urbanMSP

I just came back from Toronto, where there are major clusters of high-rise apartments and retail deep into the suburban areas. There's no reason why Richfield has to settle for something like this. They should reject impoverished thinking like this plan and demand a truly urban development. The site will be increasingly well situated for rapid bus transit in the future and Richfield is already a pretty good place to walk and bike.

Does Richfield have the same kind of economic conditions as Toronto?

Sure looks like they are rebuilding the Hub with an apartment building and a bunch of retail that will be effectively mooning the streets. It's pretty craptacular in my opinion..

The existing use is so bad that the bar for improvement is really low, but yeah, that's a massive failure of ambition. It's like the property owner/developer didn't even look around past the LA Fitness redevelopment at 66th and Lyndale.

I think the buildings at the corner of 66th and Nicollet should all be at least seven stories tall. They could still have the retail, just in the ground floor.

Based on the fact that the parking lot is in the middle, I think you will end up with blank disgusting walls facing Nicolette [sic] and 66th.

I know a lot of people are opposed to the whole 6+1 concept, but I’d rather have that than what they are proposing near the corner of Nicolette [sic] and 66th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem here lies entirely with the property owner, Brixmor. Dumpy old strip malls (and new strip malls, I guess) are the only thing they do. They don't do residential, they don't do mixed use. I assume they plan to sell the "Hub west" (fmr Rainbow) site to a housing developer and will not have an ongoing ownership interest in that property. I used to have hopes and dreams of doing a copy-paste of Excelsior & Grand or Burnsville's Heart of the City on the Hub site. But once I got to know more about Brixmor and as it became clear that they had no intention of selling the property to an actual developer, I lowered my expectations. I'm actually not surprised by anything about this initial proposal.

My early prediction: the city will be able to force some smaller-scale tweaks, like better pedestrian routes, quasi-public amenities & gathering space, better building orientation, one fewer drive-thru, etc., but I don't hold out any hope that Brixmor is going to come back with something radically different. I think there will be enormous public pressure to approve literally anything, because the average resident hates the current state of the Hub and doesn't know a lick about urban planning. The average resident just wants a "nicer" shopping center that looks like what they see when they drive to Eagan or Woodbury. The kicker (and perhaps the saving grace that could stop it) on this proposal is that Brixmor is asking for TIF to build this underwhelming pile of 1990s garbage. That's gonna be a heavy lift and I don't know if they'll be successful in getting that subsidy. I think the Council would have a harder time rejecting a proposal that sought no public assistance. There are going to be some divided votes on this for sure. I hope that anything Brixmor proposes is soundly rejected and they realize their only option is to sell the site to a proper developer.

If there's going to be TIF, it needs to be for something far more ambitious than this. Even district parking under some more housing for something like Penn/American. If they're going to pitch a low-value Woodbury Target/HyVee + 4 outlot drive throughs, I see no reason why the city should help fund any of it.

Not going to get involved in the back and forth since I may be considering this in the future in City Council capacity. However, wanna say I appreciate the interest. I did offer detailed comments during the work session anyone is welcome to listen to here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKNYAROLNWo&t=14m20s (14:20 timestamp).

Did want to add: we do have a zoning code, and although this is presumed to be a PUD, the underlying zoning would generally be a baseline — we always specifically consider if the variation from the underlying zoning code is appropriate and justified by the project. Of note:
- we require principal entrances facing streets
- we require mixed use on large parcels
- we do allow drive-thrus, but do not allow double-drive thrus, or drive-thru queuing aisles facing public streets, or multiple of the same type of drive-thru within 500 feet (as measured by parcel boundaries)
- we have lot coverage minimums and allow a maximum residential density downtown of 150 du / acre by right, or higher with PUD

I think there will be enormous public pressure to approve literally anything, because the average resident hates the current state of the Hub and doesn't know a lick about urban planning. The average resident just wants a "nicer" shopping center that looks like what they see when they drive to Eagan or Woodbury.

Yeah, I get the impression impression that it's mainly the cities and people here that want a cute 5 over 1 instead of a strip mall. Not the residents of the city, certainly not the developer. How many of them even do mixed use as opposed to either commercial or apartments only.

I can't speak for Richfield, but when Hy-Vee was proposed for Bloomington, you didn't hear things like "needs to be cuter, maybe add a bunch of fake pillars and faux arches and put housing over the retail " or "too much surface parking", it was "OMG, We finally get to shop at a Hy-Vee!!!!!" and "Save the bowling alley!!!" There's also suburbanites' disdain for structured parking as noted by the issue West End is having.

Obviously it changes things now that they're asking for TIF, but they'd probably ask for a lot more subsidizes to build mixed use, considering the ongoing and increasing issue getting tenants that can afford the rent- your fast-casual chains are all wanting locations where they can have drive-thrus now,

From what I gathered listening to the work session video, apparently every time a dense development is proposed in Richfield, the public comments always include some flavor of "You should build this at the Hub instead."

So I think it's disingenuous to claim that a giant parking lot is what the people of Richfield want here.

Considering Richfield is mostly or completely developed, it would be wise to make the most of any opportunity where land is being redeveloped. A sea of surface parking with a renovated strip mall is not making the most of available land, and even if mixed-use and higher density requires more subsidy it'll be worth it in the long term.

A few years back I lived in Richfield. I lived on 65th and Pleasant, so I walked by this area every single day. I always hoped that it would one day be redeveveloped. But from looking at the current plans, they might as well just leave it the way it is.

I don’t know much about commercial real estate or anything, but I don’t understand why the developer isn’t interested in selling this property. I would imagine that another development company would pay a pretty penny to get a hold of this valuable chunk of land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I were the city I'd want something like the the southwest corner of 66th and Lyndale. Those buildings are paying many times the tax per acre than the Hub (excluding the McDonald's). I definitely wouldn't pay them to put in something that is only marginally better than the current configuration. If you believe Strong towns these big boxes don't even pull their own weight.

Maybe if the city votes this down Bloomington will get another shot at getting the Hy-Vee.

If I were the city I'd want something like the the southwest corner of 66th and Lyndale. Those buildings are paying many times the tax per acre than the Hub (excluding the McDonald's). I definitely wouldn't pay them to put in something that is only marginally better than the current configuration. If you believe Strong towns these big boxes don't even pull their own weight.

Three of the four corners there have mixed use with retail/commercial on the ground floor and two of the include residential towers. It's not hard to look around for examples.

Hy-Vee took out a full page ad in the Strib this weekend explaining that they were walking away from four or five sites they had acquired in the metro area, because they couldn't accommodate their new 150k sf prototype store. Not sure that this rules them out for this site, but the timing is interesting.

And ad for that? Weird.

I used to have a lot more respect for the brand, but between this and the owner firing 100 of their IT and marketing employees and then going to the press to complain that none of them took him up on an offer for jobs stocking shelves in stores, can't say I'm sad that we're not getting the mega-gigantic version of their stores. Especially when they have a smaller format prototype in Downtown Des Moines that they no longer seem interested in deploying.

It was a little weird.

I guess they wanted to explain that they weren't stopping investment in MSP when word leaked that they were walking away from this land?

In addition to the site requirements changing for the bigger stores, it also impacts the site locations, since the bigger stores need a larger population base, and so are therefore spaced further apart.

I'm 90% confident this proposal will be a Target. I've heard Targetrons mention a desire for a reliever to the Cedar Point and Southdale stores, it fits the square footage, it fits the "grocery component," and it's a match for the layout of the order pick-up parking.