Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
Drizzay
Metrodome
Posts: 95
Joined: February 14th, 2013, 2:52 pm
Location: Armatage

Re: Motiv - (2320 Colfax Ave)

Postby Drizzay » September 10th, 2015, 11:22 am

Motiv? Now all they need is the murder weapon.
...and Ms. Scarlet.

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 127
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » September 16th, 2015, 12:12 pm

Lhena, in the parlor, with the historic designation.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby David Greene » September 16th, 2015, 2:14 pm

:roll:

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby Archiapolis » September 17th, 2015, 7:24 am

Lhena, in the parlor, with the historic designation.
-1

I was going to say "Nicole" instead of LHENA but...

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby Wedgeguy » September 23rd, 2015, 1:27 pm

Walking by today I saw that they have now start laying brick for the façade. Looks like that dark Ironoxide color. Look forward to seeing how is looks once the façade is complete.

aeisenberg
Landmark Center
Posts: 269
Joined: June 12th, 2012, 7:45 pm

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby aeisenberg » September 26th, 2015, 1:29 pm

Image
Aaron Eisenberg / Realtor, Keller Williams Integrity
612.568.5828 / [email protected] / 1350 Lagoon Ave #900
http://www.agentaaron.com

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby seanrichardryan » October 1st, 2015, 12:07 pm

Saw the brick this morning. It is... black.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby Nathan » October 1st, 2015, 1:50 pm

Black bricks <3 <3 <3

They'll most likely be maganese, so they'll have iridescence to them.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby Wedgeguy » October 1st, 2015, 4:48 pm

Did a close walk by this afternoon. The bricks are a very dark Brown/gray with a dark charcoal to black mortar. The nice thing that I notices is some fancy brick work detailing that should give the building a nice flair. There will be some patterned texture to some of the wall section.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 5th, 2015, 9:26 am

Gosh it's almost like Lander does really good work and maybe we should make it possible for like 100 other small developers to pop up and build stuff of this scale across the city.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby MNdible » October 5th, 2015, 10:01 am

How are we currently not making it possible?

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby grant1simons2 » October 5th, 2015, 10:11 am

Zoning, neighborhood push back, etc.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby MNdible » October 5th, 2015, 10:22 am

Not buying it.

Zoning is not an impediment to small scale developments.

And neighborhood pushback is just a fact of life that happens in every city everywhere. I mean, Lander is notoriously thin-skinned, but he still manages to deal with it.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby FISHMANPET » October 5th, 2015, 10:32 am

Zoning really is an impediment, when there's a very small number of places where you can build anything other than a single family home.

And there are substantive policy changes that can be made to lessen the impact of pushback. They won't make neighbors stop hating change, but they would make neighbors that hate change have less of a voice in the process. But practically speaking I'm not sure how easy they would be to implement, but I think if you give something up you can make it happen.

The easiest in my mind is a very prescriptive form based code. I think you could sell it to the neighbors as "this is going to very clearly define what future development will look like, but in return you will have fewer opportunities to object to every single project, as many more would be built as of right." I think we'd lose some flexibility to build Alex's transect violating towers for example, and it would need some provision for upzoning areas when appropriate, otherwise it would just become a way to freeze a place in amber.

E: While this is smaller than a lot of other stuff we've seen get built in this city, I'd struggle to call this Small Scale Development in the vein of the type of the development that John Anderson advocates for.
Last edited by FISHMANPET on October 5th, 2015, 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby David Greene » October 5th, 2015, 10:43 am

And there are substantive policy changes that can be made to lessen the impact of pushback. They won't make neighbors stop hating change, but they would make neighbors that hate change have less of a voice in the process.
I agree with you on the zoning - we need to add back the missing middle.

However, I am very uncomfortable with reducing public input, particularly when the reduction is targeted to "a set of opinions I don't like." Differing opinions make projects better. I think there are ways we can streamline the process but reducing public input should not be one of them.

In truth, developers can often proceed despite opposition. Often they choose not to for whatever reason. It would seem important to understand what those reasons are. I suspect many times it's economics and opposition becomes the scapegoat to save face.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby FISHMANPET » October 5th, 2015, 10:46 am

Constructive change meant to improve a project: good
Obstructionist change meant to derail a project: bad

Housing is a human right, lack of access to housing is a moral crisis. I think we're fine not giving a voice in the process to people, who, for example, don't want black kids going to their white school. I honestly genuinely don't think this is any different.

And put another way, has any private developer proposed a seriously egregious project that should have just not existed that was stopped only because of public input?

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby David Greene » October 5th, 2015, 11:01 am

I actually think we *do* need to hear those objectionable voices. If people don't want black kids in their neighborhood I want to know about it. White people think we've "solved" racism because they don't hear it. We need to hear it. I recall a SWLRT hearing several years ago that opened the eyes of a lot of white churchgoing folk.

Who's to judge what is obstructionist? People have honestly-held beliefs. Are we going to say they don't count simply because we disagree with them?

Your final question comes dangerously close to arguing that "developers know best" and we should just give them the keys. Developers don't propose seriously egregious projects because of the power of the public voice. Remember, Urban Renewal and neighborhood-smashing freeways happened partially because of a lack of real public input into decision-making.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby MNdible » October 5th, 2015, 11:04 am

Well, yes. Perhaps it goes without saying that zoning prevents some things from being built in some places, but that's not the same thing as saying that zoning prevents small scale redevelopment from happening.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1364
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby acs » October 5th, 2015, 11:06 am

I don't know if it's zoning, the building code, or whatever. But when I see lots in prime locations sit vacant for years because there are other buildings on the block then I know we still don't have everything right to make infill work.

See this:
http://tinyurl.com/pvtkmkm

Or this:
http://tinyurl.com/oztubk5

In the past, we used to be able to build something like the below pretty easily and still make a buck while adding density. Something changed by the time these buildings were knocked down for parking and have sat vacant since.

http://tinyurl.com/pp3joqf

Maybe it really is all down to the market forces not being ready yet, maybe not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to try and remove the barriers at the government level whatever they may be until we see that development from the market.

And no, I don't believe for a second that infill and citizen input are mutually exclusive. That's a poor excuse to stifle democracy without really getting anywhere.

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

Re: Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 5th, 2015, 11:07 am

Not buying it.

Zoning is not an impediment to small scale developments.

And neighborhood pushback is just a fact of life that happens in every city everywhere. I mean, Lander is notoriously thin-skinned, but he still manages to deal with it.
Peter made some good points. But c'mon. I wrote a whole post about this. With, like, actual numbers and stuff. Minimum lot size, setbacks, FAR, parking minimums, height limitations, etc really DO limit this type of construction on a lot or two in anything below R4 in our city. Sure, you can get variances or CUPs. But *most* would-be developers maybe don't have the savvy to do that, or would rather not tie up potential investment capital in something as risky or litigious as this (which is where opposition is the problem, not just people complaining at the Planning Commission or in Strib comment sections, but actively filing appeals and delaying projects), and would maybe prefer to just park it somewhere else. I mean, I'm open to a whole bunch of other explanations for why we're not seeing smaller-scale stuff like this in in-demand neighborhoods like the Wedge or Calhoun-Isles or Linden Hills or whatever. Places where teardowns are more common than 6-unit condo/apartment replacements for single family homes. I'm not saying zoning is the ONLY reason. But it's gotta be right up there with anything else, right? We literally had to change the zoning code to allow apartments above garages or an extra interior unit into a single family home.

I don't really like the whole sub-sect of CNU that pushes for getting rid of some fire safety or ADA requirements in buildings. Those are codes that have real, tangible benefits to public safety or equity, even if they put a floor on the size of a building that'll pencil out for infill (assuming teardown, open lots are still fairly open game, though still likely requiring R4-5 for something even this small to be built as of right).

And, as to public opposition/feedback. "Differing opinions make projects better." I don't know you can make the case this is always true, or true to everyone. "Better" is extremely subjective. What's good for the auto-oriented business/landlord is bad for pedestrians. Who is "right"?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests