36th and Bryant Area

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2286
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby EOst » June 7th, 2016, 10:52 am

FISHMANPET wrote:I don't know where you're going with your stupid concern trolling but I don't think I've ever seen a part of the city code that says that units that have the ability to house a non-nuclear family are banned.

So what is your point?
Hostile much?

Anyway, I think they made a movie about this very topic recently.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 827
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby LakeCharles » June 7th, 2016, 10:58 am

I dunno. 5 dudes might live there and the the neighborhood would fall apart. Cause I don't know anywhere in the area where 5 guys currently live together in a house (with only one living room to boot). Not like, just up the street where I visit them routinely.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby FISHMANPET » June 7th, 2016, 11:01 am

It is a well known fact that every single non-nuclear family emits a constant 90db noise, whereas nuclear families emit no noise, not even screaming babies.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5786
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby MNdible » June 7th, 2016, 12:32 pm

EOst wrote:Hostile much?
I know, right?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this project shouldn't be approved. Just pointing out that this project is weird, both in the particulars of its design and in the fact that the only precedent that people can point to for something like it is a bunch of guys hanging out listening to Phish in the living room of an old house. Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities with my vicious trolling.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 827
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby LakeCharles » June 7th, 2016, 12:38 pm

The project is weird because the only precedent is the existing housing stock? Or it's weird because the only band you could think of that young people listen to was Phish?

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5786
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby MNdible » June 7th, 2016, 12:40 pm

They were definitely listening to Phish.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby RailBaronYarr » June 7th, 2016, 12:45 pm

I'm sorry that the delicate sensibilities of the person in a dense condo building next door are offended by someone who might peer into their unit even with the blinds closed because the angle is so sharp you can see through the cracks in them.

I pointed out several precedents beyond Phish-lovers who'd like a 5BR design. Immigrant and/or low-income families. mattaudio had another good example: middle class families with 2-3 kids who are fine using one of the bedrooms as an office/TV room/spare bedroom/play room. Seems like this is exactly the type of layout needed to accommodate families in a city as single family homes become more rare and/or unaffordable. I know if my wife, son, and soon-to-be-born daughter moved to Boston or San Francisco or Chicago we'd be looking for 3-4 bedrooms in a building like this and would definitely take the tradeoff in having only 1 living room.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6187
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby twincitizen » June 7th, 2016, 1:06 pm

MNdible wrote:Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this project shouldn't be approved. Just pointing out that this project is weird, both in the particulars of its design...
Same. It obviously meets the zoning code, other than the ridiculous setback requirement (10 feet is already HUGE, the fact that the code requires 11 feet is just absurd...we should probably look into fixing this for future small lot infill in R4+), so there's not really much ground to stand on in opposition. It just seems really bizarre. Obviously they think they can rent the units in this location, but yeah it's just all very weird. If nothing else, I'd like to ask the developer "why, exactly?" At first blush it just seems like a weird stretch play to not have to include elevators &/or additional common stairwells and to maximize leasable space. Why not more units? I assume this location meets the transit criteria for zero required parking spaces.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3926
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby seanrichardryan » June 7th, 2016, 1:14 pm

Your average middle-class family looking for a 5 bedroom, four bath rental would probably want en suite facilities, not a hallway lined with commodes and sinks.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby Archiapolis » June 8th, 2016, 8:57 am

twincitizen wrote:
MNdible wrote:Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this project shouldn't be approved. Just pointing out that this project is weird, both in the particulars of its design...
If nothing else, I'd like to ask the developer "why, exactly?" At first blush it just seems like a weird stretch play to not have to include elevators &/or additional common stairwells and to maximize leasable space. Why not more units? I assume this location meets the transit criteria for zero required parking spaces.
What does "weird stretch play" mean?
If the building code does not dictate that the building requires an elevator, what is weird about it? Elevators are expensive - and if they aren't necessary, why waste the money? As for maximizing leasable space, the developer feels that they have a project that meets a market/pro forma. Assuming that they are not self-financing, they got a bank to agree with them. It's their money (and the bank's) and they are within the zoning code (excepting the 1' variance). To zoom out for a minute, what is the macro level concern? Is the concern that a developer build a project that sits vacant and becomes a blight within the city? Are we just having a philosophical discussion about this project as a case study for limited units/many bedrooms versus more units with less bedrooms? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be interested but beyond interest in a case study, are there other concerns?

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6187
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby twincitizen » June 8th, 2016, 9:56 am

Probably a football term that I am using incorrectly, since I know jack shit about football. What I meant was "it seems like a reach"

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby RailBaronYarr » June 8th, 2016, 10:40 am

It's just interesting that we even require the floorplans of multifamily units for public review. I mean, I certainly enjoy it as the nerd in me gets to see how different architects/developers design their layouts and all. But we don't require this for single family homes, which have in the past and still have all sorts of weird/wasteful spaces, odd features, etc. Even if they go for a variance, we never get to see them to armchair quarterback layout decisions.

Anyway, this thing'll go before Z&P tomorrow at 9:30 if anyone wants to tune in to Ch 79 to hear some potential CM Goodman hot takes.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5786
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby MNdible » June 8th, 2016, 12:01 pm

I don't think that the floorplans really are up for public review, honestly. They're included with the submittal package to show that they've thought things through, and to show how the units are going to relate to the public realm. And the plans will be reviewed by the Building Department to ensure there's full code compliance. But really, I don't think that the Planning Commission has any say on the unit floorplans themselves.

So yes, this is all just armchair quarterbacking. Or to put it another way, it's head-scratching, because nobody else is building units like this, so either this developer/architect is really on to something, or perhaps they're building units which are a poor match for the market. In either case, in the spirit of armchair quarterbacking, I can say that if I believed there were a market for a 5BR unit (and surely there's some sort of demand for such a beast), the design would look a lot different than what they're proposing.

To Archiapolis's related question, no, there aren't really any bigger concerns. I'm sure that if it gets built, somebody will move into the units, and everything will be fine. Or maybe it won't be fine, but there's really no way of predicting that.

SO IN SUMMARY, I saw something that was unusual in the marketplace, and I pointed it out, and then everybody freaked out.

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby Archiapolis » June 8th, 2016, 12:30 pm

MNdible wrote:I don't think that the floorplans really are up for public review, honestly. They're included with the submittal package to show that they've thought things through, and to show how the units are going to relate to the public realm. And the plans will be reviewed by the Building Department to ensure there's full code compliance. But really, I don't think that the Planning Commission has any say on the unit floorplans themselves.

So yes, this is all just armchair quarterbacking. Or to put it another way, it's head-scratching, because nobody else is building units like this, so either this developer/architect is really on to something, or perhaps they're building units which are a poor match for the market. In either case, in the spirit of armchair quarterbacking, I can say that if I believed there were a market for a 5BR unit (and surely there's some sort of demand for such a beast), the design would look a lot different than what they're proposing.

To Archiapolis's related question, no, there aren't really any bigger concerns. I'm sure that if it gets built, somebody will move into the units, and everything will be fine. Or maybe it won't be fine, but there's really no way of predicting that.

SO IN SUMMARY, I saw something that was unusual in the marketplace, and I pointed it out, and then everybody freaked out.
Doesn't 90% of this site exist to armchair quarterback? We all spend our fee time doing this, it should be fun!

The reason that I asked the question is because I didn't understand all the ire flying around. I was trying to understand if someone thought that this building had a nefarious purpose that was being imposed on the city and that it should be fought against. I personally think it's different/risky but as I said, it's their money (and the banks). I'm fascinated by these units and want to know more about them. I appreciate you and others digging into projects and pointing out things that are unusual.

beige_box
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 104
Joined: April 24th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby beige_box » June 8th, 2016, 4:43 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:each bedroom having a closet AND at least one window (right beige_box!?!?)
I got no troll-concerns!

...

Actually now that I think about it the number of bathrooms seems excessive and points contrary to the "this will house large low-income immigrant families" theory.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6187
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby twincitizen » June 9th, 2016, 11:28 am


RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby RailBaronYarr » June 9th, 2016, 12:05 pm

Appeal for the side-yard variances was denied. CM Lisa Goodman voted not to deny the appeal, which I suppose means she was in favor of the by-right design with the gabled half-story (similar to the 27XX Dupont fourplex)? In any case, while there may be some valid or earnest issues with that architecture on this forum, it obviously wasn't the driving factor for the people who appealed this development (or, I'd argue, any of the recent ones in the Uptown area by the Turkey Guys). Parking, garbage, noise, scale, traffic.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7904
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby mattaudio » June 9th, 2016, 1:04 pm

So what can we do to encourage buildings that fit more with the traditional form of walkups in the neighborhoods? A three story building with a flat roof for the full width would have been great. Doorway in the center. Stucco or some other material on front, even if it means allowing vinyl or metal panels on the other sides. I realize we can't regulate taste, but it seems like our current regulations push developers towards bad taste.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby RailBaronYarr » June 9th, 2016, 1:57 pm

Like I said upthread, reducing side-yard and front-yard setbacks would be a good start. More lots zoned R4+ would be another, since there are plenty of dilapidated homes selling for <$250k in R3 or below districts where no one is even going to try something anyway. The less a developer spends on acquisition, the more they can spend on finish material. Automatic up-zoning to R4/5 if a guarantee of high-quality front-facing facade maybe?

Of course, I don't really have a problem with the 4th flat story, or the 4th story with gabled roof. I don't think we can know for sure what's good or bad, and if a neighborhood or street were filled with buildings of this height, nobody would care if they looked more like our existing housing stock. If we focus more on the things we can easily control (street design, trees, sidewalks, etc) and less on architecture/massing, people still won't care. As always, we should be honestly asking ourselves why neighborhoods with 2-3' setbacks between tall single family homes mixed in with even larger apartment/condo units work (quite well!) for rich white Americans but we should question every little outward-facing design detail here. Other than "people just don't like it," which I'm sorry, should not be the threshold for government regulation in my opinion (yes! I know the Supreme Court disagreed with me back in the 20s!)

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5786
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 36th and Bryant Area

Postby MNdible » June 9th, 2016, 3:30 pm

The less a developer spends on acquisition, the more they can spend on finish material.
While this may logically seem true, of course the reality is that the more a developer pays for a site, the more they're likely to spend on finish materials.


Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests