Velo Apartments - (103 Second Street North)

[John]

Developers have some responsibility to understand the civic importance of contributing to the quality and character of the community. However , I think some of the responsibility lies with the city government and planning process. Portland has a design review process that focuses on aesthetics to ensure a fairly high standard. It would be very beneficial if we had one in this city. Sometimes we are at the mercy of a developer who barely "passes" the zoning code to get the ok to move a crappy looking building forward. There isn't much anybody can do to stop it.

[FISHMANPET]

Apartments are being built to charge the rent they're charging because that's what it costs to build these new buildings. They're not making 100% profit margin on these buildings and not hiring world class architects because they're assholes or something, they're doing it because it's what they need to do to make a modest profit.

So we can either hope that rents rise significantly so buildings can be built more expensively (this is dumb don't think this) or we can look at reasons that these projects are so expensive. Is there any regulations that can be changed? Is the approval process overly burdensome? Are parking requirements making projects more expensive than they would be otherwise? Something else?

[Archiapolis]

I don't know what your experience is but my experience is that the "executive team" from the developers to the GCs are the ones making calls on VE. As I said, as an architect I hate it. In my experience, the "executive team" removes as much detail as they can to save a bunch of money then it starts to become apparent how awful the building will be and then ideas like, "We'll just turn every other panel to vary the facade", or "Let's just use a different colored panel every 4', it doesn't cost anything more and gives more 'detail'..." start to happen and the architecture team then has to try to explain why such ideas are awful and that the original detail as drawn (before VE) was there for a reason and not just architectural hubris which falls on deaf ears and then it gets built the way the developers and contractor want.

[Archiapolis]

Developers have some responsibility to understand the civic importance of contributing to the quality and character of the community. However , I think some of the responsibility lies with the city government and planning process. Portland has a design review process that focuses on aesthetics to ensure a fairly high standard. It would be very beneficial if we had one in this city. Sometimes we are at the mercy of a developer who barely "passes" the zoning code to get the ok to move a crappy looking building forward. There isn't much anybody can do to stop it.

Agree on all points (generally). It can be tricky when you are talking about aesthetic review because these things are subjective and taste comes into play, etc.

Example:
The city has a code governing how much of a facade can be a continuous and unbroken surface - this presents difficulty in doing very modern/progressive design that has a monolithic look. There are of course allowances that the city can make but it isn't as easy as saying, "Because modernism..." The city doesn't just rubber-stamp everything.

[Nathan]

I want to be clear that I'm not necessarily discrediting local architects... I understand these projects pay the bills and that every architect would like to do more grand work, I'm just saying there seems to be a large disconnect in good design solutions and spending money.

[Nick]

Here's the first new building built in Minot, ND in 30 years:



http://www.startribune.com/blogs/264570 ... K5wspAj.97

[Nathan]

I think they did a good job!

[min-chi-cbus]

What does that have to do with Velo Apartments?

[Archiapolis]

I want to be clear that I'm not necessarily discrediting local architects... I understand these projects pay the bills and that every architect would like to do more grand work, I'm just saying there seems to be a large disconnect in good design solutions and spending money.

No offense taken.

I wouldn't consider anything that myself or my firm has put on paper as being "grand." I don't have illusions about being the next <starchitect name here>. I'm talking about using "good" materials and design that then get VE'd down to mediocre and/or bad.

[Archiapolis]

Here's the first new building built in Minot, ND in 30 years:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/264570 ... K5wspAj.97

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this being held up as an example of "good architecture?" I don't think it is a *bad* building and the economics of affordable housing present even MORE difficulty. And, Minot. I need some help to understand how this is relevant to the Velo discussion or the development of "market rate" housing in Minneapolis. I could comment further on the architecture of this project but I don't know what to be responding to or why...

[mplsjaromir]

What does "VE" mean?

[mattaudio]

value engineered,a business jargon term for cost cutting.

[go4guy]

Can we move this to the Off Topic board?

[NE_love]

Let my start out by saying I really enjoy the massing of Velo and I actually have no problem with the exterior material palette. What I do have quite a big issue with and I find theat it is systemic within the building type is the logic behind the exterior material composition.

The first picture below is what you would see from Washington Ave. On the four walls you see in this image 4 different schemes!
1. Taupe painted hardy, black vertical metal panel, and taupe corrugated metal panel
2. Silver vertical metal panel, black painted hardy
3. Burgundy painted hardy, black vertical metal panel
4. Burgundy painted hardy, black vertical metal panel, and the taupe corrugated metal panel returns.
It is schizophrenic! Why all of the sudden is there horizontal silver metal bands? Why does the corrugated taupe go where it is? There appears to be the need for 2 schemes here, that are each logical. The 2 ends that wrap around and a "cheap" inner scheme.

The second image is the 2nd Street facade. Overall this facade isn't as schizo, but that silver metal panel doesn't really know what it is doing. What I believe its primary function is is done well articulating the corner and the bump out. But wait, it is also along the 1st level of housing (but only on this side of the building...). We also have the return of the corrugated taupe on the top level.

We see this far too often. With this 5 over 1 building type, we aren't going to see grand, but far to often they aren't approaching good.

[seanrichardryan]

No need to worry, they'll be back to reside this thing in five years anyway if past projects have taught us any lesson.

[Nick]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this being held up as an example of "good architecture?" I don't think it is a *bad* building and the economics of affordable housing present even MORE difficulty. And, Minot. I need some help to understand how this is relevant to the Velo discussion or the development of "market rate" housing in Minneapolis. I could comment further on the architecture of this project but I don't know what to be responding to or why...

My point was that it's real bland.

[MNdible]

Hm. I thought the Minot project was easily better than a lot of what we've seen around here. Nice scale, detailing, and materials.

[Nick]

Bland doesn't necessarily mean bad!

[John]

The Minot project are artist live/work spaces by Artspace. Simple but nice. The Elysian apartments in Minneapolis are one of my favorite new projects in Minneapolis. They stick to traditional brick without so many fussy details:

[mattaudio]

Classic > Daring.