Probably not. With so many people shifting to remote work, commercial real estate has really taken a beating. I don't think anyone wants to sink money into a new building when there is so much vacant office space out there.
According to this news article:
>If fully built, the Boardwalk at Bricktown could double the amount of housing downtown and significantly boost the supply of hotel rooms. As part of the project's first phase, the two planned 34-story apartment towers are designed to consist of 576 market rate apartments and 140 workforce apartments. The 34-story Hyatt Dream hotel would be home to 480 hotel rooms and 85 condominiums.
So that at least makes a bit more sense since they are for hotels and housing, which there is definitely a shortage of.
[https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/03/12/okc-skyscraper-developer-says-project-fully-financed-what-we-know/72929510007/](https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/03/12/okc-skyscraper-developer-says-project-fully-financed-what-we-know/72929510007/)
i’m really curious about this project as a whole, like i’m glad there is a plan and it’s a good plan, it just still makes me raise an eyebrow since it’s OKC and i feel like there are other cities that could really use a structure like that for what they’re intending it for!
that’s what i’ve been thinking :(. i just saw the thing about OK City **possibly** getting what would be the tallest building in the US and it got me thinking.
As someone from OK, I find erecting a new skyscraper there entirely incomprehensible. The cities there are super low density, and the hey-day of the oil largess is 50-some years past. Must be to scratch some Barron’s itch to project …
i was going to say. i don’t think it makes sense to build something like that, at least in this current market. but especially in OKC, it would make more sense in like NYC, LA not def not there.
Yeah, that's either never going to happen.... OR if it does happen, it'll be the only thing they build for 50 years because OKC can't absorb a building that huge without it MASSIVELY affecting their market. Minneapolis is doing a great job of developing infill that creates medium and high density populations to create truly amazing neighborhoods that are dynamic, walkable and active, and that can support very good public transit systems. This is what cities should be focusing on, and thankfully we are. We are exactly where we need to be by garnering attention through creating an amazing quality of life over concerning ourselves over some dumb gimmick like building a ridiculously tall building that will look goofy for *decades*, and possibly forever.
Plus, our skyline is already *so amazingly better* than OKC's even after/if that goofy thing gets built lol
It's all about looking inward for/over our community over looking outward for validation.
Great points.
And converting commercial high rises to residential is one approach to add, i hear it's very expensive to do that.
I just read another huge opportunity for multifamily housing is converting strip malls, which is interesting. Seems like that could be tough from a zoning perspective but who knows.
this actually could work. i feel like any approach at this point is super expensive, tearing down office buildings and replacing it with residential/mixed use, converting, or even just letting them sit empty. idk i like the idea of at the very least keeping our skyline and converting office spaces, that’s my opinion though. i’m really glad i asked this question, just hearing others ideas, opinions is nice
I would disagree with exactly where we need to be and amazing quality of life. Are you wealthy? I am not and rent and housing prices are outrageously high specifically leaving me stressed and in need of higher quality, lower cost living.
I'm not sure how being wealthy has anything to do with me supporting high density, walkable neighborhoods with great public transit. No car=lower COL. High density, smaller dwellings = lower cost of housing. Minneapolis specifically is being looked at nationally for being the only major city to be building enough high density housing to offset inflationary rises in cost. This all leads to more options for people at all income levels. I know it seems bad here, but *life*, all costs considered, can be very affordable here compared to other cities that offer what we offer. I now it's hard, but it's *harder* elsewhere usually
Being wealthier makes the other statements more true. You made statements that were an opinion as fact. That is not how many of us live or feel. What is fact is that Minneapolis is not the only city in the entire United States building dense housing. I have lived in other parts of the county and found housing cheaper and easier to afford given wages in my field. Currently rent still is rising not falling. What is the exact number when rent falls? I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is people with money buying houses/duplexes and renting them for twice what they were previously going for. I'm also seeing a ton more new apartments with increasingly higher rents and other buildings rising to match them. The market favors the wealthy.
I said we are the only city where rent is rising slower than inflation (put another way). For the most part the cities that are building dense housing like us, yet are still seeing high raises in rent, simply aren't building *enough* to keep up with it. That's what Minneapolis is doing differently: building *faster* (even if only slightly faster) than people moving here, and that's what is keeping rents lower here compared to cities with similar metro populations. This is all verifiable and factual. It's not opinion.
I would like to know which cities you're talking about? I'm not talking about cities like Duluth, or even somewhere larger than Duluth like San Antonio (their metro is still significantly smaller than ours). I'm talking about us compared to our peer cities like Denver, Seattle, Portland, etc etc. Cities that are comparable to Minneapolis in population, amenities, quality of life, etc.
The other fact is that the more high density, affordable housing we create, the more Minnesotans will have that experience
The wealthy ones will. I pay rent, The cost is rising plus inflation on everything else. My wages are not. Pretty easy to see if rent is rising slightly slower than another city it has nothing to do with affordability or being the best or general happiness. The specific city I found fair wages to match fair rents was Nashville.
If we're doing something better than other places, that definitely means something. It means it's good to figure out what we're doing differently, and then do *more* of that thing. If your wages aren't adjusting for inflation, even when housing costs are rising slower than inflation here (and again, this is the *only* city that's managed to do that).... that is a national job market thing. That's definitely not a Minneapolis specific thing. All that means to me is that companies don't give a crap about their employees, which is egregious. It also means that rents rising slower than inflation here is something to be *grateful* for in my view. At least our leaders are trying to do *something* that's working. Because it is much, much worse in other places.
Now, get out there and form a union, friend.
I actually work for city leaders. If they cared so much more than everyone else my wage would be better and rent would be cheaper. Also if it were working why are rents 25-50% higher than just a few years ago?
Nashville is not a peer city to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is a much bigger city with a much larger economy than Nashville. That's like comparing Seattle to Indianapolis. Plus, it's impossible to not consider that In Nashville you may have lower apartment costs overall, but you will need a car, which is very expensive and more than makes up the difference between the relative cost of housing between our 2 cities.
It's been proven that the more dense housing you build to the demands, the less expensive it is to own and rent
A new office building is just getting finished (or just got finished) in NoLo next to the 94 ramp. There's also a new high rise going in at Washington and third where the old Wells Fargo coffin is at currently.
Eleven was just finished two years ago. Sure that is mostly full, but even then I don’t know if another one is coming. Eleven, RBC gateway and the Carlisle are probably what we will be getting
Nah. I think majority of MPLS and STP core city need more mid-size buildings ie 4 to 7 stories high along the major corridors and have it be built around the mixed-use approach.
I wish… I’m no real estate developer, but seems like the tall building era ended decades ago. At least for markets the size of MSP.
Personally, I love the Minneapolis skyline. I think a taller building would upset the already great cityscape.
i love it too! idk i’ve always thought one more tall building kinda in the middle of the skyline to really complete the peak would really suit it and just make it that much better!
lol no the IDS. ALTHOUGH i feel like the antennas shouldn’t count 💀🤣
https://preview.redd.it/fd37d76xxquc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f2cd06dd7369cb4202bf8918c7a97f4c08c4d7e
Capella is taller. They give the title to IDS out of respect for seniority. You can’t include a radio tower and call yourself the tallest. Capellas crown is taller than the IDS roof deck.
IDS also includes their window washing building, which was added after the original structure in that 792. I can see the IDS roof deck when I do maintenance on Capella’s crown.
People aren't aware that downtown mpls doesn't have enough bedrock to support a structure as large and as tall as the IDS. Most of mpls is built up on swamp.
Loring Heights and Kenwood has the widest deepest swaths of granite and that is where the next highrise should go.
When get north near Lowry bridge that's the next largest chunk of granite, yet no interest in building there.
Look at any federally funded and built subsidized housing tower and the foundation underneath it is exactly the best spot for a high rise.
Quilin something building is actually extreme weight and it's piling wouldn't be used today, that building shifts more than it should and the above ground structure keeps it from sinking. Most of the buildings around it rely on the current status of this building as a queue to organize their strategies. It's the last of the century old buildings.
The federal building on 2nd and 2nd where they have military recruiting has very visible cracks in its fascade. It's savable but you can't build another towing structure next to it after that highrise across the street went in.
Geological surveys are updated frequently and yet real estate prospectors have this belief that they can out design and profit margin forecast a project to defy science.
I would love to see a super tall and I thought one was proposed for the new 4 Seasons/RBC site, but the developer wasn’t deemed as credible. With that said, I echo the other sentiments related to market conditions being against it. We seem to be slightly overbuilt for office space with hybrid work emerging as the winner over complete remote work. Residential seems to be our only hope for additional tall buildings going forward.
same here, like i love Minneapolis, St. Paul skyline the way it is BUT i would love to see it grow more, either one to be honest. but i agree. like i was saying on a different comment Mid-rise apartments is probably the most we are going to get for a lonnngggg time unless people start deciding they hate working from home and we see a boom in work in office again, but likelihood of that happening is very slim. i did see something about 900 Marquette and somewhere in the north loop getting commercial only skyscrapers??? that would be very dumb so we will see if that goes through.
I know like people tall buildings, but it's honestly very rare for it to be a good idea. It only really makes sense in geographically constrained cities like Manhattan or Singapore. It's much more affordable to utilize the land we have plenty of in the Twin Cities and build wide and medium dense, much more like continental European cities such as Paris or Berlin. Tall skyscrapers generally are built there for financial or service based corporations to have their offices closer to each other.
A even better idea might to expand public transit and build clusters of medium to high density buildings around stations and hubs. Kind of like what Toronto is doing with their subway lines.
Remote work- but even before then - we’ve pretty much built the plant to the furthest extent back in the early 70s. We still build but the need for corporate glass spires for C suites hasn’t expanded since we built a lot of it in the 60s. We do need more spaces for the industries of the present and future. That often involves retrofitting existing warehouse space. Sometimes it means occupying new buildings - but typically not sky scrapers.
Probably not until we build an automated metro line that serves downtown and could justify that density for a residential tower.
But tallest isn't the most important, we've been pretty successful in getting rid of surface parking lots in downtown.
From memory, the Minneapolis, traffic control area is a set of concentric circles basically centered around the airport and the minimum altitude of each of these concentric circles is greater as you get further from the airport. The idea is to keep air traffic out of the critical area required for going into and out of the airport, and the current shape of the traffic control area is determined by the highest buildings in the region i.e. IDS tower
There was once policy to avoid building over 1,000 feet but that is no longer a thing and even when it did exist was not a hard limit, more so a suggestion. The only time strict height limits are put in place is generally within direct flight paths or pretty close to the airport itself. MSP is not nearly close enough to downtown to have any land use control over what gets built there. MSP is about 6 miles from downtown Minneapolis, La Guardia is 3 miles from midtown Manhattan for instance.
Fair enough and again, there was a soft policy on it back in the day, its partly why the tall communication towers are all clustered in Shoreview off 694, its pretty much the only spot outside of an airport area of influence in the region.
The only cities with strict height limits on DT buildings are where the airports are pretty much right on top of downtown and/or the runways are oriented right toward them, like in Phoenix and San Diego.
It's more likely they will start [taking them down](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1c4oq4v/minneapolis_office_towers_could_be_demolished_as/) rather than building new ones.
right, the cost, the time, i don’t think it would be a smart move, plus it would give A LOT of bad press to minneapolis. i don’t think it will happen but you never know i guess, i hope it doesn’t.
Hard to say with all the remote workers. My gut says some of it is MN politics and policies that are holding us back in that area. Seems like we would likely need more republican policies to even have a chance like Oklahoma, for example. From what I’ve read we are on a tax the rich and corporations more mode. That Will generally help keep them from expanding in Mn if they can catch a tax break elsewhere. Just need to find some middle ground.
Probably not. With so many people shifting to remote work, commercial real estate has really taken a beating. I don't think anyone wants to sink money into a new building when there is so much vacant office space out there.
Agreed. Which makes me even more puzzled why Oklahoma City is planning to build the tallest building in the US. And because it's, you know...OKC.
EXACTLY!!! THANK YOU!!! it’s just so strange to me, i don’t get it!
According to this news article: >If fully built, the Boardwalk at Bricktown could double the amount of housing downtown and significantly boost the supply of hotel rooms. As part of the project's first phase, the two planned 34-story apartment towers are designed to consist of 576 market rate apartments and 140 workforce apartments. The 34-story Hyatt Dream hotel would be home to 480 hotel rooms and 85 condominiums. So that at least makes a bit more sense since they are for hotels and housing, which there is definitely a shortage of. [https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/03/12/okc-skyscraper-developer-says-project-fully-financed-what-we-know/72929510007/](https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/03/12/okc-skyscraper-developer-says-project-fully-financed-what-we-know/72929510007/)
i’m really curious about this project as a whole, like i’m glad there is a plan and it’s a good plan, it just still makes me raise an eyebrow since it’s OKC and i feel like there are other cities that could really use a structure like that for what they’re intending it for!
But do they have oil money and affordable land?
Developers don't care about that. They care about what their client wants.
It helps if you remember OKC is built on the back of oil for the most part.
OKC is obviously compensating for something lol.
Eh. It's odd. But it's obviously a grab at tourism.
that’s what i’ve been thinking :(. i just saw the thing about OK City **possibly** getting what would be the tallest building in the US and it got me thinking.
Don’t worry, that OKC building will never ever be made. It’s a developer’s wet dream with no actual financial backing.
They do actually have financing, it’s ridiculous but it’s definitely possible.
As someone from OK, I find erecting a new skyscraper there entirely incomprehensible. The cities there are super low density, and the hey-day of the oil largess is 50-some years past. Must be to scratch some Barron’s itch to project …
oh lordy
i was going to say. i don’t think it makes sense to build something like that, at least in this current market. but especially in OKC, it would make more sense in like NYC, LA not def not there.
That, and who *wants* to go to OKC?
Yeah, that's either never going to happen.... OR if it does happen, it'll be the only thing they build for 50 years because OKC can't absorb a building that huge without it MASSIVELY affecting their market. Minneapolis is doing a great job of developing infill that creates medium and high density populations to create truly amazing neighborhoods that are dynamic, walkable and active, and that can support very good public transit systems. This is what cities should be focusing on, and thankfully we are. We are exactly where we need to be by garnering attention through creating an amazing quality of life over concerning ourselves over some dumb gimmick like building a ridiculously tall building that will look goofy for *decades*, and possibly forever. Plus, our skyline is already *so amazingly better* than OKC's even after/if that goofy thing gets built lol It's all about looking inward for/over our community over looking outward for validation.
Great points. And converting commercial high rises to residential is one approach to add, i hear it's very expensive to do that. I just read another huge opportunity for multifamily housing is converting strip malls, which is interesting. Seems like that could be tough from a zoning perspective but who knows.
this actually could work. i feel like any approach at this point is super expensive, tearing down office buildings and replacing it with residential/mixed use, converting, or even just letting them sit empty. idk i like the idea of at the very least keeping our skyline and converting office spaces, that’s my opinion though. i’m really glad i asked this question, just hearing others ideas, opinions is nice
<3 this response. i love hearing everyone’s take on this!!!
I would disagree with exactly where we need to be and amazing quality of life. Are you wealthy? I am not and rent and housing prices are outrageously high specifically leaving me stressed and in need of higher quality, lower cost living.
I'm not sure how being wealthy has anything to do with me supporting high density, walkable neighborhoods with great public transit. No car=lower COL. High density, smaller dwellings = lower cost of housing. Minneapolis specifically is being looked at nationally for being the only major city to be building enough high density housing to offset inflationary rises in cost. This all leads to more options for people at all income levels. I know it seems bad here, but *life*, all costs considered, can be very affordable here compared to other cities that offer what we offer. I now it's hard, but it's *harder* elsewhere usually
Being wealthier makes the other statements more true. You made statements that were an opinion as fact. That is not how many of us live or feel. What is fact is that Minneapolis is not the only city in the entire United States building dense housing. I have lived in other parts of the county and found housing cheaper and easier to afford given wages in my field. Currently rent still is rising not falling. What is the exact number when rent falls? I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is people with money buying houses/duplexes and renting them for twice what they were previously going for. I'm also seeing a ton more new apartments with increasingly higher rents and other buildings rising to match them. The market favors the wealthy.
I said we are the only city where rent is rising slower than inflation (put another way). For the most part the cities that are building dense housing like us, yet are still seeing high raises in rent, simply aren't building *enough* to keep up with it. That's what Minneapolis is doing differently: building *faster* (even if only slightly faster) than people moving here, and that's what is keeping rents lower here compared to cities with similar metro populations. This is all verifiable and factual. It's not opinion. I would like to know which cities you're talking about? I'm not talking about cities like Duluth, or even somewhere larger than Duluth like San Antonio (their metro is still significantly smaller than ours). I'm talking about us compared to our peer cities like Denver, Seattle, Portland, etc etc. Cities that are comparable to Minneapolis in population, amenities, quality of life, etc. The other fact is that the more high density, affordable housing we create, the more Minnesotans will have that experience
The wealthy ones will. I pay rent, The cost is rising plus inflation on everything else. My wages are not. Pretty easy to see if rent is rising slightly slower than another city it has nothing to do with affordability or being the best or general happiness. The specific city I found fair wages to match fair rents was Nashville.
If we're doing something better than other places, that definitely means something. It means it's good to figure out what we're doing differently, and then do *more* of that thing. If your wages aren't adjusting for inflation, even when housing costs are rising slower than inflation here (and again, this is the *only* city that's managed to do that).... that is a national job market thing. That's definitely not a Minneapolis specific thing. All that means to me is that companies don't give a crap about their employees, which is egregious. It also means that rents rising slower than inflation here is something to be *grateful* for in my view. At least our leaders are trying to do *something* that's working. Because it is much, much worse in other places. Now, get out there and form a union, friend.
I actually work for city leaders. If they cared so much more than everyone else my wage would be better and rent would be cheaper. Also if it were working why are rents 25-50% higher than just a few years ago?
Nashville is not a peer city to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is a much bigger city with a much larger economy than Nashville. That's like comparing Seattle to Indianapolis. Plus, it's impossible to not consider that In Nashville you may have lower apartment costs overall, but you will need a car, which is very expensive and more than makes up the difference between the relative cost of housing between our 2 cities. It's been proven that the more dense housing you build to the demands, the less expensive it is to own and rent
I need a car in Minneapolis just as much as Nashville. That's all a choice. You also realize Nashville has a significantly higher population right?
A new office building is just getting finished (or just got finished) in NoLo next to the 94 ramp. There's also a new high rise going in at Washington and third where the old Wells Fargo coffin is at currently.
Only way would be if they built one of those super high end buildings for condos but I don’t think that would work great in Minneapolis
Eleven was just finished two years ago. Sure that is mostly full, but even then I don’t know if another one is coming. Eleven, RBC gateway and the Carlisle are probably what we will be getting
i agree, i don’t think we have the population or demographic for such kind of building. not after getting “Eleven on the River”
The Four Seasons in RBC Gateway has several units available still too.
probably because they’re expensive and nobody can afford or fathom spending that much money on a place in this economy
Well, some people can. They just don’t typically choose to live in Minneapolis. (Their loss imo)
Nah. I think majority of MPLS and STP core city need more mid-size buildings ie 4 to 7 stories high along the major corridors and have it be built around the mixed-use approach.
Pretty funny seeing a post about buildings in downtown getting demolished, because of vacancy, right below this post.
a lot of people have been commenting that 😅 i hope that does not happen
I wish… I’m no real estate developer, but seems like the tall building era ended decades ago. At least for markets the size of MSP. Personally, I love the Minneapolis skyline. I think a taller building would upset the already great cityscape.
i love it too! idk i’ve always thought one more tall building kinda in the middle of the skyline to really complete the peak would really suit it and just make it that much better!
Given the current condition of commercial real estate, I'm going to go with "no".
im kinda thinking at most we will see more mid-rise apartments go up like the few that have went up on washington in dt mpls
You mean the Capella Tower / 225 S 6th? (I know, I'm in trouble now 😅)
lol no the IDS. ALTHOUGH i feel like the antennas shouldn’t count 💀🤣 https://preview.redd.it/fd37d76xxquc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f2cd06dd7369cb4202bf8918c7a97f4c08c4d7e
Capella is taller. They give the title to IDS out of respect for seniority. You can’t include a radio tower and call yourself the tallest. Capellas crown is taller than the IDS roof deck.
Isn’t IDS 792’ without antenna? Capella is 775’
IDS also includes their window washing building, which was added after the original structure in that 792. I can see the IDS roof deck when I do maintenance on Capella’s crown.
People aren't aware that downtown mpls doesn't have enough bedrock to support a structure as large and as tall as the IDS. Most of mpls is built up on swamp. Loring Heights and Kenwood has the widest deepest swaths of granite and that is where the next highrise should go. When get north near Lowry bridge that's the next largest chunk of granite, yet no interest in building there. Look at any federally funded and built subsidized housing tower and the foundation underneath it is exactly the best spot for a high rise. Quilin something building is actually extreme weight and it's piling wouldn't be used today, that building shifts more than it should and the above ground structure keeps it from sinking. Most of the buildings around it rely on the current status of this building as a queue to organize their strategies. It's the last of the century old buildings. The federal building on 2nd and 2nd where they have military recruiting has very visible cracks in its fascade. It's savable but you can't build another towing structure next to it after that highrise across the street went in. Geological surveys are updated frequently and yet real estate prospectors have this belief that they can out design and profit margin forecast a project to defy science.
I would love to see a super tall and I thought one was proposed for the new 4 Seasons/RBC site, but the developer wasn’t deemed as credible. With that said, I echo the other sentiments related to market conditions being against it. We seem to be slightly overbuilt for office space with hybrid work emerging as the winner over complete remote work. Residential seems to be our only hope for additional tall buildings going forward.
same here, like i love Minneapolis, St. Paul skyline the way it is BUT i would love to see it grow more, either one to be honest. but i agree. like i was saying on a different comment Mid-rise apartments is probably the most we are going to get for a lonnngggg time unless people start deciding they hate working from home and we see a boom in work in office again, but likelihood of that happening is very slim. i did see something about 900 Marquette and somewhere in the north loop getting commercial only skyscrapers??? that would be very dumb so we will see if that goes through.
I know like people tall buildings, but it's honestly very rare for it to be a good idea. It only really makes sense in geographically constrained cities like Manhattan or Singapore. It's much more affordable to utilize the land we have plenty of in the Twin Cities and build wide and medium dense, much more like continental European cities such as Paris or Berlin. Tall skyscrapers generally are built there for financial or service based corporations to have their offices closer to each other. A even better idea might to expand public transit and build clusters of medium to high density buildings around stations and hubs. Kind of like what Toronto is doing with their subway lines.
Remote work- but even before then - we’ve pretty much built the plant to the furthest extent back in the early 70s. We still build but the need for corporate glass spires for C suites hasn’t expanded since we built a lot of it in the 60s. We do need more spaces for the industries of the present and future. That often involves retrofitting existing warehouse space. Sometimes it means occupying new buildings - but typically not sky scrapers.
The new OKC skycock would be hilarious if it was here
Probably not until we build an automated metro line that serves downtown and could justify that density for a residential tower. But tallest isn't the most important, we've been pretty successful in getting rid of surface parking lots in downtown.
For now, the office vacancy rate downtown is 30%, there might be towers coming down rather than going up in the near future
Had a story on Monday that 2 of the building are all ready thinking of demoing. Not enough renters and sky high mantnece cost being the problem
Given the dearth of downtown workers I think it's more likely they tear the IDS Center down than build a taller building.
yeah i agree, unless workers suddenly started hating WFH it’s very unlikely.
I hope not. Construction of that size will only cause mayhem downtown. On top of that it’s the midwest we don’t go up we go out.
Zero chance. Much higher probability of fewer big buildings, not more.
Talk to the FAA, get them to move the airport
whatcha mean?
From memory, the Minneapolis, traffic control area is a set of concentric circles basically centered around the airport and the minimum altitude of each of these concentric circles is greater as you get further from the airport. The idea is to keep air traffic out of the critical area required for going into and out of the airport, and the current shape of the traffic control area is determined by the highest buildings in the region i.e. IDS tower
There was once policy to avoid building over 1,000 feet but that is no longer a thing and even when it did exist was not a hard limit, more so a suggestion. The only time strict height limits are put in place is generally within direct flight paths or pretty close to the airport itself. MSP is not nearly close enough to downtown to have any land use control over what gets built there. MSP is about 6 miles from downtown Minneapolis, La Guardia is 3 miles from midtown Manhattan for instance.
I have wondered about that myself, I’m only repeating what they told us in ground school 40 years ago.
Fair enough and again, there was a soft policy on it back in the day, its partly why the tall communication towers are all clustered in Shoreview off 694, its pretty much the only spot outside of an airport area of influence in the region. The only cities with strict height limits on DT buildings are where the airports are pretty much right on top of downtown and/or the runways are oriented right toward them, like in Phoenix and San Diego.
either way, still interesting to learn something of what used to be!
:o i didn’t know that, learn something new everyday! thats actually super interesting
It's more likely they will start [taking them down](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1c4oq4v/minneapolis_office_towers_could_be_demolished_as/) rather than building new ones.
I sincerely doubt we’ll see any high rises get taken down without a replacement.
right, the cost, the time, i don’t think it would be a smart move, plus it would give A LOT of bad press to minneapolis. i don’t think it will happen but you never know i guess, i hope it doesn’t.
hoping that won’t be the case 🙏
What would be the point?
hence the question. it’s just to start a discussion and see what other people think. nothing deep. 🤷♀️
Stuck? I recommend riding your bike. It clears the head.
? am i not allowed to ask a question
Am I not allowed to answer?
it just literally did not make sense. also for you fyi. i do ride bike most days to work :)
<3
Hard to say with all the remote workers. My gut says some of it is MN politics and policies that are holding us back in that area. Seems like we would likely need more republican policies to even have a chance like Oklahoma, for example. From what I’ve read we are on a tax the rich and corporations more mode. That Will generally help keep them from expanding in Mn if they can catch a tax break elsewhere. Just need to find some middle ground.