DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

[Wedgeguy]

deco

Your are correct. Two are periods and Nuevo was mainly in Europe, Deco in the US. I stand corrected.

[Didier]

Other than the stadium?

The Star Tribune, while it has enormous civic value, is a for-profit company that directly competes against other for-profit media companies in the Twin Cities. Naming the park after the Star Tribune, or giving the newspaper free advertising at the park, is fine with me as long as the newspaper pays for it.

There's a valid discussion as to whether or not the city should subsidize the orchestra or the theaters or a sports stadium, but I don't think we should give handouts to private companies just because they supposedly operate for the public good, and you could argue that any public money for our biggest journalism company is a massive conflict of interest.


From a development standpoint, I've always liked the front of the Star Tribune building too and think the arch looks kind of awesome. It would be nice if it could be salvaged somehow.

I should also say that I've worked as a journalist and have always held the Star Tribune in very high regard. My point above has nothing to do with a bias against the paper.

[Minneboy]

David Brauer ‏@dbrauer: Compromise in Star Tribune historic preservation debate?Architect suggests hollowing it out into triumphal park arch!

Totally cool. I'd like to have it in red just for fun.

[Chauncey87]

The arch idea seems like a pretty cool center point to a city park. However I think this building will be all or nothing in terms of its demise (save for the medallions) . However if the wind blows in the favor of keeping the Strib building it looks like Ryan will wash there hands clean of this idea. The strib will move into there new office and this building will in my guess when it finds a new owner will ask for and get tens of millions of state, CO., and city cash to rehab an otherwise ordinary building. This building is not the Metropolitan.

Here is a quote from the Pi Press.

Bob Parr, director of development for Ryan Cos., told commissioners that the entire development hinges on the demolition of the Star Tribune building. "The full park plan is a vital component of the overall project," Parr said. "Without it as shown, Ryan's project will not go forward."

http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_2 ... source=rss

I really like the park, the office towers, and added apartments that come with taring down this building. The odd thing is that I still can't wrap my head around is how big the balls are on these special interest groups. Seemingly unwilling to compromise and gamble saving a marginal low floor office building. For an expansive city park, 1.5 million sq feet of office, hundreds of new apartments, and thousands of workers bringing fresh energy into a part of the city that has been pretty much flat lined since the dome was built.

[go4guy]

Other than the stadium?

The Star Tribune, while it has enormous civic value, is a for-profit company that directly competes against other for-profit media companies in the Twin Cities. Naming the park after the Star Tribune, or giving the newspaper free advertising at the park, is fine with me as long as the newspaper pays for it.

There's a valid discussion as to whether or not the city should subsidize the orchestra or the theaters or a sports stadium, but I don't think we should give handouts to private companies just because they supposedly operate for the public good, and you could argue that any public money for our biggest journalism company is a massive conflict of interest.


From a development standpoint, I've always liked the front of the Star Tribune building too and think the arch looks kind of awesome. It would be nice if it could be salvaged somehow.

I should also say that I've worked as a journalist and have always held the Star Tribune in very high regard. My point above has nothing to do with a bias against the paper.

Even considering they still employ Souhan?

[Nick]

Other than the stadium?

The Star Tribune, while it has enormous civic value, is a for-profit company that directly competes against other for-profit media companies in the Twin Cities. Naming the park after the Star Tribune, or giving the newspaper free advertising at the park, is fine with me as long as the newspaper pays for it.

There's a valid discussion as to whether or not the city should subsidize the orchestra or the theaters or a sports stadium, but I don't think we should give handouts to private companies just because they supposedly operate for the public good, and you could argue that any public money for our biggest journalism company is a massive conflict of interest.


From a development standpoint, I've always liked the front of the Star Tribune building too and think the arch looks kind of awesome. It would be nice if it could be salvaged somehow.

I should also say that I've worked as a journalist and have always held the Star Tribune in very high regard. My point above has nothing to do with a bias against the paper.

I was just joshin'.

[helsinki]

Bob Parr, director of development for Ryan Cos., told commissioners that the entire development hinges on the demolition of the Star Tribune building. "The full park plan is a vital component of the overall project," Parr said. "Without it as shown, Ryan's project will not go forward."

I fail to understand why this is the case.

The park seems to be an afterthought: scant resources are being devoted to it, no proper designs have been presented, both Ryan and Wells Fargo have described the park as "basic".

Given this, why is it such a vital component of the overall project?

Consider the absurdity, for a moment. Ryan plans to tear down a structurally sound and perfectly decent building (historic, of debatable architectural merit) in order to plant grass. Nothing more (ok, the obligatory trees) has been proposed. Meanwhile, the lot accross the street will likely see, in addition to the planting of grass, the construction of a 6-story wood-frame apartment building.

If the desire to have a park on this lot is merely to allow unobstructed views of the two new towers, I would say that this is the silliest possible reason to tear down the Strib building. First, the aerial renderings everyone is drooling over will never be seen by anyone not watching television. The important vantage point, eye level, has not been considered here. Second, the towers aren't architectural masterpieces by a long shot, and it is egotistical and naive to assume that it is of paramount importance to have unobstructed views of them. Finally, any 'gameday experience' boosterism for the park must be tempered by acknowleding that this field of grass will be separated from the other field of grass by one-way Portland Avenue. This is a prescription for dumpy urban space.

Presumably Ryan hopes that the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board will assume the maintenance and upkeep of the park, because it is highly unlikely that they - or Wells Fargo - intend to do so. Whether the Park Board can transform two grassy fields separated by a one-way traffic funnel bounded by a stadium, parking ramps, and corporate office towers into a pleasant urban oasis is unclear. My guess would be no.

[MplsSteve]

Seems like Minneapolis has been down this road several times before - either demolishing or going to great lengths to "save" an historic structure that was standing in the way of a much hyped development scheme. In the early 1980's the Forum Cafeteria on 7th was dismantled for later reconstruction in City Center. In the 90's the Schubert Theater was moved over a block to make way for Block E. In both cases the historic buildings could have been incorporated into the new development as they stood; it would have just taken a little extra effort and flexibility, which of course developers never have. And all for what? The two most hideous developments ever to disfigure downtown Minneapolis. Of course, I'm not saying that's gonna happen in this case, but...

[mattaudio]

From Max Musicant's blog:
"back of the envelope calculations point to "The Yard" needing to draw 1,750,000 visitors a year in order for it to feel safe and vibrant. For perspective, Minnehaha Falls and Stone Arch Bridge both draw just over 1M apiece annually."

[mattaudio]

Anyone else get the feeling that the plan is to really make three large tailgate parking lots paved in grass?

[mplsjaromir]

Yes. This entire project looks worse and worse by the day. No way there will ever (outside of Vikings games) be enough people around to make the park not scary. A case study in the making of how not to revitalize underused urban areas.

[Rich]

Shouldn’t we be thinking long long long term with this? What could this area look like in 60 years? How many thousands of people will have moved downtown? Might we regret not preserving a couple blocks of green space?

Add me to the list of those who’d use Bryant Park in NYC as the model. Installing such a park needn’t be hugely expensive. It’s just a lawn amid trees and sidewalks, with kiosks, benches etc. But the fact that it’s flat and open makes it a versatile space for a variety of events. At Bryant there are concerts, film festivals, food festivals, fencing classes, ice skating events, tai chi events, holiday marketplaces, fly fishing clinics, language classes, chess, mah jongg and ping pong tournaments, daily juggling exhibitions, lectures, poetry jams, kids storytimes, yoga classes, dance troupes, etc. etc. etc. The possibilities are endless.

The key is having a multi-purpose grassy area (ideally without Portland Av bisecting it) as the largest component. The bonus is, on days when nothing much is scheduled, it becomes a nice quiet little green oasis.

[min-chi-cbus]

Bob Parr, director of development for Ryan Cos., told commissioners that the entire development hinges on the demolition of the Star Tribune building. "The full park plan is a vital component of the overall project," Parr said. "Without it as shown, Ryan's project will not go forward."

I fail to understand why this is the case.

The park seems to be an afterthought: scant resources are being devoted to it, no proper designs have been presented, both Ryan and Wells Fargo have described the park as "basic".

Given this, why is it such a vital component of the overall project?

Consider the absurdity, for a moment. Ryan plans to tear down a structurally sound and perfectly decent building (historic, of debatable architectural merit) in order to plant grass. Nothing more (ok, the obligatory trees) has been proposed. Meanwhile, the lot accross the street will likely see, in addition to the planting of grass, the construction of a 6-story wood-frame apartment building.

If the desire to have a park on this lot is merely to allow unobstructed views of the two new towers, I would say that this is the silliest possible reason to tear down the Strib building. First, the aerial renderings everyone is drooling over will never be seen by anyone not watching television. The important vantage point, eye level, has not been considered here. Second, the towers aren't architectural masterpieces by a long shot, and it is egotistical and naive to assume that it is of paramount importance to have unobstructed views of them. Finally, any 'gameday experience' boosterism for the park must be tempered by acknowleding that this field of grass will be separated from the other field of grass by one-way Portland Avenue. This is a prescription for dumpy urban space.

Presumably Ryan hopes that the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board will assume the maintenance and upkeep of the park, because it is highly unlikely that they - or Wells Fargo - intend to do so. Whether the Park Board can transform two grassy fields separated by a one-way traffic funnel bounded by a stadium, parking ramps, and corporate office towers into a pleasant urban oasis is unclear. My guess would be no.

I thought that the city mandated that the park be part of this redevelopment, as part of its subsidy to Wells/Ryan. Therefore, Wells/Ryan are making it a mandate of their own (in their best interest).

This is just how I understood it, anyways.

[min-chi-cbus]

Yes. This entire project looks worse and worse by the day. No way there will ever (outside of Vikings games) be enough people around to make the park not scary. A case study in the making of how not to revitalize underused urban areas.

Maybe we can cement old white people with puppies and police officers into the ground so suburbanites (or whomever) won't feel so scared?

[mplsjaromir]

Yes. This entire project looks worse and worse by the day. No way there will ever (outside of Vikings games) be enough people around to make the park not scary. A case study in the making of how not to revitalize underused urban areas.

Maybe we can cement old white people with puppies and police officers into the ground so suburbanites (or whomever) won't feel so scared?

Or just not construct a two block long park on the cheap?

The park is gonna be just like New York's Bryant Park, except you know that Manhattan has ten times the population density of Minneapolis.

The wheels are in motion on this, no real way to stop it from going forward. But making the park half the size that would be a good start.

[helsinki]

In the 90's the Schubert Theater was moved over a block to make way for Block E.

This is a good analogy that should focus minds. The original Block E may have been 'blighted' (whatever that means; I think it means 'frequented by poor people') and 'without architectural merit', but those run-down pre-war walk-up buildings had a sh*t ton more 'architectural merit' than the looney tunes pile of garabage that is Block E currently.

Similarly, the current DTE parking lot moonscape is an eyesore. But knocking down the one structure standing in that moonscape seems an odd remedy for what ails DTE. Block E sucks because leaders didn't think long and hard about what they were doing (plopping down an ugly box full of chain franchises with no consideration for the surrounding context). They owe it to downtown to think long and hard about what they are doing here (replacing an historic building with some "basic" grass and trees).

I like Gold Medal Park. Many people don't; they think it is boring. It might be a bit boring because it has very little retail surrounding it, but at least there are hundreds of residences. This park, by contrast, will not only be more boring than Gold Medal Park (no retail, no residences) but it has none of the advantages of Gold Medal Park either (proximity to the river, meticulous landscaping and well designed fixtures, dedicated maintenance financing). Other than (1) game day, and (2) a sunny warm day during lunchtime, when will this park be used? Skyways will keep pedestrians away (don't believe me? check out Government Plaza) and the patrons of People Serving People (fine people, but nonetheless struggling with homelessness, domestic violence, and poverty) one block north will be the primary occupants.

[mnmike]

I like Gold Medal Park. Many people don't; they think it is boring. It might be a bit boring because it has very little retail surrounding it, but at least there are hundreds of residences. This park, by contrast, will not only be more boring than Gold Medal Park (no retail, no residences) but it has none of the advantages of Gold Medal Park either (proximity to the river, meticulous landscaping and well designed fixtures, dedicated maintenance financing). Other than (1) game day, and (2) a sunny warm day during lunchtime, when will this park be used? Skyways will keep pedestrians away (don't believe me? check out Government Plaza) and the patrons of People Serving People (fine people, but nonetheless struggling with homelessness, domestic violence, and poverty) one block north will be the primary occupants.

Not saying this park plan doesn't have it's issues...but....Isn't it supposed to be surrounded on at least 2 sides by hundreds of residences? And Isn't there supposed to be leasable ground floor retail space in the Wells Fargo Buildings? Also, if we are comparing to Gold Medal Park, that was pretty much built as "basic trees and grass" as well, the only addition was the mound in the middle. I think it would be foolish to assume that this won't at least have "landscaping and well designed fixtures" to start (I wouldn't call the muddy lawn and dead and/or weedy daylilies and mulch that wasn't even refreshed this year at Gold Medal Park "meticulous" landscaping) . Lastly, the maintanence issue will be resolved...it is, of course, already being discussed.

[Didier]

I was just joshin'.

You made a fair point though, and I felt I had to clarify.

[Wedgeguy]

My idea is the Trib building stay standing until they are 10 stories up on the Ryan towers. That way we don't lose a building when one of the parties pulls out at the last minute.

[matt91486]

I'm quite drawn to the arch idea, myself. It'll give that park a solid landmark and an immediate area of interest. Also, a great meeting point. It's far more interesting than the 6 random medallions embedded in a sidewalk somewhere.

Equally, I think the Arch is a great idea. I think it works well, otherwise if you just preserve the facade you might end up with something like in Macau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_of_St._Paul%27s). The thing in Macau is admittedly cool, but it also would I think far more impede any practical use of the space. I don't really agree with the notions that a decorative arch ruins potential uses of the space. If we're drawing parallels to New York City parks, Washington Square Park is quite a lively place and it has a giant arch in it. (Yes, density difference aside).