2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby mattaudio » March 9th, 2016, 12:54 pm

Why does it have to be *this* one?
Because the former owner listed the property, sold it, and the new owner wants to redevelop it.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » March 9th, 2016, 1:03 pm

Oh yeah, I certainly don't think our current form of capitalism is ideal, but I don't think there's any need to abolish private property, and even if I thought there was, as you seem to think (because I'm not sure how else you redirect this kind of development to the specific lots you want) it's irrelevant because it's sooooooo far outside the overton window, and so antithetical to American identity, that to seriously propose it as a solution to anything means you're either hopelessly naive or merely presenting the illusion that you want the status quo to change.

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

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby David Greene » March 9th, 2016, 1:18 pm

But to use that as a reason to preserve the house as a boarding house (which is neither here nor there, but literally nobody wanted to do that) is short sighted. The real problem isn't hat 2320 was torn down, the problem is that boarding houses are illegal so there was no supply of rooms for these residents to move into.
I need to note here that there were in fact people who argued for the boarding house. Not the loudest by far but the voices were there. It's to my shame that I didn't hear them until it was too late.

I agree that current regulations are a problem. I'd love to see something that said any project that destroys affordable housing has to provide an equivalent increase of affordable housing within an X mile radius.

But that's not in place so we're left with operating in the context that exists. In that context, one simply cannot argue that 2320 Colfax wasn't gentrification. And by that I mean very specifically displacing poor people. Arguments that it would have happened anyway are speculation. I'm looking at what actually happened.

But I don't want to belabor this much because we've had all those conversations and I think most of us are basically on the same page with respect to that project.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1983
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby amiller92 » March 9th, 2016, 1:29 pm

There are *so many* underutilized lots in this part of town.
Like this house.

But moreover, any other parcel you're pointing to are not owned by the people with these plans.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1983
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby amiller92 » March 9th, 2016, 1:31 pm

I need to note here that there were in fact people who argued for the boarding house.
Argued for, sure. But offered to buy and operate?

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 9th, 2016, 3:47 pm

But that's not in place so we're left with operating in the context that exists. In that context, one simply cannot argue that 2320 Colfax wasn't gentrification. And by that I mean very specifically displacing poor people. Arguments that it would have happened anyway are speculation. I'm looking at what actually happened.

But I don't want to belabor this much because we've had all those conversations and I think most of us are basically on the same page with respect to that project.
I don't think we are, and it's relevant to this project. You might call it speculation that displacement would have happened anyway. I call it a near statistical certainty. Crow had marketed the property for a long time. Boarding houses are illegal and this one happened to be grandfathered in, but the local knowledge base for owning and operating one is lacking due to its long-standing illegality. This misses whether or not it would even be profitable to buy it as SRO given the fact that Crow had a much lower annual outlay on the place than a new buyer would have. Basically, it staying a boarding house was extremely unlikely, to the point of practically being a 0% chance. You know, it, I know it, other advocates knew it. The only options for that place were teardown or renovate to SFH. Maybe, MAYBE operating it as a boutique BnB. All of which point to displacement.

Now, the house at 2008 Bryant is a watered down version of 2320. No, it wasn't/isn't a grandfathered SRO situation. Someone could conceivably buy it as a triplex and continue renting it out with a modest annual return. You can definitely make the case that the R6 zoning allows for a higher land price given the as-of-right redevelopment potential, and an R2B zoning would make the price ceiling lower, making continuing renting it out a more competitive scenario. But, despite the best efforts of neighbors, this parcel has been R6 for quite some time. And while I'm less than 99.9% certain in this case any purchase would lead to the displacement of existing residents, the odds were still heavily in that scenario's favor. If I had to put a number on paper, I'd say something like 9 out of 10 times a house in a location like this would be sold, the residents would be displaced, be it by upgrading the triplex for higher rents, converting to a SFH, or tearing it down. High enough, in my mind at least, that the long-term gains of housing supply outweigh the short-term displacement costs. Especially when you consider that any additional tax base gained from the replacement can (and should!) help fund, even in a small way, displacement assistance, affordable housing funds, etc.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » March 9th, 2016, 4:06 pm

Also it's kind of a semantic distinction and bordering on distinction without a difference, but I wouldn't say that R6 enables a higher price. I'd say it restrains the price less than a more restrictive zoning like R2B, but still restrains the price from some Utopian unrestricted price (which may not necessarily be a desirable, but still exists).

Basically I don't like the idea that zoning "creates" value, the land and the environment around it creates value, and zoning then restricts that somewhat.

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby Archiapolis » March 9th, 2016, 4:10 pm

I agree that current regulations are a problem. I'd love to see something that said any project that destroys affordable housing has to provide an equivalent increase of affordable housing within an X mile radius.
This sounds interesting but it also seems a bit fraught with peril (see the latest streets.mn article regarding inclusionary zoning). I think we are starting to conflate some issues here. If every project is going to be asked to achieve various goals regarding affordability then the city needs to find a good/sound/strong policy that works and then enforce it. I'm not sure WHAT that policy is but I support the principle.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4371
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby grant1simons2 » March 23rd, 2016, 12:15 pm

On the next Planning Commission agenda

http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 176304.pdf

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

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 23rd, 2016, 12:25 pm

Are they required by law to have the handicap accessible stall? I thought residential was exempt. With only 10 units, it's quite likely that no one living there would need the accessible stall. The stall and 8' van loading area could instead be two standard parking stalls. It seems unlikely that they would be required by law to maintain a handicap accessible stall back there if nobody living in the building actually needed it. Furthermore, the only accessible entrance is through the front door! If I'm a handicapped person living here, I'm almost certainly going to prefer the on-street space in front (contacting the city and getting handicap signage installed), rather than parking way in the back.

Also, doesn't it seem strange that they're only proposing 6 interior bike parking stalls? Sure, the code minimum is 5 (1 per 2 dwellings), but for a building with no parking in a neighborhood where you know you're going to get a fight, why the hell would you not provide at least 10 indoor bike parking stalls?

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby EOst » March 23rd, 2016, 12:37 pm

Image

Looks like a dorm.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3695
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby Nathan » March 23rd, 2016, 12:44 pm

It looks better than I thought it would. I think what bothers me is the quality/variety of materials on the front. I'd like to see that foremost bump-out not be cement board, if the mass of the building is white cement board. Just looks cheap.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby seanrichardryan » March 23rd, 2016, 12:49 pm

How about that landscaping.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3695
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby Nathan » March 23rd, 2016, 12:53 pm

Matches the neighbors. Just toss a few day lilies on the lawn... that'll doer.

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

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 23rd, 2016, 1:06 pm

Waitwaitwait.... so this isn't really a 4-story building. It's effectively a 5-story building with a full floor underground. The lower level units would not even be typical "garden level" apartments that are half above and half below grade. The two units on the lower level would actually be COMPLETELY below grade, with every single one of their windows being in window wells. Ummm...I did not know that was even legal. Garden level units are one thing...this is something else entirely.

If it were up to me, I'd probably take out one of those basement units, expand the bike parking area, add storage units and a small gym. That way you'd only have the string of egress pits on one side of the building.

I dunno...I love the concept of small scale infill and don't actually take issue with the overall design here. But packing those two underground units just kinda bothers me for the above stated reasons.

EDIT: Also, no elevator? I thought 4 stories would require it? (We talked about this in the other small scale infill project proposed at 1900 Colfax)

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby seanrichardryan » March 23rd, 2016, 1:15 pm

Seems the renderings have missed the 5' window wells.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3695
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby Nathan » March 23rd, 2016, 1:15 pm

Isn't that still just a 4 story building with a basement? The window wells seem extreme, but people will live there. My 1906 condo building has some "garden" level units that are basically like this and people have actually bought them.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby mattaudio » March 24th, 2016, 9:34 am

This project is fascinating to me because:
1. In a crude way, the form is close to our traditional side-by-side walkup apartment buildings. Stair hall in the front, stair hall in the back, each unit has access to both.
2. The ground-floor units could be a win for natural affordability, right? I'm guessing they'll have a $200+ rent "discount" compared to units where you can see something other than a window well.
3. This aligns with many of the Fair Housing Act and International Building Code matchups we've seen as part of the work done by Incremental Development Alliance and the work of John Anderson. No elevator is required (for accessibility) if all first-floor units are accessible. That's why the ramp in front is so critical. Regarding fire/egress, there are specific rules regarding stories and distance from a stairwell, where you would otherwise need a rated corridor and stairwells spaced in certain configurations. But yes, this appears to meet IBC. You can even do a 3-story apartment building with no elevator and a single central staircase, if laid out right. (See the Form Follows Function Fourplex design)

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

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby MNdible » March 24th, 2016, 11:34 am

Have fun moving a couch to the fourth floor.

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

Re: 2008 Bryant Avenue Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 24th, 2016, 11:42 am

At first, I thought "totally...bringing couches to the top floor of a 2.5-story walkup is bad enough!" But then I remembered that at my current 5th-floor apartment, my new couch was delivered up the stairs (by professionals tho), because they couldn't get it in the small-ish elevator.

So yeah, in general, you probably do want an elevator in all 4-story buildings. But with only 2 units up there, I can see why it isn't completely necessary. That said, I'd hate to live on the 4th floor and have a sprained ankle or a pregnant wife or a thousand other scenarios you can imagine where doing 3 flights of stairs EVERY TIME is no fun.

EDIT: I actually take the stairs to/from my 5th floor apartment all the time, unless I'm carrying a bunch of stuff or my gf is lazy. I take the stairs so I don't have to go to the gym ;)


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests