Dinkytown not Megatown/Save Dinkytown

[min-chi-cbus]

Existing residents will need to be bought off with permits. As much as I don't like the idea it's just a political reality. Put meters everywhere, and let permit parks park for free. As they move away don't issue new permits to new residents, make them pay, and in 15-20 years everything will work out.

But if we make it hard/expensive for a student to bring a car to Dinkytown then students won't bring their cars. I brought my car to college because the parking permit for my apartment (not in Dinkytown) was free. If I'd had to pay a signifigant amount of money I would have thought twice about it. Most of my trips were to go grocery shopping, which won't require a car in Dinkytown anymore.

Now would we be making it hard for people to have cars in Dinkytown because subsidizing parking is cost-prohibitive, or are we doing this simply to create sustainable, more "urban" environments? If it's the latter, I think instilling a personal objective on the lives of others in the absence of true market forces is a bad bad bad idea. If it's the former, I totally agree. Minneapolis should be a smart, sustainable city, not a dictatorship.

[mhwbkr]

Matt,

I know I am behind this whole discussion, but thank you again for coming on here and speaking your points. At this point, it would be nice to truly collaborate to help with the SAP or something now that the moratorium is shot.

It sounds like many of the problems you experienced with Opus specifically was their inability to cooperate with the neighborhood/business associations/others on the design process. Have you talked with Doran about the new project? Do you think there is some way we would be able to talk to Doran or the Council at this point in the process aside from public comments at Planning Committee? I personally like many of his projects, but am skeptical with what he has proposed for that area. (I guess this belongs on the project page but whatever.)

Awesome. There is a public meeting about the SAP Monday, Sept 9th at the Varsity. Starts at 6pm with tons of free food. Its definitely the best way to get caught up on what they're doing.

I have not talked to Doran, not sure if he would or if I want to get as involved as I was with the Opus project to be honest. I know he sent some kind of letter around to the property owners that really irked a lot of business owners and the DBA president, so he's on the offensive. When I see a copy of the letter, I'll be able to say more about it. He also made a big to-do about the moratorium being directed solely at him, even though the moratorium would have been proposed with or without him having a project lined up.

If you have any ideas on ways to oppose or change this project, let me know. [email protected]

Right now, I'm going to be looking at CMs Gordon, Hofstede and maybe Goodman and Tuthill for some advice. Our options aren't great and my main strategy ally is fairly burnt out, as am I.

[FISHMANPET]

Existing residents will need to be bought off with permits. As much as I don't like the idea it's just a political reality. Put meters everywhere, and let permit parks park for free. As they move away don't issue new permits to new residents, make them pay, and in 15-20 years everything will work out.

But if we make it hard/expensive for a student to bring a car to Dinkytown then students won't bring their cars. I brought my car to college because the parking permit for my apartment (not in Dinkytown) was free. If I'd had to pay a signifigant amount of money I would have thought twice about it. Most of my trips were to go grocery shopping, which won't require a car in Dinkytown anymore.

Now would we be making it hard for people to have cars in Dinkytown because subsidizing parking is cost-prohibitive, or are we doing this simply to create sustainable, more "urban" environments? If it's the latter, I think instilling a personal objective on the lives of others in the absence of true market forces is a bad bad bad idea. If it's the former, I totally agree. Minneapolis should be a smart, sustainable city, not a dictatorship.

I support both reasons, but the reason I'd sell to people is that it's cost prohibitive. It's a market failure, and it's a nice coincidence that fixing that market failure leads to "better" urban environments. And if you want to always have plenty of free parking in front of your house for you and your friends, don't live so close to an activity center. There are plenty of homes all around the city with lots of space on the street.

[Seve]

As someone who is from another city but now lives nearby, I have to say that most of Dinkytown is pretty dumpy. These various redevelopment and new high density projects are only going to help the area's economy by bringing new residents. Again, if someone wants to build on a dumpy parking lot...great. It's an improvement and a win-win for the area and the developer.

[mhwbkr]

The decision of existing landlords to not charge full or market rents is not the city's problem or Doran's. Land (and building value) will go up because living on campus is far more desirable than it has been in the past. We didn't complain when Mesa booted out whatever was in the second half of its building and restrict them. We shouldn't cap market rate rents to protect a certain class of business, even if small businesses are desirable (in my opinion). For years, big boxes and chains gained the competitive edge by utilizing low-value land uses subsidized with high-cost public infrastructure projects and reduced land tax rates. As far as I'm aware, this isn't the case in any of the proposed DInkytown developments. If we want to encourage small businesses in the area, why not go the flip route and provide startup cash/assistance funded in part by the added property tax and metered parking revenue from developments like this? And again, the public's job isn't to ensure that every business small, niche, unique, large, chain, etc has access to the most valuable parcel in the core of an activity center. Let development spread outward from the core as well with lower-value (and therefore cost) buildings to serve smaller business' needs.

A subsidy program you laid out would be great. It seems like that would be the job of agencies like CPED to work that out? My experience with the Opus project lead me to believe they are more concerned smoothing the path for development rather than working with the small business owners who are suffering as a result. There's a rumor that Schiff is angling for the CPED head job if Hodges is elected. I'm pretty cynical that he would change this situation, but I don't really have a comprehensive view of all of CPED's actions, and I liked Schiff quite a bit (he's my CM) until July of this year.

All this assumes you're 100% right on the inability of small businesses to survive in new spaces moving forward. Do you have any insight to Purple Onion, Baldy's BBQ, Chilly Billy's, etc rent situation in the newer spaces?

I don't at the moment. I've stated before that Erbert and Gerbert's rent increased either 3 or 5-fold when they moved into Doran's building on 15th ave, and have had that confirmed recently by others who know. I know some Purple Onion folks who could give me some insight, if I think to I'll ask.

If Dinkytown had not been limited for as long as it had, by the C1 zoning within the core, parking minimums, etc along with zoning outside the core, we would have seen more commercial-supporting structures sprout up over time. We'd already have older, aging, lower value buildings in place that would make a natural transition for places that can no longer afford the rents in the heart of Dinkytown. As it is, I'm advocating playing catch-up a little.

Like I said, I could probably get behind that idea. But I'm not sure I agree with your "if/then" analysis. There are and were a few businesses on the other side of the highway for a long time--Biermier's Books, Know Name records (until they moved to Dinkytown), Dunn Bros, and I think a couple other places. But a lot of the property between Dinkytown and the highway were churches and sorority housing that had been there for some time until they started being bought by developers in the past 5 years or so.

I'll also note that for a business to just up and move, even a short distance, is not easy. Customers become confused, capacity to sell goes down, etc. I agree. I've stated it in other threads that this impact (not being forced to move by market forces) is what should be softened when speaking of personal residences. If a business doesn't own their building, they feel all the negatives with none of the positives of profiting off the sale (though they also presumably reduce month to month headaches and costs/risks of property ownership as well). Put in some regs that require landlords to assist in moving, forgive XX months' rent, etc to soften the impact to the business, costs that would then change the economics of selling the parcel to a developer but not limit development nearly as much.

You don't have to tell me! We (Book House) are slowly recovering from our move. If we didn't have steady online business (which we had to suspend somewhat while moving) and dedicated, obsessive book buying regular customers, we wouldn't have made it. We received no assistance from Opus or our former landlord (I believe this was the case with the Podium as well). I don't think its fair to just say to cornerstone businesses like Book House and Podium "Well, just move aside to the periphery so this corporation can have everything they want," but obviously I'm biased. Maybe these things could have been sorted had we had a small area plan in place before this all happened. Instead we were dirty-dealed on the lease we signed in November (essentially, our former landlords, the HoH owners, inserted a bunch of new, expensive repairs we'd be responsible for to distract us from the a new 60-day notice to vacate clause. We had no idea they'd had an offer on the building), found out second-hand the building was being sold, and were just told to deal with it. Which we did, at great cost financially and physically--books are heavy! All this happened within 2 months of finishing another costly move--our archive was in the UTEC building.
As for the Podium, I'm really happy they managed to open elsewhere but they were the last link to a history that is very important to the culture here. I know this isn't a popular point of view on this board, but the ability of a neighborhood's history to be recognized, represented, maintained, etc is very important to me and many others. Advocating for this is not the same as advocating to encase an area in amber. I think these factors should be part of any decision-making process, at least at an equal level as density and other factors.

By allowing the project to go up before the SAP is completed, the City removed a great deal of agency from the affected community. Every idea of ways to alleviate the damage done to small businesses speaks to this point, and I'm going to keep harping on that here until someone convinces me I'm wrong.

[MNdible]

In the conversation about retail space and how much it costs, I think there's an assumption that all space is equal. It's not. All else (location, etc.) being equal, new retail space is more valuable than old space because it's more homogenized and more commoditizable.

A national chain has real estate standards that its brokers are looking for and expect to find. Clear square footage of a particular size and shape (sizes and shapes that developers are well aware of and build to). No columns and high floor-to-floor. All on one level. Storefront windows in a particular configuration. Mechanical and electrical systems that are new and can be easily metered. Landlords who aren't flaky. Etc.

There are certainly examples where national chains will spend money to retrofit a space and squish their prototype store to make it work, but that's only in a really good location where new space isn't available. A new, commoditized space is attractive to many more users, and therefore is more valuable and can charge higher rents.

[mhwbkr]

Regarding parking, I'll agree that there are many students who have use for a car even if they live 1-2 blocks from campus. Matt, you point out trips home, summer internships, jobs off campus during the school year, or just for leisure. There are, however, options to do these things without the use of a personal car right on the street. Car sharing (ZipCar and HourCar, with the latter expanding at the U), Green Line to StP/Minneapolis, decent bus network, biking, sharing vehicles with roommates, etc. How many people would bring their car for the occasional use if parking costs exceeded that of a car-sharing program? How many jobs do students access during the school year not served by transit? How many would take MVTA/SW Metro/etc buses to their suburban hometown rather than just drive it?

Those services certainly reduce car dependency. I think they're great, and will only make a positive impact in the long run. I just think the culture of car ownership is still very strong and not likely to make as big of an impact in an area filled with people in a transitional stage of life who may just want to deal for a couple years with the negative side of keeping their car. I hope I'm wrong though. Also, I think our public transit infrastructure still needs a ton of work, although areas like the U are better served than others. I fully support expanding LRT, despite its role in pushing development into Dinkytown.

I agree that the city can't be part of the process of development and then be slow to respond (or not at all) regarding how it deals with its own public space (namely, on-street parking). IMO, that's why they're part of it in the first place. The city should already know what areas in MH+DT need meters added, be working on a pricing scheme based on current counts, working on reaching out to landlords on notifying them on a permit process for tenants, etc etc. This is good, responsive governance and I agree it isn't there to the extent that it should be.

It seems like they are doing this now. The free meters on Sunday will be going away very soon, I've just learned. But the DBA had to work hard to get the city to come to the table. It also seems like the deal with using the U lots involved a bit of luck--the former parking czar did not want anything to do with the situation, while the new one who just took over has been very responsive.

[Wedgeguy]

In the conversation about retail space and how much it costs, I think there's an assumption that all space is equal. It's not. All else (location, etc.) being equal, new retail space is more valuable than old space because it's more homogenized and more commoditizable.

A national chain has real estate standards that its brokers are looking for and expect to find. Clear square footage of a particular size and shape (sizes and shapes that developers are well aware of and build to). No columns and high floor-to-floor. All on one level. Storefront windows in a particular configuration. Mechanical and electrical systems that are new and can be easily metered. Landlords who aren't flaky. Etc.

There are certainly examples where national chains will spend money to retrofit a space and squish their prototype store to make it work, but that's only in a really good location where new space isn't available. A new, commoditized space is attractive to many more users, and therefore is more valuable and can charge higher rents.

Economics and real estate 101 all rolled into one. I agree with you 100%.

[mhwbkr]

As someone who is from another city but now lives nearby, I have to say that most of Dinkytown is pretty dumpy. These various redevelopment and new high density projects are only going to help the area's economy by bringing new residents. Again, if someone wants to build on a dumpy parking lot...great. It's an improvement and a win-win for the area and the developer.

Cool opinion, bro.

[Seve]

As someone who is from another city but now lives nearby, I have to say that most of Dinkytown is pretty dumpy. These various redevelopment and new high density projects are only going to help the area's economy by bringing new residents. Again, if someone wants to build on a dumpy parking lot...great. It's an improvement and a win-win for the area and the developer.

Cool opinion, bro.

Uh, right..."bro."

After reading a few of your past posts I get it now...Dinkytown and it's residents should resist development so that they can continue to have access to small businesses (in your case bookstores) located in run down buildings for low rent. In other words, we should resist development in Dinkytown so that we can subsidize an obsolete business' rent. Great. Awesome idea, "bro."

[mhwbkr]

I just don't see how your opinion that Dinkytown is "dumpy" is relevant to the discussion at hand. One man's dumpy area is another man's charming bohemia, especially with the diverse array of functioning businesses Dinkytown's historically supported. There are some bleak situations in Minneapolis but Dinkytown has plenty to appeal to many folks' aesthetic tastes. Its all relative and nothing to stake an argument on.

You can restate my arguments in whatever cynical, simplified form you want, but granting a developer a spot-zoning request is a much more lucrative subsidy than anything I've advocated for on this board, at the council, or in the press. And whether you think I'm motivated by self-interest or not, I'm not the only one who has this opinion and there are very few small business owners in Dinkytown that are pushing for more projects like what Opus built and what Doran would like to build.

As for the book store I work at, despite our obsolescence, we've managed to turn a profit year after year. So weird, I know. Especially since we're near a major university where no one reads books ever.

[FISHMANPET]

Everyone's experience of Dinkytown is different, and you can't say that anyone's view is right or wrong, it just is. The parts of Dinkytown that are important to me are different than the parts of Dinkytown that are important to you. About the only common ground on that front is that we've formed our attachments to the place by spending a lot of time there. Steve hasn't, so he hasn't formed an attachment to Dinkytown, which is fine. I think a majority of people do have an attachment to Dinkytown however.

And to top it all off, he's right, a lot of Dinkytown is pretty dumpy. Most of the attachment is to the businesses there, not the actual buildings. I'd say the every building of at least 2 stories currently standing is pretty nice, and every single story building is just a cheap hole in the wall. Those cheap holes in the wall have led to some interesting businesses, but also some boring chains. And the nicer buildings actually have more local businesses than chains.

I like Mesa Pizza, but the building is pretty dumpy. Maybe that's part of it's charm, but I primarily go there for the pizza and the atmosphere created by the employees. A new Mesa pizza is still going to have staff that is probably stoned at 1 PM on a Tuesday, and you're still gonna drink warm water from a fountain, etc etc. And of course it will still have good pizza. There's nothing about that building specifically that makes it unique, other than that it's old.

And I think at this point to continue calling it a spot zoning is just wrong. Unless someone takes the city to court for the rezoning, it's a legal legitimate rezoning. You can think it's not all you want, but saying it's a spot zoning is a legal claim and the legal matter has been settled. There's no more to say about it.

[mhwbkr]

Everyone's experience of Dinkytown is different, and you can't say that anyone's view is right or wrong, it just is. The parts of Dinkytown that are important to me are different than the parts of Dinkytown that are important to you. About the only common ground on that front is that we've formed our attachments to the place by spending a lot of time there. Steve hasn't, so he hasn't formed an attachment to Dinkytown, which is fine. I think a majority of people do have an attachment to Dinkytown however.

And to top it all off, he's right, a lot of Dinkytown is pretty dumpy. Most of the attachment is to the businesses there, not the actual buildings. I'd say the every building of at least 2 stories currently standing is pretty nice, and every single story building is just a cheap hole in the wall. Those cheap holes in the wall have led to some interesting businesses, but also some boring chains. And the nicer buildings actually have more local businesses than chains.

So its all relative, people get different things out of it, but dumpy is the correct assessment of the buildings? It really doesn't matter to me what your taste is, but at least have some coherency in what you're saying. There are plenty of people who use Dinkytown that also like a lot of the architecture, myself included. And, fwiw, the preliminary study of the design of the Dinkytown street-scape that is part of the SAP does not differentiate between 1 and 2-story buildings when they say that the Dinkytown "appears to retain sufficient integrity and significance to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places."

I like Mesa Pizza, but the building is pretty dumpy. Maybe that's part of it's charm, but I primarily go there for the pizza and the atmosphere created by the employees. A new Mesa pizza is still going to have staff that is probably stoned at 1 PM on a Tuesday, and you're still gonna drink warm water from a fountain, etc etc. And of course it will still have good pizza. There's nothing about that building specifically that makes it unique, other than that it's old.

But the building adds to the cumulative aesthetic effect of the district. Picking one building and critiquing it misses the point, in my opinion.

And I think at this point to continue calling it a spot zoning is just wrong. Unless someone takes the city to court for the rezoning, it's a legal legitimate rezoning. You can think it's not all you want, but saying it's a spot zoning is a legal claim and the legal matter has been settled. There's no more to say about it.

A legislative decision does not equal a legal decision, especially with the way these votes are so easily politicized. If we had the money and energy to go through with an appeal, we probably would have done that. I wouldn't have called it spot-zoning if that opinion wasn't shared by 2 land-use lawyers (that we weren't paying... ok, in one's case, not paying yet) and the head of a major urban planning/design group that I and other from SD met with a few times.

[VAStationDude]

THIS IS NOT SPOT ZONING. Spot zoning is zoning without planning. As had been explained to you many times the city's comp plan sets dinkytown as an activity center and thus c3a rezoning is perfectly legal and planned.

[mhwbkr]

And the nicer buildings actually have more local businesses than chains.

I'm not in Dinkytown at the moment but I'll need to do a count next time I'm there on this because this does not sound right. It will pain me to include Purple Onion in the count because I wish Potbelly hadn't taken over their building. And I think any count should at least have an asterix for buildings that replaced older ones with small businesses in it, namely the Dinkydome food court (RIP Espresso 22 and that Indian place) and the UTEC building.

Also, I happen to think that the newer residential buildings--the Doran building on 15th, FloCo Fusion, most of what I've seen in Stadium Village, the building with Purple Onion at the ground floor--are butt ugly, soul-less examples of function over form, with the function mainly being to provide students with the "experience" of living 2-3 to a room for $500/month. I realize the Opus building has a little more to it, but I have a hard time being impressed by renderings and the design of the building was never really a motivation for me in opposing it. But I'm not going to stake my opinion on my tastes, because, again, its all relative.

[mhwbkr]

THIS IS NOT SPOT ZONING. Spot zoning is zoning without planning. As had been explained to you many times the city's comp plan sets dinkytown as an activity center and thus c3a rezoning is perfectly legal and planned.

The Opus project was not presented as part of a larger plan for the "activity center", they simply exploited that designation for their own gain. By approving projects that rezone the area on a piecemeal basis, the council contradicts parts of the comp plan, namely community input into planning (i.e. the small area plan). Additionally, it was against every existing guideline for development in Dinkytown stated in the Marcy-Holmes Master Plan, did not receive a straight approval from the neighborhood association, and was extremely divisive in the community. With the large amount of housing--over 3,000 units--coming to the surrounding area, this was unnecessary change to Dinkytown's primary use, which benefited no one besides Opus and the property owners who sold to them, and is thus spot-zoning.

No other near-by project has altered Dinkytown's fundamental character as a small commercial district, and by granting Opus a rezone, the city did this with one vote for one project.

However, the issue is dead since the Council voted and the time to appeal has passed. I do think that if the council continues approving projects in this way, they'll be headed for a lawsuit.

[FISHMANPET]

Will the future residents of Opus have any benefit in living so close to Dinkytown? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that nobody but the developer benefits.

[mhwbkr]

Just because I'm the only one on here talking to you guys doesn't mean I stand alone with my opinion.

I have no idea what Dinkytown's future benefit will be to the kids in the Opus building, because the ability to use Dinkytown's pre-existing uses as a guide for what the future uses might be has now been severely complicated by the rezoning.

[FISHMANPET]

This is a really stupid discussion, and I wish I hadn't contributed to dragging it down like this.
The UrbanMSP/Streets.mn cabal is never going to agree with Save Dinkytown when it comes to the Opus development.

My hope in joining the Facebook group was to get the group thinking more critcally about development and to help them support good development. Maybe that's not possible, because if we here view Opus as a good development and Save Dinkytown thinks it's bad, we'll never be able to agree on anything else.

My hope was that we'd end up with an informed group advocating for good development, but instead it looks like we're going to end up with a group that opposes all development and one that supports good development. Now having a group that always says no is going to make it harder to fight off actual bad development, but I guess that's the price we have to pay.

[mhwbkr]

This is a really stupid discussion, and I wish I hadn't contributed to dragging it down like this.
The UrbanMSP/Streets.mn cabal is never going to agree with Save Dinkytown when it comes to the Opus development.

My hope in joining the Facebook group was to get the group thinking more critcally about development and to help them support good development. Maybe that's not possible, because if we here view Opus as a good development and Save Dinkytown thinks it's bad, we'll never be able to agree on anything else.

My hope was that we'd end up with an informed group advocating for good development, but instead it looks like we're going to end up with a group that opposes all development and one that supports good development. Now having a group that always says no is going to make it harder to fight off actual bad development, but I guess that's the price we have to pay.

If this is how you view this conversation, pulling out may be your best option.

I came here on my own and although I'll defend SD's goals as they related to the Opus project, I'm not really planning on involving myself as much in any future development fights in Dinkytown. This "cabal"'s rhetoric leading up to the final vote was extremely alienating toward us--calling us NIMBYs, accusing us of "scare-tactics" and a "scortched earth policy", using hyperbolic conclusions drawn from second-hand sources to mock the message and information we put out--and you really shouldn't be surprised some might be skeptical of your aims in engaging with this community. Many of the blog posts I read displayed a certain amount of uncritical reading of our message, and in several cases fully misrepresented our message. So to a certain extent I hoped to clarify what we were trying to get across through conversation in here. But I don't think its very helpful to start an attempt to collaborate under the assumption that the "other side" isn't thinking critically. I came here attempting to understand where your cabal was coming from, not hoping that I'll win you over. And, honestly, woe be upon any union that comes from a message board anyway.

I mainly just think discussion is the best way to test your opinions, and when the Opus fight was happening, I didn't really have as much time to waste on message boards as I do now. I've had civil conversations in person with people with some connection to your cabal and, although we never ended with the same conclusions about the Opus project, I thought we'd found common ground on several important points.

If people start ignoring this thread, I can take a hint.