Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP site) - Arden Hills

Twin Cities Suburbs
Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby Wedgeguy » February 12th, 2014, 11:10 pm

St. Paul was chosen for the flat river beds where they could load and unload from the river steam boats. Minneapolis was chosen for the falls and the free power to industry that those falls helped to provide. Apple and oranges, no competition there.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4747
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby David Greene » February 12th, 2014, 11:59 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:St. Paul was chosen for the flat river beds where they could load and unload from the river steam boats. Minneapolis was chosen for the falls and the free power to industry that those falls helped to provide. Apple and oranges, no competition there.
Killjoy.

:)

tabletop
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby tabletop » April 1st, 2014, 8:53 pm


min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby min-chi-cbus » April 2nd, 2014, 9:02 am

The draft master plan includes:

• 1,500 housing units on 168 acres

• 2 million square feet of office space on 156 acres

• 300,000 square feet of retail space on 18 acres

• 53 acres of open space


In other words, about 1,500 units of housing on almost 400 acres of land (~4 units/acre)......not very sustainable/eco-friendly development if you ask me. Yes, 2M SF of office and 0.3M SF of retail takes up much of that land too, but you could fit one supertall tower on a lot the size of 0.5 acres downtown, so I'm not loving the sprawling nature of this proposal. The infrastructure density per square mile of this new opportunity to build smart growth in an opportune location is WAY too low, if you asked me!

I'd condense the office portion of this to less than 50 acres and then allocate the remaining 100+ acres back to housing at similar densities the housing portion of the original proposal had --~10 units/acre -- bringing the total to 2,500 units over ~275 acres.
Last edited by min-chi-cbus on April 2nd, 2014, 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3972
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby Anondson » April 2nd, 2014, 9:07 am

Even if it is 1,500 units on 350 (subtracting open space/parks acreage) still it is not that dense

mamundsen
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1085
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby mamundsen » April 2nd, 2014, 9:36 am

It says it in what was quoted:

• 1,500 housing units on 168 acres

Don't twist the facts so much. Yes it could be better but this is the suburbs, which are seeing a withdrawal. I'd also argue that these northern suburbs are not comparable to Bloomington, EP, Maple Grove, or Woodbury. At least they have a master plan.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby min-chi-cbus » April 3rd, 2014, 8:10 am

mamundsen wrote:It says it in what was quoted:

• 1,500 housing units on 168 acres

Don't twist the facts so much. Yes it could be better but this is the suburbs, which are seeing a withdrawal. I'd also argue that these northern suburbs are not comparable to Bloomington, EP, Maple Grove, or Woodbury. At least they have a master plan.
I can read, can you add? Population density is usually never quoted as the number of people living on RESIDENTIAL land, but usually all land or developable land; whether it's parks, office, industrial, retail, etc. This is an opporunity to build a small city in the middle of a big one -- a city planner's and developer's wet dream -- and I think the current proposal sucks since it's really just creating more of the same, and we are a metro that is amongst the most sprawled in the country! It's just my humble opinion though, you don't have to share my views.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1346
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby Tcmetro » April 3rd, 2014, 8:28 am

This is true when talking about land use on a macro level; i.e. Citywide or nationwide, but when cities write composition and land-use plans residential density is only considered for land that is residential. Met Council requires a density of at least 3 units per acre for sewer extensions. They are not taking into account the density of commercial or industrial lands. So when they are saying 1500 units on 168 acres of land, the density will be about 9 units/acre, or basically the density of an average suburban townhome complex.

mamundsen
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1085
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby mamundsen » April 3rd, 2014, 8:44 am

Tcmetro wrote:This is true when talking about land use on a macro level; i.e. Citywide or nationwide, but when cities write composition and land-use plans residential density is only considered for land that is residential. Met Council requires a density of at least 3 units per acre for sewer extensions. They are not taking into account the density of commercial or industrial lands. So when they are saying 1500 units on 168 acres of land, the density will be about 9 units/acre, or basically the density of an average suburban townhome complex.
This is basically what I was trying to say and my understanding of it. That is why I said that it seemed inaccurate for the numbers to be changed so much from the article to the post. I just didn't word it as well as this one did.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby min-chi-cbus » April 3rd, 2014, 11:52 am

But I know that is not how densities are reported at macro levels (like you said), and that's what truly matters (at least to me). Again, you don't have to agree, but you can't change my opinion.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7892
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby mattaudio » April 7th, 2014, 1:18 pm

It is sort of shameful how they are master planning this with such a low density. Why master plan? Why not just let it happen organically and incrementally? The result would be higher densities.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby Wedgeguy » April 9th, 2014, 8:11 am

I'm not sure if the pollution in the area and clean up has anything to do with the density. But fewer basements would mean lower possible clean up costs. Not sure how safe I'd feel living on an old Superfund site. We know how what is supposed to be safe does not always later turn out that way.

at40man
Rice Park
Posts: 425
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 6:49 pm
Location: The Saintly City

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby at40man » April 11th, 2014, 11:07 am

mattaudio wrote:It is sort of shameful how they are master planning this with such a low density. Why master plan? Why not just let it happen organically and incrementally? The result would be higher densities.
I'm all for organic growth, but let's also be realistic about density. I grew up in this area. It is primarily suburban with larger lots than average, and the northern edge of the property is coming darn near close to being in the boonies. While Arden Hills is a huge employment center for white collar jobs in the Twin Cities, I don't think there will ever be the demand to construct higher density buildings there. I think the site's history also will depress residential values -- who truly wants to live on a former toxic dump (even as beautiful as the area is!).

I kind of liked the proposal that was floated in the mid-late 1990s that basically turned this site into a recreation area with antenna equipment -- the area is already known for the nearby "Telefarm". We only got a small patch of TCAAP turned over for the Bruce Vento trail.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby Mdcastle » April 13th, 2014, 11:09 pm

I like the idea of leaving it open for now. It'll still be available when we build the next Vikings and Twins stadiums in 30 years or so.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 8th, 2014, 11:16 am

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... rings.html

This looks insanely cool to me! I LOVE the old town center look of this master plan, with the town square and the grid-like layout of the streets. It's three neighborhoods linked by a trail/shared open space, and they all look like very livable nodes. Here are some key facts about the proposed master plan:

Total size (in acres): 430
Total housing units: 1,400 (3.25/acre for all land uses, not just residential)
Total commercial space (in SF): 2,200,000 (office and retail, of which a 500,000 office HQ is included)


I'd like to see the total 41-page PDF but it wasn't available, at least on BizJournals. Initially, I'm still not thrilled about only 3.25 units per total acre for housing, but at least with the one image that was provided the housing density looks apt for the preexisting character of Arden Hills. However, I still stand by my initial claim that the density is a bit low for a redevelopment opportunity like this for the FUTURE of the city. They could keep the look and feel of the housing the same and just be slightly more efficient with the layout of the redeveloped space if they redesigned the layout more effectively. I don't see as much wasted space as with most residential subdivisions, but I think there is room to squeeze in more units and boost the overall unit density closer to 4.0/acre (by adding ~23%, or 320 more units) -- all without compromising the flavor they're going for. My only other issue with what's shown is the surface parking lot for the office HQ (which isn't a done deal, btw). I wish it were at least a 2 level ramp instead -- preserving space for future expansion or other redevelopment.

Overall I love it though!

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

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby RailBaronYarr » December 8th, 2014, 2:28 pm

Some brief thoughts:

- I mean, this could be a lot worse, right?
- With that said, this area will likely house a bunch of people with roughly 80%++ of them working outside the development, meaning low non-driving mode shares. The lack of real transit (unless the A Line is extended up - is that even still on the table?) doubles this down
- The Town neighborhood looks great from the grainy renderings
- the connections to it from the Creek/Hill n'hoods seem weak or limited. Purposely separating them with bodies of water and green space seems really weird to me (though I'm sure it's by design to satisfy those who want quiet/seclusion from perceived urbanity).
- It would be nice to see them at least plan for a small commercial node at the center of each of the SFH areas. As much for utility as to say to residents that mixing of uses is a potential/probably future.
- The main Spine Road has the potential to be good or terrible. The area is adjacent to 10 and 35W; there's no need for it to be designed to handle fast-moving cars. Cycle tracks, frequent midblock pedestrian crossings, etc are a must. It wouldn't kill the city of Arden Hills (or MT) to run a bus up and down the Spine and over onto Lexington to serve the main AH businesses or something at 10-15 minute headways from 6AM-6PM. Just spitballin.
- The plan specifically aims to present all 4 sides with quality materials from the commercial buildings, in a stated effort to beautify the view for freeway drivers. wtf? Put them closer the street where people are and encourage developers to focus their spend on that side rather than the one where people who should be looking at the road in front of them will be presented with.
- While we're at it, all those spaces are listed as office, lab, and light manufacturing. It would be nice if they tried mixing them into the neighborhoods just a tad more. I'm sure traditional real estate surveys tell them this is a no-no.

I'm sure the fine folks at the consulting groups were waiting with baited breath to hear my thoughts.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3922
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby seanrichardryan » January 22nd, 2016, 9:01 pm

Despite concerns over the number of housing units included in it, the Ramsey County Board approved the master plan for the redevelopment of the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant this week.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... an-emerges
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

mamundsen
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1085
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby mamundsen » January 22nd, 2016, 9:29 pm

I would love to read about this. But for whatever reason twincities.com won't load on my iPhone. I can not read their stories. Maybe it's my ad blocker (?). Is this covered anywhere else?

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3922
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby seanrichardryan » January 22nd, 2016, 9:40 pm

Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 121
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: Twin Cities Ammunition Plant - Arden Hills

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » January 23rd, 2016, 4:17 pm

LOL @ the notion that Arden Hills was "stretching" (in mindset) to accommodate even the lower of the two densities. If you're going to have to maintain a given amount of infrastructure, why wouldn't you want a larger well of taxpayers to aid you in the process? Have these people never even heard of Chuck Marohn? Or is fear of "density" really just a cipher for cultural bias against anyone who isn't a Debt-Saddled Heterosexual Nuclear Family With Children?

Single people and childless couples who don't need as much space (and who might be making the Baby Jesus cry by engaging in Evil Non-Reproductive Sexxytime in their apartments/condos). People who have less-remunerative jobs and are trying to control their costs (because as we all know, non-rich = lazy and evil, or worse yet the person does some kind of damn hippie social-justice thing for a living). Downshifters, i.e., people who just want to work a reasonable amount and make a reasonable living, and who see the futility of grinding themselves to the bone to pay for a new SUV every year just so they can look flashy on their way to the place where they grind themselves to the bone. Hell, even regular Heterosexual Nuclear Families With Children and plenty of money who want to dedicate their money to *experiences* and future solvency, rather than deficit-financing endless lawn care and flashy, yard-displayable adult toys that get used maybe twice a year.

Density brings the kind of people who might show the rest of the world that it's possible to live your life without consecrating all your efforts to the auto industry and Saudi oil barons and luxury-goods manufacturers. The kind of hamsters who spin their wheel for the wrong people... for themselves and their neighbors, rather than for the 1%. And we, the shareholders of the sprawl industry and its subsidiary enterprises, simply cannot have that. </rant> :D


Return to “Suburbs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest