urbanMSP

From Lisa Bender's FB page:

"An updated "Theater Garage" project at Franklin and Lyndale Avenue South will be at next Wednesday's Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association (LHENA) neighborhood meeting and at Planning Commission Committee of the whole next Thursday August 18. The staff report and project details should be available at this link later in the week:"

Link: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/p ... Results=10

Lisa also pinned the demise of the last project on the land sale falling through. While that might be technically correct, isn't it fair to say that the neighborhood's opposition to changes in land entitlements had much to do with that?

Whatever they end up doing, I really hope they incorporate some affordable units into the project. The uptown area is severely lacking in these types of apartments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever they end up doing, I really hope they incorporate some affordable units into the project. The uptown area is severely lacking in these types of apartments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm, nearly every building in Uptown (or this area...this isn't Uptown) that isn't new falls into the "affordable" category. Yeah all of the brand new buildings are expensive, but still plenty of vintage stock that is not. Even the new buildings that do fall into the "affordable" category are more expensive than a lot of the decent vintage stock out there. But yeah, wouldn't mind seeing some affordable in this mix too, like the Greenleaf.

Be great to see something come back here...every day I drive by and lament at how ugly this corner is!

Lisa also pinned the demise of the last project on the land sale falling through. While that might be technically correct, isn't it fair to say that the neighborhood's opposition to changes in land entitlements had much to do with that?

Everything that I read and heard suggested that there was a falling out between the landowner and Master. As I recall, they never really tried pushing anything through the process.

Yes, Theros pulled out of the deal after Gerberding's odd dealings with the city on W. Broadway. The Planning Commission greenlighted the project.

Here are the plans:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 184933.pdf

Based on my quick glance, I'm not a huge fan of the coloring seen on the façade. But that's minor. I do like that it has frontages directly on Lyndale and Franklin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For those of you curious, it looks like they are asking to reduce the rear yard setback to just 3'7" from the "required" value of 15 feet. This was one of the (in my opinion more legitimate) items objected to in the previous proposal. I don't recall what the proposed setback was for that site plan.

Seems like a good fit...

For those of you curious, it looks like they are asking to reduce the rear yard setback to just 3'7" from the "required" value of 15 feet. This was one of the (in my opinion more legitimate) items objected to in the previous proposal. I don't recall what the proposed setback was for that site plan.

One of the few buildings where the complaints about shadows are warranted. Totally shadows the buildings on Aldrich until late morning. The whole view, too. I'd be pretty angry if I owned one of those units.

If someone bought property on a block adjacent to a major intersection and expected their view to remain forever, boy do I have a bridge to sell.

Worth noting that a space for the theater is not included in the new plans. Unless we hear otherwise, this probably means Theater Garage is just closing up shop. Yet they submitted the project with the same name as last time around...probably just going to be "Marquee Apartments" in the end, or something else entirely. The FrankLyn would be my preference.

I wonder if they are still in discussion with Rudolph's to relocate into the restaurant space (this was never actually mentioned or confirmed, but Rudolph's logos did show up on a rendering last time around). I don't know what would be gained by such a move, as Rudolph's unique recognizable building is part of their draw IMO. And I think that their smallish site would be very difficult to redevelop. Their primary motivation for moving would have to be having more parking on site (within the mixed-use building), as their driving customers currently park on street (and in the surface lot being replaced by this project).

If someone bought property on a block adjacent to a major intersection and expected their view to remain forever, boy do I have a bridge to sell.

Do you doubt that a significant portion of the value of those condos is in the view? After all, that's why they (and the adjacent homes) were built there in the first place, some even before the electric streetcar, on one of the city's few prominent hills. And while it is true that their view wasn't guaranteed, I doubt anyone expected it to be completely obscured by a six-story corrugated-metal box sitting (in some cases) four feet away.

I'm not saying "block the building" (yet), but really, have you no compassion at all? There are people, your fellow citizens, who would be demonstrably harmed by this project. I don't see how anyone here is worse off by acknowledging that. It certainly shouldn't be mocked.

Compassion for assumed views? For me, depends. For instance, when the Target tower was proposed many condo owners along the Loring Greenway wailed that it would harm their skyline views and the value of their investment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When can an assumed view be ended?

Sorry if I missed this somewhere but will this project have parking that patrons of Rudolph's can use?

I'd argue the shadowing issues and the lack of buffer make this a very different case than the Loring Greenway people. Their views will never be anywhere as claustrophobic as this would be.

Couldn't you also argue that the retail amenities, more walkable, more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood without a seedy looking parking lot, a more gentrified neighborhood would increase the value of those units as well?

Any new buyer of those units wouldn't have any preconceived notion of what the view was prior to the construction anyways.

Honestly, I have little compassion for people who buy property in active urban areas and expect everything to stay the same forever. If that's what you want, the heart of the city is not the place for you.

Couldn't you also argue that the retail amenities, more walkable, more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood without a seedy looking parking lot, a more gentrified neighborhood would increase the value of those units as well?

Any new buyer of those units wouldn't have any preconceived notion of what the view was prior to the construction anyways.

All of which would accrue to everyone in the neighborhood with a four-story building, too. But I'm sure that wouldn't "pencil out" (i.e. maximize developer profit).

No alley. No setback. Just an apartment building, built right next door, blocking not just your view, but all AM light and most E and N breezes. I don't think it matters whether future buyers would have a "preconceived notion" about what was there before. They'll know what's there "now" (post-construction) and know that it's not that pleasant.

Honestly, I have little compassion for people who buy property in active urban areas and expect everything to stay the same forever. If that's what you want, the heart of the city is not the place for you.

This is such a specious strawman. You can support change and still dislike the effect this development as proposed would have.