Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2240
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby John » March 1st, 2013, 11:45 am

I am usually a strong supporter of preserving buildings with historical and architectural significance. But there are times when an older building is beyond repair structurally, or the architectural character has been removed to a point where it's significance is no longer relevant. If that's the case for the exisiting houses on these lots, then this well designed project makes sense and may actually contribute to the area's desirability. I guess I haven't heard much of a compelling argument for their preservation from people opposed to this project.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1087
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mplsjaromir » March 1st, 2013, 12:01 pm

When I Googled T.P. Healy I found this hilarious blog. http://tphealy.blogspot.com/ It had many chuckles reading through the hysterics.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5967
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 1st, 2013, 12:06 pm

Well their uncompelling argument is that old is good, new is bad, and the "correct" scale of the neighborhood is 2-story houses, not apartment buildings (despite actual reality).

I'd love it if we had a program/fund in place that would help relocate actual historic-y structures in situations similar to this one, even if it took a small amount of public money. There are plenty of vacant lots around the city that could use a house on them. Has the cost of building new risen high enough to the point where it would actually be cheaper to move existing houses around?

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5967
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 1st, 2013, 12:11 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:When I Googled T.P. Healy I found this hilarious blog. http://tphealy.blogspot.com/ It had many chuckles reading through the hysterics.
Good find! Here's her entry on 2316-20 Colfax: http://tphealy.blogspot.com/2012/12/rev ... y-and.html

Also, :lol: @ Trilby Busch. Perfect name for an old lady who lives in the Wedge.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5556
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby MNdible » March 1st, 2013, 12:18 pm

Well, that's awfully mean-spirited.

You may not agree with this person (and I don't either), but she is clearly passionate about her neighborhood and the city's history, and is doing a lot of work with no pay or personal interest at stake.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1087
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mplsjaromir » March 1st, 2013, 1:03 pm

I think if T.P. Healy examples were in short supply I might be siding with her grievances. I had never heard of him and nothing in his work seems to stand out in comparison to other homes from the era. I guess some people would prefer to save the legacy of a WASP developer than to have more housing in a desirable neighborhood. I am not worried about people forgetting about the WASP heritage of Minneapolis. Evidence of this heritage is abound. If you want to do historic preservation find specific buildings and buy them, either individually or collectively. I agree huge mistakes were made in the past in the name of renewal, but this woman is off her rocker.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5556
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby MNdible » March 1st, 2013, 3:27 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:I agree huge mistakes were made in the past in the name of renewal, but this woman is off her rocker.
Let's discuss the issues and not lob personal attacks at private citizens who aren't here to defend themselves.

I completely agree that these particular houses aren't worth preserving, but there are other homes within the Wedge that I'd argue do have real value, and that I think deserve protection. Not particularly certain why WASP-ishness or the lack thereof is even relevant to the discussion.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1087
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mplsjaromir » March 1st, 2013, 4:19 pm

MNdible wrote:
mplsjaromir wrote:I agree huge mistakes were made in the past in the name of renewal, but this woman is off her rocker.
Let's discuss the issues and not lob personal attacks at private citizens who aren't here to defend themselves.

I completely agree that these particular houses aren't worth preserving, but there are other homes within the Wedge that I'd argue do have real value, and that I think deserve protection. Not particularly certain why WASP-ishness or the lack thereof is even relevant to the discussion.
She has no problems calling out developers by name. Extreme concern trolling over Minneapolis turning into Hong Kong within ten years is not something a level headed person would do. I just find it rich that she finds the work of one developer, excuse me "Master Builder", of a bygone era so essential, while a man cut from same cloth today is untrustworthy and is "trying to stuff people in high rises".

She is pretty clever as far as NIMBYs go. Her argument is framed around historical preservation and social justice. Historical preservation is absurd, there are many examples of this style of housing in the immediate area. In particular these two neo flop houses have been modified so much T.P. himself would not recognize the domicile. Her claims that having less housing will improve the livability of the neighborhood is not based on data but her own preferences. She also claims that she improved the neighborhood and now laments the fact that the improved neighborhood attracts more people. I think she may have good intentions, but making housing in Lowry Hill East more costly is probably good for her and others who purchased homes in the 1970's, bad for those who would like to live there and do not currently.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 1st, 2013, 10:30 pm

twincitizen wrote:
RailBaronYarr wrote: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.
Well I don't live anywhere near this neighborhood so I doubt my feedback would be taken seriously :) But it sure would be nice if we didn't have to go through this "democratic" (read: NIMBY) process for everything. Honestly, feeling like he landed on Mars? Seriously? This is Uptown we're talking about. I'm all about preserving old homes/buildings where reasonable and economically feasible (both to do and if the value of the land doesn't exceed the investment on the land itself). But if a developer is willing to change the 2 homes to a building that houses roughly 10x the number of people while looking very nice and addressing the street... well jeez.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5556
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby MNdible » March 2nd, 2013, 9:20 am

Stupid democracy. Preventing buildings from getting built.

Wait, what's that you say? The building was approved?

Nevermind.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5967
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 2nd, 2013, 10:58 am

I think RailBaron's point isn't that we shouldn't have neighborhood meetings and/or democracy, but that we shouldn't have to go through all of this hand-wringing, time-wasting bullshit for every single development proposal in the city. Especially not for really good proposals like this that aren't even asking for any variances.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 3rd, 2013, 9:10 pm

twincitizen wrote:I think RailBaron's point isn't that we shouldn't have neighborhood meetings and/or democracy, but that we shouldn't have to go through all of this hand-wringing, time-wasting bullshit for every single development proposal in the city. Especially not for really good proposals like this that aren't even asking for any variances.
Thank you.

And when so many buildings/developers are asking for variances (the same ones over, and over again.. like parking minimums) maybe we should change the zoning (hey, convenient excuse to move to a better code anyway).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5967
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 5th, 2013, 1:27 pm

Also, this is going before the PC CoW tomorrow (3/6) and won't be acted upon by the Planning Commission until 3/18 at the earliest, so I guess it hasn't been approved after all.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5967
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » March 8th, 2013, 1:57 pm

What in the blazes?

This project does not qualify for a 10% parking space reduction because of a crazy stringent rule.

From the CPED memo:

It appears that the project does not qualify for reduced off-street parking based on the City’s transit incentive. In order to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 10 percent, a multi-family development must comply with the following standards from section 541.200 of the zoning code:

“The minimum parking requirement may be reduced ten (10) percent if the proposed use is located within three hundred (300) feet of a transit stop with midday service headways of thirty (30) minutes or less in each direction.”
The west/southbound stop for route 17 appears to be more than 300 feet from the property in question. The east/northbound stop is approximately 300 feet from the property.


I'm sorry, but this is just insane. This is THE most transit rich environment in the entire metro area, outside of downtown. That is crazy to adhere to such a stringent requirement. This location clearly meets the spirit and intent of the transit parking reduction and then some. And really?! 300 feet?! Really?! That's less than half a block. Minneapolis blocks (long side) are 660 feet.

For example, you would get a 10% parking reduction by building on a corner with a bus stop at say, Penn & 60th, with 30-min headways, but you cannot get that same reduction at 24th & Colfax, with 15-min headways on the 2, 4, 17, and even shorter headways on the 6.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5556
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby MNdible » March 8th, 2013, 2:01 pm

Yeah, that's silly.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 8th, 2013, 6:02 pm

Wow. So what does that mean for the project?

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2751
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mulad » March 8th, 2013, 6:16 pm

The project should request (and get) a variance, and the rule should be changed to apply to buildings within 1/4 mile of a bus line (1200 feet). If a rule change could go through before the project needs to be approved, just get the rule changed.

Reminds me of the Star Trek episode when Q became human: "Just change the gravitational constant of the universe!" Hopefully it won't be that hard.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3128
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby min-chi-cbus » March 8th, 2013, 6:23 pm

mulad wrote:The project should request (and get) a variance, and the rule should be changed to apply to buildings within 1/4 mile of a bus line (1200 feet). If a rule change could go through before the project needs to be approved, just get the rule changed.

Reminds me of the Star Trek episode when Q became human: "Just change the gravitational constant of the universe!" Hopefully it won't be that hard.
I was with you 100% of the way until you brought up Star Trek....

lewismd
Block E
Posts: 11
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby lewismd » March 31st, 2013, 11:08 am

I mean, if you ask me, the whole Wedge could be in a pedestrian oriented overlay district. That gets you what, 25% break on parking? Problem solved.

And yes, I would like a pony, too.

But seriously, 24th and Bryant is too far away? Good lord, it's like a 30 second walk.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby ECtransplant » March 31st, 2013, 11:20 am

I doubt Meg Tuthill would allow that to happen


Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest