Craig Cox notes, of a possible Dome demo: on 6/27/02 8:34 AM, Craig Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Typical of downtown planners: You've got a perfectly serviceable facility > (tractor pulls, college baseball, prep football, NCAA basketball, etc.) > that's paid for and turning a profit, so let's just tear it down and build > something new. What's the point besides making the construction industry > happy? I'm not directly responding to Craig here - he has some valid points - but here's a Skyway News column I wrote on this very concept last December. (PS Since the column was written, the Legislature in its infinite wisdom decided to dedicate any sale proceeds from Dome land to the Vikes stadium. But that can always be undone.) Metrodome: time to press the plunger For the good of the Minneapolis treasury � not to mention other city benefits � the Dome should go down By David Brauer I keep trying to make lemonade out of lemons in this Twins contraction thing, so I�ll just say it: let�s blow up the Metrodome. I make this suggestion only a little whimsically, and more as a Minneapolis taxpayer than an outdoor-craving sports fan. I�m not sure it�s the right thing to do for the state, or for some Downtown businesses, but let me make the case. Before the Dome was built, the land where it now sits was an urban wasteland � not that the Dome changed that much since its 1982 opening. Then, the �highest and best use� � government jargon for the most lucrative thing we could stick there � was a sports stadium. They usually go on landfills and other wasted parcels. 20 years later, Downtown is a happening place. This smacked me in the face a few weeks ago reporting a story about a 27-story condo tower/rowhouse project proposed by a company called APEX Development. Their site is bordered by 5th Avenue, South 10th Street, Portland Avenue, and Grant Street. [Note: it's now been christened Grant Park.] You�ve probably have seen it if you drive north into Downtown: the block is just to your right when you get off the 10th street 35W on-off ramp. Kitty-corner is the Francis Drake Hotel, which the less sensitive would call a flophouse. Folks, they�re going to sell $350,000 housing there. The parcel sits four blocks south and three blocks west of the Dome. Tom Dillon, an APEX project manager, told me that despite uncertain economic times, Downtown housing remains solidly in demand � and there isn�t a ton of land available to satisfy it. Peering at the map of Downtown over my iMac, the Dome and its parking lot cover about five blocks of increasingly valuable urban real estate. The Dome land is a stone�s throw from 160,000 Downtown jobs � �if you lived here, you�d be home by now,� indeed. There�s great freeway access to 35W and 94, and a light-rail stop coming to its front door. You can walk to Nicollet Mall or train to the Mall of America faster than an Edina suburbanite. Look, the Twins will be gone soon � either folded or moved to a new park. (The proposed Warehouse District site by the garbage burner needs a higher and better use). The Vikes want to move to the U; while it�s fun to nail owner Red McCombs to his Dome lease that runs through 2011, the team�s relocation leverage will only build as the years count down. Let Red and the football Gophers go to a lower and poorer site. We�d lose a few tractor pulls and a once-a-decade Final Four � but we could sell the rights to push the plunger on our Concrete Souffle, which would only be the beginning of the cash flow. We, the public, already own the land. Jim Nelson, a Downtown real estate expert who helped sell the Met Center land, estimates that the 24-acre Dome parcel would generate �more than half� the Met Center land�s $26 million sale price. While demolishing the Dome wouldn�t be cheap, Nelson said it would be just a fraction of the sale price. A back-of-the-envelope guess based on recent Downtown-fringe housing/retail projects is that, once developed the parcel could produce at least $5 million in new property taxes annually � a middle infielder�s salary, perhaps, but big-time bucks in civic development terms. For example, the new property taxes could pay for a new Downtown library all by itself, without having to raise anyone�s taxes. Or, as Nelson observed, �What�s the biggest issue in the city right now? Affordable housing. 24 acres of real estate would create a whole lot of affordable housing.� The public could donate the land, subsidizing affordable units at no cost to itself. There would still be plenty of room for more expensive housing that pays bigger taxes, and retail/commercial that pays more still. APEX�s Dillon notes that such a large parcel might take years to develop, but we have a head start if we start planning now. There are other spin-off benefits. Elliot Park, a working-class neighborhood to the Dome�s south, would be linked to the burgeoning riverfront neighborhoods with compatible residential development. Even Hubert�s � the Dome�s lone development achievement � would survive with as a 365-night neighborhood tavern, instead of a boom-and-bust sports bar. Sure, there are demerits. The Dome is paid for; blowing it up seems wasteful. State taxpayers might blanch funding Red�s $500 million football palace ($250 million more than a renovated Dome) and maybe a new Twins stadium as well. Waiters and Dome vendors would lose jobs (but other neighborhood jobs would be created.) The city would certainly lose some dollars that sports fans now pay in entertainment taxes and parking fees. But perhaps on city finances and certainly on market demand, a Twins-less Dome is better dead than alive. Lemonade, anyone? David Brauer King Field Editor, Skyway News _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
