urbanMSP

NO! I love that building... http://www.startribune.com/local/229284561.html

Looks like it was contained in one apartment. My girlfriend said she talked to one of the firefighters and Espresso Royale sustained water and sidewalk damage but the interior was preserved. She said they are hollowing out the apartment now.

Oh, wow. I saw the fire trucks go by, but I didn't know where they were going. Good to hear that there wasn't too much damage beyond that one apartment.

Status of the building after the fire.

http://tinypic.com/r/2m64j1u/5

Startribune story:

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 85411.html

This is why we need safe new development in Dinkytown!!

Seriously, though, this sucks. Sounds like things are salvageable and very happy that it seems like there were no human/animal casualties. Will be interesting to see what caused it...

I couldn't help but be reminded of Barb Johnson's support of the Opus project at the City Council meeting when I heard about the fire.

For something completely different...

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/230197071.html

Honestly, some of the concerts I go to at the Varsity are justified by the joy of visiting this bathroom during said performance.

MN Daily: Who Owns Dinkytown?

Kudos to the Daily's student journalists on this one. This is great in-depth reporting without bias and features dozens of quotes from local property owners and business people. I really enjoyed this.

I really enjoyed that article. Very good journalism.

Just as a reminder, the Dinkytown Public Plan meeting will be held at the Varsity next Monday, 11/18 at 6:00pm. They will be revealing the recommendations from the planning staff.

Yeah, that was a great story.

We give the Daily some guff sometimes, but I think it's easy to overlook the truly impressive undertaking that the Daily is. It's truly one of the best student newspapers in the country.

The print copy was even more impressive, a part of the story on the cover, and then a full two pages inside with pictures of people they talked to, a map of Dinkytown with who owns what, and a survey of property owners in a pie chart.
http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default/fi ... -11-13.pdf

I'm nervous about talk of replacing the more historic buildings in Dinkytown like Goldy's Locker Room. There has to be a fine balance between preservation of key character building structures and densification of the commercial district. It's unfortunate that Wally bought the ugliest buildings on fourth and not the handsome Camdi property. I wish the city could put in place a surface parking lot first policy initiative.

The never-ending saga moves one more step toward continuing:
http://mndaily.com/news/campus/2013/11/ ... o-historic

I think freezing Dinkytown in time is dangerous. To me, Dinkytown is what it is because it's constantly changing. It's what keeps it thriving and relevant. If that becomes difficult, then the neighborhood will slowly die off as the people clinging to the past die off themselves.

I don't think "freezing Dinkytown in time" is actually the conversation taking place, at least among those who are really paying attention. It's more of a question of what is the appropriate way to move forward.

And, frankly, there really hasn't been much discussion at all. The people who really care about the "character of Dinkytown" should have been more prepared, since their reactionary response didn't have much effect on anything.

The article talks about creating a historic district to preserve the built environment, meaning any modifications to the storefront would require extra paperwork and approval from a commission. All with the purpose of making sure things stay the way they are now.

It sounds an awful lot like freezing in time to me.

Maybe I'm just irked because NIMBYs have used a shotgun approach. I don't think they care much about historic preservation specifically, or any other of their issues specifically (except maybe parking, they really care about parking). But more than anything, they just don't want anything to change. If complaining about parking will serve that goal, then they'll talk about parking. If historic preservation will do it, they'll talk about that. I think most argument made have not been genuine, but just a front for "I don't like change." Many of them have said "we'll support density, just somewhere else!" which is the canary in the mine of NIMBYism if I ever heard hit.

Idea: a "mixed-historic district" whereby all prewar building facades must be maintained (and ideally the building too, but in the case of a couple one story parcels I'd be happy with just the facade staying and set-back upper levels), and new parking lots are not allowed. Anything postwar is fair game for development up to 10 stories. No historic guidelines on new construction.

That would work. And what really would make an impact would be to reduce curb cuts/driveways and increase actual storefront doors per block. I'd rather focus on defining the character we prefer and would like to see for Dinkytown, and working towards that goal. That's often a large part of what historic preservation is about, so let's just actively build the type of place we want to see.

Idea: a "mixed-historic district" whereby all prewar building facades must be maintained (and ideally the building too, but in the case of a couple one story parcels I'd be happy with just the facade staying and set-back upper levels), and new parking lots are not allowed. Anything postwar is fair game for development up to 10 stories. No historic guidelines on new construction.

This has been done very effectively in Washington DC. Indeed, the Penfield in St. Paul has pulled it off quite well also (although a little more creativity could probably have saved the entire facade).