Page 3 of 8

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 23rd, 2013, 9:34 am
by RailBaronYarr
In this specific case you have a boatload of people attending the U of M, and some can afford it while others may not be able to, yet everyone has to be on campus throughout the day. Those who have rich parents or aren't aware of the ramifications of the debt they're taking on can certainly afford to live in these places. Others, who should have equal access to be able to attend class without long commutes, be able to get to night group meetings or extra-curriculars, etc, cannot afford rents like that. For reference, the U, which if oft-cited as screwing over students on price of tuition/housing/food, charges $815 a month for a 1 person efficiency room (= studio) in Roy Wilkins, plus you can be flexible with the times you stay (Fall, Spring, and Summer terms, allowing you to flat out save the summer rent instead of dealing with subleasing if you want/need to). Thats $1,500 a year cheaper than 'market' price, and they're closer to campus and just as close to Dinkytown amenities as any of the DT buildings going up. I'm glad more units and street-level retail/commercial space is going in, but I'm not pleased that the free market isn't doing anything to help make living on campus cheaper.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 23rd, 2013, 9:41 am
by Nick
Just casually typing "Como" into Craigslist and comparing the listings now with when I did this several years ago, it would appear that prices have started to adjust a bit:

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/a ... 04959.html

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/a ... 40372.html

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/a ... 76163.html

Of course there are still lots of overpriced houses, but this is early Spring, when landlords start high.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 23rd, 2013, 10:15 am
by Silophant
RIght. The housing around the University's all on a September-September cycle. My guess is we won't see prices start to drop until summer, when landlords realize that they really won't fill their units at their current prices. Or, maybe there really is enough demand for all these buildings, and we won't. Impossible to predict, the future is.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 23rd, 2013, 2:51 pm
by RailBaronYarr
Except that landlords in the U area typically require notice of if the tenants will renew or not around Feb-March, and start posting their stuff now, with most college kids locking up where they're living the next year before spring term ends (especially the ones currently in dorms who will not be on campus around friends to go looking at places and decide/sign easily). That was my experience along with everyone else I knew.

Here's the deal. I love that these buildings are coming in, for the most part. I like that they add housing capacity to a university body that has increased by roughly 10% since 2002 and is also becoming less commuter (by desire). I like that they have equivalent to additional street retail. I like that most of them are not displacing existing housing stock at X price per BR with Y=2.3*X price per bedroom, they are replacing surface lots or under-utilized single level retail.

However, there is evidence of some of the opposite. Dinkytown Residences demolished existing housing stock (to be fair, they owned it) and built those Lodges all over, charging double+ per bedroom compared to the old duplexes/triplexes on the very same lots. Same goes for the units on 7th st/15th Ave. Increase in # of units but a large jump in price. I'm also on record as saying part of the problem here is that these projects are giant monolithic structures. Not from an urban design perspective (I do prefer smaller, textures places, but that's not my gripe). My problem is that a whole block (or half block, or even 2 blocks on the UTEC site) makes it so that there is no variety or competition in that space. All units have the same (roughly) amenities. No choice on outdoor parking vs garage, in-unit laundry vs coin, furnished vs not, central security vs not, the list goes on. You boil down the number of property owners to a select few and the amenity options to a select few and you have lower price options and higher chance of price fixing, with little room for a smaller guy to come in and shake things up. You also see local impacts on other housing - these big units go in, taxes go up in surrounding areas as the precedent of value is set. There WAS a market price for those places but now it is artificially raised.

Anyway, I like this unit, I just can't see how $900+ for a studio is affordable for a student paying $20k in tuition each year, and I think the developers know the kids are taking out loans to pay for it so the price isn't really seen as an immediate monetary decision for most.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 2:29 pm
by go4guy
U tuition is actually closer to $12k per year. Even out of state tuition is nowhere near 20k.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 2:52 pm
by ECtransplant
Adding all mandatory fees (stadium, etc.), but still not including books, room/board, etc., tuition costs $18,774 per year for non resident undergrads.


http://onestop.umn.edu/finances/costs_a ... CSOM=false

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 3:37 pm
by web
Get a part time job for 6 months IF from out of the reciprocity states. otherwise in state tuition

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 5:49 pm
by min-chi-cbus
ECtransplant wrote:Adding all mandatory fees (stadium, etc.), but still not including books, room/board, etc., tuition costs $18,774 per year for non resident undergrads.


http://onestop.umn.edu/finances/costs_a ... CSOM=false
I'm sorry, and I'm sure almost nobody will agree with me, but that is CHEAP! I got a free ride through my parents but even after a $5K (per year?) scholarship I believe my tuition at Ohio State was close to $20K.....and this was 10+ years ago. I seriously doubt it's still that "low" at OSU! The U of M is a tremendous bargain!!

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 6:00 pm
by TheUrbanGopher
min-chi-cbus, I agree. I am a non-resident by the Us standards, and the out-of-state tuition is a bargain compared to other B10 schools. I know the U gets quite the rap for being bloated (which I think it is in some aspects), but I have to give them credit for having a low out-of-state rate when most others are charging 30K+ for non-residents.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 6:51 pm
by RailBaronYarr
Out of state to in-state tuition ratio at the U is very low compared to many schools out there. The U has raised in-state tuition rates while holding out-state rates relatively flat in an effort to bring in a more diverse background (which I'm not sure I agree with as it's a flagship state university chartered to educate MN kids first and foremost).

I threw out the $20k number as a round estimate including books for the out-state folks, but should have clarified and/or listed both, but either way my point remains that $12k+, $19k+ per year i tuition plus room and food costs on top of that, often some to most in loans hides the immediately felt cost to students. Conversely, if certain parents are paying for tuition and/or rooming it distorts the market.

Either way, I have yet to see any of these projects reduce the cost per bedroom in the Dinkytown area, and I will wait to see if prices elsewhere (Como, across 35, Prospect Park, etc) hold or increase at a rate lower than general inflation. I am not disputing that more units in DT or SV isn't better for the area, or that fewer surface parking isn't a good thing, etc etc. I'm just skeptical if the micro-evaluation of housing pricing "near" the U of M will remain lower as a result of increased supply.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: March 24th, 2013, 7:27 pm
by TheUrbanGopher
Lets hope that market forces do lower the price eventually. I think the base issue was that the U was set up as a metro commuter school between 1960ish-2005ish. It was really when TCF Stadium was built and the U decided not to move parking elsewhere but actually decrease the total number of spots when the local student population started to increase. These luxury apartments are filling that gap and I believe they are just matching the high demand for local housing.

Eventually (hopefully), the student commuter population will become irrelevant and the market will saturate will new apartments, thus lowering the price. Until then, I am thankful that students are living closer to the U more consistently, removing a polluting/bottlenecking car on the highway, and are unintentionally improving street life.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 3rd, 2013, 5:43 pm
by TheUrbanGopher
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/meeting ... S1P-106221

Very happy they approved the lowering of the parking requirements (Variance I). I may have been sick to see more pointless and underutilized garage spaces being constructed.

With WaHu in pause mode, I wonder what CPM's next move will be - possibly another site acquisition for a new development?

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 28th, 2013, 8:53 pm
by twincitizen
As sure as the sun rises, another project has been appealed: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/zp/WCMS1P-106659

8. 301 Walnut (700 Washington Avenue SE):
a) Appeal filed by Juno Investment Corporation from the decision of the Planning Commission granting applications for: 1) a conditional use permit to increase maximum building height from 4 stories, 56 feet, to 6 stories, 81 feet; and 2) a variance to reduce the rear yard requirement adjacent to the east lot line from 15 feet to 9.3 feet; to allow for a 6-story mixed use building with 98 dwelling units and ground floor commercial uses.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 6:54 am
by Snelbian
Anyone know what property Juno is involved with?

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 7:42 am
by TheUrbanGopher
From the RCA document...

"The appellant owns the adjacent property at 718 Washington Avenue Southeast, a 3-story building. Part of the reason for the appeal is a concern that the differences in height between the two buildings will cause drifting and accumulation of snow on the 3-story building. As noted in the appeal, snow loads are regulated by the Building Code."

718 Wash is the U of MN Physicians building next door. I cannot fathom the idea that an extra couple of inches of snow would be a serious problem for a building that was build in 1905. I really wonder if there is some other subjective case for concern.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 8:03 am
by Snelbian
Thanks, I completely missed that info somehow. Isn't that the same reason Caspian Bistro gave for opposing the redevelopment at the corner of Washington and Huron? How is that supposed to work, anyway? Is there some obvious outcome of the physics I'm missing that means tall building next to shorter building causes more snow on the roof?

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 8:11 am
by FISHMANPET
Perhaps snow load is the next great frontier in NIMBYism?

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 8:38 am
by Tom H.
So, they're saying that the height differential between the two buildings will cause snow to drift up against the new building, increasing the snow load on the old building?

Follow this argument to its logical conclusion, and you see that all adjacent buildings must either be exactly the same height (or within an inch) or have air gaps between them.

This is a fallacy, as far as I'm concerned. Look at some of the buildings along, say, Michigan Ave in Chicago and you'll see adjacent buildings that differ by a dozen stories. They've managed to not have their roofs collapse.

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 8:49 am
by Silophant
I'm feeling like this is just NIMBYism on Juno's part. I'm not qualified to comment on snow loads, but what Tom said above is true, even if the buildings were adjacent for all three floors. However, they aren't. The new building is going to have a setback above the first floor. It seems to me, at least, that any extra snow load would be borne by the Sally's building.

Also, why didn't snow load cause a problem for the buildings next to SVF or the Station?

Re: 301 Walnut (Sally's Building)

Posted: April 29th, 2013, 9:24 am
by MNdible
This is a legitimate concern, and the new developer has the responsibility to remedy the situation. Just like with the Caspian Bistro, it doesn't mean that the project shouldn't go forward, but as a civil matter, the developer needs to spend the money to provide structural upgrades if it can be demonstrated that there will be real impacts.

Snow drifting is a BFD in this climate.

And I thought that Nick had given NIMBY the v-----t treatment.