bank got the naming rights. You might as well just say that the Vikings should have gone with a non-competitive company to buy its naming rights. That is just as stupid.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2342
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Didier » April 23rd, 2016, 8:00 am

It's indeed stupid, but that's why the Vikings are able to sue Wells Fargo.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » April 23rd, 2016, 8:30 am

go4guy wrote:I have never heard of this zone before that grants the Vikings exclusive rights. Plus, the Well Fargo buildings were under construction way before US Bank got the naming rights. You might as well just say that the Vikings should have gone with a non-competitive company to buy its naming rights. That is just as stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does. A key association of stupidity is ignorance - and the willingness to speak in areas where one knows they don't understand in response to comments that shows all the signs of following a framework that reflects a schema.

There is an entire industry and associated field of law dedicated to naming rights, advertising rights, and rights of first refusal and the other bundle of practices and law related to it. (A branch of Intellectual Property Rights - IPR) The Vikings negotiated for them in good faith, and got them in consideration for things they gave up. Such rights can only extend as far as the development project associated with the development. In this instance, that includes the new park and the Ryan project (Wells Fargo).

The only reason the Vikings are in court on the Wells Fargo issue is because they secured those rights, statutorily granted in the legislation forming the MSFA, the associated stadium project, and related development. Ryan's Wells Fargo project hinged on their being a park and the development of the park hinged on the MSFA parking ramp to be built by the MSFA as part of the stadium build. No new stadium, no new stadium ramp, no new park and, hence, no Wells Fargo. Vikings naming rights extended by statute into that development area. As the Wilfs had ownership interests and options on some of those same properties - most owned by Cowles Media (Star Tribune) - that the Wilfs were securing, when they gave up those rights and interests for that part of the project to move the stadium project forward, the did it for consideration of future rights that included naming, branding, and park usage. Everything the Wilfs are claiming today they got in consideration for what became the basis of the bargain (this is a very legalistic statement in contract law).

The idea of the Wilfs being vilified by the same bundle of people who also don't know or will not properly weigh (media and grandstanding politicians) those facts is itself noteworthy - as is the fact that the Star Tribune, the local business journals, or, it seems, the local legal journals feel a need to report those details - legal facts - at a time when the local media and local politicians characterize the Wilfs in brazenly hostile terms characterized primarily as East Coast shysters.

Aside from the fact that granting naming rights in the building of professional sports facilities is standard, there is also the fact that for the project to move forward, the Wilfs gave up buying key Star Tribune properties they intended to use for game events. AN ASIDE: The reason the Vikings were granted use rights in the park is that they gave up securing ownership interests in that land, land they had an option to purchase and were actually planning to do so. (Don't recall the specific formula but it was reported over time.)

The naming rights didn't belong to US Bank at the time construction began, they belonged to the Vikings. The reason the Vikings rushed to get their signs up early before Wells Fargo signage was in place was to preserve and build on that element that, while not essential, is persuasive in a courts when asserting certain claims.

As advertising, trade dress, and related law goes, the Vikings may have been compelled to go to suit early to defend agains infringement as not acting at all can constitute the surrendering of that right. The current negations with Wells Fargo probably won't force Wells Fargo to do too much but it will force a court decree that will establish the specific criteria. When this is done, it will be done with the court taking recognition of the fact that the Viking naming right, granted to US Bank, is worth $200 million (approximate).

Wells Fargo knows exactly what they are trying to do. They too procured naming rights on sports facilities and know well that they are trying to "dilute" the Vikings property right in their brand by undermining the value - and sticking it to US Bank - a competitor. They are the plaintiffs and they are in deed trying to undermine a competitor in a manner that is considered dubious.

Put aside what you think about the Wilfs, any law school student would see that 1) they are the aggrieved party in the Wells Fargo case, and 2) they did give up value in consideration of future rights that included rights in the park. There was never a park without the stadium, there was never a park without those named usage rights. And there is a 3: There would be no major development in the East Side as we are seeing today from Wells Fargo, to Iron Clad, to the KA plan, to the apartments on Portland that cannot be shown to depend directly or indirectly on the Wilfs building the new Vikings Stadium where it is. The net new tax revenue that it can already claim direct or indirect responsibility for will itself offset the public costs.

But just watch as even people on this list - who should know better - will work hard to deny the Wilfs even that. Its pathological - and its just a little sick.

Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 868
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Tyler » April 23rd, 2016, 9:06 am

Dude.
Towns!

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Nick » April 23rd, 2016, 9:30 am

!

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3483
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Anondson » April 23rd, 2016, 10:47 am

A bit long winded and could have been edited to maybe two short paragraphs. Maybe one. ;)

uptowner
City Center
Posts: 30
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 11:10 am

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby uptowner » April 23rd, 2016, 11:56 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
go4guy wrote:I have never heard of this zone before that grants the Vikings exclusive rights. Plus, the Well Fargo buildings were under construction way before US Bank got the naming rights. You might as well just say that the Vikings should have gone with a non-competitive company to buy its naming rights. That is just as stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does. A key association of stupidity is ignorance - and the willingness to speak in areas where one knows they don't understand in response to comments that shows all the signs of following a framework that reflects a schema.

There is an entire industry and associated field of law dedicated to naming rights, advertising rights, and rights of first refusal and the other bundle of practices and law related to it. (A branch of Intellectual Property Rights - IPR) The Vikings negotiated for them in good faith, and got them in consideration for things they gave up. Such rights can only extend as far as the development project associated with the development. In this instance, that includes the new park and the Ryan project (Wells Fargo).

The only reason the Vikings are in court on the Wells Fargo issue is because they secured those rights, statutorily granted in the legislation forming the MSFA, the associated stadium project, and related development. Ryan's Wells Fargo project hinged on their being a park and the development of the park hinged on the MSFA parking ramp to be built by the MSFA as part of the stadium build. No new stadium, no new stadium ramp, no new park and, hence, no Wells Fargo. Vikings naming rights extended by statute into that development area. As the Wilfs had ownership interests and options on some of those same properties - most owned by Cowles Media (Star Tribune) - that the Wilfs were securing, when they gave up those rights and interests for that part of the project to move the stadium project forward, the did it for consideration of future rights that included naming, branding, and park usage. Everything the Wilfs are claiming today they got in consideration for what became the basis of the bargain (this is a very legalistic statement in contract law).

The idea of the Wilfs being vilified by the same bundle of people who also don't know or will not properly weigh (media and grandstanding politicians) those facts is itself noteworthy - as is the fact that the Star Tribune, the local business journals, or, it seems, the local legal journals feel a need to report those details - legal facts - at a time when the local media and local politicians characterize the Wilfs in brazenly hostile terms characterized primarily as East Coast shysters.

Aside from the fact that granting naming rights in the building of professional sports facilities is standard, there is also the fact that for the project to move forward, the Wilfs gave up buying key Star Tribune properties they intended to use for game events. AN ASIDE: The reason the Vikings were granted use rights in the park is that they gave up securing ownership interests in that land, land they had an option to purchase and were actually planning to do so. (Don't recall the specific formula but it was reported over time.)

The naming rights didn't belong to US Bank at the time construction began, they belonged to the Vikings. The reason the Vikings rushed to get their signs up early before Wells Fargo signage was in place was to preserve and build on that element that, while not essential, is persuasive in a courts when asserting certain claims.

As advertising, trade dress, and related law goes, the Vikings may have been compelled to go to suit early to defend agains infringement as not acting at all can constitute the surrendering of that right. The current negations with Wells Fargo probably won't force Wells Fargo to do too much but it will force a court decree that will establish the specific criteria. When this is done, it will be done with the court taking recognition of the fact that the Viking naming right, granted to US Bank, is worth $200 million (approximate).

Wells Fargo knows exactly what they are trying to do. They too procured naming rights on sports facilities and know well that they are trying to "dilute" the Vikings property right in their brand by undermining the value - and sticking it to US Bank - a competitor. They are the plaintiffs and they are in deed trying to undermine a competitor in a manner that is considered dubious.

Put aside what you think about the Wilfs, any law school student would see that 1) they are the aggrieved party in the Wells Fargo case, and 2) they did give up value in consideration of future rights that included rights in the park. There was never a park without the stadium, there was never a park without those named usage rights. And there is a 3: There would be no major development in the East Side as we are seeing today from Wells Fargo, to Iron Clad, to the KA plan, to the apartments on Portland that cannot be shown to depend directly or indirectly on the Wilfs building the new Vikings Stadium where it is. The net new tax revenue that it can already claim direct or indirect responsibility for will itself offset the public costs.

But just watch as even people on this list - who should know better - will work hard to deny the Wilfs even that. Its pathological - and its just a little sick.
You clearly don't know the difference between their, there and they're. You have no credibility dumb-ass.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3487
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Silophant » April 23rd, 2016, 12:17 pm

Let's cool it with the personal attacks, please.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 813
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Tiller » April 23rd, 2016, 1:07 pm

I thought I accidentally clicked the wrong page for a moment - - As it turns out this is from today. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2342
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Ironclad Apartments & Moxy Hotel - Washington & Chicago

Postby Didier » April 23rd, 2016, 1:19 pm

Before we officially turn the page on this topic, can we get confirmation as to whether uptowner's post was serious or sarcastic?


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests