Hawkman's Different Angle on the BJ's Proposal

Commentary post by the Hawthorne Hawkman, photo by Johnny Northside

After reading a previous post about potential development at the BJ's site and the developer's requests for multiple variances, I have my own reaction to the proposal. Those reactions wouldn't fit well under a comment section, so they get their own blog post.

I should note that my personal position as a resident of north Minneapolis is different than what has been articulated. For instance...

...I don't consider BJ's to be a "problem property" or "problem business" in the way that such places have been defined on this blog. They operate legally, with the proper licenses, and whatever happens there stays there. I haven't seen illegal activities coming and going from the place. (Unlike Absolute Tire across the street, where residents have reported drug dealing taking place among the patrons on site.) It's kind of like our own version of Las Vegas. A cheaper, far less glamorous Las Vegas.

My only issue with BJ's is that I do not want a strip club to be located in a gateway to north Minneapolis. I don't care if it's a "gentleman's club" or some supposedly higher class of strippers and clientele, this corner is the wrong place for such a business precisely because of the impression it leaves on people passing by.

Also, I really, REALLY want to see a Surdyk's-style liquor store and a French Meadows-style restaurant/bakery on the site. I absolutely love those two places and would be proud to claim them as part of my community - especially Surdyk's, one of the few places that carries bison grass vodka.

BUT

I added the "-style" suffix because at this time I don't believe either Surdyk's or French Meadows has committed to relocating or expanding to this site. Those are only two POSSIBLE tenants (or styles of tenants) that have been bandied about.

The current proposal asks for far too much in the way of variances and exceptions from the West Broadway Alive plan. Page six of the staff report states that the "building on this block face, at 201 West Broadway, is a single story office building. Allowing this pattern to continue would create a development pattern that is not consistent with the policy for this area."

Given Master Construction's ties to 201 West Broadway and the proposal in question, giving them leeway to construct a one-story building on the first new construction after the implementation of a comprehensive plan would smack of insider baseball politics. And there definitely needs to be more curb appeal for the side of the building facing West Broadway.

Regarding the request for a one-story variance, the staff report goes on to state: "Furthermore, the proposed single-story building results in an underutilization of the site....Underdeveloped sites are detrimental to the long-term vitality of West Broadway. Low intensity commercial developments spread the commercial district and increase the distance between commercial establishments. This makes the commercial district less attractive because it is not as convenient to come to the district and pick up goods and services from multiple businesses. For this reason, mechanisms should be put in place to deter new low intensity development, and particularly single story commercial developments." (emphasis mine)

One of the reasons the proposal has requested such a variance was because of their claim to need more parking spaces than the bare minimum. While they are significantly below the maximum number of parking spaces allowed, the staff report makes it clear that they have the option of reducing some parking to create a two-story structure that complies with the West Broadway Alive plan.

While we ought to vigorously defend the WBA Plan, I do think there is room for some degree of flexibility here. However, I agree with the staff report that this is a new construction proposal, so the requested variances are entirely of the making of Land Ho - not based on pre-existing conditions. And although I would not want to corner a developer into a plan with little chance of success, I'm not yet convinced that their proposed differences from the Plan are necessary.

There is a very real danger in deviating too far from the original plan. The sentiment for allowing variances at this site appears to stem largely from the hope that we can transform BJ's into something as cool as a French Meadows/Surdyk's combination. But now that the world's largest YWCA isn't coming to Broadway, we need proposals for what to do along Broadway and Aldrich. Who knows what the current or eventual owners will propose for that vacant lot now? What if it's a one-story fried food shack/payday loan/stolen cell phone/used furniture/dice-throwing strip mall, modeled to be consistent with both Hawthorn Crossings and the exceptions granted to Land Ho?

The criteria that the city uses to grant or deny such variance requests can rarely (if ever) take into account that some people like one business but not another. They can, and often must, consider similar variances granted elsewhere. Olympic Cafe's expanded hours is a very recent example of exactly that. If we weaken the West Broadway Alive plan right out of the gates, the whole thing risks being shot to sunshine.

The Land Ho proposal also has major shortfalls in the area of landscaping. I'd go into more detail about that, but this post is already dry enough. Still that's just one more area where this could use more improvement.

The other potentially significant concern with the proposal as I read it is the emphasis of "North Loop" over "Near North" or north Minneapolis as the community identifier. North Loop references outnumber north Minneapolis references at a rate of 11 to 1.

The North Loop neighborhood is just as far away from the site as the St. Anthony East neighborhood. Why not call the project the St. Anthony East gateway while we're at it?

For those readers whose sensibilities are so offended by the presence of BJ's that you want just about ANYTHING different at the site, I submit that the designation of the proposal as the "North Loop Gateway" should be downright offensive. We in north Minneapolis have endured the blight of BJ's for DECADES. And now, just as something truly exciting comes along, something that will quite literally change the face of our community, the project is named after a neighborhood several blocks away. NOT ACCEPTABLE. Even "Ya Baby" is better than this.

If "North Loop Gateway" appears only on some site plans that hardly anybody will read five years from now, then this is really a non-issue. But if the design of the building (and any signage) points people away from north Minneapolis and towards other neighborhoods, that's when we need to stand up and demand that our community receive our share of the benefits such an exciting development will bring.

I want to see BJ's replaced with the proposed businesses, and I hope Land Ho and Master Construction continue with their plan. However, based on the proposal put forward, and my understanding of it, I cannot support it at this time. We deserve better in NoMi.