Minneapolis Conservation District Ordinance

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » February 10th, 2014, 12:26 pm

David, just how little rent do you think a developer can afford to charge for new construction, even with zero frills, especially with expensive property acquisition (and demolition costs)??

Without government subsidy, it won't be anywhere near the current $650-675 pricepoint for a (garden level) 1BR in the neighborhood.

You're imagining an impossible scenario. We've probably nearly built out the lux segment. Next we'll see more "market rate" stuff like the Franklin & Lyndale proposal or 24th & Colfax, which promise rents in the $1.85/sf range (rather than $2.25/sf of the Greenway-adjacent luxuries).

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby David Greene » February 10th, 2014, 1:13 pm

David, just how little rent do you think a developer can afford to charge for new construction, even with zero frills, especially with expensive property acquisition (and demolition costs)??
I make no claims as to market viability. If someone is going to build new standard-type apartments somewhere, is it much more expensive to tear down a crappy old apartment building and use the already-consolidated lot than to try to assemble a lot from pieces and tear down old homes? Maybe it is, though I don't understand why that would necessarily be so.

If the market won't support new construction for such housing then we won't get new construction and everyone will be happy.

If the market wants to build new luxury apartments, then again, what makes old apartments any less attractive of a location?

If the market is hot and you want to protect affordable housing, you're going to need government regulation.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2719
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Downtown, Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby Nick » February 10th, 2014, 4:19 pm

My understanding of rents, gleaned from anecdotes from real estate professionals and also common sense, is that it's expensive to rent new apartments due to the cost of buying land, tearing down a building, digging a twenty-foot deep hole, filling it with concrete up to the first floor, and putting five floors of apartments on top of it. It's not luxury, it's new. The granite countertops are psychological flourishes to help people justify spending $1,600/month on a 700 square foot living space. Taking out the granite would drop it down to $1,575/month.
Nick Magrino
[email protected]

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby MNdible » February 11th, 2014, 9:17 am

What you're saying is certainly generally true, but I think that it's also true that things like amenity spaces and high end finishes do mark up the costs appreciably. Let's say it's (only) 15%, but 15% of $1,600 ends up being almost $3,000 a year. Which is real money, at least for me.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2719
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Downtown, Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby Nick » February 11th, 2014, 9:13 pm

Yeah, but the thing is that your choice is $1,600 with granite and the dog concierge or $1,350 with Formica and your search engine of choice. And there are plenty of just fine one bedrooms for much less than $1,350. Unless you think there are plenty of people willing to pay ~$400 for the new construction smell, you need the finishes to set your units apart from the existing stock.
Nick Magrino
[email protected]

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2102
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby John » February 11th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Strib editorial board is against proposed conservation district concept.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edit ... 23391.html
I think Lisa Benders comments about improving design standards within the current codes and planning process are what the city should really be focusing on. The conservation district concept is ridiculous and does nothing to promote higher standards. Many times the opposition to high density development is due to cheap quality and poorly scaled designs we see frequently proposed (and built) in this city. Urbanizing Minneapolis should be done with thoughtfulness on how it impacts the community over the long term. It's really the community who has to live with the consequences of these structure for decades, not the developer.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » August 29th, 2014, 6:47 pm

I should probably know this, but what ever became of this?

bubzki2
Foshay Tower
Posts: 811
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Snelling-Hamline

Re: Linden Crossing - (4264 Upton Ave S)

Postby bubzki2 » October 9th, 2014, 12:53 pm

I think this sort of fits in here as it is pictured. Feel free to move this if it's in the wrong spot.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/278690831.html

[moved here from Linden Crossing topic - twincitizen]

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Proposed Wedge Historic District

Postby David Greene » March 12th, 2015, 8:09 pm

I walked the proposed Wedge historic district tonight. Before getting into it, I'll say that I'm not sure what I think about the proposal yet. It seems like some kind of historic district is warranted but I'm not sure what the boundaries should be. But I have some questions.

For reference, here's a Southwest Journal article:

http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/ne ... edges-core

Looking purely from a consistency standpoint and not advocating for any particular boundaries yet, here are some thoughts I had while walking the neighborhood. I haven't had time to read the whole designation report but I'm assuming the district is being created as a cohesive place rather than because the individual properties are historic, much like the North Loop and St. Anthony areas.

It seems to me that the area covered on Bryant should extend another block and a half north to Franklin, certainly at least to 22nd St. The houses are the same style and the block and a half is pretty much completely intact. I believe there are two 1950's or 1960's era apartments on the stretch north of the designated part of Bryant. Is that enough to prevent designation up to Franklin? Some of the properties on this block are problematic with respect to exterior alterations (vinyl, etc.) but that is pretty easily corrected. Most of the properties are completely intact to my untrained eye and many are in better shape than some properties currently included n the proposal. It seems arbitrary to cut off designation at "23rd" because it's basically the same all the way north.

I've gotta say I kind of agree with Meg about Aldrich. The designation maybe should extend further south. This block is more problematic than the Bryant one because close to half the west side is newer apartments but the houses are at least as quality as the Bryant properties. As on Bryant, extension north to 22nd or Franklin seems possible from a consistency standpoint though there are more newer apartment buildings here than on Bryant. Bryant is the more obvious one to extend given a choice.

There are two houses on 22nd between Colfax and Bryant I'd like to see designated. There's an absolutely amazing brick and stone Queen Anne on the NE corner of Colfax and 22nd. Along with the adjacent properties on 22nd it seems like this should be added to the district. To keep a more cohesive district layout it may make sense to include the east side of the 2200/2300 block of Colfax though the rather large modern apartment building on the southeast corner of Colfax and 22nd is prolematic.

There are several apartment buildings either on the same blocks as the proposed district or just outside it that seem to merit inclusion. Right now there is one apartment building included and it is not as nice as most of the others nearby. There's one period house on the included Colfax block that is not included and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Smoley's comment about houses outside the proposed district being newer is flat out wrong. My house a good distance south is the exact same age as many of the houses in the proposed district (it's only three years younger than the Glueck house, for example) and my neighbor's house is seven years older than mine. It's true that houses further south have more exterior alterations. Many of them are beyond restoration, with bizarre additions for apartments and so on, but many of them are intact . Exteriors are relatively easy to restore. The houses further south are definitely a different style and that is certainly enough in my mind to exclude them from the district. I was just really puzzled by Smoley's age-focused reasoning because there are much better reasons not to include houses south of 26th.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating for exapansion, I'm still trying to figure out what the proposal means. But just looking at the properties, the includes and excludes seem quite arbitrary. I am wondering how the decisions were reached. I know that the additions I mention above would increase the area quite a bit. I'm simply looking at the houses and saying that if you're going for consistency of place, it may make sense to include them. I mean, even the streets.mn article recognizes the included houses have historic value. If that's true, why not the nearby houses and apartment buildings that are of the same style and in basically the same condition?

https://streets.mn/2015/03/04/historic-c ... -district/

And I totally disagree with that article's take that the zoning make historic designation worthless. One of the reasons to do the designations is the "regulatory headaches" that prevent owners from making inappropriate modifications to the structures. If your goal is to preserve a place, that's necessary.

I'd encourage folks to walk the area. It's pretty unique. The houses across Hennepin are completely different and I don't think there's much like it in Whittier anymore either, though Whittier definitely has some stunners here and there.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » August 24th, 2015, 9:09 pm

Still unclear if this Wedge historic district is one of these "conservation districts" or an actual historic district, which carries more protection.

Either way, it is now official: http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/ne ... c-district

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby David Greene » August 24th, 2015, 9:16 pm

I believe it's a "real" historic district. I have a few quibbles of what was left in/out but overall I think it's a good designation. Won't change any minds or reduce opposition to development of course, but it's worthwhile to preserve these grand old houses.

I am curious about what these designations do to prices. On the one hand, more restrictions on what you can do with the house could lower prices, but on the other hand, the money needed to maintain and/or restore these places pretty much guarantees only well-off people can afford to live in them.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests