urbanMSP

Downsized from 5 to 4 stories, with the 4th floor set further back. Will sacrifice some of the advanced "green features" the developer was planning.

That actually seems reasonable for this particular site.

http://southwestjournal.wordpress.com/2 ... the-wedge/

Sounds better to me.

I swear that was their plan all along.....start big and then scale it back (for the people).

I swear that was their plan all along.....start big and then scale it back (for the people).

That's so cynical of you...

I swear that was their plan all along.....start big and then scale it back (for the people).

That's so cynical of you...

Oh MNdible!

(in old-timey newsman voice)
This just in: experienced developers and city planning staff smarter than the general public and average neighborhood group member.

(in old-timey newsman voice)
This just in: experienced developers and city planning staff smarter than the general public and average neighborhood group member.

Indeed. I saw the changed plans a mile away. Frankly, it would be hard to miss for anyone without blinders on.

Some neighborhood members dug in their heels and threw away all their leverage. I think it's a fairly good development but it could be a lot better if some people had been a bit more reasonable.

Still, the developer pledged to work with the neighborhood. We shall see. Anyone have insight on how this particular developer has operated with neighborhoods in the past?

Some neighborhood members dug in their heels and threw away all their leverage. I think it's a fairly good development but it could be a lot better if some people had been a bit more reasonable.

I believe it! In my short time on a neighborhood board I witnessed people waste all their time and leverage griping about the big things they couldn't change, while throwing away opportunities to influence the little things that they could change.

Some neighborhood members dug in their heels and threw away all their leverage. I think it's a fairly good development but it could be a lot better if some people had been a bit more reasonable.

I believe it! In my short time on a neighborhood board I witnessed people waste all their time and leverage griping about the big things they couldn't change, while throwing away opportunities to influence the little things that they could change.

In the Wedge paper I got the other day I guess their biggest complaint was the amount of parking wasn't enough, and even Tuthill told them to save their breath, that was an issue to take up with the city, not the neighborhood.

I assume the developer is still proposing at least 1 parking space per unit, and somehow that won't enough for the neighborhood.

Looks like the initial proposal called for 48 units with 47 parking spaces, seven of those being tandem stalls (presumably for the seven 2BR units). Also included a car-share on site and 1:1 bike parking spaces. Yeah I'd say that is plenty. Not everyone living at 24th and Colfax is going to own a car...why is that so hard for some people to understand? If the cost of parking is not included in the rent, people will be even less likely to bother owning a car.

There is a rendering of this in the SW Journal, it actually looks really nice, with good materials, good scale, I like it a lot.

Link to PDF

Wow, that new rendering looks great. Glad the neighborhood won't be able to do much about this. We really need some new housing in this area.

Give the neighbors some credit. Their efforts made the project better, notably by pushing the parking underground.

Give the neighbors some credit. Their efforts made the project better, notably by pushing the parking underground.

Eh, I don't really give them any credit, and I live in the neighborhood. I don't think it would have looked much different from the street, and with the above ground parking, it would have been a zero impact building, really green, much less expensive, and all that stuff (based on an article in the Wedge Paper). I would have been fine with the 5 stories, aside from that house coming down, which it would in almost any plausible scenario.

Site plans, courtesy CoW: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 104912.pdf

Still looks good!

It's a vastly better looking building than the 60's walk-ups in the neighborhood. The design appears to have some context to the area and tries to "fit in". A great location for people using public transit.

24th Avenue South eh? Nice typo they made there:)

Thing I love most about it: all those first floor apartments facing Colfax have steps and a tiny patio to them. Makes for a much better streetscape than a wall with windows. Also, how cool is it that the third floor gets a little patio/deck on the roof of the second floor? More buildings need to use roof space like this (example, why don't more places build with green roofs on top as common access space for tenants - some small bushes and the modular brick style grass would make dog owning and quiet space easy to come by at not much extra space, and you reduce runoff if you can trap the water).

Great design and this will fit right in with the neighborhood.

Great design and this will fit right in with the neighborhood.

I wish someone had the balls to say that at the LHENA meeting. Oh, the reactions would've been priceless!

There was a guy at the last meeting who said he "felt like [he] landed on mars" because those two houses would be torn down.

SeanRichardRyan was at the meeting as well...remember that guy? I think it was the same guy that worships T.P. Healy houses and thinks none should be torn down, ever.