urbanMSP

3 proposals have been submitted today. 2 others and the Ryan project. The other 2 bidders could not be reached for comment.

How does this affect...everything? http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/p ... point.html

It's good to know there are people on here that like tall glassy towers like me. LPM is my favorite project under construction right now by far. I was hoping the Ryan proposal would include a couple towers similar to LPM but a little taller, say 400-450 feet.

Did I read somewhere that there's the possibility of a tower, on top of the parking ramp, pictured at the far right of this image (the new ryan project... the three white buildings)? A 400'+ something or other, on top of that ramp, would really stretch the skyline out to the east. For reference... the 2 towers, of this project, are 276'. LPM is on the left (the white building with blue balconies)...


(view is from the south... looking north. 35W is on the right)

How does this affect...everything? http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/p ... point.html

Judging by the April 19 date, probably not much. This would have already been signed before this proposal was unveiled.

Well right, but the article mentions Wells Fargo signing a rather unusually long 15-year lease for a half million sq ft at Metropoint. Why would they do that just a month ago with this Ryan proposal waiting in the wings? Where will all of these Wells Fargo employees be consolidated from in 2015-16?

Cool pic/view!!

Isn't it amazing when a couple of 275 foot buildings barely make a dent in the skyline -- even when they are far away from the core buildings?? I think so!

Agreed. I think something even taller than LPM would have been a game changer by the new Vikings Stadium. 400-500 feet off the core would look tremendous. Grant Park is nice, but Grant Park at 175 ft taller would have made a significant statement.

...It would be cool if they could save the facade...

It's been talked about plenty. Actually a little surprised there hasn't been any public outcry, although I think many assumed it would be torn down. How about this, with say a future tower rising behind it built on the back of the Jail.


Park Bookend by Le Sueur, on Flickr

Le Sueur,

Good to hear. I know there's been plenty of chatter around here about wanting to save it, but I don't know how much that extends out into the general public, or development world?

And Aville, I like the idea of incorporating it into the new development. Although, if it goes at the base of one of the towers, it would mess up the symmetry of the two buildings. There appears to be some space (plaza?) between the two main towers, however. It could be cool to use the facade of the Strib building to bridge that space and act as sort of a gateway between the buildings...

What I don't understand is why the city wants to use city blocks to build more parking ramps. Why not install a multi-level underground parking facility beneath the entire park? Yes, it's more expensive, but it would be more accessible to downtown which would increase its use during the week days.

Does anyone know the construction cost difference between above and below ground parking facilities?

Here in Atlanta there is a quasi-urban development in Midtown that first had the land excavated, then was built into a 3 or 4 level underground garage, with footings and foundations in place for future buildings. The entire complex rests above this garage. It is hardly noticeable. It works great, as everyone is parked underground and the street level is filled with walkable shops and hi-rise residential. I figure it should be possible to dig up the two blocks and put in a garage, then plop the park on top. I'm also curious about the cost aspect of this.

What I don't understand is why the city wants to use city blocks to build more parking ramps. Why not install a multi-level underground parking facility beneath the entire park? Yes, it's more expensive, but it would be more accessible to downtown which would increase its use during the week days.

Does anyone know the construction cost difference between above and below ground parking facilities?

Earlier in the thread we talked about it a little. Underground costs are typically 2x the price of above ground. Usually 30k/space vs. 12-15k per space. It depends on a lot of factors (how big the garage is spreads the fixed costs of ramps, elevators, entrances, etc over more spaces), how much the land costs, and if you were already excavating or not (regarding underground). If you go back a page or 2, I did a base level thought exercise comparing building under the park and utilizing the land slated for the garages as property-tax generating parcels instead.

Also worth noting is the park in downtown Houston abutting the convention center/hotel and a few other things has parking built underneath it (and is roughly the size they're talking about for this one). http://www.discoverygreen.com/

Yes, RailBaron did a good job in laying out many of the big issues in play. A couple of additional items that come into play for an underground ramp are waterproofing and a ventilation system -- neither of these are necessary in an above ground structure.

I think underground parking here would be great. When I spitball the numbers, my guess is that you're likely increasing the cost of the park by at least $30m to put the spaces underground. I know the city and Ryan have looked at the numbers long and hard, and they've put forward a plan that seems workable to me.

If the trade-off were to build a parking ramp on the park blocks or build it underground, I'd be much more inclined to think that spending that money makes sense.

I think the above ground ramps would be fine IF we held them to better street-facing design. At least 2 street frontages per block have mixed-use anything (office, retail, residential, take your pick) or they don't get built. The big one facing the park already has one side with mixed-use, let's not let it turn its back to the north where other great stuff is happening.

Heres an interesting article on the Downtown east. http://www.startribune.com/housing/208913751.html

At least one of the block would need to substantial excavation and the surface parking lot closest to downtown will probably need a decent amount of work to clean surface level contamination before the park goes in. While it does cost more money to put parking below the ground, I think it's a much better use of space since we are quickly losing open areas for development in the downtown core.

I really like parks on top of underground parking ramps- and like them in many settings, but in this case, I don't see the need to have underground parking below the park. Downtown has a severe lack of mature trees- hardly any. And to have good solid trees- like hundred year old oaks or similar, they won't grow in four feet of dirt on top of a parking ramp. You really need deep soil. I'd prefer some decent trees.

Two additional thoughts- 1) there is no reason that underground parking ramps can't be on the Ryan blocks and leave the park land alone. 2) although I prefer underground parking, parking ramps that are screened well are just fine above ground and as noted before are about half the cost. Keep in mind that both Grant Park and 50 South Sixth (and others) have substantial above ground parking ramps. Save the cost of underground parking and invest in better residential and other liner buildings.

Wow- all this talk about parking ramps. Are they hated that much? This is downtown. Anyway, I'm hearing more and more talk about this area being a prime location for possible condo development. The park would certainly help this. It would not surprise me to hear of a couple tall proposals in the near future. I think in a few years if the economy holds on that we could see several proposals for condos in the 300-600 foot range spanning northward from the proposed park towards the river. The Carlyle was a Hugh success. And the market is leaning in that direction again.

I am lost is Ryan asking for 400 million? or is that the cost of this whole project?

I am lost is Ryan asking for 400 million? or is that the cost of this whole project?

I believe that is the cost of the project.

From the Strib analysis of Ryan's proposal http://www.startribune.com/local/west/2 ... y#continue :

1. Ryan "is asking the public to pay for skyways not required by the legislation passed last year — likely about $6.4 million" - to connect the proposed parking ramp to the downtown system. This subsidy is intended to enhance the attractiveness of the development to potential corporate tenants (ie Wells Fargo isn't on board yet, so they're trying to sweeten the deal).

2. "[T]he city and the authority could be on the hook for up to $150,000 a year if several parking ramps have not banked any profits" (Ryan assumes any losses that exceed the $150,000 per year threshold);

3. "[T]his provision was included in case [Ryan's] mixed-use development did not move forward, but legislation still requires the parking ramp to be built. That would eliminate the thousands of new office workers who are expected to use the ramp." (an explicit admission that without massive new development, all this parking is unnecessary except on Game Day).

4. Ryan retains the right "to purchase space across from the Minneapolis Armory [on the 'Yard'] to develop into more residential or office space, in return for guaranteeing the bonds used to fund the parking ramp" (ie, in exchange for absorbing the losses above $150k, Ryan has the option build on up to 1/3 of "the Yard"); and

5. Ryan "must exercise its development rights for the park land by July 1, 2016, about the time the new stadium is slated to open."

Note how everything hinges on parking. I reiterate my opinion that free Disneyland-style shuttle buses from the ABC ramps to the stadium on game day are an infinitely cheaper transportation solution that allow for vastly greater development potential at this site (and more transportation capacity) than a Gatway Ramp-sized parking structure. It seems like everyone is very determined to do this stadium by the playbook, though, so I guess that ship has sailed.