Uptown Hotel Discussion

[PhilmerPhil]

Yeah, as a supporter of the project, it was painful to watch him present.

[FISHMANPET]

It seems to me like you guys are defending a system where a slick talking slimy salesman would be more successful than an honest and earnest developer trying to do right by the community who just happens to maybe be a little socially awkward.

I'm not sure how putting developers through these pointless feats of strength actually improves projects.

[grant1simons2]

You start to lose patience when the neighborhood starts false accusations. And also wants to talk about parking the entire time.

[mattaudio]

Developers *shouldn't* have to sell their project, unless it really does fit outside the mold. But most of the things developers are asking for should be provided by right to them anyways, such as bumping all zoning up by two or three notches and loosening other restrictions. At least we got a start with parking reform.

[min-chi-cbus]

It seems to me like you guys are defending a system where a slick talking slimy salesman would be more successful than an honest and earnest developer trying to do right by the community who just happens to maybe be a little socially awkward.

Haha, is there a difference?

[Archiapolis]

Right^

I fee like Don Garbledoogie is pretty good at presenting projects. For both FrankLyn and Rex 26 he went through the checklist of why the projects will benefit the neighborhood and the overall benefits increased density brings. That doesn't matter when people are just opposed to anything that doesn't fit their idea of "character."

This also brings up the issue of smaller missing-middle developers that don't have a team of architects to present at meetings. I felt pretty bad for the Garfield Aquarium developer. He's just a guy doing a pretty small scale independent development and you could tell public speaking and charismatic selling of his project were not his strong points. It must've been emotionally wearing on him and his wife to sit through the meetings he presented at.

Exactly.

[Archiapolis]

I have to agree with David Greene here. The burden is on the developer to make a sound sales pitch. If you can't do that then you get an F for effort.

You and David Greene confirm everything that is wrong with this process with the notions that project proposals are “sales pitches” that should highlight “what is in it for the neighborhood” respectively.

For an example, what could possibly be “in it for the neighborhood” in a multi-family proposal with no commercial component? As others have pointed out, “the sales pitch” should be simple - “This project is going to put a lot more human beings on your street and in your neighborhood shopping at shops.” Full stop. End of meeting. What else could POSSIBLY be “in it for the neighborhood” in such a project? Better tax base for the city? More shade for people who are too warm in the summer?

Please make the ideal “sales pitch” for such a project although you may want to take it straight to the big developers in town and tell them that you have the silver bullet “sales pitch” that will win neighborhood support because they’d probably be willing to pay you to make it instead of going to the meetings themselves.

As Grant points out, as evidenced time and again, the neighborhood’s chief concern is parking. Period. As Phil points out, time and again, people at these meetings can’t see past a three story brick walk-up as the archetypal “multi-family” project. I’ve been in numerous neighborhood meetings across the city where these two points get pounded into the ground over and over. ANYTHING that isn’t a three story brick walk-up is “out of character” or “doesn’t fit” and every project is going to cause traffipocalypse and there is never enough parking.

Apparently it needs to be said again: any reasoned presentation gets drowned out by “too tall!”, “too bulky!”, “not enough parking!”, and “traffic!” The idea that there should be a PR firm or a “slick salesman” involved in “pitching” a project highlights how ridiculously farcical the process is. You are saying you’d be happier getting some guy in a suit up there giving you a song and dance about a project to get you to nod your head? If anything, the more “marketing” and “salesmanship” is on display for a project it should concern you and cause alarm bells to sound and be an indicator of nefarious behavior.

The average Joe is not going to be up on every nuance of city code, and what the long term goal is for that neighborhood. For crying out load hire a PR guy that knows all this stuff and bring her/him to the meetings.

Developers and architects don’t NEED a “PR guy that knows all this stuff.” They know it up/down/backwards and forwards. They have to know it intimately because as soon as they are done making a reasoned presentation with all of the evidence from the comprehensive plan (and any small area plan), people with too much time on their hands ignore all of that and start hammering “character”, “parking”, “height” et cetera. Then project team replies with the evidence, neighbor ignores evidence, ad absurdum, followed by awkward silence - end of meeting.

You are right “average Joe” doesn’t know every nuance of city code but more importantly, even after it is explained to them, they don’t care. As it turns out, even after “average Joe” gets the explanation/“sales pitch” that illuminates the city code it is not going to fit the archetypal/theoretical perfect project and thus is irrelevant (in average Joe’s mind).

At the end of the day, the neighborhood groups are largely irrelevant (currently). The only groups that really matter are the Planning Commission and the City Council. Go see the Alatus tower project for discussion about the strategy involved to get around historic issues/neighborhood groups by betting on Planning Commission support and City Council overturning any historic objections. That discussion should tell you all you need to know about the “value” of neighborhood meetings, convincing NIMBY’s with “sales pitches” and how helpful it is to try and convince a NIMBY “what’s in it for the neighborhood.”

[Archiapolis]

I'm sorry about the rant about the approval process (because it's off-topic) and I'll try to make it relevant to this specific project...

If this site can't handle more than six stories, I don't see ANYTHING in Uptown getting approved for more than six stories in my lifetime. A large, oddly shaped site, on Lake Street with all of the height massed along Lake Street whose shadow primarily falls on the rest of it's lot, a city street and a surface parking lot...

I just can't believe that height is an objection here and I haven't stopped shaking my head since this change occurred.

[EOst]

Archiapolis, sympathetic though I am to your argument, if you don't involve the neighborhoods (that is, the residents) in the process, you're really only delaying their feedback until the ballot box, where it could have a far more dramatic effect. We can make all the technocratic arguments that we want about How Things Should Be, but none of them sound very compatible with democracy.

[David Greene]

You and David Greene confirm everything that is wrong with this process with the notions that project proposals are “sales pitches” that should highlight “what is in it for the neighborhood” respectively.

And your attitude with this response is EXACTLY why neighbors distrust developers. Look at how much you disparage the people that are going to be the neighbors of your project. "I know what's good for you" is not a great way to forge a healthy relationship.

Everything is political and so developers need to operate within that context. You'll never make everyone happy but that's not the point. If a developer can't take the heat of a few curmudgeonly people then perhaps that developer is in the wrong career.

If the neighborhood has no real power anyway, why do you care so much in the first place?

[Archiapolis]

Archiapolis, sympathetic though I am to your argument, if you don't involve the neighborhoods (that is, the residents) in the process, you're really only delaying their feedback until the ballot box, where it could have a far more dramatic effect. We can make all the technocratic arguments that we want about How Things Should Be, but none of them sound very compatible with democracy.

I understand. I said it somewhere above and I've said it in other threads...I'm NOT saying neighborhood review should be abolished. To be specific, here is what I'm proposing:

1. Neighborhood input should be expanded beyond "in person" meetings and presentations to include recorded presentations and on-line feedback. MORE voices need to be included in neighborhood input.

2. City staff should be present at proposals that are larger than x (need to think a bit about what x =) to clarify any zoning issues.

I am aware that this would require resources (recording the video, posting it somewhere, creating online neighborhood feedback capability) and city staffing time. I'd suggest attaching a fee to the application process that would cover these expenses. I'm sure no one would object to "slimy developers" having to pay more to make the process MORE democratic and inclusive.

[Nathan]

Yeah that was my thought exactly. How are these current meetings democratic!? As a full time student and worker I certainly wish I could go to every meeting, but I just can't, and the ones I have been to are astonishingly horrifying in terms of who shows up and for what purpose. Any time a privileged people of a specific demographic have the most say in a political process, that is not democracy. And it's not the developers role to facilitate better democracy. To participate in better democracy, yes, but not create it. These "meetings" are not accessible or made public in the sense a real democratic system should be.

[Archiapolis]

You and David Greene confirm everything that is wrong with this process with the notions that project proposals are “sales pitches” that should highlight “what is in it for the neighborhood” respectively.

And your attitude with this response is EXACTLY why neighbors distrust developers. Look at how much you disparage the people that are going to be the neighbors of your project. "I know what's good for you" is not a great way to forge a healthy relationship.

Everything is political and so developers need to operate within that context. You'll never make everyone happy but that's not the point. If a developer can't take the heat of a few curmudgeonly people then perhaps that developer is in the wrong career.

If the neighborhood has no real power anyway, why do you care so much in the first place?

You are creating a narrative with a false choice between a benign status quo where neighbors have input and a new system where the neighborhood has no input. As stated above, I am suggesting a new system with inclusive, representative input that is befitting of the technology available in 2016.

I don't know a new way to say this but, I'll try one more time and let you have the last word if you like.

A
handful
of
"curmudgeons"
with
unlimited
time
is
not
representative.

Developers
and
architects
don't
write
the
comprehensive
plan
and
shouldn't
have
to
articulate/defend
it.

If you think there is ANY value at all to "tak[ing] the heat of a few curmudgeonly people" then by all means, lobby for the status quo. I've made my arguments why I think the process is broken and needs an overhaul and you have stated your opinion. I will leave it at that.

[David Greene]

1. Neighborhood input should be expanded beyond "in person" meetings and presentations to include recorded presentations and on-line feedback. MORE voices need to be included in neighborhood input.

2. City staff should be present at proposals that are larger than x (need to think a bit about what x =) to clarify any zoning issues.

This makes a lot of sense to me as long as the commenters are required to give their addresses. It's not possible to reasonably verify but neither are statements at meetings.

[EOst]

I certainly think there are major issues in the democratic legitimacy of neighborhood associations. It would certainly be helpful if there were greater participation and a broader demographic spread. But if you look at who's on CARAG's board (for this discussion), there is actually considerable diversity of voices. Maybe they're all homeowners, but they certainly aren't all people who've lived in the neighborhood since the 1970s.

I'm just skeptical that any changes to make the system more democratic would address the root causes of Archiapolis's problems with the process. I don't see why the people who don't participate in neighborhood and development politics would have dramatically different views from those who are currently involved. When I talk to people who don't follow these things about this or that development coming, the first words i usually hear are "oh no." At the very least, there's no democratic reform which could reliably generate the results that many people want, i.e. evaluation on technocratic metrics and maximalist readings of the zoning code. I don't think most people work like that, and they shouldn't be expected to.

[FISHMANPET]

Lisa Bender won against Meg Tuthill, by quite the margin. I think there's more support for growth than you think.

Which makes this process that amplifies the negative voices even more undemocratic.

[EOst]

I don't think electing someone who is generally pro-growth necessarily implies that the voter believes in any particular development project. And Bender had a lot more issues on her side (bikes, rooftop/sidewalk cafes, etc.) than just that one.

[FISHMANPET]

Let's not forget that neighbors liking it or not is not a legal requirement, and in fact denying something for no reason other than neighbors not liking it could lead to lawsuits against the city.

In our current economic and political system, an individual person has very little control over what specific building gets built next to them. So supporting a specific project or not is irrelevant. Because it doesn't factor into the approval process.

[EOst]

But we all know it still does. Ultimately, elected officials are in charge, and elected officials are accountable to their constituency.

[thatchio]

Having worked for a developer, developers SHOULD sell their projects in Minneapolis, especially if they need variances, rezonings, or conditional use permits. While flexibility is desirable for when your project doesn't fit adopted plans exactly, it also enables a system where each project is more exposed to political pressures and subjective interpretation. Minneapolis has been pretty good about actually approving a lot of projects over the last 5-8 years or so and even more so over the last 2-3 years.

This hotel is a really prime example of pushing the limits of what is likely able to get approved. Having years of following development in Uptown, I would not have expected this sort of proposal even 3 years ago. Part of it is the build out of Uptown with 6 story buildings. Part of it is more political and local advocacy/support than previously.

The lack of clarity on whether this project is supported in plans or in ordinance means that it is risky for the developer and polarizing for the community. We may want to move this to another thread, but this project is an example I'd love to discuss more in the context of changing how the city approaches zoning. Should zoning be more rigid on height and FAR? What are the pros and cons? Are there conditions where people would support such a change? Would increasing C3A base height and removing the CUP for expanding it be a worthwhile trade? Could provide clarity to everyone on what to expect and decrease risk.

Whether you like this project or not, there is an adopted small area plan that does not support that height on the site. The project incorporates many other aspects of the plan and there is a comp plan that supports this sort of project on this sort of street. It may meet my vision for the community and help strengthen the local economy and help encourage redevelopment near Dupont-Lake. But how does the city resolve conflicts in policy guidance and community expectations from a local planning process that didn't support this sort of development? Maybe it'd be better for the zoning code to be more prescriptive and focus the advocacy on planing processes and rezoning studies than on a project-by-project basis where local opposition is strongest.