Page 27 of 52

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 26th, 2015, 4:00 pm
by Nick
I can almost dig that Wendy's to be honest.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 27th, 2015, 12:30 pm
by twincitizen
Latest on the Brad Hoyt situation in Wayzata: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... lding.html

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 27th, 2015, 1:10 pm
by sdho
HiawathaGuy wrote:
grant1simons2 wrote:Here's the Wendy's HiawathaGuy
Thanks Grant, I just saw that in the Business Journal.
It's just too bad that they couldn't orient this better to that corner... not that there's much they could have done, but I'm sad that it doesn't feel more urban. Oh well.
It would have been better to do something more integral with Market Plaza (which is, in a perverse sense, pretty urban -- high-density housing, first-floor retail... just really ugly/prominent parking).

I think the new Wendy's is a slight net positive. There will be a narrow driveway added between the restaurant and Lyndale, which creates a pretty unfortunate "frontage road" effect. But I'm hopeful the new patio and improved landscaping and hardscaping will cancel that out. Certainly, the new building is a step better than the old.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 27th, 2015, 1:13 pm
by sdho
HiawathaGuy wrote:
blobs wrote:Wendy's is getting rebuilt in Richfield.
I saw that it had been demolished - was hoping for something... better.

The out lots in Richfield are just fugly. The Hub at Nicollet and 66th and this area (Market Plaza) at Lyndale and 66th are in a much need of new life! If the mayor really wants dense housing, instead of "waiting it out" for the 494 strip & the proposed new Audi dealership land, encourage housing at these two chunks of parking lot. It'd make A LOT more sense.
Future infill in the Market Plaza lot is anticipated, see this rendering of the planned Lyndale roundabout: https://i.imgur.com/fcw2Sdy.png. (No details or specific commitments from property owner yet, though.)

I had my fingers crossed that, after striking out on Holy Angels, Walgreens might want to rebuild at the actual corner of 66th and Nicollet (in current Hub parking), which would nicely shield the Hub parking lot from that important intersection, and allow Walgreens to get the new space they desire. But haven't heard of anything like that happening.

Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 27th, 2015, 10:34 pm
by Anondson
Golden Valley council votes 3–2 to amend the ordinance over subdividing lots to make it harder to subdivide the very large lots to build homes for more residents.

http://post.mnsun.com/2015/03/subdivisi ... en-valley/

The "community character" wins. Go build new homes four suburb rings out, they got theirs.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 28th, 2015, 9:53 am
by twincitizen
Huh. Well 80' wide / 10,000 sf lots are pretty comparable to most of what you see in Bloomington. The new requirement that bumps the minimum lot size up to 15,000 sf (if the average of all properties within 250' is >18,000 sf) is pretty ridiculous though.

80'/10,000 sf is already plenty big for a first ring burb with that proximity to Downtown. Richfield and St. Louis Park are mostly made up of 6,700-10,000 sf (50-75' wide). The standard lot in Minneapolis is 42' wide and about 5,600 sf (including alley space in that figure, to be fair to suburb lots without alleys). I really don't think it's a good idea for first ring suburbs to be less than half as dense as Minneapolis' completely residential areas. There needs to be a more gradual density gradient heading out of downtown.

I'm curious what the Met Council thinks about GV's ordinance. Met Council only has a say on population/household # targets, and comprehensive plan revisions, whereas this is just an ordinance amendment. Obviously GV is adding lots of apartment units in the vicinity of 100/394 and will find other areas along 394 and 55 to add households, but freezing their single family neighborhoods in time with that low of density is probably not a great idea

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 28th, 2015, 10:46 am
by mulad
twincitizen wrote:Huh. Well 80' wide / 10,000 sf lots are pretty comparable to most of what you see in Bloomington. The new requirement that bumps the minimum lot size up to 15,000 sf (if the average of all properties within 250' is >18,000 sf) is pretty ridiculous though.

80'/10,000 sf is already plenty big for a first ring burb with that proximity to Downtown. Richfield and St. Louis Park are mostly made up of 6,700-10,000 sf (50-75' wide). The standard lot in Minneapolis is 42' wide and about 5,600 sf (including alley space in that figure, to be fair to suburb lots without alleys). I really don't think it's a good idea for first ring suburbs to be less than half as dense as Minneapolis' completely residential areas. There needs to be a more gradual density gradient heading out of downtown.

I'm curious what the Met Council thinks about GV's ordinance. Met Council only has a say on population/household # targets, and comprehensive plan revisions, whereas this is just an ordinance amendment. Obviously GV is adding lots of apartment units in the vicinity of 100/394 and will find other areas along 394 and 55 to add households, but freezing their single family neighborhoods in time with that low of density is probably not a great idea
Some acreage equivalents:

5,600 sf -- 0.13 acre
6,700 sf -- 0.15 acre
10,000 sf -- 0.23 acre
15,000 sf -- 0.34 acre
18,000 sf -- 0.41 acre

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 29th, 2015, 12:52 pm
by Suburban Outcast
Little Canada only has about 2,500 ppsm, but the minimum lot size for new houses ranges from 10,000-11,000 sf. There are always a couple residents that are in opposition when large lots get subdivided. Minnesotans in general just have an aversion to density for some odd reason.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 29th, 2015, 1:31 pm
by sdho
twincitizen wrote:Huh. Well 80' wide / 10,000 sf lots are pretty comparable to most of what you see in Bloomington. The new requirement that bumps the minimum lot size up to 15,000 sf (if the average of all properties within 250' is >18,000 sf) is pretty ridiculous though.

80'/10,000 sf is already plenty big for a first ring burb with that proximity to Downtown. Richfield and St. Louis Park are mostly made up of 6,700-10,000 sf (50-75' wide). The standard lot in Minneapolis is 42' wide and about 5,600 sf (including alley space in that figure, to be fair to suburb lots without alleys). I really don't think it's a good idea for first ring suburbs to be less than half as dense as Minneapolis' completely residential areas. There needs to be a more gradual density gradient heading out of downtown.
-1

Golden Valley is a little odd, though; although technically a first-ring city, it has character of a more distant suburb. (Sort of the opposite of central/East Bloomington, ~Penn to Cedar, which has much more first-ring character, although technically second ring.)

As a general rule, I think the minimum widely established lot size for a fully built city should guide how small you can subdivide the lots. Richfield had a recent case where a 150' lot was to be subdivided. Despite 50' lots being extremely common in Richfield (probably 20-30% of SFHs are on 50' lots), the neighbors squawked and it instead become two 75' lots -- with asphalt driveways so big they could make a gas station blush -- and "neighborhood character" was preserved.

This is ridiculous, when what was proposed was in-line with the character of the nearby community -- just not the exact scale of homes right next door.

However, this sort of thinking applies better in a gridded city, where one neighborhood kind of flows into the next. GV has a semi-hierarchical road network, and there are clearer-cut lines between subdivisions. That may make smaller lots feel more out of place.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 29th, 2015, 1:33 pm
by sdho
All that said, big picture: single-family homes aren't dense, even on 42' lots. It's stupid to turn our nose up at density when it's right there, available to us. But efforts are better spent building townhomes and and apartments, imho.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 30th, 2015, 7:12 am
by min-chi-cbus
Suburban Outcast wrote:Little Canada only has about 2,500 ppsm, but the minimum lot size for new houses ranges from 10,000-11,000 sf. There are always a couple residents that are in opposition when large lots get subdivided. Minnesotans in general just have an aversion to density for some odd reason.
My guess is because so many of "us" come from the rural Northern Plains/Midwest, with wide-open spaces and peace and quiet. My family didn't, maybe few of yours do, but a lot of the population seems to have ties to farms and small towns in the surrounding 5 state region (incl. MN).

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: March 30th, 2015, 9:32 am
by xanadu
I live in Golden Valley and my understanding is that the lot size requirements are a way of combating the McMansion syndrome. Basically, neighbors don't want 4500 sq. ft homes being built on 0.13 acres, stripping the neighborhood of its mature trees to maximize the amount of house they can stick on a lot. GV is primarily mid-century ramblers and mid-century modern homes on large, wooded, hilly lots and I think many residents fear that their neighborhood will end up looking like Eden Prarie if developers have their way. I'm sure there's a snarky comment to be had about how all suburbs are the same, but GV (particularly the east side) has a feel distinct from other first ring suburbs, largely because of its topology and preserved trees, and that's where a lot of the "character" arguments come into play.

You could build smaller homes on the lots, but the General Contractors I've spoken to about the subject have said there's little money to be made in building smallish (under 2000sf) single family homes, so unless they're subisidized by the county/city through an affordable housing program, they'd rather focus on townhomes and condos if the goal is density. And I'll admit to agreeing with this--building a bunch of clustered SF homes isn't really fixing anything. We could use neighborhood nodes of mixed-use development that serve the existing communities while adding actual density with condos, apartments and businesses.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 7:04 am
by twincitizen
Wayzata to get more condos, hotel, beating Excelsior to the punch: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/298180161.html

The Excelsior Hotel gets a mention, but nothing beyond "waiting for final approval"

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 8:23 am
by twincitizen
For your consideration: some angry teabag(s) blog in the inner NW suburbs: https://communitysolutionsmn.wordpress.com/

Hates light rail, high density housing, the Met Council, any elected DFL politicians, etc.

For added fun, I'll link directly to posts tagged "Agenda 21", which is probably all of them: https://communitysolutionsmn.wordpress. ... agenda-21/

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 9:23 am
by mattaudio
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/298307711.html
Richfield's Lariat Lanes bowling alley closing after 57 years

Bad planning.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 11:05 am
by MNdible
Bad planning because Millennials love bowling?

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 11:23 am
by mattaudio
It's for someone who is a planner in Richfield, not someone who is a MNdible.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 12:08 pm
by MNdible
I'm not being deliberately obtuse -- I really have no idea what you're talking about after having read that article.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 1:09 pm
by twincitizen
One of the Strib comments alleges that the property was purchased by Fraser, which is a disability services organization & school. I highly suspect that there's truth to that allegation.

They would now own all of the property between Aldi and 64th Street on that side of Penn. They're creating quite the little fiefdom over there out of re-purposed buildings.

Re: Suburbs - General Topics

Posted: April 1st, 2015, 1:35 pm
by mattaudio
How does this play into Richfield's proposed redevelopment of this stretch? The redevelopment that plans to strip away sidewalk-friendly character-rich establishments like Sandy's Tavern and instead provide "district parking." The current stretch of Penn from 62 to 67 is a mashup of different setbacks, building styles, etc.

Speaking of this stretch, it's such a Richfieldism that Aldi doesn't even have a sidewalk connecting the Penn sidewalk to their door. It's a relatively new building. It's in a relatively in-tact grid. It serves a relatively low-driving population. #whatafail