Page 48 of 53

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: January 5th, 2018, 10:32 am
by David Greene
That's a nice, concise piece. The way the city conducts its Small Area Plan process certainly does lend an air of "compact" with the neighborhoods, and frankly, if residents put in hundreds of hours crafting a plan, it's not unreasonable to have some expectation that the plan will be generally followed (and I'm not saying it's not).

Some people definitely want such plans to be iron-clad law. Sometimes those desires are really cover for something else not as PC. But other times I think people sincerely think their hard work has been thrown away. Teasing out one from the other is very difficult, but I think it's worth the effort. People like to be respected and I've found that if people feel respected, it's much easier to have conversations with them about difficult things. Not everyone will agree but if people feel there's been a good, robust conversation and they've been taken seriously, it tends to blunt the pain for them if they don't get everything they want.

Now, some will say I'm just advocating for bogging down the process, and it's true that real conversation takes time. In fact it's going to take more time than usual given past actions (on all "sides"). And there will always be those who feel disrespected no matter what. Nothing we can do to help that, unfortunately.

This also means that real conversation has to happen around variances and other one-off alterations/exceptions to the plan. Honestly, some more effort in educating people about what the various pieces of zoning mean would help. I know I'd benefit from that. The city has some nice education programs for residents on various aspects of city government. Do they have one for zoning/development? Maybe we need to put some more resources into that.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: January 5th, 2018, 10:38 am
by MNdible
A select few developers with the resources to fight for variances end up building most of the multifamily housing in the city, while many more choose instead to build in less-restrictive markets.


Not to pick apart the piece, but this line in particular left me scratching my head. Any evidence for this? Seems like the lion's share of multi-family housing has been built in the City of Minneapolis over the last decade.

I'd also tend to agree that the missing-middle argument (while *perhaps* true) is not likely to be terribly convincing. I'd go to David's tack of "If not here, where?"

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: January 5th, 2018, 11:07 am
by FISHMANPET
As a cynic I think a lot of the arguments end up getting made to counter people who are putting forth criticism hypocritically. It's easy to say "I support development but it has to be responsible" and sound like a reasonable person, and if pressed that person might say "well we need less 6 story buildings and more duplexes and smaller apartment buildings" but then they'll end up actually opposing any change that would make it easier to build what they claim to want. So it's maybe subconsciously an argument that's made so that the other person will accidentally out themselves as a liar.

As too the "other markets" I wonder if that means other metro areas, in terms of national developers? It can also just as easily mean building 100 acres of tract homes 45 minutes outside of downtown as it does building an apartment building in Richfield.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: January 5th, 2018, 11:09 am
by VacantLuxuries
That line could have benefited from clarification but I didn't want to get into the weeds on local devs. But considering how tight the market is right now, it's surprising to me that the multifamily developers who work mostly in the suburbs for the most part haven't attempted to dip into the Minneapolis market. If their company doesn't have the resources or the working relationships with the city to pursue variances, I'm saying that they probably are more likely to go outside the city borders to deal with the devil they know, even though a City of Minneapolis project could end up more lucrative.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 5th, 2018, 9:03 pm
by DFPegg
I think this already has a thread, but I can't find where:

Affordable Apartments Proposed for Lyn-Lake Area of Minneapolis

"A proposed high-density project would include 222 units in the heart of the bustling neighborhood. [...] Pending city approvals, the first phase of the project is set to break ground in 2019 with full occupation expected by mid-2020. [...] The second phase wouldn’t be ready to be occupied until 2021. [...] The units in each building would be a mix of studios, one- and two-bedroom units and townhouses. Six units would be reserved for people with disabilities and managed by Simpson Housing Service and three units would be designated for priority housing placement and case management by the county’s Human Services and Public Health Department."

http://www.startribune.com/affordable-a ... 475869193/

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 5th, 2018, 9:57 pm
by Bob Stinson's Ghost
I searched a little and it didn't look like this had been posted:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 203283.pdf

I guess this is phase one?

It looks like they're going to keep costs down with a mix of fiber cement panels and corrugated metal.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 8:03 am
by Nathan
Bob Stinson's Ghost wrote:
March 5th, 2018, 9:57 pm
I searched a little and it didn't look like this had been posted:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 203283.pdf

I guess this is phase one?

It looks like they're going to keep costs down with a mix of fiber cement panels and corrugated metal.
Interesting... I can't reconcile what's going on I those plans with this "updated" rendering of two twin phases in this strib article

http://m.startribune.com/affordable-apa ... 475869193/

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 9:20 am
by Silophant
Those plans are a previous version. The new version will be considered by the Committee of the Whole on Thursday.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 9:39 am
by Nathan
cool, another example of community and city engagement enhancing a project. This looks much more cohesive, and a better use of space.

A little disappointed by the lack of retail.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 9:55 am
by xandrex
Yeah, I know retail east of Lyndale has struggled in the past, but it does seem like a missed opportunity to not include at least a little bit of retail on this block.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 10:23 am
by Silophant
I'm hopeful that, by the time the second phase rolls around, they'll decide that both buildings can share the amenity space in phase 1 and phase 2 can have a commercial space instead.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 10:36 am
by Bob Stinson's Ghost
Silophant wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:23 am
I'm hopeful that, by the time the second phase rolls around, they'll decide that both buildings can share the amenity space in phase 1 and phase 2 can have a commercial space instead.
Yes, hopefully they can do a few things to make it easily convertible to retail if the demand is there.

The solar looks symbolic, like they wanted to be able to check the renewables box on a list.

I'm pretty neutral on the design. I'm dreaming of soffit details and a more interesting canopy, but then I guess it would be a luxury building.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 13th, 2018, 9:00 am
by mattaudio
Two things about that:

First, look at the level 1 plan. Three parking spaces squeezed between columns on one side, and a fourth parking space squeezed between the ramp to the basement and the lobby space. There's probably twice the amount of pavement used to access these parking spaces as the actual parking spaces take up. It would be far more efficient to simply have two parking spaces between the trash room and the ramp, maybe even extra-deep spaces for moving and/or building services. This would free up a significant amount of main floor square footage for storefront space or slightly reconfigured lobby/elevator access to allow a retail use. Is the net gain of two awkward parking spaces really worth this waste?

Which gets me to the second, much more concerning point. They are relying on a 25% density bonus for enclosed parking to allow them to build additional residential units above what would otherwise be allowed by zoning. The developer is probably fighting for every space of enclosed parking in order to get this density bonus, and I can't say I blame them.

But this begs the following questions:
- Why is a density bonus required to build a basic 6 story apartment building along Lake Street?
- Is this city policy encouraging enclosed parking -including these four ridiculous spaces at the interior of the building on ground level- at the expense of storefronts along Lake Street?

If the developer really wants to waste thousands of square feet of their main level for a net gain of two parking spaces, so be it. If they're doing this simply to get the density bonus and they could instead use this prime ground level space for something better, we should encourage it.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: March 13th, 2018, 10:56 am
by Mikey
I'm gonna assume that last really weird stall will be walled off as the maintenance guy's storage area. Spare parks take up a LOT of room, and no F@$% designers ever seem to plan for it. Especially in affordable housing, where there will always be an emphasis on repair over replace. You also will need a place to spray out the AC condenser coil of the magic-pak when they clog up (yes, they are removable), clean smelly dumpsters, etc The corners of the basement ramp don't really work for day-to-day access, since there will be a car parked along which ever side you put the door on.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: April 13th, 2018, 12:30 pm
by KML_1981
This is awesome news! Korean fried chicken and other deliciousness. Also opening in Dinkytown!

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... lling.html

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: April 13th, 2018, 12:38 pm
by Anondson
Whoa. This is awesome. Loved eating at Bonchon when I worked in the Bay Area last year.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: April 17th, 2018, 8:48 am
by MattW
Article is locked, where is it going?

Edit: Davanni's Pizza spot. Private browsing window FTW.

REALLY excited for this. Uptown is sneakily becoming a hotbed of good Asian restaurants

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: April 17th, 2018, 8:52 am
by VacantLuxuries
The Davanni's spot

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: May 30th, 2018, 3:47 pm
by EOst
http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/de ... ake-james/

From the description, this sounds like 3000, 3004, and 3008 James, as well as 1711 Lake. All are owned by "James & Lake LLC". I'm surprised--those houses on James look really nice, at least from the outside.

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Posted: May 30th, 2018, 8:09 pm
by Multimodal
Every unit won’t have a car spot, but will have a bike spot.