urbanMSP

[ramble]

Something about their offices up in a giant tower seems...odd. Can't explain why, exactly. I feel like the newspaper needs to be somewhere at eye level with a sign outside that says "this is where the newspaper is". But, you know, iPads and Twitter or whatever.

Edit: I guess Sam Black says he thinks they'd have some ground-level presence, so maybe never mind.

i have an online strib account, and pay the $8 or whatever it is monthly to access online.

Congrats dude

I wonder if they will change the name to Star Tribune Tower?

according to what I've read the strib will have a street level presence in the tower.

To the surprise of no one, a group (Preserve Minneapolis) is opposing demolition of the Strib building: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/232504501.html

Honestly, even if the Heritage Preservation Board were to vote against demolition, the City Council is going to override that, probably unanimously. They aren't going to let the Strib building stand in the way of this park.

To the surprise of no one, a group (Preserve Minneapolis) is opposing demolition of the Strib building: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/232504501.html

Honestly, even if the Heritage Preservation Board were to vote against demolition, the City Council is going to override that, probably unanimously. They aren't going to let the Strib building stand in the way of this park.

I could see it going to the state/national historic register, peavey plaza 2.0, but that's just me. Which is why I think it would have been wise of Ryan to consider preserving portions of the building from the get go.

To the surprise of no one, a group (Preserve Minneapolis) is opposing demolition of the Strib building: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/232504501.html

Honestly, even if the Heritage Preservation Board were to vote against demolition, the City Council is going to override that, probably unanimously. They aren't going to let the Strib building stand in the way of this park.

I could see it going to the state/national historic register, peavey plaza 2.0, but that's just me. Which is why I think it would have been wise of Ryan to consider preserving portions of the building from the get go.

Easily. It's the only historic media-related building left in our city, and it's evolved over the years along with the paper inside it. On top of that, it's really the only building of this style that we have (that I can think of) and the only historic thing left in that area apart from the Armory. If the NRHP salivated over designating structures, this would be a meal at a four-star restaurant to them.

Historic because it was media related? Are we going to try to preserve the last video store too? I can kind of understand if you're talking the style of building, but to say there's nothing else historic in the area is a blatant lie. The depot is 2 blocks away and from there you have the mill ruins and all of the rehabbed mill buildings, a block away you have the building that houses the Old Spaghetti factory, 3 blocks away is the Grain Exchange and the Flour Exchange and a host of other buildings. I know people are pretty passionate about saving this building, but let's be realistic about it.

Historic because it was media related? Are we going to try to preserve the last video store too? I can kind of understand if you're talking the style of building, but to say there's nothing else historic in the area is a blatant lie. The depot is 2 blocks away and from there you have the mill ruins and all of the rehabbed mill buildings, a block away you have the building that houses the Old Spaghetti factory, 3 blocks away is the Grain Exchange and the Flour Exchange and a host of other buildings. I know people are pretty passionate about saving this building, but let's be realistic about it.

You've misunderstood my use of the word media. I should specify then that I mean media production. Generations of reporters have worked in the newsrooms of this building, writing the stories that millions of Twin Citians have read over the years to find out what has been happening in their world. This building is the news of Minneapolis. It may not be as grand as the Tribune Tower in Chicago, but it's every bit as important to our history as a city. For better or worse, this is our newspaper. Not Cleveland's, or Kansas City's, or even Saint Paul's. If we strip away too many of the things that make our city unique and individual, we turn into Anytown, USA. If the argument is to be made that structures should be saved for their architectural merit alone and not what they represent or the events that occurred within their walls, then should we be scrapping sites like Ellis Island? (I know that's an extreme example, but I'm using a hyperbolic comparison to make a point.)

As for the question of its proximity to other historic structures, of the eight full city blocks ringing this building, there are only two that contain a prewar building of any kind, and one of those is just a three story brick box. Further out than that to the north, yes, you'll find quite a few significant structures. To the south, though, there's not much for about four blocks in any direction.

3 Questions that Need to be Answered About The Yard & Ryan Co’s Downtown East Project

https://streets.mn/2013/11/19/3-questio ... t-project/

Personally, I'd be much happier if we could have the DID manage the park rather than the Park Board or the City. I know that makes people (me included) a bit squeamish about privatization of public space, but I think that the results will speak for themselves.

A bit squeamish is an understatement. And, results for whom?

Well, I was responding to the Bryant Square Park references in the link above. It's nigh on impossible to have a highly programmed park space that doesn't slide somewhat into the realm of privatization. You're not going to get somebody to sponsor a major event in the space without gaining some element of control over the space (see, for example, the fight over bible thumpers at Loring Park Pride).

Is that good? Not sure. Is it a worthwhile tradeoff? I'd bet that 95% of people would be willing to trade a neglected but wholly public space for a much-loved-and-used but slightly private one.

That, and I've been less than inspired by the Park Board's chops at operating active, urban spaces.

HPC denied the demo permit:
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/232504501.html

This was expected, right?
Then it will go to the council, which will discuss/accept the CPED recommendation and saving the facade medallions.

Yes, this would have been my bet as well.

I could see the council adding a couple of more conditions to the approval, but ultimately I can't see them standing in the way of the demolition. They didn't bat an eye at supporting the demolition of Peavey Plaza, which in my opinion is much more meritorious as a preservation candidate.

I walked by the building again yesterday. The full facades facing Portland and 5th all have great Art Deco integrity. This is a building where you keep the SW corner of the building and build a tower on the NE corner of the block where the parking and loading docks are. Great spot of a possible hotel apartment complex.

To me the only part of this worth saving at all is the entrance, I like the idea of saving at least the medallions from around the entrance and putting them in the park. While the building has history, architecturally it really isn't that interesting aside from the art deco entrance facade. The rest of the building is kind of a mid century international style, and not really in a good way.

If the City Council is to override the decision and permit demolition, it should at least insist on a few things.

Primary among them should be that demolition cannot take place without first answering the questions posed by Mr. Musicant in his Streets.mn post. Minneapolis has a long history of making idiotic decisions based on illusory promises and thoroughly regretting them later. The haste to demolish the historic Star Tribune building in order to construct a poorly defined park is unseemly, especially given the expanse of parking lots surrounding the building upon which perfectly decent parks could be placed without demolishing anything (let alone one of the few historic buildings in the city center).

Let's not repeat the experience of the Metropolitan Building [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolit ... nneapolis) - replaced by a parking lot] out of some misguided assumption that allowing the Star Tribune building to remain somehow prevents Ryan from constructing two buildings for Wells Fargo on different parcels of land.

This is a thing, kind of related:
http://www.startribune.com/local/232678271.html