Our favorite high-resolution photos of Midwest's third largest metro
Love the pics so far but why no love for St Paul? I'll help you out on this one because I love St Paul like I love all underdogs. No she doesn't have the impressive skyline like her sister Minny does but she has character. Minneapolis is Ginger while St Paul is Mary Ann. Minny's the Ying, but St Paul is the Yang. St Paul is a city I'd love to sit down and have a beer with, Minny, not so much. Minneapolis would be more like a wine cooler or a Mikes Hard Lemonade, LOL!Our favorite high-resolution photos of Midwest's third largest metro
I was just trying to add a little humor. I love the whole Twin Cities area, I just think St Paul gets short changed alot. St Paul has done a great job of blending in the old with the new as it seems they are more strict with what is torn down and what is saved, and they've saved some real gems.^^ Interesting use of an anthropomorphism. And I agree, Saint Paul has some of the nicest historic architecture in the region.
St Paul has done a great job of blending in the old with the new as it seems they are more strict with what is torn down and what is saved, and they've saved some real gems.
Is it a matter of St. Paul being more strict about development, or just the development craze that hit from the 60's-90's that resulted in all of Minneapolis's old warehouse/retail space redeveloped into skyscrapers missed St. Paul? I honestly don't know....
St. Paul was traditionally a less friendly business market....maybe because they had some problems passing big developments through city council, zoning commissions, etc.. Not sure if that's still true-- or if Central Corridor may change things if it is?
For some reason I remember hearing that the 500' height restriction was 'urban legend' for most of downtown, but no....?Downtown St. Paul has shorter height restrictions than Minneapolis. St. Paul zoning has no height limits per se, it uses FAR rules like any other city. But the Metropolition Airport across the river limits heights to no more than 500 feet w/in 20,000 feet. That number gets shorter the further east you go towards the landing routes. It limited the height of Cray (ex Galtier Plaza) Plaza. I believe the original design for the Wells Fargo Place (ex MN WTC) had 100 foot tall antennaes on it, but those we're nixed as well.
I wouldn't call St. Paul more strict than Minneapolis when it comes to development. Both cities have their share of NIMBYs and BANANAs (if you're not familiar with that one "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). I think it comes down to profitability. Rents are higher in Minneapolis than St. Paul. Construction costs are pretty much the same throughout the metro. Developers simply go where the money is. Minneapolis has more Fortune 500 companies, more entertainment options, more major sports teams, etc. Thus landlords can charge more rent.
But the CCLRT should swing things more towards St. Paul over the next 10-15 years. Several new proposals have already been announced. Plus, the Ford site will soon start seeing demolition and redevelopment. I think St. Paul could see a lot of cranes in the future.
I read about it in a book at the downtown Central library re: the MN WTC development. That development was about 25 years ago, so I can't say for certain its still in effect, but I wouldn't be surprised. DT StP also has pretty low FAR (floor area ratio) numbers. The highest is B4 which allows a FAR of 8. Minneapolis' CBD FAR is 16. So with the kind of FAR, it's pretty hard to get really tall w/out major variances.For some reason I remember hearing that the 500' height restriction was 'urban legend' for most of downtown, but no....?
Also, why did the Fortune 500's locate in Minneapolis in the first place? There wasn't a huge rent disparity between the two downtowns before any Fortune 500's existed in either. Granted, I guess a few were founded in Minneapolis and wanted to stay in that community, but that certainly hasn't stopped other companies from moving out to the burbs...