Target to stay put in City Center

  • Article by: SUSAN FEYDER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: April 9, 2009 - 8:58 PM

The lease renewal through 2023 eases concerns for the owner of City Center, but it leaves other would-be Target suitors hunting for tenants.

  • 16
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
hopjeremyApr. 9, 09 4:02 PM

Smart move on Target's part as well. Keep jobs close to major clients/customers/workers and roads/transit. That BP campus probably won't be expanded until development inches over that way. Farm fields dominate the landscape over that way.

26
11
mattaudioApr. 9, 09 4:13 PM

As someone who works downtown and enjoys the convenience of transit from anywhere in the region to here, I think Target made a great move. Not to mention the culture and vitality of downtown, which also adds to the attraction of top talent. Who wants to work in Brooklyn Park? I (and many others I know) have turned down job offers in order to choose jobs located in downtown Minneapolis. Woot!

36
17
mattaudioApr. 9, 09 4:16 PM

Oh, and by the way, can we officially ditch the official name of this tower? Multifoods Tower is about as uninspired as the architecture of this place. Finally, add some crown lighting to the top of this baby so it at least looks decent during outdoor Twins games. Add another couple towers north of 5th Street, and we'll be set.

29
12
RCHApr. 9, 09 5:22 PM

I agree with mattaudio. Make this tower shine at night. Someone posted an artist's conception of this building with night lighting here: http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247&start=1980 Brookfield should take heed!

15
7
vgmLiquidApr. 9, 09 5:36 PM

Those that keep saying this is "great news" don't exactly keep up to date on local news. Several developers were looking at building a substantial tower downtown (each had their own location) for Target, to replace City Center. That would have helped a slow construction industry and built-up underutilized land downtown (also known as surface parking lots). Don't get me wrong, it is good news, just not great news.

17
13
bkd001Apr. 9, 09 6:43 PM

Do you think the enviro freaks and city council whores will "allow" the building to be lit at night?

11
20
thebratApr. 9, 09 7:31 PM

the priority is that the building looks good from the view of the twins games. wow. you live in the burbs right? anyways i'd just like to take the opportunity to point out to people that target can only keep this office space and continue to carry so much of our city's economy if people continue to shop with them. yeah i know sometimes pennies count and people run to wally world but walmart doesn't benefit our state as much as target with jobs and a great deal of community support.

32
3
expat251Apr. 9, 09 7:37 PM

What good does it do to build a new office tower when all it's doing is stealing tenants from an existing building? The occupied square footage doesn't increase. Rents from the Multifoods tower would tank. That's not economic growth.

24
5
chesteraklApr. 9, 09 7:53 PM

It would take 2 to 2-1/2 years to plan and build a new office tower. You're thinking in today's economy thinking it would be empty, not what the economy will be in three years when it opens for business. People building these towers don't have such short-term thinking as you do.

20
5
bellczarApr. 9, 09 9:38 PM

Mattaudio, it hasn't been the Multifoods Tower for quite a while. International Multifoods moved their HQ to the western suburbs years before they were bought by Smuckers in 2005. It has officially been known by its address, 33 S. 6th St., for years.

25
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Offers & Events

Defying Expectations

Defying Expectations

The Most Innovative bank empowering you to achieve

Dare to Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT