By Cam Gordon
Howe resident Joel Albers wants to stop the demolition of the 112-year-old grain elevators near 35th and Hiawatha.
Known as the Nokomis Mills and Elevators, much of the campus was originally constructed in 1914. It is currently owned by the ADM Milling Company. It includes several buildings on 2.4 acres of land between 35th and 36th streets on the east side of Hiawatha.
Albers, a pharmacist, is not a historic preservationist but with support from about 30 neighbors he has formed the Save Minneapolis from the Wrecking Ball Coalition. On their behalf he has formally appealed the 5-4 decision of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) on Feb. 4, 2025 to permit the complete demolition of the grain elevators and other buildings, currently up for sale, on the site.
The demolition application was submitted by Louis Zachary of The Zachary Group, Inc., a construction company that has not shared any detailed plans for future development, other than an interest in developing housing at the site.
The HPC’s approval is conditional on a mitigation plan that includes a method to document or recognize the history of the site. It would be reviewed by city staff prior to a wrecking, or demolition, permit being granted.
HPC commissioners Marais Bjornberg (chair), Ethan Boote, Paul Mellblom, Mariel Rodriguez and Toshihiko Karato voted to approve the demolition. Commissioners Namdi Alexander, Travis Herr, Amy Thomas, and Lindsey Wallace voted against it.
The hearing before the city council’s business, housing & zoning committee to consider reversing that decision will be held on March 4 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 350, of the Public Service Center at 250 S. 4th St. Anyone is welcome to speak at the hearing. The city council is expected to make the final decision at their March 18 meeting.
So far, the consensus among staff, commissioners, and Albers, although questioned by Zachary, is that the property is an historic resource. It appears to eligible at both the national and local levels for historic designation under three criteria: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history; 2) it contains and is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity and; 3) it embodies distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.
According to city law, an historic resource can only be demolished if it is “necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition” or there is no “reasonable alternative to the demolition considering the economic value or usefulness of the existing building.”
The current debate, and disagreement, centers on the later.
Zachery, and a slim majority of commissioners, believe the costs associated with reuse are unreasonable. Abler, other neighbors and some commissioners, believe adaptive reuse is feasible.
During his testimony Zachery stressed the high costs of keeping the vacant and boarded builders secure. “ADM pays $.5 million on security a year,” he said. “If the building does not come down ADM’s got a massive problem on their hands.” He also noted challenges with rehabilitating any of the properties for housing because of size and condition.
OTHER SILOS REUSED IN CITY
CPED staff, and a slim majority of commissioners agreed, although city staff provided several examples about how similar properties, in part or in whole, have been reused and repurposed.
Their report noted “there are a variety of alternative uses for a vacant milling complex with a grain elevator and grain silos. Reuse options include but are not limited to: a computer server farm, brewery, event space, museum, collaborative studio and art space, climbing walls, hotels, housing, and a cannabis farm.”
In the 1980s, for example, the Layhart Grain Elevators were converted into the Calhoun Isles Condominiums at 3141 Dean Ct. In the St. Anthony Falls Historic district mill ruins, grain elevator, and grain silos were saved and converted in the Mill City Museum. In 2016, the HPC reviewed and approved a demolition of historic resource for the Bunge Elevator Complex at 932 12th Ave. SE that included saving and adaptive reusing of the headhouse.
Albers, who testified at the hearing, contends that neither Zachary nor city staff provided “anywhere near the necessary information sufficient for the Heritage Preservation Commission to make an informed, evidence-based decision.”
Several of the commissioners who opposed complete demolition, including Commissioner Wallace, were also concerned about a lack of detailed information and questioned the estimates provided by the person applying for the permit. “I’m concerned about there not being a full housing plan in place,” said Wallace.
“The blank slate approach feels heavy handed,” said Commissioner Alexander. “I am not convinced about the financial burden.”
Commissioner Thomas noted that available state and federal tax credits for historical preservation, as well as low-income housing credits and Brownfield clean up credits, were not included in the financials. “I am definitely not for a blanket demolition,” said Thomas. “I would like to see parts of the buildings preserved in a creative way.”
Despite five commissioners supporting the staff recommendation and approving the demolition based on the lack of a reasonable alternative, all nine commissioners seemed convinced of the value of the site and the area as representing a significant part of Minneapolis’ milling history. Even Mellblom, who made the motion to approve complete demolition, express hope at least some of the remaining six mills along the corridor might be preserved even if all of this one was not. Karato also noted the historic significance of the corridor of the grain elevators, mills and silos. He said, “I would hate to see it all gone.”
COULD THERE BE ADAPTIVE REUSE?
Albers favors inclusive community-based approaches to “transitioning” older and historic places “where development of a property need not mean tearing down old buildings and constructing new ones. It can mean reimagining and repurposing the buildings.”
He wants to see adaptive reuse of as much of the area as possible, and is hopeful that the city council will reverse the commission’s decision when they get more information.
If the committee members vote to deny the appeal, they could also add or change the conditions to the demolition permit.
If they grant the appeal, this will stop demolition, establish interim protection for the property for one year, and start a historic designation study to determine if the property meets the criteria for landmark designation. During that time, any exterior alterations to the property would be reviewed by staff and possibly the HPC, as well.
When the study is completed, the staff would present it to the HPC and council committee. The final designation decision would be made by the city council and mayor. If designated, any exterior alterations would need to be reviewed by preservation staff, the HPC and, if appealed, the council. This would include any proposed partial or full demolitions in the future.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here