Uptown - LynLake - The Wedge - News & General

[Silophant]

Right. A lot of poor people are working low-wage jobs in transit-inaccessible suburbs, and thus need cars. But, there are also a lot of low-wage jobs in places like downtown and MoA and wherever that can be accessed without a car. Maybe some subsidized buildings could include more parking and be targeted at people that need or want cars, and maybe some could be targeted at people who don't, and could be even more affordable?

[acs]

I've heard a billion times about how the poor people need their car because of their jobs in far flung exurbs. And, I don't know, on a first glance that's not wrong perse, but I feel like there needs to be another level to that conversation.

Ok, so the two possible solutions to that would likely be 1) build subsidized transportation in some form out to those exurban jobs at some not-insignificant cost so they can enjoy the benefits of lower rent and a job to pay for it, hopefully without subsidy, 2) retain and grow jobs that match these people's skill-sets where we already have said subsidized transportation.

I'm guessing the latter is less controversial here, as we've seen with the great LRT debates. And yet, this project is kicking a 50 year old business to the curb to put up subsidized housing along a transit line. Why is it that we can't seem to build both accessible jobs and affordable housing? because lately it seems like the growth of one has always come at the expense of another.

[RailBaronYarr]

I guess, my point was more specific to this proposal where the developer actively stated that there will be many tenants who will bus (presumably walk or bike as well) to their jobs 5 days a week, but still want a car. This is the lowest hanging fruit - developer already is amenable to the idea that people (gasp) won't drive to work.

Silophant spoke to this issue; some buildings (like this one) could forego a whole level of underground parking and partner with Hour Car for 5 cars in the remaining parking level, put a NR station out front, even pay C2G to rebalance a couple vehicles to their garage now and again. Residents see the value in not owning that expensive car, and construction costs go down (leading to either cheaper rents, less tax credit being required, or both). I don't know that a great solution is to funnel the saved tax credits to other expensive projects where people have parking and cars, but it at least reveals that cost to policymakers (for example, this study talked about how subsidized housing in the core is more expensive to build), and maybe would force a re-evaluation of where we put subsidized housing with plentiful parking.

Anyway, 100 parking spots or not, this is still a good idea at this location. Smartphones for some, miniature American flags for others. Etc.

[phop]

Ok, so the two possible solutions to that would likely be 1) build subsidized transportation in some form out to those exurban jobs at some not-insignificant cost so they can enjoy the benefits of lower rent and a job to pay for it, hopefully without subsidy, 2) retain and grow jobs that match these people's skill-sets where we already have said subsidized transportation.

I'm guessing the latter is less controversial here, as we've seen with the great LRT debates. And yet, this project is kicking a 50 year old business to the curb to put up subsidized housing along a transit line. Why is it that we can't seem to build both accessible jobs and affordable housing? because lately it seems like the growth of one has always come at the expense of another.

How is being paid likely fair-market value for a piece of property getting "kicked to the curb"?

[twincitizen]

I too was bothered by that remark. Business owners, like everyone else, have to retire at some point. There isn't always someone in the family willing/able to take over the business, which can potentially be a bummer. But if you have a buyer ready to hand you with a pile of cash for your property, that's a win-win situation. I'm not saying that's the exact situation here, but I don't know how anyone can really bemoan the loss of the business. A good, reputable car business they may have been, but no one in the history of cities has ever said "You know what this neighborhood needs? More car repair shops!" Neither the former employees nor customers of Paul William's Tire will have any trouble finding jobs or tires (respectively) at one the million other identical businesses up and down Lake Street.

[David Greene]

Boy I dunno. It's hard to find a good car repair shop. They did a lot more than tires.

Just sayin'.

[RailBaronYarr]

The good thing about cars is that they can drive for miles and miles to find good repair shops the 1 time every other year they need more than tires or oil changed. We even have bigger cars that can tow broken ones if need be.

Snark aside, I know I've heard people say how Walkable Neighborhoods Are Great Reason #1,269: you can drop your car off at your local shop (some neighborhoods have many!) and walk or bike home rather than needing a rental or to waste a day hanging around for it to be fixed. This is not untrue. But they're generally not great neighbors (lol) in terms of design, etc. Maybe this was one of the great ones in terms of service quality/price. But I just can't see whatever replaces it having less utility on a monthly basis to the residents within a half mile of it than the car place.

[David Greene]

C'mon, I explicitly stated above I think the development is great. I am simply mourning the loss of a great car shop. Not many places that will tell you you *don't* need X/Y/Z repair even if you bring it in for X/Y/Z. We went to a lot of different shops before finding this one.

And yeah, when you have kids that require car seats, a great walkable car repair shop is a gigantic asset.

[lordmoke]

Plans for 3453 Hennepin:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 187357.pdf

Strange little project.

[mattaudio]

Nice little project. Not sure why they'd need an elevator, though. Does Fair Housing Act trigger at 3 units? Otherwise, build a small ADA unit on the ground floor, and you've met your Fair Housing Act requirement.

[FISHMANPET]

Elevator is useful for the office as well. They may just want an elevator.

[RailBaronYarr]

I kinda like the idea of a private developer choosing to go above and beyond the ADA requirements and making all floors fully accessible.

[Nathan]

That is adorable. Modern, dynamic, reasonable scale, more jobs on transit lines. Win win win

[MNdible]

Yep. Super sweet little project.

I think that when you have a public use like an office, the elevator is mandatory.

[xandrex]

An odd but pretty cool project. I especially like that they're proposing a legitimate 3-bedroom setup here that could accommodate a family.

[nBode]

Page 28:

While not required by code, this proposal includes an elevator, supporting the trend for seniors moving to live closer to the city core.

[thatchio]

I really like this project. I lived on this blockface as well as kittycorner off of the rear property line. It will fill in nicely and I like the added office. We need more projects like this along neighborhood commercial corridors and corridors like 31st.

[seanrichardryan]

I think we're drifting from Uptown here. How about a 'For the love substations' thread.

[Qhaberl]

Question about a parcel of land in uptown. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm not exactly sure where to look. Why hasn't the block along the south side of Lake Street, between Fremont and Gerard, then developed yet? It seems like such a prime piece of real estate. It's extremely close to many bus lines and to the craziness that is Hennepin and Lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seanrichardryan]

So is the Shoreline Overlay District just a joke to these guys?

http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/de ... ry-condos/