urbanMSP

Didn't know where else to post this, but i took this photo today! 4 cranes!

A cyclone fence is going up around the east end of the parking lot at the Calhoun north beach. Any idea what is going on?

IDK, but I always wished they would double the size of that beach by expanding it mostly to the West along the shoreline where there is currently just a grassy area with a couple of picnic tables shrouded in trees and bushes (not my favorite locale to stop or even walk by). I think it'd be neat for Minneapolis to have something closer to an "ocean-sized" beach in the city, and this is the only location that I think could support something like that.

It makes all the more sense if/when the SW Corridor is constructed and droves of LRT riders drop off in that West Calhoun shopping area!

I drove past Calhoun Beach Club for the first time in a long time yesterday. Are they finally developing the land to the east? On the project map on the 1st page of this post it is called Calhoun Beach Club 2.

Unfortunately no, that space is currently being used as staging space for a big Met Council sewer project (if that's still going on).

The most recent proposal by Bigos never gained any traction and the site is again in limbo. I imagine a new proposal will come forward soon though. Personally, I feel the tower is the best of those options, if not simply because it isn't another 6-story box. It's significantly shorter than Calhoun Beach Club, but CIDNA pooped their pants the hardest over that one.

Reading the CIDNAs rationale for opposing the project (unanimously - surprise) and some of the comments on their message board is very disheartening. A snippet from my favorite comment: "Where does it stop? Will Calhoun someday be ringed by 30-story monstrosities?" Unbelievable.

These debates always seem to be cast as the developer vs. the neighborhood, but the real conflict is between the current residents and potential residents. Current residents oppose this project under the guise of protecting great public amenities like the lakes and the greenway. In reality, they are preventing large populations of future residents from living near and enjoying these, again, public amenities.

These proposals are something like 150 to 170 dwelling units. How many people sit on CIDNA? I wonder what the future residents (of this project, and all those who benefit from cheaper rents) would say about it?

These proposals are something like 150 to 170 dwelling units. How many people sit on CIDNA? I wonder what the future residents (of this project, and all those who benefit from cheaper rents) would say about it?

"But the area is already so expensive! Building more expensive units will make it more expensive!" ~ Everyone ever

Another thing I've pondered is where do the CIDNA board members live? Geographically, 75-80% of CID is north of the Greenway, and it would stand to reason that most of the board members do as well. Developing this lot would possibly affect the shadows/views of 2 or 3 houses...across the Greenway. It really seems that CIDNA are opposed to anything being built here at all, on principle.

They're not NIMBYs, they're BANANAs: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

or my new favorite, CAVE people: Citizens Against Virtually Everything

Another thing I've pondered is where do the CIDNA board members live?

Well, the dude who maintains the CIDNA land use and development web site lives across the greenway from this site. He also owns/rents properties in medieval towns in the provinces of southern France.

Here's a view of Uptown from Loring Park. Three cranes!

I've made several updates to the map, the most obvious are the addition of the 35-Lake and Nic-Lake project areas that border the greater Uptown.

I also changed the gas station at 2700 Hennepin from speculative/fantasy to active. I'll have more on that after the LHENA meeting later this week. The 2316-20 Colfax apartments are now on the map and should gain approval soon. The Goodwill site on the 3100 block is back to speculative, as that project is no longer going forward. Still a great site for a smaller mixed-use building.

I've made several updates to the map, the most obvious are the addition of the 35-Lake and Nic-Lake project areas that border the greater Uptown.

I also changed the gas station at 2700 Hennepin from speculative/fantasy to active. I'll have more on that after the LHENA meeting later this week. The 2316-20 Colfax apartments are now on the map and should gain approval soon. The Goodwill site on the 3100 block is back to speculative, as that project is no longer going forward. Still a great site for a smaller mixed-use building.

Something at 27th and Hen couldn't happen soon enough.

I am not sure if it is too soon, but should the site of the apartment fire at Humboldt and Lake be added? Not trying to sound crass or anything, but there will be redevelopment.

I am not sure if it is too soon, but should the site of the apartment fire at Humboldt and Lake be added? Not trying to sound crass or anything, but there will be redevelopment.

Maybe I'm just that kind of person, but after a moment of sorrow for the people who lived there, I immediately fantasized about a tandem Bruegger's redevelopment...

It's a terrible terrible thing.

I felt the same: hesitant to fantasize about redevelopment, but I couldn't help doing so as I was reading the story and seeing the photos online. As planners or wanna-be-planners though, it's in our nature to think "what the highest and best use of this site" or "what would I build here if it was up to me".

I'll wait until we hear something before putting it on the map.
RIP to that one lady's cat =^..^=

Nobody died though, right? Isn't this building going to be simply reconstructed with modern materials and design? If it was insured the insurance company isn't going to build anything more costly than what was there originally. Or am I missing something here.....?

Isn't the insurance company just going to write a check for the insured value? Like they would if you total your car. At which point the owner could pocket the cash and sell the land to a developer

Isn't the insurance company just going to write a check for the insured value? Like they would if you total your car. At which point the owner could pocket the cash and sell the land to a developer

Yes, but that's my point....who says they are going to sell the land to a developer? Most Property Managers don't know a thing about development. But I suppose it's possible...

It will probably be up to the Condo Association to decide, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they voted to sell the property. It would take a year to rebuild -- people would likely rather buy a new place somewhere else with the insurance payment.

I think it's fair to assume that many (perhaps half) of the condos were being rented out, rather than owner-occupied. It makes total sense for them to cash out. Building new would far exceed the value of their 100-year old condo.

I was talking about this with my dad and trying to figure out how the settlement works. Each condo owner would have homeowners insurance for the value of the individual condo ($80-100k maybe). Then there's the issue of dividing up the value of the land and the building exterior itself that would have been owned by the condo association (usually an LLC). When I rented my buddy's condo, the association (all run by ppl living in the building) carried insurance on the building exterior, in addition to carrying a healthy balance of savings to cover repairs, etc. It was also a very old building.

So there's at least 3 things in play for owners to recoup:
The individual condo units HO insurance payout
The association's building insurance payout (and any savings balance) to divvy up and dissolve the association.
The value of the land underneath, assuming they vote to sell (that would be awkward if anyone didn't want to sell!)