urbanMSP

Plans:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 195041.pdf

Nothing currently on the block survives, but the new building looks alright. Absolutely massive.

EDIT: Not thrilled with the lack of commercial space on the ground level.

With an elevator in each building, what exactly is the benefit of the full-height link, vs being two separate buildings on top of a shared garage?

Also not too thrilled with the central courtyard being public(?) but 4' above grade.

Hmm. I like the style of the buildings, they are a bit massive...

There is retail along 15th and around to Nicollet, though walk ups or live work spaces would be better along Nicollet for sure.

I hope the Oak Grove to Nicollet sidewalk comes out improved from what it is.

I like it. Anyone know if any of the units will be marked as affordable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would much prefer if the two halves had designs that were at least slightly different. As is, the Nicollet-facing side is much too monotonous.

Otherwise, okay. I'll miss Jerusalem's.

I like it. Anyone know if any of the units will be marked as affordable?

From the thing: "The building is anticipated to include 184 dwelling units with 100
percent of units for tenants earning at or below 60 percent of the area median income. The unit mix of
30% 1-Bed, 50% 2-Bed, and 20% 3-Bed is geared toward families, couples, roommates, and singles."

That's excellent! I have been wondering when some of those lots would be taken up by development. Glad to see this one is being developed, and not with just luxury apartments. Hopefully this passes through the approvals pretty fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... ng-in.html

Apologies if this has already been created.....6-story, 184-unit AFFORDABLE apartment proposal for Loring Park flanking Nicollet Ave between I-94 and 15th Street.

Between this project and 18 W. 15th Street just around the corner, Loring Park is filling out some of its key remaining surface lots.

This better not lead to a bunch of noise complaints from 19's patio!

Oof.

Sorry to go against the grain, but this does not look good. Aesthetics: drab and monotone. Creativity? None. Loss of historic, affordable retail space (honestly, MPLS does not have many 93 year old buildings). Good affordable housing? Next to the busiest stretch of freeway in Minnesota? Not a brilliant idea (See, for instance, http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-f ... pollution/)

I am an insistent proponent of walkable urbanism clustered near transit / preventing a housing crisis via increased supply / etc. And yet. This will age badly.

With an elevator in each building, what exactly is the benefit of the full-height link, vs being two separate buildings on top of a shared garage?

I would much prefer if the two halves had designs that were at least slightly different. As is, the Nicollet-facing side is much too monotonous.

This will age badly.

Agreed with all of the above. This really needs to be two separate buildings on separate tax parcels. This is too large and monotonous. I'd prefer to retain the option that the two halves could wind up with separate property owners some day, rather than an indivisible superblock.

I'm confused....in the picture showing where the project is going in the BizJournals, it looks like two separate "C"-shaped buildings, each facing a different direction.

With an elevator in each building, what exactly is the benefit of the full-height link, vs being two separate buildings on top of a shared garage?

The benefit is that each building only needs one egress stair instead of two.

EDIT: Also, if one elevator is down for service, the elevator in the other building can be a back-up.

My take: it wouldn't take much to break up the frontage. The northern building has a courtyard breaking up the massing along Nicollet, and the northern massing is all retail frontage (with what looks like the primary entrance along Nicollet itself). The courtyard is a nice feature, commonly found in older brick/brownstones larger than a typical lot size. The southern mass of that building has a club room which should be a bit more active than a typical residential unit. All good IMO. On the southern building, the Nicollet face is about 155' - 4 standard parcel widths. Since the units on the ground level are 2- and 3-BRs, it wouldn't be too much to ask to get some walk-up entrances with thoughtful landscaping there, not unlike any number of other medium-sized apartments around town (Motiv, Boutique 28, etc).

I think some awnings at the retail and amenity room windows would be a nice touch and could break up the visual experience. I don't mind the monotony across 2 block lengths any more than this North Loop view or this view a block away (about 360' of same colored brick, just broken up by a few 10-15' setbacks). Combining the parcels together allows for a shared parking garage with only one entry/exit point, and it's in an alley. That seems to be a pretty big design win and I'm not sure we'd get that with multiple parcels (to say nothing of the complexity/wasted space of multiple ramps into smaller parking structures).

My last hope is that they're willing to break up the retail into 2 smaller spaces. Depends what the type of tenant they're after, but it looks like it could at least accommodate the square footage of the existing market and the coffee shop.

It isn't their size that's the problem, but their lack of distinguishing characteristics. In those Streetviews you're right that the buildings look similar to each other, but they're also clearly distinct from each other--pairs, not twins. These are identical conjoined twins.

This shouldn't be a hard problem to solve. Change the brick color on the southern building to be a lighter color, and choose a new complementary color for the cement board on the top two stories (say, tan brick w/ deep red). You could tweak some other details as well; maybe one building could have an Italianate cornice instead of a flat one, or perhaps they could rusticate the "cast stone." Slight changes would go a long way here.

Ignoring that the North Loop example had basically 600 feet of actually identical building facade (same brick color, no cornice, same building height, very very similar window designs).. we'll have to agree to disagree on how important the distinction is between an actually identical building and one that is close enough to be rendered the same to someone who isn't making a concerted effort to spot the differences (like, most people who don't care about architecture). As a proponent of historic districts that span more than just an individual or few parcels owing to the area having a very *distinct feel* I'd think you'd be open to the idea that most people miss the details but get the general picture of a cohesive block/district thanks to the major design elements.

That said:

Page 22 of the pdf *does* show different brick colors between the two massings. The southern building is primarily "brick #2" from the ground up to the top of the 4th floor, with 2 stories of a dark-colored fiber cement panel above that. In contrast, the northern massing has a cast stone facade on the ground floor, then a darker, separately labeled "brick #1" for another 4 stories, with 1 story above that being a corrugated metal panel. So, definitely different designs in terms of how they break up the facades, which materials are used, etc. If people want them to stand out more, I'm sure the developer would be open to more contrast in brick color, but IMO there's something to be said for keeping them similar enough to convey this is all one development both to residents as well as visitors.

Good affordable housing? Next to the busiest stretch of freeway in Minnesota? Not a brilliant idea

Unfortunately, under our current land use regime, affordable housing will tend to cluster around more polluted areas. That's what oh-so-progressive free market urbanists mean when they talk about "naturally occurring affordability" (along with trickled-down older and more repair-prone units). But the fact is, being marginally more prone to asthma or cancer is a less pressing concern to workers than having a roof over one's head, living in an accessible and well-served location, and not paying ruinously high rents. In a place like Loring Park, the choice is either to build affordable housing now or build unaffordable housing soon.

preventing a housing crisis

The housing crisis is already here. It needs to be reversed, not prevented.

Unfortunately, under our current land use regime, affordable housing will tend to cluster around more polluted areas. That's what oh-so-progressive free market urbanists mean when they talk about "naturally occurring affordability" (along with trickled-down older and more repair-prone units).

Dude, most of us want the entire city upzoned and mixed income housing. So if you want to live in a SFH dominant are like Linden Hills, you potentially could. This thread will go real off topic real fast if you bring this stuff up again. Please stop.

Dude, most of us want the entire city upzoned and mixed income housing. So if you want to live in a SFH dominant are like Linden Hills, you potentially could. This thread will go real off topic real fast if you bring this stuff up again. Please stop.

Dude, I was only defending a project you and I probably both support. You're the one who seems eager to derail the thread just because you didn't like my rationale. Anyway, I don't see why it's controversial to point out that the market puts up far bigger barriers to building affordable housing at more valuable locations.