urbanMSP

There’s a lot to do. Fast tracking rezoning of office parks (along the a new regional trail near other offices) when hundreds of apartments are proposed is another.

We’re too far along to cherry pick what we do.

We have to do everything.

As soon as possible.

The more we do, the more normal it becomes, and the easier (politically) it becomes.

Everybody has to internalize that we are all part of the solution. It’s not someone else’s job, or someone else’s project, or some other government entity’s job.

But there's also letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. People who live here and have cars are probably still going to drive somewhat less (maybe a lot less) than if they lived in Edina or SLP or someplace like those.

The only thing that's going to move the dial on transportation (given that our land use patterns are so fully baked) is electrification. And electric cars need parking spaces just like ICE cars.

We're arguing about whether the next 5,000 people who move into downtown will drive their cars a little bit or a very little bit, when there are 2,000,000 people who live in areas where driving a lot is the only viable option.

The only thing that's going to move the dial on transportation (given that our land use patterns are so fully baked) is electrification. And electric cars need parking spaces just like ICE cars.

We're arguing about whether the next 5,000 people who move into downtown will drive their cars a little bit or a very little bit, when there are 2,000,000 people who live in areas where driving a lot is the only viable option.

We're going way off topic here (albeit with a good and important discussion), but the idea that we can just sit around and wait around for electric cars to save us is false. Even if electric cars were to be adopted at the most optimistic possible rate, VMT would still need to come down significantly and land use patterns would need to shift. That's primarily because (1) manufacturing new cars has significant carbon impacts, (2) power generation for the electric cars would need to be at 100% renewable for their operation to be carbon-free, and it is not, and (3) passenger cars are just one part of a transportation puzzle that also includes things like freight. It's also worth remembering that emissions stay emitted, there's no check-in in 2030 where we either pass or we don't, we are taking the test right now, and emissions we don't emit today are as good as emissions we don't emit tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the idea that land use is "baked in" is also wrong. The average American moves more than eleven times in their life, providing plenty of opportunities to move to more or less carbon-intensive homes. Internal migration remains a big feature of American life, and right now, it's hurting our efforts to reduce climate change, with sprawling, car-dependent cities like Houston and Dallas adding nearly one million residents each in just the past seven years. But places like MSP are also growing, and MSP can only lead by its own example. The best policy to reduce emissions is to ensure that as many new people as possible, and as many existing residents as possible are allowed to live in homes where (1) they don't have to drive, and in fact, it is inconvenient to do so, (2) the goods and services they use can be delivered at large scales, (3) they live in smaller spaces, which share walls, floors, and ceilings, with other residents, reducing their individual costs of heating or cooling. There is good news on this front, residences that have these characteristics are currently in demand, which of course anyone on this forum is well aware of.

It's certainly a win when a building like TMBR is built, and we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good by killing or downsizing projects like these. But we should absolutely push them to be better, push developers to challenge their conventional wisdom and see if they can provide less parking, more retail, etc. etc. And we should do this because the current suite of technologies we have isn't enough to save us without big changes in how we live and how we think about living. That's the essential thing.

Site is fenced off with signs saying groundbreaking "soon."

Is it a Loeffler managed project? I do believe I spoke with the owner last summer. If I’m correct in that assumption, the foundation is a copy of the Archive. Drill and set H-pile, left in and used for the building foundation.

TMBR’s is officially dead due to the pandemic. If a project moved forward on this it won’t be with the current design.

That's disappointing - a mass timber residential building would have been a cool proof of concept to inspire other projects.

I wonder if studies are showing demand is going to plunge as the pandemic continues. This project dead, Foundry on a delay, (only, hopefully) others sure to follow.
I know of four projects where the GC has authorized overtime to push up the completion date.
Opinion only: I would be in a big rush to fill up if I was in the process of building. I look at the rates these places are thinking they’re going to get, and shake my head.

With Gateway and Eleven, how much demand is there for more high end luxury condo units?

Damn- I really like this project.

I just went back and reread this thread. So much discussion of cars and parking, but very little about the value of carbon sequestration in the structure. Maybe someday proposals will be required to provide an estimate of fossil fuel consumption and emissions required to build them. Perhaps this would make us view tall buildings built of concrete and steel a bit differently relative to mid rise stick frame construction. Every time I see concrete going into a building I think about how much fossil fuel it takes to make the cement.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/enviro ... itters-too

Transportation is the largest proportion of co2 émissions in the US. By my estimates 5 times greater than concrete and steel production. Concrete production releases significant co2, but only wood releases less, due to the very low embodied energy of concrete. More inventive use of timber the better.

I think most believe the larger the non automotive travel sphere the better. Right now the appeal of non driving is so limited that any thing not a greenfield single family home and that is connected to a larger continuous ped/bicycle/transit realm is welcome. Here in the middle of the US there really isn't enough, the shortest path to a critical mass is probably best. There is going to be some stuff that may not be exactly green, the hope is that the residents that live there make the area more desirable, spreading and extending the compact, urban desirability.

If you travel west of Minneapolis you will need to go to Denver Colorado before any built environment resembling; car free, upwardly mobile, desirable can be found. Minneapolis has the task to be the catchment for all those individuals from areas where any significant change is too far to envision.

In conclusion, green tall buildings are good, but figuring how to get people to limit fossil fuels to live a normal day to day life is very important.

If you travel west of Minneapolis you will need to go to Denver Colorado before any built environment resembling; car free, upwardly mobile, desirable can be found. Minneapolis has the task to be the catchment for all those individuals from areas where any significant change is too far to envision.

Omaha and Lincoln are hurt, man.

If you travel west of Minneapolis you will need to go to Denver Colorado before any built environment resembling; car free, upwardly mobile, desirable can be found. Minneapolis has the task to be the catchment for all those individuals from areas where any significant change is too far to envision.

Omaha and Lincoln are hurt, man.

Without high rise mass timber buildings we are nothing but a cold Omaha.

https://www.tdtmpls.com/news/2020/4/28/ ... apartments

Now apartments. 7 story. 5 levels stick over 2 story podium it seems.

107 apartments units instead of 59 condos.

Bummer that an attractive project has fallen apart while those two awful hotels on Hennepin are apparently still going forward.

That being said, getting more units and maybe a better parking ratio out of an apartment building will be a great consolation. The result should be cheaper, and stick buildings are made of wood too! I just hope the design comes close to being as nice as what was proposed for TMBR. Maybe D/O can recycle the concept somewhere else in a different economy.

At this stage building a pioneering high rise mass timber building is an extremely risky venture, but it looks to be greenest option by far for building that level of density. We need to get a few of these up and study them in the real world. Personally, I'd support some level of public subsidy to do it, but not many other people would.

Here's the CPC COW packet for the apartment building version. Looks pretty much the same, but three stories shorter. Parking spots are down to 71 (in the garage, not including the seven-stall accessory surface lot for the retail spaces), for a parking ratio of 0.66.