DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

[lordmoke]

Conceptual fly-through video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa5bKlT ... e=youtu.be

[RailBaronYarr]

One thing that will REALLY have to be fought for is softening of the two proposed MSFA ramps that approach the sidewalk without buffer uses. Do we really want these to turn into Gateway or County type ramps where they destroy the vitality of the sidewalk? They ought to at least have dynamic first-floor uses.

Yeah, it's easy to look at the renderings and lose sight of the scale of each individual component. The bigger ramp is easily the size of the Gateway Ramp (1 block square), and both look to bud right up to the streets. Not good. But if you propose retail space on ground level people will say it's saturated. My response? Unleash developers north and south of here. Re-zone, change tax rules, do whatever you have to do to ensure we don't get 2 full blocks of bad urban design right next to the stadium, light rail stop, and this great park.

Also, even though the city is softening their risk a little bit with Ryan paying shortfalls (IF they get the bid) for 10 years, this goes to show how the private market still isn't willing to build parking ramps for themselves. 10 years is a while, but the ramp will be around for 30-40. Will the city continue to make enough money to pay the bond back? Saying the property taxes will cover the expenses in a worst-case scenario forgets that this development will have costs associated with it - maintaining the park, utility services (water main breaks, anyone?), etc.

[Tcmetro]

Overall, I think something like this is well overdue, and can significantly improve the vitality of the Downtown East area. Also the park helps separate the residential areas from the hospital, jail, ME, and other governmental functions.

As for the parking ramp, is it really needed? There are several blocks of ramps that will be skyway connected to the stadium now. I suppose it would be useful for the employees at Wells Fargo, but it is a much better idea to have those workers take the transit system that is already in place.

IMO, I'm not a big fan of the park either. This will essentially take three downtown blocks off the tax rolls, and, in combination with all the parking and stadium subsidies, sounds fairly illogical. Also, cutting off Park and Portland isn't the brightest idea. This will send more traffic to 4th, 5th, and 11th Aves. I would like to see 4th St become a two way between Chicago and Marquette, considering the low traffic, and the substantial reduction in bus service in about a years time.

I do hope that this will spark new housing and office development that could lead to the building out of the entire Mill District neighborhood.

[mister.shoes]

One thing that will REALLY have to be fought for is softening of the two proposed MSFA ramps that approach the sidewalk without buffer uses. Do we really want these to turn into Gateway or County type ramps where they destroy the vitality of the sidewalk? They ought to at least have dynamic first-floor uses.

Agree. The ramp directly next to the park should have residential on the north side as well. Make it a ramp sandwich.

Then, flip-flop 4th Street and the LRT so the street is next to that ramp and the LRT is next to the stadium pedestrian zone. Also, that ramp has only one way in or out (3rd). Bracketing it with 3rd and 4th would make it much more useful (for drivers, obviously).

Finally, the PDF (last page) linked by lordmoke shows a mysterious translucent box on 3rd between the two ramps as well as the aforenoticed translucent box at the corner of 5th and Park. I'm assuming those boxes are purely "hey, look, something could go here and here" and not indicative of any inside information.

[VAStationDude]

I could be totally wrong but I think the parking is required by the stadium legislation. It's terrible public policy but it's there and will be built. The proposal leverages the parking state and Minneapolis taxpayers will be constructing for the football stadium, ensuring it will be used 300 days a year as opposed to 15. Yes, the parking ramps should contain active uses but they're going to be built.

[RailBaronYarr]

That's why I wasn't fighting that they should exist or have been a crucial part of this whole proposal, but rather saying it was bad public policy to begin with and at the very least we should demand better in how they are implemented. The city/state wrote in their requirement for x number of spaces, they never said it had to be parking ramps gacing the street at ground level on multiple blocks. Sandwich them in as mister.shoes proposes. Find a smaller developer willing to take the risk on the smaller parcel, or reach out to community stakeholders/residents to help finance it. I dunno.

[alleycat]

I'm not sure how much more it would cost, but how about making the entire "basement" of the park the parking garage? They can still have their skyway connection, but turn the building closest to Chicago into a larger mixed use complex. Create an entryway from the parking garage to the developments along 4th and then the luxury box owners get their climate controlled entrance.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm not sure how much more it would cost, but how about making the entire "basement" of the park the parking garage? They can still have their skyway connection, but turn the building closest to Chicago into a larger mixed use complex. Create an entryway from the parking garage to the developments along 4th and then the luxury box owners get their climate controlled entrance.

Wasn't this what one of the design teams proposed? They had an underground garage extending north from the Armory, that had a sloping up park as it went north, right? Probably too costly to justify in the proposal but I think the city should explore their options. Leave the smaller above-ground garage but move the other spaces under the LRT station?

[Unity77]

Overall, I like what I see. Too bad they can't include a large amphitheater.

[alleycat]

Yeah that Kansas State/Mizzou team that won the ULI competition featured that. They also included a repurposed Strib Building. I do like the connection from stadium to downtown core in Ryan's proposal, but I'm a sucker for historic preservation.

There's already the existing parking structure under the LRT station. Millennium Park in Chicago covers a parking garage and Metra station.

[Dalgar]

Yes, this bigger ramp should be moved below the park. Keep an extra city block on the tax rolls.

[writruth]

The youtube fly-through was helpful in understanding the scale and at least some of the detail of this development. I too hoped the buildings would have been even more modern and I'd hoped for something at least 40 stories but the park is a major plus. Love the idea of movies, concerts and theater in the park.

The fly-through also shows what appears to be a fountain or some other kind of water feature. It would be great to have a dramatic water element that echoes our history as a City of Lakes. Finally, for the first time, we are starting to see the promise of a "Winter Garden," taking shape at the doorsteps of the stadium. I like the idea of winter hockey/broomball rinks and soccer and basketball facilities in the summer months. For families with young children, the park should include ample playground equipment and other amusements.

It would be awesome if the park contained a bandstand and concessions which would make it an inviting place for downtown workers and city dwellers to have lunch.

This development has the catalytic potential to stitch together the central business district, the Mill District and Downtown East.

[Le Sueur]

Awesome. Just awesome.

LRT: Is it possible closing Park and Portland would benefit the capacity of the Green and Blue lines and associated transfers at this station?
Strib: So it's just gone then?
Skyways: Have the circular conversation here: https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f ... ead#unread
Height: Look we have a thread for this too: https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=383
Park: It's massive but I think we can all see possible benefits from its location. Say a mixed use tower overlooking a redeveloped armory, the new park and the stadium?! Yes, please.

These are three good looking building where there was nothing previously. Enjoy it, we know it could be worse!

[Tyler]

I could be totally wrong but I think the parking is required by the stadium legislation.

My reading is that 2500 reserved spaces are mandated. However, this ramp goes above and beyond, providing the mandated parking as well as 490 additional spaces.

The Stadium Authority released this EIS in April: http://www.msfa.com/content/DRAFT%20ENV ... CUMENT.pdf

"Parking plan B" includes this proposed 1,150 space ramp. However only, 560 or 660 additional reserved spots are required (depending if they build the mcgrew ramp to 500 or 600 spaces). Parking plan A puts those 560 spots on the other side of the building.

[Le Sueur]

Ryan Downtown East-05 by Le Sueur, on Flickr

[uptowncarag]

The park is the best part. There is plenty of room for development to the south for those obsessed with height. Density is more important for a healthy downtown.

[talindsay]

I think the two buildings look great, the park is a scaled-down-to-Minneapolis Central Park type of amenity, and the neighborhood has the potential to meet Jane Jacobs' ideas about the uses for parks. The parking garage should be wrapped with some kind of active use at least on two sides, ideally three, but I'd take what's proposed over hoping without cause for something better.

The thing about the park is that it has *potential* to be great, but it could also be a huge waste of space. The key is to not make it a lawn, and in these renderings I see promising elements that the city should *require*: in-park vending, sports fields / rinks, theater / arts space. I'll second the opinion that there should be active play equipment for kids, hopefully focused in one area away from the center, a good water feature, and something I'm not seeing in these renderings, paths that allow people to cut *through* the park to get from the Armory side to the new buildings without going around. I worry that the park will need more density around it to really achieve active use - it can be a destination park in the evenings and weekends, but during the day it has to have non-destination uses. The most obvious of these is for lunch for office workers, but if there isn't a range of ages living immediately around the park it will be dead for most of the day since people 18-60 won't be there from 8 to noon or 1 to 5 unless there are kids living nearby, elderly or other people who don't work in offices and who have a reason to go there.

In my head I'm imagining the Jardin du Luxembourg in Paris, probably my favorite urban park in the world because its surrounding uses are so dense, varied and active that the park is always full of people who are there for no reason at all - just sitting in a chair, feeding the ducks, reading a book, playing table tennis (there are tables in the park), walking a dog, etc.

IF they can achieve these mixed, active uses, the park will be a huge improvement over a parking lot; but I would argue that a poorly-kept lawn of grass would be worse for the city than a parking lot, so I hope they make sure that doesn't happen.

[MotorCity2TwinCities]

I moved to Minneapolis from Detroit a little over a year ago and the amount of development going on right now is just amazing, especially coming from a city where a breaking ground ceremony for a parking garage makes the news. All of this is so exciting and so awesome! In three years this city will have made so much progress!

[MotorCity2TwinCities]

Now lets get towers built on the Thrivent and Ritz lots and I'll never complain again!

[ECtransplant]

EDIT: also, I am ok with closing 1 block of Portland and/or Park if it creates a 3 block park in the heart of the city. Do you see people complaining that Central Park cuts the grid in NYC?

Yes and no. There's a lot of acreage in Central Park, but IMO that amount of space would better serve all Manhattan residents if spread out in to 1,000 smaller parks throughout the island. You increase the park "surface area" (street facing sides) per acre which allows more people to easily access quiet serenity.

Well, going crosstown in Manhattan is generally a PITA anyway. But I think breaking the the grid with a park, if you're going to break the grid, is the least damaging because pedestrians can still cross the park as they normally would. It's only motorists that get inconvenienced by the broken grid. One could argue that an amenity that improves livability and also makes driving more difficult, is good for a city.