Theater Garage Marquee Apartments - (Franklin & Lyndale)

[David Greene]

2007 Aldrich was built in 1923 and the building to the north was built in 1913, there probably won't be any aerials, but there had to have been something there, so close to the Lyndale and Franklin and Hennepin Streetcars.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Wedge was filling out during that period. It's more likely than not that something else was there but I wouldn't be surprised if it were an empty lot.

[woofner]

If you have a Hennepin County library card you could check the Sanborns. I think that the ca. 1890 set covered the Wedge. But as David mentioned, this particular block may not have been developed at the time due to the morass between roughly Aldrich, 24th, Harriet, and Franklin, and the miasma which many of the time still believed to emit therefrom.

[RailBaronYarr]

Well, considering all the detached homes on Aldrich just to the south were built in 1900 (and the one just across Aldrich on Franklin built in 1901), I would say that it's highly likely that there were indeed structures standing there for ~10-20 years before the new apartments came in and re-developed. Things moved fast back then. Reading Larry Millett's "Lost Twin Cities," I'm astounded at how many gorgeous, high-value structures in downtown Mpls were torn down 20-30 years after being built.

[mattaudio]

Back in the day, they were much better about salvaging the craftsmanship and moving it a mile or two out of the urbanizing downtown. We couldn't afford to lose that value, but we also couldn't afford to keep low-value uses in high-demand areas. It worked itself out.

[mattaudio]

http://urbanratio.tumblr.com/post/76864 ... -vs-public

[FISHMANPET]

OK, could someone go to the Facebook group and respond to the post about the Denver caucuses? 1) We live in Minneapolis, not Denver. 2) Our Caucuses have already happened.

Edit: Ok, nevermind, she deleted it, thank God.

[aeisenberg]

http://urbanratio.tumblr.com/post/76864 ... -vs-public

This is great commentary. Thanks for posting. I think it hits the nail on the head.

A lot of us on the forum (myself included) focus on the city-building, city-planning aspect of these developments. We want more density, retail, pedestrians, transit and street life, and it seems obvious to most of us that a corner like Franklin and Lyndale should have a 6-story mixed-use development. Personally, I'd be okay with four 6-story developments at this corner.

But to a LOT of people in the neighborhood, what's the upside? For most of them... there isn't one. They like this place the way it is. New developments might mean noise, traffic, more competition for scarce parking, loss of views, loss of light, loss of privacy, new residents that may not share the same sensibilities (example: think about that ad on Lime that says "Before you get hitched, spend your year at Lime!" Who in the Wedge is excited about sharing their community with this kind of person?) and the displacement of businesses that likely can't afford to rent the new space. So what's in it for the current residents? It's not enough to rebut tired arguments. We need to think about and explain how this development will make a positive impact in the lives of the people affected.

So, what's our case?

[FISHMANPET]

In this specific case, aren't all the businesses signed up to move back into the new building? And the owner of the building that's being torn down says the current building is in such bad shape that it's too expensive to maintain?

[TommyT]

In this specific case, aren't all the businesses signed up to move back into the new building? And the owner of the building that's being torn down says the current building is in such bad shape that it's too expensive to maintain?

I believe it's just the theater that's moving back in.

[min-chi-cbus]

http://urbanratio.tumblr.com/post/76864 ... -vs-public

This is great commentary. Thanks for posting. I think it hits the nail on the head.

A lot of us on the forum (myself included) focus on the city-building, city-planning aspect of these developments. We want more density, retail, pedestrians, transit and street life, and it seems obvious to most of us that a corner like Franklin and Lyndale should have a 6-story mixed-use development. Personally, I'd be okay with four 6-story developments at this corner.

But to a LOT of people in the neighborhood, what's the upside? For most of them... there isn't one. They like this place the way it is. New developments might mean noise, traffic, more competition for scarce parking, loss of views, loss of light, loss of privacy, new residents that may not share the same sensibilities (example: think about that ad on Lime that says "Before you get hitched, spend your year at Lime!" Who in the Wedge is excited about sharing their community with this kind of person?) and the displacement of businesses that likely can't afford to rent the new space. So what's in it for the current residents? It's not enough to rebut tired arguments. We need to think about and explain how this development will make a positive impact in the lives of the people affected.

So, what's our case?

You have great points, and it's important to remember the perspective of the supposed "NIMBY" when viewing this or any other development proposal. Perhaps the developer -- above all -- needs to be reminded of these things, since it's the developer who will be essentially "selling" this (profit) concept to the neighborhood. It's very obvious what's in it for the developer.

[lordmoke]

Soil sampling truck was back on site this morning. Perhaps they are looking into modifying the design?

[TommyT]

Anyone hear anything new on this?

[twincitizen]

Just this nonsense where Trilby Busch (leader of the BANANA gang) misinterprets the definition of spot zoning: http://www.healyproject.org/2014/02/siz ... nklin.html

Vague assurances that the proposal fits the City's plan for increased density at transit hubs are not good enough. The claim that the size/height of the building (75' high) and number of rental units (85) can be justified because the City endorses public transportation is disingenuous. Traffic snarls and severely limited parking are already acute problems at this intersection and in the surrounding neighborhoods.

She did share a nice photo of the building across the street (Vision Loss Resources) in better days:

[David Greene]

Not sure where to put this but since there's been a lot of talk about rents on this project, I'll start here.

I understand the argument that more housing supply of whatever cost can bring average rents down. It's what we all learn in Econ 101. We also know that Econ 101 is far too simplistic for the real world.

Is it ever the case that new luxury apartments cause increased rents in an area? I can imagine that might happen for a few reasons:

- Existing property owners remodel under pressure from the new buildings and up the rent to recoup the cost.
- Existing property owners see new wealth coming into the area and up the rent to take advantage.
- New apartments drive so many more people to an area that the vacany rate actually goes down.
- Other scenarios?

Now, rents can rise for a lot of reasons and a rise in rent might just be coincidental to the arrival of luxury housing. But how do you know?

I'm thinking about these questions because I run into a lot of people worried that luxury housing is going to gentrfy an area. I think some of that is inevitable and it is not in and of itself bad. The question I have is more about preserving the ability for people currently in a community to stay there if they want to.

[FISHMANPET]

I know in one of the discussions in either the facebook group against this, or a City Pages comment thread about the project, that one person complained that her landlord had put in new counters and jacked up the rent to cater to the "luxury" crowd (and used this as an example of why new housing shouldn't be allowed...).

I'd say those first two scenarios are quite likely in a lot of the city, and perhaps the third is the case in some areas of the city (or more generally, the general growth in demand exceeds the growth in supply). I think that third factor is keeping rents at a place like The Churchill at the same level as new construction, simply because people are still willing to pay it.

[MNdible]

We could probably move this to the gentrification thread, but there was some interesting research that came out on this recently.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, no less.

[talindsay]

Is it ever the case that new l****y apartments cause increased rents in an area? I can imagine that might happen for a few reasons:

- Existing property owners remodel under pressure from the new buildings and up the rent to recoup the cost.
- Existing property owners see new wealth coming into the area and up the rent to take advantage.
- New apartments drive so many more people to an area that the vacany rate actually goes down.
- Other scenarios?

I don't think it's usually that direct: high-end apartments cause increased rents more through the indirect property that when a high-end building opens, wealthier people move in; they expect restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores to carry the nicer goods that they want, which drives up prices and encourages more people with similar tastes to move to the area. The demand from a wealthier clientele makes it worthwhile for other landlords in the area to improve their properties to capitalize, and to cover the costs of higher property taxes from the rising values of their land. While it may sometimes be true that the opening of an expensive building directly raises others' rent, I think it's generally the indirect waves of the rising tide of the area.

To get back to Econ 101 though, I think the point is that increased supply will reduce prices over the entire system; but the system in this case is the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region, not a specific neighborhood. At the neighborhood level, gentrification will raise rents more than supply-side increases can offset because local property taxes will rise, local costs will rise, local expectations will rise. Somewhere else, from whence all these people are moving perhaps, or that previously had high vacancies, or just aging stock in other areas that's becoming less desirable, will pick up the slack.

[Wedgeguy]

^^^^^

I agree with your explanation. No matter what, rents closer to downtown will rise whether this building get built or not. As people look to decease their commuting dollars they will be willing to pay more. They will replace their commuting dollars with increased rent dollars. More young people and empty nesters see the city as a place where they can live a less stressed life, due to decrease commuting.

[tabletop]

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2014/ ... tersection

[Nathan]

yesterday morning I went to steeple people and I over heard one of the barbers telling a customer that originally they were given until May to move out but now they have a year...