Low-carbon construction: check
Passive low-energy design: check
Right next to a planned major transit stop: check
Mid-scale “missing middle” housing: check
Deluxe bicycling facilities instead of off-street parking: check
A recent proposal for a Northeast apartment building seems tailor-made for the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which passed with pomp and circumstance by a 12-1 City Council vote in 2019. At the time, the plan codified ambitious citywide goals around housing, equity, transportation and climate action, in part by making big steps to encourage density and investment throughout the city.
So it was a big deal last month when an apartment proposal by a local, small-scale developer hit a wall. In a rare case where commissioners overturned staff recommendations, the Minneapolis Planning Commission voted 6-3 to deny the application. The case is going to the Minneapolis City Council’s Business, Inspections, Housing, & Zoning Committee for a decision next Tuesday, with another public hearing scheduled.
Combining affordable housing with climate action
Cody Fischer, a self-described “building science” nerd, became interested in housing as he grew frustrated by the lack of options in much of Minneapolis. As a result, two years ago Fischer built an unusual sixplex behind a duplex he owned in northeast Minneapolis, one of the most innovative infill projects I’ve seen. The Van Buren proposal is his next investment idea: a 23-unit apartment building on a single-lot right next to NE Central Avenue.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Bill Lindeke[/image_credit][image_caption]Vacant land next to the proposed building.[/image_caption]
Fischer’s four-story building proposal will offer a mix of studio and one-bedroom apartments in the heart of Northeast Minneapolis. The area certainly has a housing shortage, with high demand for apartments in between the towers of Central-Hennepin and the popular Northeast Minneapolis Arts District.
“It’s a 60-foot-wide lot at Van Buren with alley access, and [the city’s] Corridor 6 overlay was ideal,” Fischer told me, referring to the Minneapolis 2040 zoning changes that allows for six-story development on the parcel. “And it’s obviously a spectacular location from a transit, commerce, amenities and jobs perspective.”
For climate action, the bells and whistles on the building are something that I’ve not seen this side of a European architecture studio. The building incorporates high R60 insulation standards, solar heat gain capture, and what Fischer describes as “minimal continuous thermal envelope,” which I had to look up. The end result is what Fischer hopes will be a model for how to combine affordable housing with climate action.
“It will be fully electrified and solar powered, 60% more energy efficient than anything built today, with low embodied carbon,” Fischer told me. “With 40% of carbon emissions globally coming from buildings, the next decade is critical for the planet. What we build, how we build and where we build will be decisive about whether we avoid the worse impacts of climate change.”
The character of the neighborhood
Admittedly the site is a bit unusual. The apartments would abut an alley running between NE Van Buren Street and local parkland along busy Central Avenue, one of Minneapolis main drags. The street’s #10 bus is one of Minneapolis highest ridership routes, and is slated for a multimillion-dollar service upgrade with the Metro Transit F Line project in 2025. Within two years, people living in the new building will have some of the best transit service in the state.
But that all depends on city approval, which is in limbo as two dozen neighbors from in and around Van Buren Street called into the Planning Commission with objections to the apartments. The main complaints were traffic, parking, shadows, and concerns over the process around the 2040 Plan zoning changes.
[image_credit]City of Minneapolis[/image_credit][image_caption]The Built Form map in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan.[/image_caption]
The “character of the neighborhood” is not just a frequent topic at community meetings, but is often part of the findings written into city zoning codes. At the same time, neighborhood character is always in the eye of the beholder.
For example, within two blocks of the Van Buren property you find: a 50-year-old, 20-story public housing tower; Lush, a former warehouse converted into a thriving gay bar; windowless industrial uses like an electronic recycling plant and a seed supply warehouse; and the Vegas Lounge, Minneapolis’ best karaoke dive. Meanwhile, there are duplexes and a four-unit apartment building just a few doors down on Van Buren Street. If anything this site illustrates the rich diversity and density of Northeast Minneapolis.
Still, the testimony convinced a few commissioners to change their minds, even though the ensuing debate over the staff report centered on things outside the zoning code like parking or contested driveway access. As a result, what should have been a perfunctory plan application was rejected. Third Ward Council Member Michael Rainville, who represents the area, made the motion, calling the plan “just not a good project” and stating that the applicant had “not been very neighborly.”
I reached out to Rainville for this story, but he said he is unable to comment due to the quasi-judicial nature of this kind of case.
Setting a precedent for 2040 changes
The Van Buren impasse calls into question the ambitious upcoming overlays that are a key part of the Minneapolis 2040 plan. One of the middle-ground zoning changes, Corridor 6 zoning, is sprinkled all over Minneapolis’ commercial streets: along the North Minneapolis riverfront, West Broadway, Hennepin, Lyndale and Nicollet in South Minneapolis, and a dozen other key transit routes. In theory, any property along those streets can “by right” be developed into a multi-story apartment building. In practice, this decision from the City Council will set a precedent for all those communities going forward.
The stakes are high, because a recent study by the Denver-based climate think tank RMI analyzed local actions that cities can take, and found that urban infill is the single most effective kind of climate action. Focusing on the specific number of trees, while ignoring the density and impacts of new energy-efficient housing next to transit, is a recipe for climate inaction.
At the very least, Cody Fischer will probably have a good lawsuit on his hands, but what he really wants to do is see more apartments built next to transit in Minneapolis.
“For me what I was trying to build is an urban cyclists, pet-lovers paradise for people that want transit, a bike-oriented lifestyle, and to live with a low carbon footprint,” Fischer told me. “We’d take that story, and show everyone in our market that you can do that exact same thing. It’s an up-front cost premium, but it reduces maintenance and utility costs in the long-term. That’s my vision for it. “
It’s downright embarrassing to be represented by Michael Rainville.
When an experienced political figure like CM Michael Rainville says that a developer has not been neighbor-friendly, take him at his word. Those of us who have read the ostensibly lawsuit-ready denied development proposal here are aware that what was particularly not friendly to those already living and investing in the immediate neighborhood was a bit of developer arrogance that made him think that he didn’t have to consult the neighbors before presenting his “suddenly, this big thing on the block” proposal to the city. Did this developer ever even consider that, maybe, it doesn’t FIT? Like a too-big but lovely sofa, trying to fit into the tiny living room of a single-bedroom apartment?
That non-consultation, pace Bill Lindeke’s constant pro-2040 Plan drumbeat, was a massive problem with the approval process for Minneapolis 2040, and thus with many of its provisions. He and others keep insisting on turning their backs to the fact that there was, and continues to be, fierce opposition to a number of features of that plan, stemming from process but separable from it to substantive issues.
Like not considering whether the particular PLACE proposed for this wonderful ecologically-wise development is appropriate. It’s not on Central Ave., no matter how much Mr Lindeke would have us forget that fact. It is off that transit corridor, on a quieter street, and not surrounded by super-dense or commercial structures. Plus, why should a perfectly viable single-family house be destroyed to build new, when the city has lots of spaces where naturally-occurring affordable housing need not be destroyed for the development?
What we have here is what seems to be an intelligent energy-saving development whose gung-ho proposer has run up against social realities, like live people already in a place, who believe that place matters. Not just plans on paper, or an intellectually-satisfying set of ideas in the abstract.
Let this developer pick a different place to put a tall, dense apartment structure. There are many places in the city that are either vacant or have severely dilapidated structures on them and are not surrounded by people who kind of like where they live.
The address in question is 1/2 a block off of Central Ave, about 450 feet from an intersection with 2 bus stops, and 1 & 1/2 blocks from Broadway, around 1200 feet to another pair of bus stops. When I worked downtown I walked comparable distances every day for 20 years to catch the bus and considered it an easy walk. It is the height of disingenuousness to frame the location as you did like it’s deep within an unwalkable suburban area miles from transit.
Current density-uber-alles mantras so popular among urban theorists who don’t like to consider the real-life effects of their “edges versus centers” slicing and dicing of our neighborhoods, where propinquity to any transit corridor makes all existing single-family and duplex housing vulnerable to the whims of any developer who can find less expensive real property ( aka, “naturally-occurring affordable housing,” another sustainability/equity goal) to demolish to Build New/Better/Denser.
In this instance, we are to accept without a whisper of dissent that living within one-half a block of a major corridor like Central Ave. is the same thing as living ON Central Avenue. Well, no.
I live a fairly peaceful half a block from an even more active corridor–East Hennepin Avenue, which is a county road where many tens of thousands of daily drivers include those who routinely go over the speed limit (and where Minneapolis placed one of its early, and since outlawed, red-light cameras to catch speeders). That half a block distance from a corridor is vital, and means that while I can walk to take a bus to downtown, I don’t have to live with the noise and dirt of a major corridor right outside my window.
Again, there are real-life complications to a no-exceptions mantra stemming from theoretical positions.
And, can we stop name-calling? Using dismissive ad hominems like NIMBY and “snobs” to describe those who criticize anything at all about any single development proposal in Minneapolis weakens your argument.
I’m thankful you make the case for allowing significant increases in density off of busy streets. You don’t have to live with the noise and dirt of a major corridor right outside your window, and it’s an important equity consideration to ensure thousands of others have the freedom to choose that option as well. Don’t relegate apartment-dwellers to dangerous, dirty traffic sewers!
People want housing in places that are attractive to live. Not in lots that are near high traffic or industrial sights. People living on a street don’t have the right to determine the exact amount of people living on that street or in that neighborhood. There can be valid concerns raised (I think shadow issues are one) but a simple “I don’t like it near me” isn’t a valid argument. For people who want that life, there are developments where owners agree to authoritarian HOA laws.
To me the big issue is parking. No off-street parking, for a building with 23 units? This is DISCRIMINATION against people who for various reasons can’t or don’t want to be bikers. Older people, people with disabilities, people with kids — none of them will be able to live in this building if there is no off-street parking.
Why is discrimination against certain groups of people, ESPECIALLY older people who might want to live in that area, okay in the name of eco-friendliness?
NO building should be allowed if it does not provide a reasonable amount of parking for people who don’t want to be forced bicyclists.
The parcel, the whole side of the street it’s on is corridor 6- which as you should know means up to 6 stories no problem with options to get to 8. To complain about a 4 story building is truly “not having a leg to stand on”.
You make good points. One of the issues with 2040 that is overlooked is that if you then build density on what were single family homes/duplexes, you then bring in more people, more traffic, less open space. Some may be ok with it, but some who own may move and it may affect home values. If you look in the suburbs, some of the newer ones, do mixed housing a bit better in terms of allowing open spaces, some distance to give at least an illusion of more open space. There will be some who want more distance and open spaces and will move further out to find that.
The design in the photo is not terrible, but it does seem rather out of place and might be better next to larger buildings. You can build high density in single family neighborhoods, but then be realistic about the impact–more may move, you may lose some of that tax base and people may move further out.
I agree with some of what you say but what I think my sway you and others within the neighborhood is better esthetics. The new high density apartment buildings that are popping up all over the city are atrocious. It’s like Ikea and Legos got together to create an architectural style both childish and cheap and it sticks out like an ugly old thumb rather than tying the neighborhood together. How about we do all the good things about the design – high density, affordable (hopefully) and environmentally friendly and then combine that with complimentary design to the rest of the housing nearby? Why not build something in the style that the existing neighbors already obviously embrace? This is what fill-in building should accomplish. The houses nearby are turn of the century to the 40s. There has to be a way to incorporate classic design and modern building practices (also, there are empty lots all over this city, you don’t have to destroy housing to build housing)
Maddening. 2040 is supposed to take these types of subjective obstacles out in favor of “by right” in these targeted locations. Rainville is not distinguishing himself here.
The design sounds interesting and I don’t see any issue with the general location (which you can find specifically with a little Google Maps work). The one thing that I can’t quite get around with these projects, though is the neighbor that is going to have a property that goes from a nice sunny spot to being completely in the shade.
We wouldn’t accept a building that would cause some sort of terrible odor or make an annoying noise but somehow removing somebody’s sunlight is entirely acceptable. It is one thing if the person who purchased the neighboring property did so when zoning laws said building taller was a possibility. I’m not sure why the neighbor to the north of the new building should have to pay a price for the developer’s desires.
I agree with Dan 100%. it would be one thing if someone were to buy the property after the fact. But to allow this to be built and block the sun doesn’t seem right to me. Another wrote suggesting the developer buy the houses on either side. That would be a good compromise in my mind.
I know those looking to infill development don’t care about cars. Most people do have a car, and they have to park it somewhere so inevitably it will be on the street in front of their neighbors house. I don’t like that at all. Just my 02
Betsy, you don’t need to speculate here. According to census data available from MN Compass, about 1/4 of North Minneapolitans DO NOT HAVE CARS or DO NOT COMMUTE BY CAR. That is what we call statistically significant. Those people should be able to live in Northeast with good bike parking and without paying for car parking they will never use. We need rental housing. I need rental housing.
Stop worrying about others and worry about yourselves. Let people choose their own housing. You don’t have to like it. I personally am more offended by cars all over my city making my life dangerous, warming the planet. SUVs are ugly and more and more popular, and shown to be especially deadly to children, who drivers of SUVs cannot see. Can we ban our neighbors from buying those please??? It seems like we get to pick and choose.
Why are property rights only for single family home owners? This man owns the property and did everything that is legally required correctly. Now some randos get to make all his efforts and investment a waste of time. How is that okay for other property owners to endorse??
Sorry, Northeast Minneapolitans.
Another factor I never see mentioned in these housing discussions is taller buildings’ interference with radio, OTA television signals, cell phone reception and wireless internet signals (which are radio waves). A building was built behind my house (where I’ve lived for 30 years and is paid off) and they waived the zoning laws for the height of the building. Ever since it was built mine and all my neighbors’ internet, cell phone, TV and radio reception is all but destroyed. We, the citizens, own the airwaves and if I had the time and money I’d start a class action lawsuit. Everything effects everything people! I see a small segment of the population pushing their lifestyle on a much larger older segment with zero regard for their rights. Also – the claims of “smaller carbon footprints” of density is an oxymoron. More density overall means more vehicles overall – prove me wrong. And “if’s” won’t cut it. That means more greenhouse emissions. You can’t pick and choose who you rent to – that’s housing descrimination. Taking away car lanes also increases greenhouse emissions. Any claims that 2040 fights climate change are downright false or highly suspect at best. Math, physics and reality are not subject to popular opinion. As people get older their tastes and desires change. Wake up and face it or you’ll find yourself living in a polluted, broke and broken city. Thankfully I’ll be dead – good luck!
Nothing in the article suggests that the neighbors have particularly valid or worthwhile objections. The parking concern is itself laughable. Mostly, what I read was the usual NIMBY nonsense in opposition to A) change; B) density; C) “moderate” housing cost. I wonder how these same “neighbors” feel about “The Rafter” apartment building at Hennepin & 4th, only a couple blocks away. Much more out of scale with nearby residential, far, far more expensive, but hey, what’s not to like about upscale tenants? The opponents are, at best, snobs.
I don’t mind higher density but the Rafter project is in the middle of a complete commercial area and not at all comparable to this situation. I think supporting or dismissing all concerns out of hand is a recipe for failure.
Building an ugly 4 story box in the middle of a quaint neighborhood is a great way to destroy a city. Good for the neighbors and the planning commission for putting a stop to this. Aesthetics are just as important as building apartments next to bus stops.
Your disagreement with this development is no different than what many New Yorkers said about brownstones in the late 19th and early 20th century– it would ruin New York.
So you find the existing building on that lot to have quaint aesthetics? I wonder how many people agree with you. Here’s a link to the Google Street View of it: https://goo.gl/maps/x2DHuAiBZtxNmX1GA
So you think government knows better than the private markets? Are you going to stick with that?
Electing Michael Rainville was one of the worst mistakes made by Minneapolis voters last year. Here’s hoping the new district lines make it easier to replace him with someone who has a clue next year.
Don’t you realize that by electing Michael Rainville we got rid of Steven Fletcher?? Big improvement for the city.
Steve Fletcher was great. I supported his campaign. Michael Rainville wants to take us back to the 1960’s and will serve as little more than a rubber stamp for Mayor Frey for these next two years. I get his council newsletters and they are absolute fluff compared to the thoughtful and detailed policy updates Fletcher used to send out.
There is still a chance to impact whether this project gets built. If you want to weigh in on the appeal, email your Council Member and the member’s of the BIHZ Committee. Contact info for BIHZ Committee members: lisa.goodman@minneapolismn.gov; jamal.osman@minneapolismn.gov; ward3@minneapolismn.gov; jeremiah.ellison@minneapolismn.gov; ward9@minneapolismn.gov; ward10@minneapolismn.gov; councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov
Neighbors for More Neighbors also has an action alert with helpful guidance on how to weigh in:
https://mailchi.mp/0c30f588abec/action-alert-2040-vanburen
City council in 2019 “We’re going to revisit our zoning and encourage more density in formerly single family neighborhoods!”
City council in 2022 “Well yes, but actually no.”
I’m curious, what was the breakdown in votes as far as members who were on the council in 2019 and the newly elected members? The guy who represents that area is a newly elected member and obviously voted against it, but I’m interested in how many other new members voted similarly.
“Focusing on trees” is not climate inaction. It’s vitally important, and this statement is just one example of the condescension sprinkled through this opinion piece. I approve of urban density in an environmentally friendly building, but not if the people who live near it don’t want it. They ought to have a say in whether or not a LARGE, boxy building goes up in their neighborhood — especially the two houses on either side. It’s also a good bet that everyone in the building will own a car, even if they ride the bus or bike to work, and that will create difficulties. But that thought seems not to occur to the author.
approve of urban density in an environmentally friendly building, but not if the people who live near it don’t want it.
But then you don’t approve, because someone will always object. What you mean in reality, is that you approve of development in areas where people who’s opinion you find irrelevant live, not people you consider to be similar to yourself. Hence why development needs to be encouraged and mandated by an entity that has the power to overcome those objections. Couldn’t say one way or the other whether this guy is a jerk or not, but I can tell you the building proposed certainly seems better than the usual “luxury condo” that’s been the development of choice in the sort of areas that the NIMBY contingent seems to find acceptable for expansion.
Weird, they’ve been building 6 story monstrosities all along Marshall, from Lowry south to Plymouth but a 4 story bike friendly building is a bridge too far? I wish they would have put up here by me at Lowry and Marshall, rather than the traffic and sun blocking piece of crap that went up.
Hank, that is exactly what popped into my mind. There is no consistency with this city council on development in NE Mpls.
This is absolutely infuriating. Shadows, parking and traffic!? Give me a break. Our community needs housing, and the planet needs this kind of bold new construction. Thanks, Bill, for covering this. I need somewhere to put my rage, if there’s something I can do to help this project get built as a Saint Paulite.
The building method is commendable, and I don’t think traffic or parking is a valid concern since the streets are publically owned. However, for the building owner just north of this proposed structure, the shadow question is genuine. It significantly changes how their property can be used and is a cost being placed on a single property owner. Simply dismissing it as frivolous shows a lack of good faith in the discussion because it fails to separate valid concerns from baseless opposition.
The current built form guidance for this parcel is Corridor 6, allowing 6 story developments on assembled sites (and up to 8 stories if they meet other plan goals). Considering this project is half as high as legally allowed, why does it seem out of line?
For the exact reason I mentioned, and you didn’t address. It significantly impacts the use of a single property (maybe a second to some degree) by putting that property entirely in the shade. It is a cost born by a single property owner who has owned the home since 2007, well before taller buildings were allowed next door. The fact that the zoning has changed doesn’t alter the very real impact on that owner. If the building were twice the height, the shade impact would likely impact additional properties.
If the efforts to increase density are for the public good, then the impact should be shared as evenly as possible across the public seeing the benefit. Parking, traffic and other typical concerns raised do this. The cost of street maintenance for example, is spread across those living on that street. There is also no expectation of exclusivity when it comes to public streets for any particular level of traffic or the ability to park.
Having the rules changed so that somebody can build a neighboring building that significantly impacts your ability to use your property is a regulatory taking—done, in this case, without any compensation. Simply saying that the building follows the rules assumes incorrectly that the rules are without flaw. As we have seen recently across the country in places like Texas and Florida, the fact that something becomes a rule doesn’t make it right.
Efforts to increase density are fine, but how those efforts manifest are vitally important and can’t simply be defended by claiming good intentions. Attempting to increase housing equity through inequitable rules doesn’t make sense. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments it would be possible to increase density by purchasing 2 lots and placing the new structure near the middle of the combined space. That would mean removing about 6 bedrooms (assuming 2 three-bedroom houses) in trade for 23. Not quite as good a ratio as the current proposal, but still significant. It also has the benefit of maintaining significant green space which is clearly vital to a healthy environment and neighborhood.
Hey, you mention the cost of street maintenance being shared. Ever think how it is truly unfair that people that bike and walk and take transit have to pay for repairing streets that they/we did not damage? Cars cause potholes and cars crash into street signs and commit property damage, but we still have to pay property taxes (yes, renters pay property tax too) that clean up drivers’ messes! (yes, buses are cars, but so many more people fit in a bus so it’s still not fair). We pay for the MPD that gives parking tickets. The costs are not distributed equitably. We’re subsidizing your polluting driving.
Can you see how things are not truly fair? and how your objections to the thought that some people might want to live in this potential apartment building (including older people looking to age in place, if you read the public comments) really have no business having any influence on this decision? Single family home owners are not owed stasis. I did think shelter was considered a right, as it is a human need. Go to the park for sun if there’s shade sometimes; they’re award-winning here.
Drivers pay a large gas tax that I believe is exclusively dedicated to pay for street maintenance. That tax also largely built those streets to begin with. That’s in addition to the property taxes and assessments property owners pay that renters do not. Renters generally get property tax refunds unless their incomes are too high. Also – buses are way heavier than cars so they do more damage. Unrelated to your comment – not providing vehicle parking ramps when you’re changing zoning laws to massively increase density is to deny reality. No matter how much you wish them away cars are here to stay. I wish I could afford to buy an EV but that’s not reality either. The blame for the harm of cars and emissions falls squarely onto greedy car manufacturers and big oil. They’ve known about the harm for over 50 years but have bribed and used propaganda to perpetuate their money-machine monopolies. Drivers are simply choosing the best form of transportation available for safety, carrying people and cargo – they didn’t choose the design of what’s available. We can work together on this if we accept the imperfections of reality and focus on harm reduction and solutions that work in the real world.
Streets have been around for much longer than cars, and cars don’t damage streets.
Weather does far more damage than standard passenger cars, and only heavy vehicles like buses and trucks are heavy enough to create deflection of the road surface that causes damage. One bus with 50 people does notably more damage than 100 cars. This is a very well-understood engineering fact, not a political issue.
Streets have existed far longer than cars have been around and even if somebody doesn’t own a car they use the street. Providing access to emergency providers and deliveries is something everyone uses even if they don’t have a car. They also provide the pathway for underground infrastructure in a way that allows it to be maintained. This is why streets are paid for primarily by property taxes.
Your statement on the shade issue is basically “let them eat cake”. Why should certain residents be forced to pay a larger price for increasing density than others? The idea of that flies completely in the face of providing a public good that is paid for based on the ability of people to pay. It is also counter-productive because it makes all homeowners feel like they could be next and many won’t support policies that put them at risk. Light plays a huge role in mental health and simply telling people to go to a park after the natural light inside their home is eliminated is completely tone deaf. If somebody opened a metal grinding shop next to your home or apartment and made loud noises all times of day or night, you would rightly complain. Unless you think they should just tell you to go to the park if you want some quiet time.
While I am not opposed to the NE location as I see the value in this type of housing, how about, in addition, building these over Northside in appropriate, approved by the community areas, and along Broadway. There are numerous more than perfect locations Northside as well as NE, which seems to be getting quickly crammed up with new apartments. Plus, over North there is a much greater need for long deserved economic development. The tornado years ago swept away many homes and left areas ripe for new (and all) types of housing.
Okay – here’s an off-the-wall thought. Looking at the picture of that box crowded so closely to the homes on either side, I had this idea: What if instead of shoehorning this box into a single home lot, they were to instead take out TWO single homes and center it on the thusly-created double lot?
It’s still more density – 23 units replacing 2 single family homes instead of one. But it’s not so crowded up against the homes on either side, thus letting in more sunlight and perhaps being less visually jarring.
Of course, I don’t know what the situation is with the current homeowners and whether there are two side-by-side that are willing to part with their houses for this. But theoretically, it might be an angle worth considering.
Thank goodness sanity prevailed in the Third Ward with the election of Mike Rainville, a long-time neighborhood activist who knows what sane development looks like. The proposal by Cody Fisher isn’t it. The 23 unit, six story, flat roofed building proposed right next to a one-story single-family home is completely out of character with the block. The staff report shows that every single property on that block face and the one across the street is opposed to the development. The single-family home at 635 Van Buren had side yards of 10 feet on each side. The new building would be four stories tall and have five foot side yards. There are NO parking spaces proposed. But, that’s ok because the city stupidly eliminated parking requirements and cars can be parked in front of other people’s houses on the block if the residents have them. Ya, right! Those opposed to the 2040 plan changes, have been waiting for a proposal like this to show how unworkable the ideas in the 2040 plan are. Mr. Rainville, vote NAY and amend the city plan to be more workable.
Maybe the developer should think about adding what the community needs, rental units for families. Stop with the 1 bedroom and efficiencies and think about 2 or 3 bedrooms and a bath and 1/2. Since the 2040 plan seems to want to add more people in less space, and eliminate single FAMILY homes we need somewhere to house actual FAMILIES.
Most homes in the Twin Cities are designed for larger household sizes (e.g. 3+ people), while the actual household size has been shrinking for decades in the US. We actually need far more housing for people who live alone than we currently have today, especially in cities like Minneapolis. Here’s some data on it: https://streets.mn/2015/12/09/chart-of-the-day-us-household-composition-over-time/
Sure, average household sizes have been shrinking, but the problem Minneapolis 2040 claimed to solve was affordable housing for lower income families.
Folks, let’s be clear. We are talking about POC. We are talking about racial disparities that go back to the days of redlining and restrictive covenants.
Black families are twice as likely to have 4+ children. They are twice as likely to have grandparent or other extended family members. They are much less likely to own their own home, and thus build wealth over generations.
Yet all we have built over the last 15 years is rental housing. Nearly all of that has been upscale. Nearly all has been 1-2 bedrooms. Nothing in 2040 plan changes these trends; it only exacerbates these trends.
If Minneapolis truly wants to address housing disparities, if it truly wants to enable lower-income residents to own their homes and build equity, then we should repeal Minneapolis 2040 as fast as possible.
This is the smartest comment so far. Minneapolis 2040 is supposed to produce more housing, more affordable to more people especially those of lower income, and home ownership that allows people to create generational wealth. It is of course doing the opposite. All recent housing has been rental, not home-ownership. Nearly all has been upscale. Nearly all has been one, or two bedroom. These trends are entirely inimical to the goals of creating housing for families, that families can own and begin to gain equity. Beginning with the 2023 election we need to stop this absurd plan.
I thought that the 2040 comp plan allowed for duplexes and triplexes. I didn’t think it allowed for a 4 story building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And if it doesn’t, then this should not be built in the middle of single family houses. The building itself sounds pretty cool to me. Bill, couldn’t he find a better location that would be nearby? It sounds like that would be an easy compromise.
Am I the only one who’s finding these exercises in elitist urban fantasy to be getting kind of tedious? I have no interest in re-enacting the 2040 plan argument; but I remind everyone that the majority of predictions and claims attributed to the miracles “density” by urban aficionados ARE actually hypothetical at this point. Much like the would-be a priori claims of market efficiencies and development driven affordable housing, our urban academics have little or nothing to actually show us in this regard.
To some extent the efficiencies of density appear to emerge from common sense, but the reality is that using decades or century old housing and infrastructure to accommodate higher population density actually ends up costing more per capita in our cities and urban environments compared to newer suburbs. And it’s not cheap to tear down old buildings, prepare sites, and build new stuff. Infilling isn’t a cheap proposition. Retrofitting old building with more efficient HVAC, insulation, windows etc. just keeps getting more expensive, and many landlords who would theoretically benefit the most from such retrofits are in fact loath to spend their money on such expenses. Consequently the reality for most sizeable US cities is that the highest density housing is the most inefficient in terms of energy and resources. Differences in human behavior carry their own costs when you look at comparative environments as well; for whatever reason everything from policing to garbage collection tends to cost more as population increases.
Sure, we can look at cities in Europe and elsewhere that enjoy more density and better efficiency but those emerged from hundreds of years of completely different histories. Retrofitting US cities with those efficiencies is a completely different scenario.
None of this means density is “bad”, and obviously sprawl isn’t “good”, but people tend to forget or overlook the fact that these urbanist fantasies grow out of academic discussions by mostly white affluent participants with skewed perspectives. The elitism behind assuming you actually have a right to cram your building into a neighborhood other people live in speaks for itself. I actually can’t imagine a more dysfunctional notion of community and neighborhoods than one that would use lawsuits to jam buildings into neighborhoods that don’t want them. You can whine about NIMBYism if you want but are YOU planning to live there? Thousands of apartments shoehorned into lots on streets with houses, filled with cyclists living in studio apartments may be an interesting dream, but it’s not an inevitable for even necessarily a realistic outcome. Urbanist fantasies have a tendency of crashing when they run into the people who are actually supposed to live in the place. And if you think you have a RIGHT to demolish neighborhoods in order to build your dream on the wreckage you can’t claim to have the best interests of the community in mind.
Beyond all of this, the photo of the lot where this thing is supposed to go up doesn’t match the artist’s rendering does it? And maybe it’s just me, but that 4 story building looks like it’s just a tad taller than the two story house it’s sitting next to? What is the actual height of this thing?
When there are people who need homes, there’s a shortage of homes, and there are people willing to step up and build homes – it’s not an elitist urban fantasy to get out of the way and let people have places to live.
Also yes, the rendering is accurate – the proposal is only 9 ft higher than the height of the house to the north. Click on the “apartment proposal” hyperlink in the second full paragraph to see the packet.
Thank you Matthew,
Obviously simply building homes isn’t a sufficient response to the housing crises, makes a difference what type of “homes” you build and where. It’s not the mere desire to build a home that can make a proposal elitist, it’s the type, design, location, and variety of presumptions that can make such proposals elitist. Off hand this looks to me like student housing dropped into a working class neighborhood that isn’t next to a college campus. And as far as people who NEED housing, let’s not forget that this is NOT intended to house homeless people and for some reason the actual rent that will charged here isn’t actually provided.
Let’s all take a second to ponder this urgent recommendation of Matt’s: that we all “get out of the way and let [other] people have places to live.”
A fair number of us here are suggesting that the sacrifice Matt wants others to make so developers will build what Matt wants is not necessary: there are plenty of sites in Minneapolis to build a sustainably “green” structure housing lots of people.
But when we take into account the realtors’ famous line stressing the importance of “location, location, location,” we sense that 1) the NE property is much cheaper than the developer might find elsewhere in the city, and 2) the “people” targeted for the development are probably not the “people” actually living on the block today. The latter are supposed to just gather up their meager belongings and “get out of the way.”
Wonderful.
I can agree on the many positive aspects of this project and am completely at a loss on the site selection. The city has countless properties in their possession in need of development: Why not encourage the development they want with properties that fit the project?
And while this property is likely not one of them, I drove by Minnehaha and Lake last week and why is the burned out shell of the Third Precinct still standing as proof positive of urban blight? And other nearby buildings in similar shape?
The longer these remains hang around the more likely a 20 year period of failed recovery happens: Get these buildings torn down ASAP, if there are development obstacles, plant some grass and make it a presentable, usable space. A perfect goal for Mr. Strong Mayor.
The designation of this site as Corridor 6 on the Comprehensive Plan’s built form guidance probably had something to do with site selection.
I’m baffled at all the concerns over a 4 story building. Note that the houses on either side are THREE story buildings, not tiny little ramblers that would be absolutely shadowed by this building. Those 3 story houses already shadow each other. The only thing not shaded by every neighboring house in the neighborhood is their roofs. Yes, the house to the north will get some shade that it didn’t have before – but no one gets prevented from planting a tree that does the same thing (I wish our neighbor’s tree hadn’t been planted, but c’est la vie). While I do agree that, perhaps, the building would be better suited to a 2-lot site than a single lot site and oriented a little differently to allow for more back yard space and less shading of the neighbor’s back yard, the claim that this is a monstrosity in a quaint little neighborhood is nonsense. I know that people do complain when someone tears down a cute little 2-story in Minneapolis in order to build one of those brand new 3 and 4 story monsters that tiptoes property lines on all sides, but no one gets blocked from building those monstrosities because they’re SINGLE FAMILY houses. Those homes are no less incongruous (or light blocking or property crowding) in those neighborhoods than this building is at the proposed location. And, as “quaint” as this neighborhood is, it’s a block from Vegas Lounge and a fairly industrial section of town, along with the railroad. This isn’t a quiet little neighborhood. I know that no one has a right to make it less peaceful than it is, but adding this housing isn’t nearly as much of a problem as that nice tight rendering at the top of the article makes it appear.
Well, we always marvel at the tempests in other peoples tea pots but no so much when it’s our own tea pot.
There’s no arguing taste but I’m not impressed with this design personally, I don’t think these aluminum clad miracles are going to hold up well over the decades but we’ll see.
I think the real issue being raised here is about the powers voters gave to developers, investors, flippers, and a variety of other people don’t live and don’t have to care about what they’re actually doing to the city. 2040 gives landowners the power to jam their density dreams into almost any lot in the city and I’m not sure the people who actually live in MPLS understood that when they authorized it. Basically 2040 give density dreamers the power to colonize MPLS without having to live there, and that’s clearly a recipe for conflict. And I remind everyone again that the principles behind this colonization have yet to be demonstrated in any scale in a US city.
Even in a bicycle centric world, the idea that 23 units will not have at least a dozen cars with no place to park is a little concerning. And at even 1.5 people per unit we’re looking at 30+ residents. I’ll bet that it would take at least 6 other houses in the neighborhood to hit that number. Again, seems like a good project in a bad location.
Edward… we’re going to force everyone out of their cars- that’s how colonization works. 🙂
If you take a look, most (if not all) of those houses have garages that look to be 1+ car garages, and each with a bonus 2-car parking pad in front of the garage. And nice, roomy, well-maintained alleys that allow easy access to those garages and parking pads. Home owners in that neighborhood don’t need to park on the street, since every house on that block has space off the street for at least 3 cars. And yet they do. So, I bet it would take less than 6 houses to get to a dozen cars. More importantly, I bet it takes a lot more houses to house your posited 30 people. Also, the point of placing the building at that site is very easy access to public transportation. Limit/restrict/remove parking on the street. Et viola! You select people without vehicles (and encourage home owners to park their cars off the street, too). Everyone praising the rejection of this permit is giving generic “reasons” that they’re supposedly right. Take an actual look at that neighborhood. Most, if not all, of those generic problems are irrelevant.
And Paul, your initial reason for thinking it’s a bad idea is that it isn’t pretty enough? I admit I’m surprised that that’s your response to the points in my post. I’m all for maintaining the general feel of a neighborhood, but the current building on that lot isn’t terribly attractive already, and certainly doesn’t resemble the neighboring houses in style or size. The proposed building, aluminum-clad or otherwise, is no more hideous than the building that’s currently there. The rest of your point appears to be “well, nobody has tried it, so it can’t work” or maybe “of course NIMBY,” which are of course, the chicken and the egg. Which begs the question, what specific conflicts do you anticipate that are specific to this site? I have seen nothing in either the article or the comments that amount to more than general resentment. WHY is that resentment justified? Is there a compromise between un/justified resentment and actual real world changes that the developer can make to the proposal that might work to satisfy both parties?
You both need to take a gander at the satellite images and street images that Google so helpfully provides if you’re unwilling to take a drive and/or stroll through the neighborhood (here you go: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9960697,-93.2484264,70m/data=!3m1!1e3). I, myself, have driven (and taken the bus) past that neighborhood on Central many, many times. The overall area (within a block of the proposed site) is very, very busy. The picture at the top of this article provides absolutely no context for the area.
“And Paul, your initial reason for thinking it’s a bad idea is that it isn’t pretty enough?”
Thank you Rachel,
Actually no, you seem to have misread my comments. My initial concerns have nothing to do with the aesthetics of this design, that’s why I didn’t mention it in my initial post. I wouldn’t expect a project to be accepted or rejected based on my personal like or dislike for it’s appearance. I’m just sharing my personal opinion since your brought it up. Personally, yeah, I myself would rather live next to one of those houses than a boxy aluminum clad four story apartment building, if you don’t like the current building of course we can imagine something better, but it’s not necessarily THIS apartment building.
As for anticipated conflicts, this article clearly describes THAT conflict which is currently under way, it’s not hypothetical. The fact these density principles haven’t been tried doesn’t prove they don’t work, but that’s NOT the assumption behind 2040. The assumption behind 2040 is that unproven principles WILL work, that’s actually an illogical assumption.
If this were merely an academic discussion such hypotheticals wouldn’t be a problem, but this is established law that ostensibly gives the developer the “right” to cram any six story or less building into a space like this in any neighborhood. I don’t have to worry about this out in my suburban paradise but I don’t think this is going to fly very far or high once they actually try to practice it in MPLS. This is a story about REAL building someone wants to build in a REAL MPLS neighborhood.
I’m not actually for or against this particular building, I’m against the idea of giving so much power to owners, landlords, and developers. Local government is supposed to work for the people who actually live under it’s jurisdiction. When we start labeling citizens as NIMBY obstructionist and assume that anyone trying to make a buck off of property in the neighborhood is the REAL voice of the community… I don’t think that ends well. Why are we assuming that hipster thirty-something with a nifty building idea KNOWS what MPLS neighborhoods ought to look like and how they should function?
And I hate to say it but unless we’re talking about a different Cody Fischer, this guy doesn’t even have a website or a real business listing in MN. It doesn’t look like he’s ever built anything like this before so who knows what would actually end up being built if anything? I’m not disparaging the guy, let’s assume he’s a great guy in every way; I’m just saying do you REALLY want a city that gives people like this the actual legal RIGHT to cram their buildings into any neighborhood of their choice? Apparently, and please correct me if I’m wrong… THAT’S the reality 2040 creates.
Suburban boomer man yells at clouds, invents new NIYBY group. Details tonight at 6 on WCCO.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
All good points that I can agree with, except for the need to offer some respect for the neighbors who seem 100% opposed. Just telling them:
“We have a master plan, you’ll like it in the end and if not, too bad”
And sometimes that just needs to be the final answer, like in SWLRT routing where the number of options is very limited. In this case, I followed your link, flipped over to street view and meandered up and down Central Ave. and saw many viable options.
“Limit/restrict/remove parking on the street. Et viola! You select people without vehicles (and encourage home owners to park their cars off the street, too).”
Just deny housing to anyone who doesn’t agree with us – easy! So housing descrimination is the answer. Maybe we’ll just “select” people who don’t ride bikes, aren’t disabled, don’t have blond hair….
What continues to baffle and alarm me is that we persist in this propensity of ignoring our own experts.
Mpls has a long history of commissioning reports that then just sit on shelf. MAYBE to be referred to. Probably to be lost and forgotten (‘like the Workgroup I worked on! Where are our reports?)
But when Heather Worthington, former Director of Long Range Planning for the City of Mpls speaks, one would expect more of a reaction!
Ms Worthington, as the Primary Architect, author, planner, promoter & pusher of the 2040Plan can be recognized as seriously PRO- DEVELOPMENT, PRO- DENSITY
(with the build-baby-build mantra!).
Without question ~ the 2040 was HER baby and she was gonna see that it was adopted!
All that said :
If THIS woman says there is problem ~ that this little slice of NE Mpls was mistakenly upzoned from Interior 1 to Corridor 6 ~ I believe her!
There is NO ONE in this town who knows 2040 better.
So the question becomes ;
Are we really going to ignore the (huge elephant in the room?
Are we simply going to build on top if what may prove to be an error?
IF there is a lawsuit in the offing (and it doesn’t appear that Cody will need one as the council seems ready to approve)
The lawsuit will be the neighborhood vs the city.
And here…imho..based on the strength of Worthingtons status and her own words..
It is the neighborhood that has the winning hand.
So much more to say.
I’ll save it for a Commentary piece which I hope will be printed as a counter point !
Hang in there 635 Van Buren.
The larger fight is in your favor
It’s not just the height, it’s also the shape.
A big blocky square will block more light next to it for more of the day as the sun transits the sky than a structure with two angled planes joined at the top (i.e. a typical household roof) even at similar heights. That’s just geometry.
I haven’t followed the Minneapolis planning and zoning makeover for a couple years, but I think the commission was on solid ground to deny this. The sleight of hand, in my opinion, is mixing the old zoning code for land use (by rezoning to R3, which permits “Multiple-family dwelling, four (4) units or more”) with the new Building Form regulations. Rezoning is always discretionary and will only be granted on appeal under very specific circumstances. While state statute requires the zoning code to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, I doubt that the developer can compel them to do this ahead the established process. Moreover, I doubt that a consistent land use would require unlimited multifamily units. There is basically a gap between R1 and R2 (up to 3 units) and R4 (unlimited) that will probably be addressed in the future land use regulations. I bet that if the proposal had been for 4 units, it would have sailed through.
Who is this learned man and what does he know of floating ducks? 🙂
I’m just now reading this opinion piece and the comments, but what strikes me is the inconsistency in the Built Form Map. In most of the City, the Corridor 6 designation, which would make this project an encouraged use, extends from the transportation corridor to the first parallel alley on either side, with a more restrictive Interior designation between the first alley and the first street. In this case the land from Central Avenue to the alley is designated Park, while the land from the alley to the first street is designated Corridor 6. If the Built Form Map were consistent in this neighborhood with the practice elsewhere, this project would be on land designated Interior 3 for buildings up to 3 stories (encouraging triplexes, not 23-unit apartment buildings) and the staff should have recommended denial.
“For me what I was trying to build is an urban cyclists, pet-lovers paradise for people that want transit, a bike-oriented lifestyle, and to live with a low carbon footprint,” Fischer told me. “
So…let’s just force older folks, the non-buff, the large families out of Mpls and replace them with “urban cyclists”? Why do these people think they have the right to remodel the city in their own image? While the demographic experiencing the most growth in our city is the elderly? While immigrant families typically need and have a hard time finding affordable homes with several bedrooms?
These Mpls 2040-style projects are a way for developers and landlords to make money by eliminating homeownership and opportunities for ordinary families to create wealth.
Or, it’s almost like there’s a large menu of choices in the market and people can choose what they want. Want a garage or a dedicated spot for car storage? This probably isn’t the place for you. Want a 3 BR unit for a larger family? This isn’t the place. But is it any shock that once we eliminate things like apartment bans and mandated car storage, that the market fills in the options which have been intentionally suppressed for a half century?
Matthew, we don’t live in smorgasbord “markets”. These are neighborhoods, communities, homes, and cities, and we are the human beings who live there. We forget these facts at our own peril. Consumerism has always been a poor substitute for humanity.
Yes Mary – the 2040 plan elements I see being implemented serve a very narrow demographic – mostly worker bees for corporate interests that are seduced by pseudo-luxury lifestyle amenities for the young & single. I don’t blame these people for being too young & inexperienced to understand that any massive overhaul of transportation, housing etc. is going to bring huge problems along with it that they are not anticipating. A major influx of the cars many of them are so opposed to is going to be the new reality. You want greenhouse gas emissions to spike? Then you’re headed very quickly in that direction. More cars = more congestion = more emissions. I believe the entire 2040 plan needs to be paused and studied for a couple of years to see the effects as they develop and adjusted as new evidence surfaces before we reach the point of no return. The speed at which it’s being implemented alone is highly suspect and warnings need to be heeded from people who understand how crime and other problems increase with density. This is why so many apt. buildings were eliminated in the first place. And these buildings are only “affordable” to people of above-average income. Plus – they don’t stay shiny & new forever – absentee owners don’t tend to keep up properties. In a few years they can become run-down slums. People’s wants and needs change constantly as they age. What looks like a good idea now may look ridiculous in a few short years.
There are 2 important boxes this project doesn’t check
1st. There is little demand for efficiency units in the Twin Cities. Even single people don’t like to live in them. So some of them will always be vacant.
2nd Residents will own 15 to 20 cars. Because there is no off street parking all these cars will park on the street. Which is a major life style change for everyone living on that block. Owners who currently park in front of their home may have to park half a block away. Think about carrying 2 bags of groceries in 10 below weather half a block compared to in front of their home.
Some will say this is no big deal. If you are a frail senior citizen or a handicapped person its definitely an issue.
The additional 15 to 20 cars on the street will increase the time emergency vehicles take to get to their destination. Which may cost someone’s life or permanent injury.
Everyone knows that everyone drives slower especially emergency vehicles which are wider than cars when cars are parked bumper to bumper on both sides of the street.
If you have never lived on a block where cars are parked bumper to bumper on both sides of the street from 7 pm to 8 am you really don’t comprehend the impact. If you have a party all your guests have to park on the next block. Some guests will not come because they don’t want to walk that far especially late at night when the party is over. By the middle of the winter the parking lanes will be snow packed and sometimes ice because not everyone moves their car during snow emergencies. Some people don’t move their car because they don’t know of a place close by to party.
Why should other residents pay to provide free parking of this apartment building. When street is rebuilt or there are major repairs the homeowner pays to repair the street in front of his home, which he can’t park on because residents of this apartment building are always parked in front of his home.
I lived for 8 years on a street where parking at night was always bumper to bumper on both sides of the street for the entire block. This was a definitely a real negative for my quality of life. If you have never lived in this situation you really can’t comprehend how it negatively impacts your quality of life.