urbanMSP

I always wonder why we're tearing down buildings when there're flat parking lots across the street. Move this thing one block North (9th and Marquette corner) and add to the street rather than take away from it. Minneapolis would get to keep this potentially historic building intact (and Devil's Advocate!) along with the retail. Hell, they could even work in skyway connection through the alley side of the Young-Quinlan Building. I say add, rather than remove/replace.

EDIT - just noticed the balconies facing Northwest in the renderings, so I guess this wouldn't be a perfect option. Still, there has to be a way to preserve some of these things.

Because the developer owns this property, and not the one across the street?

Because the developer owns this property, and not the one across the street?

Good point. Still, I'd guess that a developer would have better luck attracting renters when the street life remains vibrant.

Because the developer owns this property, and not the one across the street?

Good point. Still, I'd guess that a developer would have better luck attracting renters when the street life remains vibrant.

It's a good point to a certain extent.

On the other hand, the developer presumably paid value for this site (didn't inherit from Grandma), and it's probably also fair to say that the developer could have paid value for the parking lot instead. Maybe the parking lot owner wasn't selling. Or, maybe the market for land is somehow distorted so that it is more economical to tear down several buildings an build on one site (and rehab a historic building) rather than build on a nearly identical site with no pre-existing structures at all. If for some reason the parking lot is a cash cow that the owner doesn't want to part with, then maybe - just maybe - that's a public policy issue that the city should consider.

To me it is, at least, because it's kind of ridiculous to tear down one of the few remaining historic buildings in the core when there's an effing parking lot across the street.

If for some reason the parking lot is a cash cow that the owner doesn't want to part with, then maybe - just maybe - that's a public policy issue that the city should consider.

To me it is, at least, because it's kind of ridiculous to tear down one of the few remaining historic buildings in the core when there's an effing parking lot across the street.

I think this is exactly the problem and why we see so many developments over existing structures rather than nearby parking lots. The fact they pay almost no property taxes mean practically any money they make on these parcels from parking is pure profit. Urban parking lots are money printing machines and a lot of owners have very little incentive to give that up until they're given some huge offer that's too high to turn down. But since they make so much off them already, it's pretty hard for any developers to come up with an amount that makes it worthwhile to the current owner without undermining the financials of their own project. So the developers buy out owners whose margins are smaller and are willing to part with their land for less. Our taxation system creates perverse incentives to keep parking lots around and tear down existing buildings. I'll keep on beating the land-value taxation drum until it happens or I'm dead.

Although weirdly in this case it looks like they assessed the parking lot parcels (it's two parcels each roughly the same size as the one being developed) as being worth more, so I'm really confused now unless they just haven't assessed the 10th&marquette lot as recently?

But there is a story from 2008 about Hines being interested in those lots for a joint development that has a little info about the family company that owns the parking lots and next door building (614 companies): http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/s ... tory1.html

The 614 Co. has owned the site for more than 25 years. Its other properties includes the adjacent Young-Quinlan building and most of the land under the Northstar Center in downtown. Over the years, other developers have had formal and informal development plans for 900 Marquette, but nothing has ever materialized. At one point, it was in the running to be the home for what is now the AT&T Tower.

So who knows what happens there, but they've probably got some shelved plans they'll bring back out eventually and aren't really looking to sell it to some other developer considering they wanted a joint project before. Plus owning the adjacent building means they have an interest in keeping parking available for tenants there.

I believe that Hines bought that lot a few years ago. So it is under control of a different developer.

I'd be fine if they didn't touch the retail or the original building. There's some great woodwork inside there

Seems like this development is pretty far along. Devils advocate is estimating they will only be open for another year. The good news is that they want to expand anyways to include a craft brewery and would like to stay downtown.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... ewery.html

Wait....if this space is being developed, does that mean a future Target tower would go elsewhere? I got the impression from other forumers here that the little 2-story Target executive lounge area (thingy) would eventually be redeveloped if/when Target has office space needs. I guess I thought this was their block, or part of it.

No, I would expect that any future Target tower that may or may not be planned would only use the footprint of the little two-story building and garden next to it. They would no more have been able to demolish the historic building than this project could.

Great news about Devil's Advocate!

If anything, there's been talk about Target acquiring the WCCO site a decade or two down the road, which would give them a quite large podium for a tower.

Target bought the Church of Scientology building as well. There is probably enough space for a tower but the floor plates would be small. I have a couple friends at Target who have said that Target would negotiate to buy the WCCO property if needed.

Really mixed feelings about this. I am very happy that this part of town is attracting new development and the remaining Handicraft building will hopefully get some TLC. However, despise the idea of the building attached to the Handicraft Building. along Marquette being torn down and some of the last independent shops in the core being forced out. Ok - not a fan of the wig place, but if the building was renovated as is - hopefully would attract some new tenants and keep some of the existing. I cannot believe the city didn't appeal the decision it is not historic. It's obviously part of the Handicraft.

As for the design - not a fan of the color as presented, nor it's flat facade, but it's different which is good in some ways.

I cannot believe the city didn't appeal the decision it is not historic. It's obviously part of the Handicraft.

That's not quite how it works. The Handicraft is already designated. The building on Marquette is not designated. When a developer applies for a demolition permit, it is not the city's job to "appeal" anything.

To put this in the frame of 2320 Colfax, which also was not designated historic, here's what happened (initially, back in 2012): Owner applied for a demolition permit. Staff determined the property was not historic (because it was not designated) and issued the permit. That staff determination was appealed by Anders Christensen / The Healy Project and eventually we got to where we are today. Though I'm not sure how he caught wind of a staff determination in time to appeal; I'm guessing Meg Tuthill was in the know and told her buddies/allies what was going on there.

So to bring it back to 1004 Marquette, if city staff has determined that it is not historic (because it is not designated), then it is up to a citizen or group to file an appeal to that determination. At least that's my understanding. Of course, there's also the HPC which reviews demolition permits as well, but I'm not sure I fully understand the process as to which demo permits require HPC review and which do not. Obviously they do not get a say in every demo permit in the city. You would think in this case, that there would be an HPC public hearing for this demolition, just as there was in Dinkytown for the properties that were going to get torn down for a hotel.

I'm guessing he meant appeal the initial court ruling that only allowed the city to protect the 10th St portion of the structure, when they had originally designated the entirety.

...Ok - not a fan of the wig place, but if the building was renovated as is - hopefully would attract some new tenants and keep some of the existing.

As for the design - not a fan of the color as presented, nor it's flat facade, but it's different which is good in some ways.

Ok, what type of retail would you be a fan of in this location? Also what colors would make you a fan? Just wondering.

...Ok - not a fan of the wig place, but if the building was renovated as is - hopefully would attract some new tenants and keep some of the existing.

As for the design - not a fan of the color as presented, nor it's flat facade, but it's different which is good in some ways.

Ok, what type of retail would you be a fan of in this location? Also what colors would make you a fan? Just wondering.

Ok, what type of townhome would you like at this location. Just 2-story brownstone with the tower flush. Or, maybe a setback with grills on 3rd? Just wondering.

...Ok - not a fan of the wig place, but if the building was renovated as is - hopefully would attract some new tenants and keep some of the existing.

As for the design - not a fan of the color as presented, nor it's flat facade, but it's different which is good in some ways.

Ok, what type of retail would you be a fan of in this location? Also what colors would make you a fan? Just wondering.

Ok, what type of townhome would you like at this location. Just 2-story brownstone with the tower flush. Or, maybe a setback with grills on 3rd? Just wondering.

Me? I like the proposed tower. A solid color perhaps white or grey (depending on the material used) and silver colors for the balconies might be a nice look. I like how the existing 2 floors building will be incorporated into the new tower. I don't like what looks like a car entrance into the building. I would hope those 12 parking spaces are only accessible via the ally instead of a mid-block car traffic lane.

I like how the existing 2 floors building will be incorporated into the new tower.

It won't be. They're going to tear down the existing building and put some brick veneer on the new one to mimic what used to be there. Significant difference.