urbanMSP

"I got a service woonerf in that alley last night."

Serviced by Big D construction...

"Sir, there are no woonerfs allowed in the City of Minneapolis."

"Oh, this is my service woonerf."

Sherman needs to get off their ass and get going on thresher square before they focus on this project, TBH.

DMNA supports Grand Real Estate Advisors proposal. Link to the letter with rationale:

http://www.thedmna.org/wp-content/uploa ... -26-16.pdf

Is the DMNA high? How in the world can they prefer that bland junk over the Sherman proposal? Sounds like their only concern is parking.

Saw this coming a mile away. They have wanted this proposal since before the RFP

I would say 50-50 between parking and wanting good upstanding homeowners instead of filthy transients. A smaller footprint better fitting the character of the downtown environment indeed.

Hopefully the city recalls their desire to double the downtown population and goes with the Sherman proposal.

"The Downtown East neighborhood has limited parking spaces"

?????

Who are these people? All of their reasons are bad things. (Okay, owner-occupied is neutral, but based in stereotype.)

It's just post-hoc justification. Members likely knew that this exact proposal was going to come out and wanted to set up the RFP to exclude practically everything else.

It's just post-hoc justification. Members likely knew that this exact proposal was going to come out and wanted to set up the RFP to exclude practically everything else.

As a DMNA volunteer, I can say that's not true.

City goes with Sherman!
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 389907051/

More property tax revenue and more residents, probably an easy choice for the city.

I know it's not the popular opinion here, but architecturally I think the Grand Real Estate proposal was miles better. The Sherman proposal is so busy.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... -mill.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More property tax revenue and more residents, probably an easy choice for the city.

I know it's not the popular opinion here, but architecturally I think the Grand Real Estate proposal was miles better. The Sherman proposal is so busy.

No way, bassed on what i have seen, i like the sherman one much better. I think busy is good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sherman offered 2x the purchase price that Grand was able to, and went far further in meeting the affordable housing goals. Those two points sealed the deal. Grand's affordable housing offering was a joke - 4 measly for-sale units made affordable through a land trust (more common for single family homes), the details of which they weren't able to provide by the deadline.

Wait, what indication do we have that the Grand Real Estate proposal would produce more tax revenue? That seems hard to believe. Sherman wins on all counts.

A guy from Sherman is giving an update to the DMNA. Currently working through the term sheet and an easement issue with the city, expecting to bring a proposal to the planning commission in January.

They would like to move the building back from Park so there can be a green strip between it and the sidewalk, which the DMNA requested, which would require shrinking the driveway easement on the east side of the site from 20' to 14'. The DMNA apparently cares a huge amount about this grass strip.

Is it because of dogs?

It is apparently meant to mirror the green space on the other side of Park. Looking at that on Street View, I guess it might be trees and shrubberies, not grass.

Sherman aims to begin construction in October.
http://finance-commerce.com/2017/02/she ... n-in-fall/ (locked)

The complex will offer 127 apartments and four 1900 sf walk-up condominiums. The development will also include 7,400 square feet of retail space and a Minneapolis Police Department substation. Retail tenants include a bank and two restaurants, one of which will be a bakery and coffee house, said Sherman principal George Sherman.

It also notes that they were not comfortable building more condo units due to the 10-year litigation period.

The developer will not apply for affordable housing subsidies or grants to help finance 205 Park. LaFave said the market-rate apartment rental income and condo sales make the project’s affordable component viable.
The developer will self-finance the building’s construction, Sherman said.

Interesting!