urbanMSP

Also, the NIMBY church needs to sit down and accept the reality of being in a large metropolitan area; big things are built nearby and sometimes next door.

I'm sorry but this is not NIMBY. There are real concerns here, especially potential structural damage. We should not be telling the parish to shut up and "sit down." That is exactly what all the *real* NIMBYs will point to to discredit our community.

Very true.

We need to take structural concerns very seriously, because this church is indeed a landmark.

However, their fears of losing sun is pandering to the anti-development crowd (sun doesn't come from the north, so it isn't a real concern). And saying that this isn't the spot for density, when there's density across the street and just across the river from downtown, is as close to NIMBYism as it gets, if not BANANA status (why would anything shorter cause less damage?)

There are real concerns, but they're peppered in with nonsense. To me that's textbook NIMBY, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, not in an attempt to better the project, but to derail it.

Doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns that should be worked through, but it makes it pretty clear that they want to be an active impediment to the project, and not a willing partner.

Idea for the dead wall facing the church:

Slap this bad guy to the wall.

I wouldn't be surprised if the HPC mandated preservation (or at least documentation) of that sign in some way, shape or form.

And I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. If Nye's is longer around as a business, pieces of it should definitely be memorialized on site in some way. Not sure if I'd staple it to the back of the parking garage tho

Also, the NIMBY church needs to sit down and accept the reality of being in a large metropolitan area; big things are built nearby and sometimes next door.

I'm sorry but this is not NIMBY. There are real concerns here, especially potential structural damage. We should not be telling the parish to shut up and "sit down." That is exactly what all the *real* NIMBYs will point to to discredit our community.

Very true.

We need to take structural concerns very seriously, because this church is indeed a landmark.

However, their fears of losing sun is pandering to the anti-development crowd (sun doesn't come from the north, so it isn't a real concern). And saying that this isn't the spot for density, when there's density across the street and just across the river from downtown, is as close to NIMBYism as it gets, if not BANANA status (why would anything shorter cause less damage?)

Maybe I'm all turned around in this part of town but isn't the building in front of the church in relation to the river -- which is S/SW?

*EDIT: I see it now, you're right. I was thinking this church was up-street on Hennepin, not Lourdes.

No, it's about equidistant to the river. To the NW of the church.

The low rise section of Riverplace is between the river and the church. That low rise and the stair case from the river up to the church were mandated to ensure that the church would be seen from the River front, due to its historic significance. There are no sight line or shadow restrictions NW of the church. They are just trying to not be a good neighbor. All they have to do is mandate that any damage to the church be fixed by the developer or contractor. The church will not collapse. Again this is the Mayberry complex that people have with living in a city, things change and density is one of the biggest ones. Especially as close as the area is to the DT core, that is a non issue.

All they have to do is mandate that any damage to the church be fixed by the developer or contractor.

They talked about this last night, and it looks like something that will happen

Poll: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/p ... n/16580581

The church will not collapse.

Probably not (though it is 160 years old and built of softer stone) but the damage could be expensive to fix. The whole reason the Basilica Block Party started in the first place was to fix up the church and a lot of that damage was caused by I-94. I am glad something is being worked out to address potential problems.

Andrew-riverside church.

The thing is, this situation isn't directly comparable to the Basilica/I-94 situation. As I understand it, most of the damage to the Basilica wasn't caused by the construction of the freeway, but by the decades of continuous vibration from the traffic once it opened. Once the Nyerise is built, the vibrations will go back to what they currently are.

So I'm on board with the developer being accountable for potential damage to the church, but the only other reasonable complaint is that the parking garage is a massive (ugly) wall next to it. And from a lot of the aerial perspectives it kind of is, but once you are at ground level you can barely tell it exists. Picture 10 in this biz journal article shows very little hulking or imposing going on.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/g ... tower.html

Just throwing this out there, but wouldn't the Nye's tower actually help with the vibrations? Since it takes up a larger and deeper footprint, you would think it would absorb more of those vibrations.

Yes, the new building would absorb future vibrations from buses and traffic, but they are worried that the church will be damaged by the vibrations caused during construction.

Construction tentatively to begin February 2016. Hoping to have approvals process with the city wrapped by the end of May.

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/02/nye ... in-a-year/

If the river front towers from the recent past caused damage it is very believable this could/would inflict damage.

At what point does it become the church's responsibility to reinforce its structure? Can they effectively block development for a five block radius? I'm asking rhetorically, of course. Something to ponder.

We've come across this issue (physical, structural damage a project causes to its neighbors) before on other projects, and my instinct is that this is really a civil matter between two private entities and that the city really shouldn't have much to do with it.

Yes, I have to imagine that a developer on a big project like this, retaining the employ of structural engineers and other preservationists, will work with neighboring structures and take due care to preserve their integrity.

I remember that there was some concern about snow loading on the Caspian Bistro building that would be caused by WaHu. Does anyone know how that was resolved?