By: hidden on 11/7/09
This would be beautiful and would really improve the look of downtown.

By: FLY on 11/7/09
This is awesome. It is good to know Anderson has enough faith in downtown Northfield and the economy in general to undertake this big project.

Also, does Anderson actually own the old Tires Plus building on Division now? It appears that Lansing is setting up another business there. Any permits issued yet? Water bills paid up?

By: SDHO on 11/7/09
I can't quite grapple with the irony of tearing down a 40-year-old downtown fixture -- downtown Northfield's only representation of that architectural style -- and replacing it with something fake in order to "restore a sense of history."

I say the Community Bank building should be revitalized in a manner appropriate to its architectural style, and the parking lot north of the building should be developed.

Sean Hayford O'Leary

By: hidden on 11/7/09
Sean - AMC Pacers could be considered representative of a certain era, but I don't think anyone really wants to drive one. The bank building in question was developed during a period when people placed no value on anything historical. I've always felt the building was ugly and detracted from the look of the square.

By: FormerNorthfielder on 11/8/09
That building always looked out of place, it will be nice to see it go.

By: Noskey on 11/8/09
Best news I've read in this paper for a long time. The main square of the downtown will finally have the look it should have had for the last 40 years. Too bad they didn't have a historic planning/preservation board back then. Thanks Jerry.

By: Patrick_Enders on 11/8/09
The fine print: Jerry also wants to tear down "the adjacent Aldsworth building on Bridge Square."

In short, as part of this project he's proposing to restore the city's historical character by replacing an actual, built-in-1893 historical building... with a modern knockoff.

Interesting.

By: SDHO on 11/8/09
hidden-- "a period when people placed no value on anything historical"? It kind of feels like *this* is that period. While it was 20 years ago now, Patricka's took out one of Northfield's oldest neighborhoods -- only to be torn down itself less than 15 years later. More recently, The Crossing project wiped out one of the last remnants of old industrial Northfield.

And now this project, which Patrick points out will also destroy an 1890s building. Personally, I still think the 70s bank building is more historically significant, but neither should be ignored. We shouldn't wipe out true history -- and both buildings are -- for something that *looks* more historic.

By: hidden on 11/9/09
I think you made my point. The "remnants of old industrial Northfield" had degenerated into a dump. I'd personally have preferred to see those buildings fixed and used for businesses.

I think we are in a situation where we need to develop downtown both to bring residents downtown and to attract visitors from out of town. Unfortunately, that's the only way to survive and thrive nowdays.

As far as parking, I have a question for anyone who can help. Why does the tiny drive-through bank on Fifth Street have a huge unused parking lot? Also, I'd like to see the empty dirt lot at 2nd and Hwy. 3 becomne a permit lot for downtown employees and residents. This would open up a LOT of spaces for shoppers.

By: fairandbalanced on 11/9/09
Let's also remember; isn't Mr Anderson the person who tried to fool the city into believing that he had purchased the old tires plus building (so Lee Lansing could illegally sell trees on a property owned by the bank) when in fact, the city called the bank to check and they basically said "Jerry who?". If he's the kind of person who would "mislead" the city like that, beware.

I was initially somewhat in favor of this idea because the bank building is hideous, but ripping down the other historic building?

It also strikes me that this new building, even if somewhat historically accurate, is huge!! What if we build this monstrosity, and nobody wants to office in it? Do we know there's demand for that much office space? A brand new empty building won't help our downtown much?

I hope our council asks to see some actual solid evidence that there is demand for office space downtown before we build another version of the crossing.

By: Uberstadt on 11/9/09
The best post so far, fairandbalanced. I will believe this project when it happens. With the names involved, I doubt very much this project will happen without some concessions being demanded of the city. I would not get too fired up about this happening until the developer is willing to demonstrate its viability both architecturally and financially. Let’s not get the town all fired up only to have the developer get the city up to its eyeballs with financial assistance. Someone ask the developer about his seven story hotel and no parking he had planned several years ago on the southeast corner of 2nd Street and Highway 3. That caused a lot of excitement then, too.

By: DavidHenke on 11/9/09
Patrick_Enders and fairandbalanced:

While Jerry Anderson’s goal is to recreate the historic appearance of a portion of downtown, the 1893 Aldsworth Building isn’t compatible with the developer’s plans for the office complex. The building, Anderson said, is inextricably connected to the Community Resource Bank building, which makes it difficult to demolish one and not the other. Also, the Aldsworth Building rests on a different elevation than the bank, would be challenging to modernize and is of “questionable” integrity, Anderson said.

It’s sad to see the building go, Anderson said, but compared to the overall benefit the project would have to downtown, Anderson believes it's an acceptable cost.

By: Patrick_Enders on 11/9/09
David,
That may be good for Jerry Anderson, but it seems much harder to claim that this is clearly good for Northfield.

It seems to me that the one thing it will accomplish is a further reduction of the historic nature of our downtown - the very thing that makes our downtown exceptional.

He'd have a much easier case if he was only intending to replace the relatively modern bank building, and its adjacent parking lot.

I sincerely hope that the city will not even consider contributing any financial assistance to this project if it continues to include the destruction of this historic building.

By: fairandbalanced on 11/9/09
If the Aldsworth building was saved when the original building that was next to it got demolished to make room for the existing Community Bank building, why can't it be saved now?

If an independent engineer says the building is falling over, I'll believe it.

What about parking for all these people that would office in this new building? Is there going to be an underground parking garage for the building? Or will they just take over all the existing parking spots within 4 blocks of downtown?

You know we pay $50,000 a year of our tax money to a Northfield Downtown Development Corporation. Have they had any involvement in this, what's their stance on how this fits into long term goals for the downtown? Would this project be good or bad in their opinion?

NNews Suzy and/or Jaci: Did you try to, or could you interview Ross Courier to find out where the NDDC is on all of this?

By: Noskey on 11/9/09
""If the Aldsworth building was saved when the original building that was next to it got demolished to make room for the existing Community Bank building, why can't it be saved now?"" Because of later remodeling by Community which connected the two buildings in more than one place.


""Why does the tiny drive-through bank on Fifth Street have a huge unused parking lot?"" That is not a parking lot. That area is the drive thru lanes, there just aren't lines painted to show the 3 lanes. There is only about 1 or 2 parking places in the very corner available for a customer to park and walk in. Obviously you have never seen the lines that can back up thru the lanes at certain times. Also, the third lane is the ATM machine and can't be blocked by parked cars.

By: Patrick_Enders on 11/9/09
If the buildings could be connected, they can be unconnected.

By: hidden on 11/10/09
Noskey - I think we're talking about different banks. The one I'm referring to is at the southwest corner of Fifth and Washington. There is a decent sized parking lot and a lawn area the size of another potential line of parking spaces. I rarely see more than one or two cars there and the sign says it is reserved for customers of the bank.

By: Observer23 on 11/10/09
While one can hardly argue that it would be an attractive building and enhance downtown's appearance, does Northfield really need more office spaces to fill when there are so many sitting empty?

By: fairandbalanced on 11/10/09
To FLy: By the way, regarding Anderson's ownership of the "tires plus building"...

If you check the Rice County website, they still list the site as owned by Voyageur Bank. Why would this be? Does/do Anderson/Lansing have some arrangement? The city should be checking, and we should know!!!

Very interesting?!?!?!?

Then we have Kiffi Summa on locally grown complaining that city staff are calling the bank to make sure it's ok for Lansing to be there. Kudos to our city staff!!! Keep checking!

If Anderson really owns the property and gave Lansing permission to be there, then what's she so afraid of?

If this is all on the up and up, so be it. But let's face it folks, the players here don't have the best track record. I sure hope the city doesn't let Lansing try to squat again, or let Anderson deceive them into thinking he owns or is buying the site?

By the way, how can this pit of a building be turned into a retail space that humans can be in. It's an old run down garage with a coat or two of paint. It's probably dangerous to be in.

What's the real truth here?????? Why do some people not want us to know the truth??

We just want to know!

By: johndeerr on 11/11/09
Oh, not again with Lansing is sitting up again? There goes trouble again....

By: danielgerdes2011 on 11/24/09
I don't believe Lansing is the one in the old Tires Plus Building. There is a couple there that used to have a business in South Minneapolis for many years.