TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
schmitzm03
Landmark Center
Posts: 206
Joined: August 23rd, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Powderhorn, Minneapolis

TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby schmitzm03 » March 12th, 2019, 11:43 am

New 10-story condo building with 8,000 sq. feet of retail in the North Loop. Plans before the Heritage Preservation Commission: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 217605.pdf

NickP
Union Depot
Posts: 368
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 5:00 pm

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby NickP » March 12th, 2019, 12:46 pm

I really like this design!

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3890
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Anondson » March 12th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Awnings are good.

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 226
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby jtoemke » March 12th, 2019, 1:02 pm

1.) Many, smaller retail spaces –big positive
2.) Internal windowless bedrooms galore – giant negative (maybe that’s just me)
3.) I’m worried it will look more like the elevation than the rendering once its constructed.
4.) Props for trying something different

Fun fact- this was the site of my first studio project in architecture school 9 years ago.

alexschief
Union Depot
Posts: 336
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby alexschief » March 12th, 2019, 1:05 pm

The location is a current surface parking lot, the design is really quite striking (or, at least, half of the renderings are—would be good to confirm that the terra cotta color would be more like what's shown in the oblique rendering and not in the elevation), and the five (!!!) small retail bays with awnings are fantastic. Combined with the Foundry development, the Archive, development, and the 310 Lofts development, the five blocks bounded by Azine Alley, the railroad tracks, 2nd Street, and 1st Ave, will be almost completely filled with active uses. That's something to be really excited about—for all of its revival, few, if any, portions of the North Loop feel like a seamless urban neighborhood.

The only issue, once again, and I know I'm a broken record on this, is the overbuilding of parking. This site is almost directly on top of the #7 and #14 buses, close to all of the transit on Hennepin, a half mile from the light rail, and directly next to the Cedar Lake Trail. It's a third of a mile from Whole Foods. There are few locations better in MSP for living without a car. Yet the project proposes 1.35 spaces per unit. That's after the 310 Lofts development directly behind this one is proposing 1.8 spaces per unit (and that's an improvement over their first proposal, which was even worse). The Archive proposes 1.6 spaces per unit. The Foundry proposes 1.16 spaces per unit. All of this without factoring in the 800 space stand-alone parking ramp that the Fed is proposing.

I really don't understand what developers are thinking in the North Loop with regards to parking. What makes the North Loop so interesting is its the pre-auto scale and walkability. Too many residents with cars will damage that quality. It's true that the North Loop doesn't have the transit it deserves, but it's really easy to overstate the point. The North Loop has better transit than almost all of Minneapolis, and yet the parking ratios of new development everywhere else are far less than this. Even developers in the Mill District and Loring Park are building far less parking, despite targeting similar buyer/tenant markets. There's a minor hysteria swirling around parking in this area (more so than in most other places), from ACME Comedy Club to the Fed, and it is absolutely baffling to me. I wish the city would provide some pushback before it's too late.

5th Ave Guy
Landmark Center
Posts: 212
Joined: October 2nd, 2012, 3:11 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby 5th Ave Guy » March 12th, 2019, 1:23 pm

From my experience living in that neighborhood, there were a lot of working couples in my building that both worked in the burbs. Pretty much have to have two cars in that situation. We also had a child there for a while... also needed two cars.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5742
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby MNdible » March 12th, 2019, 1:38 pm

This project is lovely. Lots to like here.
alexschief wrote:
March 12th, 2019, 1:05 pm
...before it's too late.
This seems more than a little bit melodramatic. Aside from being an affront to your vision, what exactly is the impending doom that having below grade parking stalls as a part of this project causes?

The Fed ramps is obviously an entirely different animal, but even that, by providing some public parking, is going to make the retail that everybody craves in this neighborhood more viable. Even at full build-out, there's not going to be enough population within walking distance to support all of this retail frontage.

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 226
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby jtoemke » March 12th, 2019, 1:48 pm

Yeah I get the desire to control parking but if its underground and out of site, I see it as a non-issue.

People buying 500k-900k condos have a lot of choice on where they park their money. And if they can't park their cars, they'll take it somewhere else. Rich people don't compromise because they can afford not to.

I understand all the arguments for reducing parking. Especially in rental buildings because it theoretically lowers how much needs to be charged for rent. But in this case, as long as curb cuts are a minimum and it goes un-seen, we good in my opinion.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3890
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Anondson » March 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

IMO, one objection to a lot of parking here is that by providing abundant parking in North Loop commits the city to expecting greater numbers of driving in an area most ideal for not needing to drive than any other, and also prioritizing driving over highly accessible over peds/bikes/transit use.

Other luxury-desirable neighborhoods can supply luxury housing for residents who need two cars. The city doesn’t need North Loop of any neighborhood to have that too.

alexschief
Union Depot
Posts: 336
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby alexschief » March 12th, 2019, 2:15 pm

Two issues with overbuilding parking:

The first is that parking is expensive to build, and the more parking that gets built in these developments, the higher the sale price and the higher the rent will be. I think that's bad, I'd rather people paid less for their housing, and one of the easiest ways to make that happen is to bring down the amount of parking that gets built.

The second reason is that parking induces driving. If you provide lots of parking, more people will drive—this is borne out by study after study. Every new car on the road increases carbon emissions and other pollutants, while decreasing the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians, bicyclists, scooterers, and more. The city explicitly calls for reductions in VMT in the 2040 plan. Tho achieve this goal, the city needs to promote non-automotive mobility and discourage car ownership. If this goal is achieved, it would reduce harm to the planet and the local environment, improve public safety, and strengthen the character of the city for those who live in it.

So when I see buildings in the North Loop with greater than 1 space per unit, especially when proposed projects in most other parts of the city are seeing big reductions in the provided parking, it's concerning to me. It works against city environmental goals that I (as someone who wants to live into middle age) support, and it works against the North Loop achieving its potential as the vibrant urban neighborhood that I would like to see it become.
Last edited by alexschief on March 12th, 2019, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5742
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby MNdible » March 12th, 2019, 2:18 pm

Just so I'm clear, when people in neighborhoods complain about apartments generating traffic, we call them NIMBY's and note that residential properties generate very very little traffic. But apartments downtown are a different animal, somehow.

alexschief
Union Depot
Posts: 336
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby alexschief » March 12th, 2019, 2:20 pm

MNdible wrote:
March 12th, 2019, 2:18 pm
Just so I'm clear, when people in neighborhoods complain about apartments generating traffic, we call them NIMBY's and note that residential properties generate very very little traffic. But apartments downtown are a different animal, somehow.
The more parking that is provided, the more car traffic will be generated. [1] [2] [3] [4]

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 226
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby jtoemke » March 12th, 2019, 2:43 pm

I understand what you're saying. 100%. I'm just saying, as someone who works for developers, luxury condos (please note this is what we are talking about) are going to want high parking ratios.

I'd also like to note that the size of the units themselves (ie much less studios that we see in luxury apt buildings) and the square footage and number of bedrooms suggests family size or atleast couples, maybe many roommates. This makes the parking ratio seem higher because square footage to unit ratio is higher.

Overly simply example -
Building A - (5) 400 sf studios. 4 parking spaces. Parking ratio = 0.8 spots per unit.
Building B - (2) 1000sf 2 bedroom units. 4 parking spaces. Parking ratio = 2 spots per unit.

Both buildings are still 2000 sf but on paper, Building B looks much worse.

Think beyond the ratio.

EDIT - So really, parking sf to rentable area sf is much better indicator and maybe that should be something the city starts tracking.

Multimodal
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 621
Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
Location: Oh, no, the burbs!

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Multimodal » March 12th, 2019, 2:54 pm

Maybe as our 100-year rainstorms give way to 1000-year rainstorms, and cars get ruined being in flooded underground parking—maybe then developers will build less parking.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1712
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby amiller92 » March 12th, 2019, 2:57 pm

This is my cue to note that the parking at Loring Green East, which could not be rented to non-residents, was never full. To the point that a resident would store parts of his antique car collection there.

Mind you, the people who bought our condo were concerned about only having one space until they realized it was an easy thing to rent another.

The several times I was in the resident parking portions of the Nic (in the evening), it was quite sparsely used too. But maybe that was still during the lease up process or something.

alexschief
Union Depot
Posts: 336
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby alexschief » March 12th, 2019, 3:03 pm

jtoemke wrote:
March 12th, 2019, 2:43 pm
I understand what you're saying. 100%. I'm just saying, as someone who works for developers, luxury condos (please note this is what we are talking about) are going to want high parking ratios.
And I do get the "this is the way the world works" perspective. But I'd like to push it to work differently. I'd like to see the city put their thumb on the scales ask developers to think differently. I know we're not going to get down to zero, but I'd like to move some ways in that direction. There won't be a parking apocalypse if every downtown development cuts one level of parking from their plans, but at the margins it will make a difference on health, safety, and the environment.

I also agree that rentable square feet to parking spaces is a better measure, it's just much harder to track on our end.

Anyway, I like this proposed. I'd just like to see the parking either reduced, or reduced and pooled with the 310 Lofts project directly behind it.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2993
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Nick » March 13th, 2019, 6:48 am

I tend to think that, for now, you’re just really not going to sell a $750,000 condo in Minneapolis without a parking space, and for most people/households in that market, one spot is a hard sell. I live in a downtown condo significantly downmarket from this price point and we all have one spot, and they are in pretty high demand. I rent mine to someone for a lot.

Multimodal
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 621
Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
Location: Oh, no, the burbs!

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Multimodal » March 13th, 2019, 7:34 am

Are building for today, or for the future?

How many parking spaces will this building need when SWLRT is built? aBRT?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3728
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Silophant » March 13th, 2019, 7:41 am

Probably one per unit still? I agree with Nick - I live in downtown condo at a similar price point, but significantly closer to the LRT spine, and parking stalls come up for rent for $200/mo and get snapped up quickly, despite not being available to anyone that doesn't live or work in the building.

I'm afraid an attitude change of this scale is going to take a while to work through the general population.

Multimodal
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 621
Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
Location: Oh, no, the burbs!

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Multimodal » March 13th, 2019, 7:47 am

How many years do we have left until we hit the 2ºC temperature rise that is a tipping point for climate change—11 years?

How long will this building take to build? When will transit come online? How long will this building last?

Last year we were warned we had 12 years. Now we have 11 years. Next year… you guessed it, we’ll have 10 years.

Do we see a pattern here?


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests