Foundry Lake Street - (3118 Lake Street W)

[seanrichardryan]

Can this one be credited to the SW LRT or just the general desirability of Calhoun? I like the continued redevelopment of this node. The current Whole Foods should be next.

PPS- Loop never sold out and has been plauged with water problems. And it's ugly.

[uptown067]

PDF showing both 11-story "tower" and 6-story option (as requested by the neighborhood): http://cidnalanduse.files.wordpress.com ... rison5.pdf

That has to be one of the most passive aggressive presentations I've ever I seen. I love it. Page 20 is basically just saying "thank you stupid neighbors for wasting everyone time and having us complete this worthless exercise."

[mattaudio]

Indeed. Slides 19 and 20 are epic.

[LyndaleHoosier]

seanrichardryan - any more info on Loop Calhoun's water problems? Was on my list of potential options to buy a condo.

[Anondson]

Epic slideshow. Really fantastic presentation for how six-stories comes out worse than a taller "tower".

[go4guy]

I would avoid Loop Calhoun. From what I have heard, there have been many problems with the construction which has caused lawsuits. Some lenders will not lend in that project.

[Suburban Outcast]

They did a good job making the 11-story option the more attractive option.

I'm getting that their vibe was: "We can either try to build a slender and sleek mid-rise or a portly and plain low-rise, your choice."

[min-chi-cbus]

Does the outcome of this project spell the fate of the 2626 West Lake site? Or is that site different due to proximity to neighboring SFHs?

[min-chi-cbus]

By the way, here was one person's reaction to the height + park vs. stout + no park debate:

"An 11-story building would pretty much take away the sky for about 40 units [of the Loop]," said resident Nadine Emerson. "A pocket park is no compensation for the loss of the sky."


I have serious issues with arguments like these, and yes, it is extremely "NIMBY" of this person to say such a thing. Firstly, nobody ever guaranteed "the sky" would always be there when the Loop condos were built, and to assume so was frankly a bad assumption, especially considering that this was an empty and buildable lot that was imminent for redevelopment. Second, if the developer instead chooses the 5-story building, "the sky" will still be mostly blotted out by the building because it will be built right to the site lines and not set back like the current tower is. Third, "the sky" will only be blocked if you are looking out your window standing at least 10 feet back inside one of these blocked Loop units. If one was inclined to look out of the window right at the window they could see plenty of sky by simply shifting their eyes a bit. And again, the same could not necessarily be said if the building were short and stout and built to the site lines.

The problem with this kind of blanket statement is that none of these considerations were made and yet it sounds very much like a plausible and acceptable argument to make. I try not to be a "height booster" and always ignore the negative aspects of taller vs. shorter, but in many cases I truly cannot understand the rights people take as being inherent to them. I can only imagine the response I would get if I tried this anywhere else in life:

I'm sorry sir, but when I bought these Vikings season tickets there was nobody in front of my seat last year and my view was unscathed, and now you want to sit right in front of me and partially block my view? This is preposterous! I thought when I purchased my tickets this year that I would have the same view and neighbors as when I first made the purchase. I don't care that demand is rising and more people want to see the Vikings play because they are winning and have a Pro Bowl QB (my fantasy injected here)!

[FISHMANPET]

Of the condo wants "sky" views they can buy air rights. The people that make these kinds of complaints are almost always well off, they can afford to put up or shut up.

This isn't putting a toxic waste dump next to a low income housing unit, it's high income housing going in next to other high income housing. There's plenty of money to go around.

[John]

It's not just propaganda the 11 story option is more appealing. It is the best choice for this very slender piece of property. However, I think the issue of traffic congestion and flow is the major flaw of this project whether its 6 stories or 11. This area is just not set up for all this high density development without good access to public transit. When and if the SW LRT is built, it would make much more sense.

[min-chi-cbus]

Of the condo wants "sky" views they can buy air rights. The people that make these kinds of complaints are almost always well off, they can afford to put up or shut up.

This isn't putting a toxic waste dump next to a low income housing unit, it's high income housing going in next to other high income housing. There's plenty of money to go around.

I don't want to give NIMBYs any ideas but if those in the condo wanted to block this (or any other) thing couldn't they just ban together and purchase air rights -- conceivably for just a small portion of the redevelopment site where any new building would HAVE to be at least partially located?

[FISHMANPET]

Well in a just world, the property owner would do the selling, and they'd choose whether to sell to the current owners or the developer based on which makes them more money. If every condo owner wants to spend 2 or 3 times their air rights to secure the entire lot, they can go ahead. But I think the price would have to be very high to block the development.

Basically, yes they could do that, but what rational person would sell them a sliver of their lot for a tiny amount of money to prevent making money on the rest of the lot?

[Archiapolis]

Not to "pollute" this discussion with "the boondoggle" that is SWLRT but are there any alignments that were considered earlier for Uptown that would relieve some of the traffic issues for this area? This is just my opinion but I've seen others share it: get SWLRT to Uptown where there are actual users, and keep creating density at nodes where they make sense (like at West Calhoun). Best of all worlds...oops, sorry suburbs!

EDIT: Dug back into this...3C is looking better and better all the time. Also posted a rant about 3C v. Kenilworth in the Transportation/SWLRT thread.

[mattaudio]

Well, some suburbs can support dense nodes organically supported by high quality transit. SLP and Hopkins would do just fine.

[mattaudio]

Marlys writes about this one...
http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2014/ ... ent-design

[RailBaronYarr]

Marlys seems to have been in a feisty mood while writing about this meeting.

[twincitizen]

It was very Marlysian. It's amazing how her writing style simultaneously delights and infuriates me.

She previously reported on the other empty lot, adjacent to Calhoun Beach Club, and a spirited debate erupted in the comments: http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2012/ ... ke-calhoun

Reading those comments again reminds me, that for most people, the default reaction to a development proposal is "NO". Human beings just don't like change. We (urbanists, planners, etc.) are a very small minority that do, even among liberal city dwellers.

[Minneboy]

That alternative 5 story ship sized building - UGH! Nice to see she also admits that the taller proposal is hardly a "tower".

[RailBaronYarr]

I, too, clicked the related link to that old story and read through the comments section. Ugh.