39 replies to this topic

[NorthStar]

This project will be a great addition to downtown's Elliot Park neighborhood.  The project will consist of four towers, an eight-, 16-, 21- and 31-story towers and 14,000 and 17,000 square feet of ground-level retail.

Here are a few renderings:

[NorthStar]

Check this out.


1010 Park will be located right behind Skyscape (breaking ground in late July or early August) and to the left of the new Grant Park tower.

[FSUViking9]

This one is high on my list of anticipated projects, behind Nicollet and Carlyle.

[moonshield]

wow, looks like a really big deal.

[MrSmith]

Although the idea behind this project is fantastic, and the architecture quite nice, I think the devil is in the details.

This is a lot of tall real estate on one small block!  They are desinging public space between all the buildings, but it doesn't look like it will ever get any sun. Plus, the retail should be on the street -- retail hidden from street traffic is going to be difficult to market -- not to mention the fact that the courtyard is going to be shared with an existing low inclome apartment building (with serious drug dealing going on!) and a drug rehab center.  Those buildings/uses are going to stay.

In addition, I think they need to respect the height of the existing buildings a bit more by building similar height buildings at the street level. Most tall buildings are built more in the center of the bock surrounding by a lower story foot print.  Theses buildings sometimes come right to the sidewalk with no setback --they don't show it in the drawings they release --but this is the case on the portland side.

I would prefer to see a few more row houses added to this project instead of all the towers.

[FSUViking9]

It'll get approved simply because they want to clean up Elliott Park.

[Taxman]

FSUViking9, on Jul 18 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

It'll get approved simply because they want to clean up Elliott Park.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of curiosity, who is "they"?  Also are you inferring that it would otherwise not get approved?  I'm just trying to follow your logic on the issue.

[FSUViking9]

They, meaning the city. Grant Park..Skyscape...5th Avenue Gateway...1010 Park.....see a pattern here? Get the horns out of the 'hood and make it a better neighborhood.

[Taxman]

FSUViking9, on Jul 19 2005, 05:04 PM, said:

They, meaning the city. Grant Park..Skyscape...5th Avenue Gateway...1010 Park.....see a pattern here? Get the horns out of the 'hood and make it a better neighborhood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are all private developments.  The neighborhood association there has supported them.  With the exception of Lisa Goodman promoting the Grant Park site I don't see these as resulting from some overall city directive or plan for the neighborhood.  Afterall Schiff argued against Skyscape on the grounds that it would create a precedent for more highrises (ie projects that the city may not necesarily want)

[FSUViking9]

Well, they have to be approved by the city, right? Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can't just show up with a shovel and a bulldozer and start building something?

And, I think that precident is already true. Much to the chagrin of Schiff. 6 buildings at or above 20 story's on the table, built, or being built.

Edited by FSUViking9, 20 July 2005 - 07:01 AM.

[Taxman]

FSUViking9, on Jul 20 2005, 06:59 AM, said:

Well, they have to be approved by the city, right? Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can't just show up with a shovel and a bulldozer and start building something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in Elliot Park and sit on the neighborhood board.  I'm just saying that there sure doesn't appear to be a particular interest by the city leaders to "clean up" the area via highrises.  The developers respond to the market.  The neighborhood supports them and on that basis they generally do get approved by the city as opposed to getting approved BECAUSE of some city plan/directive.  In fact there is some concern that the zoning requirements, due to the complexity of the site, will make approval of 1010 Park very difficult even if the neighborhood supports it.

Besides look at how much resistance there is around the city to highrises by both politicians and residents.  Do you really believe that the city leaders think that highrises are a redevelopment tool?  Which CMs?  I just don't see it.

[NorthStar]

Taxman, on Jul 20 2005, 07:22 AM, said:

I live in Elliot Park and sit on the neighborhood board.  I'm just saying that there sure doesn't appear to be a particular interest by the city leaders to "clean up" the area via highrises.  The developers respond to the market.  The neighborhood supports them and on that basis they generally do get approved by the city as opposed to getting approved BECAUSE of some city plan/directive.  In fact there is some concern that the zoning requirements, due to the complexity of the site, will make approval of 1010 Park very difficult even if the neighborhood supports it.

Besides look at how much resistance there is around the city to highrises by both politicians and residents.  Do you really believe that the city leaders think that highrises are a redevelopment tool?  Which CMs?  I just don't see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's nice to know that you're on the neighborhood board.  I along with several other college students, lived in the Elliot Park neighborhood while attending the UofM.  I'm concerned that all these high-rise developments are going to chase the students out of the area being rent prices will definitely be rising.  Maybe the board should encourage some of these developers to build affordable high-rise apartments.  The UofM, Augsburg and North Central University are all close so, it would be nice to see something rise for the students. Speaking of North Central University, the empty lot south of the campus bookstore is screaming for development.  Are there any plans for that site or does the university own it?

[Taxman]

NorthStar, on Jul 20 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

Maybe the board should encourage some of these developers to build affordable high-rise apartments. 

Speaking of North Central University, the empty lot south of the campus bookstore is screaming for development.  Are there any plans for that site or does the university own it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually my understanding is that affordability was part of the plan for Skyscape (I wasn't on the board at that point)- notice the units start a lot lower than most downtown projects and there are a lot more of them.  The developers had to agree to more affordable units in order to get the neighborhood approval for the height.  

Originally it was supposed to be half the units under $130s or so but after Grant Park was finished the prices spiked.  Raising the prices was really the only option for the developer since otherwise they'd be basically passing on the gains to speculative buyers buying at $130K and selling for $180K.

I think the board is very conscious of the gentrification issues.   On the flip-side it is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city and has a lot of affordable housing (subsidized and unsubsidized) and I'm sure that some people would oppose additional affordable housing (subsidized). If rents in unsubsidized properties move up do to market pressures there is little that can be done by the neighborhood.   On the other hand, many of the rental units are very small and don't have parking so they may be less suceptable to price pressures.  Ah the tensions of neighborhood revitalization!

I also think that the highrises will bring some needed retail to the neighborhood and the ownership component helps stabilize a fairly transient population.

I haven't heard of anything for the site you mention but it definitely would be great for development.  There is a lot of potential for infill in the neighborhood.

[rbdetsport]

All of these new condo projects are awesome in MPLS. It's only a matter of time before Detroit gets the same speed.

[MrCoffee]

I lived in Elliot Park back in 1994, up until 1996.  It was full of drug dealers back then, and crime was rampant.  There was a liquor store in the area, but North Central (much to my relief) bought out that property and the liquor store eventually closed.

Affordable housing for low income people is a necessity for the area.  The development along the river was supposed to consist of a lot of lower-income housing, but the speculators stepped in and drove the prices up for properties there.  What was $130,000 at one time ended up being $1,500,000 for some units, while the rest went for $750,000.  The condos shouldn't be built unless there is an agreement that at least a good percentage of the units will go to subsidized housing, with rents that are affordable to Section 8 tenants.

Before anybody knocks a Section 8 tenant, let me assure the reader that those people are very carefully screened before being placed in the program.  The dealers usually generate their income from sales, but have jobs with wich they can launder their profits.  They don't live on rent vouchers because they are able to pay market-rate rent with their own income.  Section 8 tenants are generally honest people, and some are disabled.  They work in low-income positions that most residents in the downtown area would never desire to have.  Such jobs include janitorial, grounds keeping, food service, maid service, among others.  It takes a good balance to keep a neighborhood functioning properly.  I would never want to see Minneapolis/St. Paul get to be like California, but it can reach that level unless good planning is used.

For the most part, the Twin Cities appear to be doing well.  I like the transit projects that are comming to fruition, as well as the higher denisty developments.  I look forward to returning there some day.

MrCoffee

[MrSmith]

Certainly Lisa Goodman fought to get Grant Park built because she felt it would bring much needed home ownership and stability to the neighborhhod. This was not her private mission, but a goal of the neighboorhood as well. And, in fact it has clearly encouraged other developers to move into the area.

I cetainly understand why the Elliot Park Neighborhood would want more owner occupied housing and more retail. However, I personally don't think they are being very selective about the types of developments they are approving.

The Grant Park Tower was built on a rather undesirable lot (from a housing standpoint) next to the highway and thus the height of the tower is what made it workable because you could sell the view.  The setback of the tower and the addition of the brownstones help it fit nicely in the neighborhood.  3 sides of the block now look like they fit into the neighborhood.

Skyscape, however is just as tall as the Grant Park tower but comes all the way to the street.  In addition, if skyscape promised affordable housing --they lied.  They raised prices after just 2 days-- that's right in 2 days the price went up $10,000 for all units.

Now we have 1010 portland which has 4 buildings on one block while maintaining every other building on the block.  As a result, there are almost no setbacks on the buildings.  The tallest part of the building is going to be built on Portland directly accross from the Grant Park Brownstones --which ruins the transition into the neighborhood that Grant Park so successfully achieved.  

Instead of making Elliot Park a better neighborhood, these new towers are acting as fortresses which separate themselves from the neighborhood.  Brownstone type housing with decks and front doors will add much more vibrancy to the neighborhood then towers where people drive underground and go to the 27th floor.

Other neighborhoods such as Loring and the River area realize that they don't have to accept every tower that is proposed and as a result,  they have some cool lower-rise building which have retail as well as fit better into the neighborhood.  I really think Elliot Park needs to set some height and style guidelines to go with their master plan.

[nickmgray]

I think that post before this one had some good points, but living in the neighborhood for the past 5 years gives you a different perspective on all the projects going up.  He mentioned the buildings being like fortresses and people driving in and out without stepping foot at street level.  This will be true for some, but the main reason people buy these condo in downtown is for the commodaty of walking to work.  As the neighborhood population increases, it will be able to support a larger grocery store which in essance is the heart of a neighborhood.

Someone had previously mentioned that the retail would be a ploblem since it was set back from the street.  The whole idea is to get people walking throughout the area. The shops are for the people who live there or a few blocks away.  I don't think there's looking to make it a huge commercial shopping center.

[MrSmith]

nickmgray, on Aug 6 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

I think that post before this one had some good points, but living in the neighborhood for the past 5 years gives you a different perspective on all the projects going up.  He mentioned the buildings being like fortresses and people driving in and out without stepping foot at street level.  This will be true for some, but the main reason people buy these condo in downtown is for the commodaty of walking to work.  As the neighborhood population increases, it will be able to support a larger grocery store which in essance is the heart of a neighborhood.

Someone had previously mentioned that the retail would be a ploblem since it was set back from the street.  The whole idea is to get people walking throughout the area. The shops are for the people who live there or a few blocks away.  I don't think there's looking to make it a huge commercial shopping center.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly...people buy these condos for the DOWNTOWN amenities -- and people who live on Portland are going West to work every day and not walking through Elliot Park.  

In order to really invigorate Elliot Park, developments are needed for several blocks East of Park Avenue and I don't bleieve any have been proposed.  That would really get people into the neighborhood.  The 4 buildings of 1010 Park would be so much better is they wer spread throughout the neighboorhood.

[nickmgray]

NorthStar, on Jul 20 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

Speaking of North Central University, the empty lot south of the campus bookstore is screaming for development.  Are there any plans for that site or does the university own it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

North Central University does own the site.  I just graduated from there last spring.  I believe they have plans for the site in the near future.  The University is a bit slow when it comes to construction since they have a policy of raising all the funds necessary before any construction project is typically approved.  

At the moment they are putting on an addition to the Chapel and adding a performance auditorium and workout room.   I believe this project is scheduled to be complete by January.  Any development for the vacant lot would not be till at least a year or so after that.  Most probably addition to the site would be a mixed use classes and dormatory facility.

[MrSmith]

I have it on authority that 1010 Park wants to get city approval by the end of the year and start selling units in the Spring. They say they want to break ground a year from now, but I don't see how they can sell enough units that fast. Other projects have been taking 10 months from sales office opening to start of construction.

In addition, 1010 needs zoning changes to get the project built and this requires neighboring property owners to sign a petition --they need 2/3 of property owners to agree. Almost all structures nearest this development are only 4 stories -- so it is uncertain if they will get the need approval...which will just drag the process out longer. The 20+ and 31+ story building are going to negatively impact many of the property owners nearby in terms of sunlight and I've heard many are unhappy with the design of the project.