Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[twincitizen]

But would she trade a downzoning of the upper Wedge (much is currently R6) for a Ped Overlay District? IMO everything north of Lake Street should be Ped Overlay

[ECtransplant]

I agree with you, but there are certain spots in the wedge with VERY vocal NIMBYs, who we all know are Tuthill's core support

[twincitizen]

HPC Review on the 16th: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/meeting ... S1P-106190

Anders Christensen, who I don't know anything about except that he has a full-on boner for TP Healy, has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Staff is recommending denial of the appeal.

[woofner]

Interesting that Christiansen didn't include in his appeal the multitude of personal attacks on Michael Lander that are all over his "groundbreaking community research project" (um, Facebook page).

[Wedgeguy]

I agree with you, but there are certain spots in the wedge with VERY vocal NIMBYs, who we all know are Tuthill's core support

She will not get my vote that is for sure.

[twincitizen]

While I obviously don't agree with the writer's slant, I still enjoyed reading this piece, "The Three Wedges" http://wedgenewsmpls.wordpress.com/2013 ... ee_wedges/

[woofner]

I like that she makes an inaccurate statement in the very first sentence ("there is no way to distinguish between the demographics of each section"; actually the census provides demographic information by block) then continues to contradict that inaccurate statement (if she doesn't have demographics distinguished by section, how does she know that the middle "section is home to most of the residents who have lived in the Wedge the longest"?) What a stupid article, full of unsupported assertions and sky-is-falling sensationalism.

[FISHMANPET]

Did it actually ever get to a point? I just tuned out when I was halfway through and we were still just spewing out numbers.

[woofner]

Yes her point is that the crack-smoking apartment-dwellers are ruining her Lowry Hill East, with the connivance of the corrupt Mayor and the zone-bludgeoning city planners. The article suffers that she did not make use of the delightful self-righteous exaggerations and ad hominem attacks that sprinkle her blog. Edit: I forgot to mention the subtle thread she weaves throughout the article that if you haven't lived in Lowry Hill East for at least three decades, you don't deserve to provide input on its future. However, on this point I disagree with here. IMHO your ancestors must have come to Minnesota at some point during the 19th century for your opinion to be valid.

[mplser]

it looks like instead of trying to use her TV show save this old house on the corner by buying it and relocating it, a local TV host for the DIY channel has turned to using her fan base to try to stop the development...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

[Nick]

I've said this elsewhere, but can we please sunset the word "NIMBY"? I feel like it trivializes and simplifies an important and complex issue, and it also tends to be used incorrectly by people who just found out that we used to have streetcars.

[mplser]

edited my post to remove the word. I'm not sure what you mean by the whole people who just found out we used to have streetcars comment. care to elaborate?

[Nick]

Not you specifically, just in general. Like I really didn't like being called a NIMBY for opposing the Lyndale Trader Joe's due to the terrible site plan. Anyway, OT.

[mattaudio]

I don't think that's NIMBY, though. You were hoping for better form. Quite different than hoping for developers to go away.

[RailBaronYarr]

The people supporting Nicole in the comments section are one of 2 things, or both: 1) crazy historic preservationists who would be saying this about any house in Minneapolis regardless of location, style, or condition (evidence is the number of people suggesting to convert it in to multiple units or condos - it already is a rooming house), OR 2) people who oppose density, apartments, height, a particular architectural style, etc. The people in lot 2 would be what I consider NIMBY as they outwardly make suggestions to put buildings like this some place else, that this neighborhood doesn't need change, the character needs to be preserved (ignoring allowing character to evolve and change with time as well as reflect new/different architecture styles).

[Nick]

I don't think that's NIMBY, though. You were hoping for better form. Quite different than hoping for developers to go away.

Enough people who don't know what they're talking about use them interchangeably that I've started to lump them all together.

[MNdible]

Setting aside the delivery of her argument for a moment, and setting aside the particulars of the two sad houses on this particular location, let me ask the board the following:

Is it appropriate to have zoning protect single family/duplex houses in the Wedge? There are some great block faces, especially between 24th and 25th, that are beautiful collections of well-maintained, turn-of-the century housing stock. If, in the future, land values and housing costs become such that it is profitable to buy up these houses and tear them down to build 4-6 story developments, should the city do anything to prevent this? Or is the value of increased density at this location such that the historic houses in the neighborhood are acceptable casualties?

[mattaudio]

I think there should be a clear and well-defined process to determine examples of architecture and preserve them. It is not reasonable, beyond this, to require that the form stay the same when the market demands higher density. The problem with our current system is that it is reactionary. As soon as a developer proposes something, people freak out and try to preserve the existing structure. This happens without regard to merit, or how it relates to other structures in a neighborhood which may be better to preserve.

[RailBaronYarr]

If a building is truly architecturally significant - treasured church, the first of its style in an area, designed by a world-renowned architect, or something similar, I can see a case for having rules around preserving them. If it's something a bunch of people just feel really strongly about, then they should collectively buy the property to preserve it (and, incidentally, be forced to update it to code and maintain it as such). If no one out there can pony up the money to save a property from being better utilized to serve the market demand (which has financial and environmental benefits that the preservationists aren't also willing to account for), then anyone willing to buy it can do whatever they want with it.

I think Matt is right in that the process is too reactionary. Can anyone name a development proposal or council meeting where the property in question for demolition wasn't touted by someone or some group as historically significant? When is this ever NOT a reason (beyond others, such as increased congestion, lack of parking, overcrowding, etc)?

One thing historical preservationists forget is that by preserving someone else's work, you are limiting the ability of new architects/developers from making their mark on a city. I also get frustrated with those comparing demo's like this to urban renewal of the 50s/60s. 1) they aren't replacing housing stock or mid-rise buildings downtown with parking lots. 2) they aren't adding a 20 story, cement faced apartment block with parking surrounding it in the home's place. 3) this isn't the government doing it and it is likely hardly, if at all, subsidized - each unit will be market rate. They are adding a good amount of density to the area in a very incremental way that fits in with the neighborhood from a height perspective.

[mplser]

One thing historical preservationists forget is that by preserving someone else's work, you are limiting the ability of new architects/developers from making their mark on a city.\

this. I live in a turn-of the century brownstone, and with all the anti-development types in Minneapolis it makes me wonder: what if the fantastic, historical building I live in had never been built due to community opposition? what if the residents of Elliot Park had refused to allow anything but SFH in their neighborhood?