Montage (Nye's redevelopment) - 116 E Hennepin Avenue

[FISHMANPET]

I'm not going to fault them for using any tool available to them.

My original statement is that when you cite a laundry list of concerns which includes zoning, that it's a huge red flag that you'd rather be an impediment to the process, rather than an active participant. And ultimately I don't care because on the whole I think things like tend to succeed more often than they fail. The problem I see/expect/predict is that when groups throw up a stink like this, they'll probably fail, and at the same time remove themselves from the process. Which is a shame because they have actual concerns that need to be addressed, but they hide it amongst all the fear mongering nonsense. But since they've excluded themselves, those concerns can easily be ignored.

The church has already acted in some form of bad faith, if what Alex says is correct. They've stated a position of the church without asking all their members what they think. And you David may be shocked by that since you take everything at face value, but I'm not at all surprised because I can easily from their statement earlier that their only aim is to get in the way, not work with the developer/city/etc to ensure their concerns are heard.

[David Greene]

Which is a shame because they have actual concerns that need to be addressed, but they hide it amongst all the fear mongering nonsense. But since they've excluded themselves, those concerns can easily be ignored.

Why would anyone who doesn't want to see the project happen work with the developer to address concerns? How would that be in their self-interest? It's not like the developer is going to know off 20 stories. You are expecting an awful lot of people who just don't like the project.

They've stated a position of the church without asking all their members what they think. And you David may be shocked by that since you take everything at face value, but I'm not at all surprised because I can easily from their statement earlier that their only aim is to get in the way, not work with the developer/city/etc to ensure their concerns are heard.

The second doesn't follow from the first. It would be just as bad if the church said they agreed with everything about the project if they haven't consulted members. But if they agreed you wouldn't accuse them of just getting in the way and otherwise acting duplicitously. What they advocate for and how they arrived at that position are orthogonal issues.

[MNdible]

They've stated a position of the church without asking all their members what they think.

Like any big organization, it's not unusual for something like this to go through a Building and Facilities type committee (which was probably an important meeting that was being announced at weekly services, if people were regular attendees). Time was short, so you could hardly expect the church to convene some sort of all-church convocation to ask members who weren't very active what they thought about zoning.

For better or worse, I view zoning as sort of a contract with its residents. If I'm going to invest a lot of money in my home, I want to know that the city isn't going to allow a smelting factory to go in next door. If I'm trying to sell my house, I know I'll be able to ask more for it if the zoning says that what's allowed next door is another single family house (rather than a drive-thru, or an apartment building that will ruin my access to daylight).

Now, that's not to say that the city can't (or shouldn't) change zoning, but when it makes such a change, it needs to be deliberate.

Obviously, this church is a different deal, because it's a historic resource, and because the members can't really sell it. But they have invested a great deal of their time, work, and love into maintaining and restoring that church. So you shouldn't be surprised if they're protective of it, and citing the zoning seems perfectly reasonable.

[FISHMANPET]

Why would anyone who doesn't want to see the project happen work with the developer to address concerns? How would that be in their self-interest? It's not like the developer is going to know off 20 stories. You are expecting an awful lot of people who just don't like the project.

I alluded to it earlier but I'll state it clearly here. This is not an acceptable position. This is a growing city. It is going to grow. If someone is not comfortable with a growing city they can move somewhere else that is not growing. I'm sorry that fate has determined that this church is in a growing area, but if the current leaders are unhappy with that then perhaps the church should find some new leaders that are willing to lead a church in the heart of growing Minneapolis rather than in the heart of the declining suburbs.

There are important discussions to be had all around this city about how we want this city to grow and just being flatly against development is no longer acceptable. I'm rabidly pro growth to an extreme, but I'm pretty sure my view needs to be moderated by other voices. But right now those other voices aren't interested in engaging, they're only interested in impeding, which marginalizes them. The same way a majority party in government needs a competent opposition party, the pro development side needs a competent opposition to better help us prevent mistakes. And we don't have that competent opposition, and it makes me angry. And that anger also makes me (and others like me) more extreme.

Back to LynLake, there were some legitimate concerns about the space between the building and the condos behind it. But I felt like I couldn't be sympathetic to those concerns because of all the other bogus concerns. In fact it made me want to punish them with a particularly ugly parking ramp facade. I'll be the very first to admit that that's very small of me, but alas I am human and that's what happens. And I'm certainly not the only one that reacts that way, I've seen it in this very thread about the behavior of this church already. These fights make us mean and it brings out our worst. I'd like to work in good faith to protect the church but if the church isn't interested in acting in good faith to protect their church then I don't know what to do.

[FISHMANPET]

Restated yet another way. Is the church interested in protecting their historic building or stopping the development?

[David Greene]

Why would anyone who doesn't want to see the project happen work with the developer to address concerns? How would that be in their self-interest? It's not like the developer is going to know off 20 stories. You are expecting an awful lot of people who just don't like the project.

I alluded to it earlier but I'll state it clearly here. This is not an acceptable position.

For you. You do not get to dictate what is and is not acceptable for other people to think. Your entire argument boils down to, "They're wrong and should be ignored because I disagree with them."

But right now those other voices aren't interested in engaging, they're only interested in impeding, which marginalizes them.

In your opinion. Again, if one doesn't want to see a project happen, why would one be interested in compromising with rabidly pro-development people? It seems rabidly pro-development people are just as a intransigent and marginalizing themselves just as much according to your criteria.

Back to LynLake, there were some legitimate concerns about the space between the building and the condos behind it. But I felt like I couldn't be sympathetic to those concerns because of all the other bogus concerns. In fact it made me want to punish them with a particularly ugly parking ramp facade. I'll be the very first to admit that that's very small of me, but alas I am human and that's what happens.

And it's exactly the point where you marginalize yourself. "I'm human" isn't an excuse for vengeful behavior.

There are two sides to every failure to compromise.

[David Greene]

Restated yet another way. Is the church interested in protecting their historic building or stopping the development?

Why can't it be interested in both?

[FISHMANPET]

Well we've elected a basically pro growth mayor and a basically pro growth city council so I feel pretty confident in saying this is a growing city.

[FISHMANPET]

Most of my argument is built on the idea that this is a growing city and that growth is inevitable. If you don't agree with that then we'll just have to agree to disagree because it's one of my core beliefs that acts as a foundation for most of my thoughts and actions (as they relate to the city).

And in my worldview it doesn't really matter if the church marginalizes themselves because they'll get steamrolled, so I say bring it on.

[RailBaronYarr]

For better or worse, I view zoning as sort of a contract with its residents. If I'm going to invest a lot of money in my home, I want to know that the city isn't going to allow a smelting factory to go in next door. If I'm trying to sell my house, I know I'll be able to ask more for it if the zoning says that what's allowed next door is another single family house (rather than a drive-thru, or an apartment building that will ruin my access to daylight).

I think we should be willing to have a more nuanced conversation than throwing in the smelting factory/rendering plant/hog farm argument. I don't think many folks who dislike zoning as its currently employed disagree with that given the extreme nuisance they bring.

It may well be that people benignly see zoning as a contract between themselves and the city to ensure that if they put a lot of money into their house the value will keep because of the reasons you state. But that's the problem: 1) it's my personal view that the city shouldn't be in the business of ensuring one person's property value by 2) limiting the number of folks who would otherwise like to live/open a (non-nuisance, and yes defining this is tricky) business/etc nearby - this is a contract between each resident and the rest of them while ignoring the third party of people who don't already live there. And 3) I'm not even sure zoning does what you say it does in all cases (2320 Colfax being a prime example where the owner could sell his property for more thanks to a higher level of zoning & high demand).

You and I disagree on light/air rights, and that's just a whole bizarre can of worms given how much we love zoning in the US, yet they're not protected rights (Fontainebleau), yet they're frequently cited as reasons the zoning code does things (like setbacks). Just weird. Ignoring those objections, many do use zoning for less contractual reasons. Keeping unwanteds out. Keeping on-street parking plentiful for themselves and their friends. Our nation (and city) have a long history of using any tool available to them to do some pretty nasty (to only mildly greedy) things, and zoning has been a big part of that. Besides, I know plenty of zoning-loving suburban and city dwellers who have no problem hopping in their truck and driving down 35W, devaluing nearby homes and polluting the air folks breathe. That doesn't make them evil any more than an apartment builder is evil for wanting to put a 5 story building near SFHs, but it makes it hard to take them seriously nonetheless.

Now, I'm not accusing my own church of acting with evil intentions (though some churches prove they're not as great as you'd hope). But as Peter has said, they're not really acting in good faith here. Good faith, in my book, is not acting with an absolute goal of blocking anything over 4 stories tall (or whatever), as the letter of the historic designation requires. There's precedent all around them for taller than that. The developer has already acted in good faith toward the district with the move/preservation. Maybe the side facing OLoL should be nicer. Maybe the parking podium materials/design could fit in better. But that's the process that should be happening, not wholesale opposition.

[RailBaronYarr]

Your entire argument boils down to, "They're wrong and should be ignored because I disagree with them."

I mean, you could literally boil *any* argument down to that, right? That's not exactly fair. He's been very clear on the reasons why he disagrees with their position at a base level.

There are two sides to every failure to compromise.

Except in this case we know one side (the church) is unwilling to compromise. I'm not 100% sure, but developers have shown plenty of ability to compromise in the past, and already came to the table with a huge bargaining chip. So in this case it actually *is* one sided. Peter's tendency to be vengeful matters very little since his voice is so insignificant to the process (no offense). We're literally talking about it on a message board that likely neither the church nor the developer read. The church is rallying its congregation to actually oppose this thing in real life.

[trigonalmayhem]

Is it out of the question to protest the church's event with some French revolution themed signs about the first estate?

Yes.

OK I'm definitely going to do it then.

[David Greene]

Is it out of the question to protest the church's event with some French revolution themed signs about the first estate?

Yes.

OK I'm definitely going to do it then.

Fine by me. Just make sure it's the powerful move you think it is.

[David Greene]

Most of my argument is built on the idea that this is a growing city and that growth is inevitable. If you don't agree with that then we'll just have to agree to disagree because it's one of my core beliefs that acts as a foundation for most of my thoughts and actions (as they relate to the city).

First of all, "I" haven't said anything about opposing this development. Quite the opposite. I do, however, strongly oppose efforts to stifle conversation. Maybe you don't like what some people are saying but they should be able to say it, be heard and be respected.

And no, "this is a growing city" is not an argument to allow any possible development to go forward. There is at some point a proposal even you would oppose no matter what due to XYZ. "This is a growing city" isn't a good reason for you to then change course and endorse it.

Just because the city is growing doesn't mean people must put the blinders on and ignore their own self-interests. It is in fact possible to grow the city by moving some developments forward and stopping others. We can in fact be picky.

[FISHMANPET]

The church isn't being picky, they're being a road block. Their goal is not to protect the church, it's to stop the development. Yes, I'm completely aware that stopping the development would protect the building (from this particular development). But is stopping the development the only way to protect the church? I can all but guarantee it's not. So why are they jumping straight to blocking it? It's almost like their desire to protect the church, while legitimate, is not as genuine as their overall goal to just stop development.

And this is what happens when opposition isn't genuine, we get crap like this 6 story building proposed out of spite rather than the 11 story building actually proposed here: https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?p=42434#p42434

Another reason to be upset by disingenuous opposition, as it can lead to meetings that more fit the letter of the law but not the spirit, resulting ultimately in a lower quality building.

And also apparently I have to be incredibly specific with you David, I never said that we should allow everything. I said we need to have a hard conversation about how to handle the inevitable growth in this city. You can't just put your fingers in your ears and say the city isn't growing, or actually block 100% of the growth. The city is growing, this is a fact. If you don't understand that fact then I don't really know what we're doing here discussing any of this. So the city needs a serious debate about how to grow. Someone just crossing their arms and saying no isn't being an active participant in that conversation. And me? Personally, selfishly, I'm happy about that. It's so much easier for my side to win when there isn't anybody actually across the table. But that's not healthy for the city. The city needs people to moderate the people like me, but someone being a roadblock isn't being that moderator.

Also I think I'm done with this discussion. I hardly feel like you're having this discussion in good faith, you pick out one sentence and nit pick that and then I'll write half a page and you pick out one sentence from that. This is hardly constructive debate.

[mulad]

I really believe that cities need change in order to survive and thrive. While this can happen on a micro scale with improvements to individual structures, it more generally means replacing smaller, older buildings with bigger new ones. A real city has churn to it -- trying to vacuum-seal an area into an eternally preserved state leads to stagnation and decline.

Unfortunately, a lot of urban renewal effort accelerated decline by scaling buildings down our removing them entirely. I wonder what used to be on the southeast side of the church where there is currently an underground parking structure, or at the corner of Hennepin and 2nd where there is a pair of surface lots.

There had to be a continuing push to reverse that trend and be in the habit of scaling things up rather than down.

[EOst]

Unfortunately, a lot of urban renewal effort accelerated decline by scaling buildings down our removing them entirely. I wonder what used to be on the southeast side of the church where there is currently an underground parking structure, or at the corner of Hennepin and 2nd where there is a pair of surface lots.

From the old aerial photos, it looks like there were a couple of small old-style commercial buildings which faced onto 2nd, but nothing on Lourdes Pl (best visible here: http://geo.lib.umn.edu/minneapolis/y1938/MP-4-361.jpg).

That big building to the southeast of the church, of course, was the Industrial Expo Building. For better or worse, it towered over the church too. (Here's another good shot of the same: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3220/295 ... 9d6a_o.jpg)

It looks like the north/east corner of Hennepin & 2nd has been an empty lot since at least 1937. There was an old-style skinny building on the south side, but it was demolished some time in the 50s.

[mnmike]

The church isn't being picky, they're being a road block. Their goal is not to protect the church, it's to stop the development.

I believe you are jumping to a lot of conclusions and leaving a lot out...just as you did before when you said the church hadn't even listed structural damage as one of their reasons...when they very clearly did. Similar to that, I believe the church has also clearly said they are not opposed to development here, they are opposed to development on this scale. Again, some of their concerns are good, some are BS. I think they want a smaller building that doesn't loom as much or require as much foundation work, which would make sense with the structural concerns...not saying they are right...but you really are attacking them. Sheesh.

I would like to see the tower built, with some modifications to the ugly base facing the church....but I can certainly understand concern here. With all the sites for towers in the city, even near here...I can understand a little uproar over building it directly next to one of the oldest buildings in the city and a landmark...in a city that doesn't have that many old buildings left. This is not your typical site in Minneapolis...at all, this site deserves some special consideration. Some people here really have blinders.

This site really isn't THE site to make an example of on how to handle growing the city vs neighborhood concerns vs zoning, etc. and start the "how is the city going to grow if we don't build up" argument. This site is next to some of the oldest buildings in the city, and in one of few historic districts...it is not your average parcel for development in the city by any means. Probably only much less than 5% of the city is anything like this site....even just a couple blocks from here makes much more sense for starting that whole kind of argument. A good example is the superior plating site, which has sailed right through, just as it should have. Very few sites in the city deserve as much special consideration as this one. I guess all I am saying is, I totally understand the concern with this site, and don't write it off as typical "nimbyism"...though I do hope a resolution can be reached and we get a nice development here that compliments the landmark church.

[mnmike]

PS, that post was super redundant...but the last sentence pretty much sums it up:)

[Anondson]

If it is possible to construct footings for a 20+ tower in a way that is equally disruptive to the structural integrity of church as a 6 story, then the concern over looming is one I dismiss in this case.