urbanMSP

^If you're talking about residents of downtown having a say then I tend to agree with nasa here. Residents bought into the downtown lifestyle by choice. But the general public should still have a voice when it comes to subsidies.

It occurred to me that this development, along with the stadium and surrounding blocks, means that an area equivalent to nearly 15 city blocks will be transformed within 5 years. That's pretty big.

Agree on all, of course the public deserves a voice about subsidies, but no way on the development... This is so flipping exciting. Who knows, it might be a disappointment, but for now we can all have our own little/big dreams for this development.

For the record, I meant the residents should have a say in the design of any park that is built as a part of this development. After all, they are hopefully going to be needed to actually use the park, and if they don't it will just be another useless General Mills ornamental lawn. I agree that the residents don't necessarily need to have a say in the design of the structures themselves, but my point is that the city pretends that residents get an indirect say through their participation in the creation of planning documents like SAPs, but then they turn around and let developers build whatever they want. For example, the block between 3rd, 4th, Park, & Portland is zoned for Downtown Neighborhood, which I believe would disallow a corporate headquarters tower (I know the max height for that district is 12 stories), and that zoning was applied there due to the resident input about the future of the area as expressed through the North Loop - East Downtown SAP. If the city were now to allow a office tower there, it would be completely disregarding the will of the residents and a breach of the promise of SAPs and "citizen partnership" that RT pretends to care about.

For the record, I meant the residents should have a say in the design of any park that is built as a part of this development. After all, they are hopefully going to be needed to actually use the park, and if they don't it will just be another useless General Mills ornamental lawn. I agree that the residents don't necessarily need to have a say in the design of the structures themselves, but my point is that the city pretends that residents get an indirect say through their participation in the creation of planning documents like SAPs, but then they turn around and let developers build whatever they want. For example, the block between 3rd, 4th, Park, & Portland is zoned for Downtown Neighborhood, which I believe would disallow a corporate headquarters tower (I know the max height for that district is 12 stories), and that zoning was applied there due to the resident input about the future of the area as expressed through the North Loop - East Downtown SAP. If the city were now to allow a office tower there, it would be completely disregarding the will of the residents and a breach of the promise of SAPs and "citizen partnership" that RT pretends to care about.

Sorry, but people who hate tall buildings should not be allowed to live downtown. The whole reasoning is astounding to me. Live accross the river, St. Anthony. But if are within the loop/downtown, there should not be restrictions regarding how tall a building can be..

According to the Business Journal, Wells Fargo is not down with naming the beast:

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... aming.html

For the record, I meant the residents should have a say in the design of any park that is built as a part of this development.

Yeah, I thought this was pretty clear. Still don't know why Nasa is babbling on about tall buildings. Who on earth would protest one at this location?

Sorry, but people who hate tall buildings should not be allowed to live downtown.

I completely agree with you that local land use decisions should be made with regional implications in mind. It's for that reason that I think that greenfield development should be halted.

I disagree, though, that a 12 story building is not tall.

For the record, I meant the residents should have a say in the design of any park that is built as a part of this development.

Yeah, I thought this was pretty clear. Still don't know why Nasa is babbling on about tall buildings. Who on earth would protest one at this location?

you failed to read his whole post apparently.

For the record, I meant the residents should have a say in the design of any park that is built as a part of this development.

Yeah, I thought this was pretty clear. Still don't know why Nasa is babbling on about tall buildings. Who on earth would protest one at this location?

you failed to read his whole post apparently.

Ha. Whoops.

It's a good bet that all surface parking in the area from 5th to 11th Av, and from 3rd to 6th St will be gone by 2016.

How does everyone here feel about structured parking as part of this project. It's pretty prominent given the MinnPost story today, which has Rybak singing the praises of parking ramps.

I don't think we need more parking ramps downtown. We have huge ones already. Couldn't that land be put to better use?

Parking doesn't bother me, as long as it's not subsidized and as long as it's not done in a way that diminishes the inherent value of adjacent land uses.

As these open lots finally give way to development, and a massive new office complex is in place with more housing, they're going to need at least one big new ramp - and I'm fine with that as long as they're not whole-block monoliths that aren't part of another structure.

I would far prefer closing 5th street through this section and landscaping it heavily than to have two full block parks. The current county uses (Jail, huge parking ramps, Judicial Offices etc.) facing these game-day plazas, *oops, I mean 'parks', aren't going to change, nor add any vitality to such a huge swath of downtown. A half block park facing the armory and a redeveloped Strib building with a tower on the back will be a better use of land.

100% agree.

I hate "me too" posts, but...me too.

Parking doesn't bother me, as long as it's not subsidized and as long as it's not done in a way that diminishes the inherent value of adjacent land uses.

I'm pretty sure this whole thing will be subsidized.

It's likely a parking ramp will be part of this. I just hope they don't screw it up like the Guthrie ramp's Washington Ave. front. It should be hidden behind the buildings.

^hey, two of four sides filled by buildings sure beats most of the other ramps in this neighborhood... Gateway, HCMC, Haaf, Gov. Center.... but agreed, I hope parking is as minimally invasive as possible in new developments.

Yeah, I thought this was pretty clear. Still don't know why Nasa is babbling on about tall buildings. Who on earth would protest one at this location?

you failed to read his whole post apparently.

Ha. Whoops.

In order to avoid a situation where I appear to be wrong and Nasa appears to be right, I want to clarify that I preferred the option where Downtown Core expansion would continue along 5th St (the option selected planned for an expansion a block eastward of the current boundary, which is why the eastern Strib blocks are zoned Downtown Neighborhood). All I'm saying is it's disingenuous for the city to pretend to empower residents and then ignore the resulting plan. I'm not sure that's going to happen here, though, since the source at Ryan says there's going to be a residential component and that's not going to happen on the two blocks that are destined to be wasted on parks. Presumably there will be an office tower on the NW block and a shorter residential tower on the NE block.

Sorry, but people who hate tall buildings should not be allowed to live downtown. The whole reasoning is astounding to me. Live accross the river, St. Anthony. But if are within the loop/downtown, there should not be restrictions regarding how tall a building can be..

AGENDA 21 AGENDA 21 AGENDA 21!!1!

It's a good bet that all surface parking in the area from 5th to 11th Av, and from 3rd to 6th St will be gone by 2016.

How does everyone here feel about structured parking as part of this project. It's pretty prominent given the MinnPost story today, which has Rybak singing the praises of parking ramps.

I don't think we need more parking ramps downtown. We have huge ones already. Couldn't that land be put to better use?

We absolutely do not need more parking downtown. There are many, many parking ramps within a ten minute walk of these blocks. It is wasteful infrastructure, an unnecessary expense, and truly terrible urbanism.

The platitudes about walking, biking, and transit will ring even more hollow if the city somehow requires, or supports with public funding, a parking facility here.

Seriously, a parking ramp? Here? What about the Gateway ramp, the Haaf ramp, the ramp by city hall, the ramp under the LRT stop? Even the Armory is a parking facility? There are arguably few structures standing here that are not parking.

You can't add buildings downtown without also adding some parking.

I'm not in love with parking ramps, however, if the ramp is well designed and keeps a low profile as part of the development it shouldn't be a problem.

You can't add buildings downtown without also adding some parking.

Totally, but downtown and the city could consitute that Wells and friends require fewer spaces/employee than it may in say, Eden Prairie......especially if it's at the confluence of 2 (or 4, depending on how you look at it) LRT lines.