SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 148 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
The renderings look very promising. It should dramatically improve the streetscape leading to the greenway and the station, which is a real ancillary benefit. If you're a wealthy manager type working in downtown Minneapolis without multiple kids, then there might not be a more suitable place for you in the entire city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
^^ Yes... The NYMBY'S will attack! Keep putting up obstacles and costly regulations and delays on developers......And people wonder why the costs of these these projects keep going up which gets passed on to the renters/buyers of these units!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
I like the development and hope it goes through as is BUT as we all know this neighborhood is going to push back HARD!! Theory.....this developer knows this and so he proposes two identical towers. There is little additional cost to design and propose 2 identical towers. Propose two and compromise with the NIMBYs to get one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
If you're not the type of person who gets active and writes to your city councilperson or goes to city hall to speak on these developments, now might be the time to change your ways. This development will really improve the street grid and density around an LRT stop, but given the location, the NIMBY backlash will be intense here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
I like the development and hope it goes through as is BUT as we all know this neighborhood is going to push back HARD!! Theory.....this developer knows this and so he proposes two identical towers. There is little additional cost to design and propose 2 identical towers. Propose two and compromise with the NIMBYs to get one?
Interesting thought!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
I like the development and hope it goes through as is BUT as we all know this neighborhood is going to push back HARD!! Theory.....this developer knows this and so he proposes two identical towers. There is little additional cost to design and propose 2 identical towers. Propose two and compromise with the NIMBYs to get one?
Interesting thought!!
I wouldn't be surprised, as mentioned above, that they have a plan "B." Perhaps one tower, or two 15-story towers with fewer units. Something will go here, just not this plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised, as mentioned above, that they have a plan "B." Perhaps one tower, or two 15-story towers with fewer units. Something will go here, just not this plan.
I usually agree but in this case I just don’t think the n’hood has much to complain about. No views would be blocked by anybody other than the original Calhoun Tower. Any shadowing wouldn’t reach the SFHs in the area, and certainly wouldn’t impact the lake or park, since it’s mostly south of the site. Traffic in the area wouldn’t change much as it’s already a major thoroughfare that handles WAY more commuters than just the immediate area generates alone. Somebody can tell me if this is wrong but I suspect the site is already either zoned for development at or near this intensity, and even if not I can see the approval of SWLRT and the nearby station as a major incentive to allow any changes/overrides to the existing small area plan.

My bigger concern is the developer. It seems well outside their typical MO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
I usually agree but in this case I just don’t think the n’hood has much to complain about. No views would be blocked by anybody other than the original Calhoun Tower. Any shadowing wouldn’t reach the SFHs in the area, and certainly wouldn’t impact the lake or park, since it’s mostly south of the site. Traffic in the area wouldn’t change much as it’s already a major thoroughfare that handles WAY more commuters than just the immediate area generates alone. Somebody can tell me if this is wrong but I suspect the site is already either zoned for development at or near this intensity, and even if not I can see the approval of SWLRT and the nearby station as a major incentive to allow any changes/overrides to the existing small area plan.

My bigger concern is the developer. It seems well outside their typical MO.
People are already against it because of the "environmental impact" on the lake. Ugh.
 
1 - 20 of 148 Posts
Top