Central Park Commons - Eagan

Twin Cities Suburbs
User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Central Park Commons - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » February 5th, 2015, 2:04 pm

CSM gets approval for shopping center at Eagan's Lockheed site

CSM Corp. won city approval to move forward with its redevelopment of the Lockheed Martin site in Eagan.
The 434,000-square-foot Central Park Commons is slated to have a grocery store, retail, restaurants and a medical office building. It's at the busy intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road.
The Eagan City Council unanimously approved the project Tuesday and applauded Minneapolis-based CSM for making the shopping center proposal more pedestrian friendly.

CSM said it hopes to open Central Park Commons in summer 2016.
Image

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

This has been on the back burner for a few years now, the Lockheed complex is now deteriorating. That intersection is extremely busy and with the new outlet mall down the road, looks like they still want to move forward.

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 439
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby fehler » February 6th, 2015, 10:04 am

Sign, Sign, everywhere a Sign.

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » February 6th, 2015, 10:33 am

Long-haired freaky people need not apply

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » June 1st, 2015, 12:31 pm

Building is fully demolished now. Looks like they also took down all or most of the trees on the site.

nickmgray
Union Depot
Posts: 331
Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 10:40 am

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby nickmgray » June 10th, 2015, 9:10 am

Is there a detailed plan for the site anywhere which shows what they layout for the project will be?

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » June 11th, 2015, 8:14 am


LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 824
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby LakeCharles » June 11th, 2015, 9:13 am

Om my god that is so much parking.

Daboink
Metrodome
Posts: 66
Joined: March 10th, 2015, 10:32 am

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby Daboink » June 11th, 2015, 9:52 am

LakeCharles wrote:Om my god that is so much parking.
Are you sure it's too much? It looks to me like they could squeeze 30-40 more stalls in there if they just dropped those pesky trees... Uhhg, so ugly and unsustainable...

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

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby Wedgeguy » June 11th, 2015, 10:04 am

Eagan is now taking tips from Woodbury and how to do a terrible parking oriented development. There is more land devoted to parking lots than to the buildings themselves.

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » June 11th, 2015, 10:07 am

Wedgeguy wrote:Eagan is now taking tips from Woodbury and how to do a terrible parking oriented development. There is more land devoted to parking lots than to the buildings themselves.
Not disagreeing at all, but honestly what could have been done better (I really don't know)? Eagan is a suburb and 9/10 people going to this complex will get there by car.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4281
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby grant1simons2 » June 11th, 2015, 10:22 am

MN Fats wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:Eagan is now taking tips from Woodbury and how to do a terrible parking oriented development. There is more land devoted to parking lots than to the buildings themselves.
Not disagreeing at all, but honestly what could have been done better (I really don't know)? Eagan is a suburb and 9/10 people going to this complex will get there by car.
Funny you say that. It's not like we can have progressive projects that have less parking to make people think about how they'll get there. Sorry, that was very snarky. But just looking at a map of where this is going in Eagan, I can see many town homes and apartments within a 1/2 mile of this site. With all the parking it's going to be a bit more difficult for them (the walkers) to get in and out without having to deal with some drivers. After enough incidents they'll give up on walking and decide to drive themselves.

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

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby Wedgeguy » June 11th, 2015, 11:43 am

Sorry, but the West End shows how you can have compact parking structures that are hidden for the most part and there is plenty more room for Housing ,Office, and Retail on that remaining land. Even 50th and France knows that you can develop parking structures that allow for better pedestrian experience and more area available for development and incorporating other uses into the parking structures of the development. Tax base alone, the land where the parking is will be bring in a lot less taxes than the developments themselves. They are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run with getting less taxes than it could produce.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7896
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby mattaudio » June 11th, 2015, 12:28 pm

To put it another way: How can a city build an auto-oriented large-scale development like the site plan we see above, and then claim their city is deserving of transit?

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby MN Fats » June 11th, 2015, 12:35 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:Sorry, but the West End shows how you can have compact parking structures that are hidden for the most part and there is plenty more room for Housing ,Office, and Retail on that remaining land. Even 50th and France knows that you can develop parking structures that allow for better pedestrian experience and more area available for development and incorporating other uses into the parking structures of the development. Tax base alone, the land where the parking is will be bring in a lot less taxes than the developments themselves. They are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run with getting less taxes than it could produce.
No need to be sorry, just asking the question. You all have more planning/development knowledge than I ever will. Thanks for answering.

holmstar
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 161
Joined: October 29th, 2013, 2:59 pm

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby holmstar » June 11th, 2015, 12:49 pm

I can see this site from the office where I work, and walk around here all the time when grabbing lunch. Yeah, there's parking, but its not anywhere near as big of a deal as all of you are making it out to be. Ultimately this is a suburb, and 95% of people drive to go where they need to go. This one development isn't going to change that. Could that have oriented the lots differently to hide parking and make the pedestrian experience better? Sure! but they would be making it more difficult for 95% of their customers, so why on earth would they do that? I'm looking forward to this development because it will bring more food options to within walking distance.

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

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby Wedgeguy » June 11th, 2015, 1:21 pm

holmstar wrote:I can see this site from the office where I work, and walk around here all the time when grabbing lunch. Yeah, there's parking, but its not anywhere near as big of a deal as all of you are making it out to be. Ultimately this is a suburb, and 95% of people drive to go where they need to go. This one development isn't going to change that. Could that have oriented the lots differently to hide parking and make the pedestrian experience better? Sure! but they would be making it more difficult for 95% of their customers, so why on earth would they do that? I'm looking forward to this development because it will bring more food options to within walking distance.
I can't believe that driving all over the lot to find a place to park is that much easier than driving into a ramp, like you can at West End. Again from an Eagan tax payer's point of view, they will have to pick up the lost tax revenue down the road. Their properties will have to pick up the lost revenue lost because Eagan did not get the best tax revenue "Bang for the Buck" with all of the wasted land.

I hate to inform Eagan that their need for tax dollars in the future will only grow and not decrease as time goes on.
That is when they will come to the Met Council for transportation handout and other handouts because they don't dare raise their taxes enough to cover their sparely populated areas, that are primarily parking lots and stroads.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7896
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby mattaudio » June 11th, 2015, 1:30 pm

(continuing the "materially inaccurate renderings" theme...)

I dislike how these planview sections show so many trees. Like they somehow break up and humanize the land use. Nope.

Image

Though I do find it humorous that the plan for this site shows maybe 25% of parking spaces occupied. Oddly accurate in that way.

holmstar
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 161
Joined: October 29th, 2013, 2:59 pm

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby holmstar » June 11th, 2015, 1:50 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:I can't believe that driving all over the lot to find a place to park is that much easier than driving into a ramp, like you can at West End. Again from an Eagan tax payer's point of view, they will have to pick up the lost tax revenue down the road. Their properties will have to pick up the lost revenue lost because Eagan did not get the best tax revenue "Bang for the Buck" with all of the wasted land.

I hate to inform Eagan that their need for tax dollars in the future will only grow and not decrease as time goes on.
That is when they will come to the Met Council for transportation handout and other handouts because they don't dare raise their taxes enough to cover their sparely populated areas, that are primarily parking lots and stroads.
Eagan is not St Louis Park, and this land wasn't used at all for the last few years, so tax revenue will certainly be better than current. It's not very likely that a high density mixed use development would be proposed for this site, the surrounding area doesn't encourage it. Maybe someday it will, but that will probably be 15-20 years down the road. There just isn't much to drive densification in this location.

QuietBlue
Rice Park
Posts: 488
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby QuietBlue » June 11th, 2015, 2:11 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:Again from an Eagan tax payer's point of view, they will have to pick up the lost tax revenue down the road. Their properties will have to pick up the lost revenue lost because Eagan did not get the best tax revenue "Bang for the Buck" with all of the wasted land.

I hate to inform Eagan that their need for tax dollars in the future will only grow and not decrease as time goes on.
That is when they will come to the Met Council for transportation handout and other handouts because they don't dare raise their taxes enough to cover their sparely populated areas, that are primarily parking lots and stroads.
As an Eagan taxpayer, I agree with you. We're not getting the best land use out of this that we could be. What's strange to me is that the city has been trying to increase density and make the most use of their existing land, and this seems like a step backwards.

Moreover, there is a transit station just southeast of the site, so there already is access that could be taken advantage of.

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

Re: Lockheed Martin site - Eagan

Postby Wedgeguy » June 11th, 2015, 2:16 pm

I'm sure they got a lot more tax base when Lockheed was "In the Building". Not sure that Eagan did much of anything to encourage development there. The space that was where the West End is now, was pretty much a waste with old buildings like the Lockheed building where they had to pretty much give away rents to cover fixed costs. I think it got to the point where Duke was losing money trying to keep the buildings a float. They were tore down with plans to build more towers with parking ramps, but the recession took those possibilities away. Later someone decided to think outside the "Office Tower Box" and put in a real retail and entertainment complex. I'm the first to admit that I never thought the West End would take off like it has, but in 3 years when the area is built out can you imagine the tax revenue and the retail dollars that the area will produce. I find it hard to believe that the Lockheed sight would not be ripe for something similar to the West End. The site is on major roads and would be a great transit point when worked into the near by outlet center to feed off of. I'd think that the wages that are had by people who live in Eagan sure would support such a place. Plus you have St. Paul, Apple Valley, Burnsville not that far way to help support such a development if drive seems to be the main thrust of the discussion. Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot. One of the few ways for the burbs to hopefully get a few more Millennials to live out in the burbs if there was a real urban area.


Return to “Suburbs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest