Page 6 of 31

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 8:20 am
by min-chi-cbus
My hopes for an adaptive reuse of this gem is about to dissolve.... :(

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 8:33 am
by MplsSteve
min-chi-cbus wrote:My hopes for an adaptive reuse of this gem is about to dissolve....
I'll save a brick for you.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 9:19 am
by MNdible
MplsSteve wrote:I'll save a brick for you.
Don't. The bricks are soaked in chromium and are toxic.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 9:56 am
by MplsSteve
MNdible wrote: by MNdible » April 3rd, 2014, 9:19 am
MplsSteve wrote:
I'll save a brick for you.

Don't. The bricks are soaked in chromium and are toxic.
Sorry, that was supposed to be sarcastic...

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 10:06 am
by Nathan
just keep it in a zip lock.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 10:13 am
by MNdible
MplsSteve wrote:
MNdible wrote: by MNdible » April 3rd, 2014, 9:19 am
MplsSteve wrote:
I'll save a brick for you.

Don't. The bricks are soaked in chromium and are toxic.
Sorry, that was supposed to be sarcastic...
Yeah, so was mine. The internet is hard.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 10:21 am
by aeisenberg
There's no rendering for this site, right? Just a unit estimate?

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 10:59 am
by Nathan
right, the current owner is completing clean up then selling it to another developer who has given just a general clue as to what they have in mind. 400-600 units, street level retail.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 3rd, 2014, 3:17 pm
by seanrichardryan
It's a unique postition- flipping a polluted dump to another developer.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 4th, 2014, 7:27 am
by min-chi-cbus
seanrichardryan wrote:It's a unique postition- flipping a polluted dump to another developer.
Seriously. And it's going to cost a pretty penny to get middled like that, but it must be worth it to the developer to free up their available cash on hand and put it all towards the redevelopment itself, and not the cost of cleanup. I kind of figured the clean-up costs would be fairly negligible compared to the overarching redevelopment project -- no more than maybe $10M, but I really have no idea whatsoever. If it includes the demo as well then I can see the costs escalating. But again, the only thing I can think of that makes sense why the developer chose to have another contractor do the initial demo and clean-up is to maneuver and free up finances.

Any other thoughts?

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 9th, 2014, 9:09 am
by Viktor Vaughn
Major demolition is underway.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 9th, 2014, 4:18 pm
by seanrichardryan
I hope they're saving the cast iron columns from the front doorz.... rarg. Did this one have any HPC review? I don't recall it coming up.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 9th, 2014, 10:08 pm
by min-chi-cbus
I already called dibs, but there's some asbestos that I'm willing to part with.....

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 10th, 2014, 5:10 pm
by twincitizen
Some news on the demo schedule: http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/su ... gins-today

Sean: Did you find anything out about how this demolition would have bypassed the HPC? Who decides if a demolition is subject to HPC approval? Did they vote on Totino's last year? Everything about this process and the HPC in general just seems...not completely objective.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 10th, 2014, 5:52 pm
by seanrichardryan
Well, buildings are either periodically put on lists during a staff sweep (as was done with historic resource list in 2008) or they are nominated by a sitting HPC member. I can't recall this building ever being mentioned. It wasn't common knowledge that it is/was the streetcar barn. I'll look around and see what I can find.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 10th, 2014, 8:46 pm
by MplsSteve
twincitizen wrote:Did you find anything out about how this demolition would have bypassed the HPC?
It was approved on the July 9th 2013 meeting:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/meeting ... S1P-111097

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 11th, 2014, 1:52 pm
by seanrichardryan
Ah! Thanks! Photographs and a plaque it is.

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 11th, 2014, 2:15 pm
by FISHMANPET
That may be the first demolition I've seen the HPC allow!

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 14th, 2014, 7:23 am
by NE-Mark
StarTribune update (more of an acknowledgement that it is getting torn down):
http://www.startribune.com/business/254983441.html

Re: Superior Plating site

Posted: April 14th, 2014, 9:40 am
by twincitizen
Kauffman, of DLC, said his firm is working with the Nicollet Island-East Bank Neighborhood Association to gauge reaction to the firm’s plans for the site.

Victor Grambsch, president of the association, characterized a recent meeting with DLC as “very pleasant, but it was kind the way you’d characterize a first-date kind of meeting. No decisions were made and, as far as I know, there’s nothing binding that DLC is going to build something there. It’s pretty nebulous right now.”

The Association favors taller transit- and pedestrian-oriented buildings and “quality construction” as opposed to a series of low-lying structures, he added.
Well that's pretty encouraging. We still haven't heard definitively if DLC is also purchasing the vacant block to the east. First & First owns that property as well. The Strib story mentioned 5.4 acres, which would be both blocks. Was the eastern block just the parking lot for Superior Plating employees? That might explain why no media outlets have mentioned it specifically, other than as "the Superior Plating property".

Business thought: since the portion of 4th St on the north side of the RR trench is already elevated above RR grade, how cool would that be if they could get a section of the old St. Anthony Parkway bridge and lay it across the trench here? It's private ROW on both sides, so that would be a difficult negotiation with the townhouse owners association to the north. They probably like their peace & quiet and wouldn't be too welcoming of "outside" bike & ped traffic.