The Venue at Dinkytown - (14th Avenue SE & 5th Street SE)

[RailBaronYarr]

Flip side is that having multiple, small retail spaces spreads out the risk - would you rather have a place 80% filled 100% of the time (with slightly higher rent per sqft), or 100% filled 92% of the time? The larger the space the longer it may take to fill it if the chain leaves, and make no mistake, larger stores/chains aren't guaranteed to stay in your space forever or even stay in business. Framing it this way also assumes single-ownership of a space large enough that could be turned in to a giant space (like 10k sqft) rather than 5. It is impossible to build a structure like the DInkydale nowadays, which is 3 stories tall and contains multiple street-facing spaces. However, it could very well have been 5 stories tall with the same look and no one would know the difference. Regulations keep people like the Vescio's owner from building up on their own small parcel of land. They keep local residents from being able to help invest to do it. That's what we should be focusing on...

Ultimately, Cam Gordon's response was well-worded and even keeled, but did not present any facts to support the ultimate decision: How does making a single-decision for spot-zoning signal anything for other properties, which have different price points, size, existing businesses, uses, and historic value? He talks about all the benefits of density, the value of location, etc but then continues to spread the idea that the most in-demand location on the north side of campus should remain as a "C1 style" 1-2 story commercial area instead of allowing the market to respond to said desirability. He also takes a very questionable position to limit development or a particular project based on what he perceives to be a bubble of student housing. This ignores vacancy rates, demographic changes, the number of students still living far from campus that will be changing, and the scary idea that a small body of people can make the decision on how much supply/demand is too much for a VERY local market. He uses very pointed language like " I do think that tearing the whole area down and replacing it with six story, stick-built mixed use buildings is worth avoiding" that captures the fear/ignorance of the general population that believes 'everything built today is crap and will be gone/falling apart in 15 years.' It ignores that maybe the small businesses who can't afford the rent in the center of the desirable area could continue to be close to the action if we didn't artificially limit the expansion of what is clearly a successful urban node. Why is no one saying that a re-zone to C3A is fine if the next parcels in any direction are modified to include C1 (or better, a form-based code????)? Small-businesses get to be a block or two further from the action, but pay lower rents. Everyone wins (even the landlords holding under-utilized parcels with detached structures on them). DInkytown doesn't need to remain as it is, we need MORE Dinkytown.

(Edit for a few sentence mix-ups)

[woofner]

I mean don't we all know exactly what that plan is going to look like already? Lots of watercolor conceptual renderings and pictures of bike racks in Portland, with mixed-use buildings on corners and etc etc etc.

I think that what will be crucial about the plan is whether it will show gray blocks that are labeled 4-6 stories or gray blocks that are labeled 2-3 stories. Probably they will avoid the question altogether and omit the gray block visual or any description of form, and then you will just have competing objective statements. Two of the most important objectives of any Dinkytown SAP will be:

1. Support development that reinforces the viability of the business districts and takes advantage of high transit access and the proximity of walkable destinations; and
2. Maintain the unique vibrancy and diverse character of the historic Dinkytown core business district

It's as hard to imagine a credible argument that the Opus development wouldn't meet the first objective as it's hard to a imagine a credible argument that it would work against the second. But if the same development were on the 4th St side of the same block, I think it would be harder to make a credible argument that it doesn't work against the second objective. Now you and I might say all the buildings on the north side of 4th between 13th & 14th are shit anyway, a DinkytownFirster would say that the mix of businesses in the small retail spaces are more valuable than the aesthetics or conditions of the building. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a well-done SAP would allow the large parking lots to be developed while maintaining most of the areas with good street walls, and I have faith that Haila Maze will come up with a good plan if the council allows her to.

[twincitizen]

I could probably look this up because I'm a smart guy and a planner myself, but I suspect redisciple knows the answer.

What specifically about this project requires rezoning from C1 to C3A? It has nothing to do with the retail spaces or the footprint of the building, correct? The rezoning to C3A allows for the height and the residential density, correct?

It seems most of the arguments against the development have nothing to do with the actual rezoning. (almost) No one is arguing that the building is too tall or contains too much density. It seems that aside from the "loss" of parking, the most vocal concerns have been the increased costs of commercial space in the new building and fear that more rezonings would follow.

Follow up question, just to press reset on this whole thing: What can Opus build here if it remains zoned C1? Wouldn't that structure pose the exact same concerns the SaveDinkytown group is whining about? I feel like that would have been helpful to the discussion from the get go.

[FISHMANPET]

I believe C3A is needed for the residential above the commercial.
And with that, I present:
Dinkytown
A photo essay by FISHMANPET

I decided to patronize a local Dinkytown business for lunch today. As I walked down 4th St I saw a building.

Oh look, a single building with multiple store fronts. And I guess those are both chains, OK.
Standing at various corners of 4th and 14th:

This building has 3 businesses, 2 of them chains.


This has 6 businesses, but only 1 of them is a chain. Also the building is pretty ugly.


Five businesses here? And I guess only 1 chain.

And finally after eating two amazing pieces of pizza at Mesa Pizza, I walk back to work and snap this on 14th Avenue:

Three businesses, 1 chain.

Save Dinkytown is right guys, we can't build buildings that have multiple businesses in it, I'm glad we've preserved those parking lots.

[FISHMANPET]

Holy crap someone from the MNDaily wants to interview me about a comment I left on some article about the Dinkytown redevelopment?

[MNdible]

Would the code allow 5 retail spaces to share some common areas, like for example bathrooms?

In theory, yes. It's done at a number of locations with varying success. For example, World Street Kitchen shares restrooms with the other retail spaces in that development.

In practice, it's kind of awkward. You end up walking a long way down a windowless corridor to get to the restrooms, especially if the first one is occupied.

Also, different uses have different requirements and different real world demands. Setting aside what the code says, a shop selling, say, clothes or beads probably doesn't need a public restroom at all. But a shop selling beer probably needs more than two single hole restrooms, even though the code may let them get away with that.

[mattaudio]

There are good examples of it even in Minneapolis. The mixed use at East Lake St at the Mississippi River has shared bathrooms serving Longfellow Grill, Dunn Bros, and a couple retailers.

[MNdible]

Flip side is that having multiple, small retail spaces spreads out the risk - would you rather have a place 80% filled 100% of the time (with slightly higher rent per sqft), or 100% filled 92% of the time? The larger the space the longer it may take to fill it if the chain leaves, and make no mistake, larger stores/chains aren't guaranteed to stay in your space forever or even stay in business.

I don't disagree with you, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear that developers think otherwise.

[RailBaronYarr]

Can we take a step back and ask what it is that makes the Opus ground-floor commercial space more expensive (what everyone is claiming will bring in chains, guaranteed)? Let's compare your an existing Dinkytown building no one would consider getting rid of: the one housing Gold Country, Jimmy John's, Cliques, Peppermint Park, and Alpha Print. 5 businesses. Using a Google maps area calculating site, I got the footprint to be roughly 6,500 square feet. For 5 businesses, and average of 1,300 sqft each (with most being much smaller allowing to Goldy's Locker Room having a big footprint).

The Opus development proposed 5 retail/commercial spaces, each with street-facing windows, ranging from 1,500 sqft to 2,000 sqft. Nothing giant, nothing tiny. But an average of 8,500 sqft total. Granted, we know some of these have mezzanine space that adds to the total (making the lease price more reasonable to a tenant if they can monetize the space).

The old, 2-story commercial building holds 3 unique places and 2 chains (yes, Gold County/GLR is a chain, many in the metro and owned by the same guy that owns the Bucky's equivalent throughout WI). Is it the fact that the new proposed commercial space is owned by a profit-hungry developer that prices will be higher, or simply that amenities will be better and they can therefore charge more? I'm thinking things like more energy efficient, better access to shared garbage/delivery facilities due to modern design, ability to bear loads, I don't know. I just can't imagine someone could look at these 2 spaces and think the problem is the scale of the total development in what type of tenants they'll attract. Will this new space not filter down over time, the same way residential units do?

[woofner]

Residential is permitted as of right in all commercial districts (which is one reason why Minneapolis already effectively has a form-based code). The rezoning was presumably done for the minimum lot area per unit, although they could maybe have gotten a variance on that (I think CPED recommends which applications a project should go for). Approximately double the density is allowed in C3A vs C1 & C2:



There are a set of bonuses that go along with these districts so I'm guessing they actually were within their limits on the density. Of course elimination of the minimum lot area is under discussion right now, but if that doesn't go through, they could still get a building with 93-98 units on the site at C1, assuming a bonus for enclosed parking, mixed use, and transit proximity, and assuming they could get a CUP for height. The height issue is more or less at the discretion of the council so that is going to be the sticking point regardless of zoning district.

While you gotta hand it to the Book House for their organization, they used some of the cheapest tricks in the book, including spreading the rumor about Al's and accusing CPED of illegal maneuvers. Hopefully the latter at least exposed the Book House's ignorance. Though I love used bookstores and they were one of the best, I will no longer shop there because of it (so get used to $20 less in your cash drawer every half year or so).

[RailBaronYarr]

I don't disagree with you, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear that developers think otherwise.

I guess I'll again point to Sydney Hall with a large space for a chain and then 4 small spaces that are leased to 2 chains and 2 local businesses. And is there proof that large commercial spaces would only attract chains? Purple Onion is doing fine in 1301...

Edit: I guess what my point has always been is that large, new developments *may* favor chains because they tend to have economies of scale and can more reliably fill larger spaces. But the flip is not necessarily true: small spaces in existing buildings do not guarantee unique stores/restaurants. A local landlord is motivated by the same things as a big developer when it comes to filling their (smaller) spaces. Which is why we see Five Guys, JJ's, Brueggers, etc in Dinkytown, Orange Julius/DQ in a pretty tight spot in SV, etc etc.

[twincitizen]

A quick scan indicates that mixed-use is definitely allowed in C1, but height is limited to the lesser of 2.5 stories / 35 feet. Gross floor area for commercial use up to 8000 sf, assuming no parking between street & building (no setback).

Opus could build almost the same building (10,500 sf of retail is proposed), but it could only have 1 story of apartments on top. You can't really do 2.5 stories with commercial on 1st floor. (please don't challenge me on that with a picture of some old building in NYC or Europe...I mean with modern building & ADA requirements).

Basically Opus could build a building that would not fill out the site, and would probably need to have surface parking, since underground would be economically unfeasible. Honestly Opus should have prepared diagrams of "here's the project we can build with C1, and the commercial rents will still be expensive". It might've made their current proposal more palatable if people understood what the difference between C1 and C3A were.

[mattaudio]

Maybe they can do that for Friday?

[FISHMANPET]

Alright, Megan Holden from the Minnesota Daily just interviewed me. If I come off sounding like an idiot I'll just move to Montana or something. I also gave a plug for our forums.

[Nick]

I hope you were a level above the "That's cool, I guess," said Chemistry sophomore Bob Loblaw. level of like 75% of quotes used in Daily articles.

[FISHMANPET]

I used lots and lots of big words.

[RailBaronYarr]

Interesting article regarding preservation. http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/07/29/h ... sam-hersh/

[Silophant]

I hope you were a level above the "That's cool, I guess," said Chemistry sophomore Bob Loblaw. level of like 75% of quotes used in Daily articles.

Might not matter. I was interviewed by the Strib about the Sally's development a few months ago. I made several insightful comments about the changes to Stadium Village and the university area, but she synthesized it down to "University of Minnesota senior Joey Senkyr said he'd be sad if Sally's were to close."

Sigh.

[FISHMANPET]

Well here's the piece.
https://www.mndaily.com/city/business/2 ... -committee

Peter Bajurny, University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering information technician, said there’s no point in opposing the project now that the affected businesses are just “vacant store-fronts.”

“Students want to live close to the University,” Bajurny said. “It’s more productive to work with Opus.”

[Unity77]

But architecture junior Jake Benecasa said Dinkytown’s “unique charm” is more important than building more student housing.

“It will be a big, sore thumb in the middle of town,” he said.

Unique charm? Maybe this area is unique to some suburban kids or to those who come from rural areas, but honestly there is nothing unique or charming about this neighborhood.