222 & Whole Foods - (222 Hennepin Avenue)

[John]

The vertical bronze metal paneling on the upper levels of the structure ( on the corner of N 2nd street and N 1st Ave) are already becoming warped and wobbly underneath. It's unbelievable to me the developer finds this acceptable. I'm skeptical they are going to replace it with something more durable and lasting ( which they should have done in the first place). I know some people get sick of me for repeatedly stating my concern about quality of materials, but this is my case in point. This place could turn out be a real dump in a decade.

[nordeast homer]

True, it is not even close to 1000 feet, even if they added a spire.

For most of us that wanted something better on this block it's not just about the height. Slim it down a little and make it even slightly higher. This behemoth looked like a bad project and it's turning out to look worse than we thought, which is really frustrating because this is a pretty prominent corner that deserves something more than a cheap suburban knockoff. The addition of a grocery store is the only positive I can find for this godforsaken crapfest.

[seanrichardryan]

Part of 'breaking up the exterior' is caused by misguided city regulations. It's they only way they know how to turn a sow's ear around///

[Unity77]

True, it is not even close to 1000 feet, even if they added a spire.

So clever.

[Minneboy]

True, it is not even close to 1000 feet, even if they added a spire.

For most of us that wanted something better on this block it's not just about the height. Slim it down a little and make it even slightly higher. This behemoth looked like a bad project and it's turning out to look worse than we thought, which is really frustrating because this is a pretty prominent corner that deserves something more than a cheap suburban knockoff. The addition of a grocery store is the only positive I can find for this godforsaken crapfest.

I think it will look as good as Block E without the signage.

[garfield]

Many of these developments are using fiber cement panels as a replacement for real stucco. It is seen as a cost savings, but the difference is probably in the 15-25% range. The problem is that there are now many, many seams (places for water to penetrate), and the material is untested over time. You can look at any of these buildings that have been built in the last decade, and these panels are already warped. The metal panels they use aren't much better, because of the huge fluctuations in temperature in our state.

I truly believe that the developers just don't care. They are making all of their money on the front end, as they charge several million dollar "developer fees" that are wrapped into the projects' original costs. Few of them care about the long-term viability of the materials they use, because they won't be around as owners when it is time to replace them.

[seanrichardryan]

A small leak around a window or seam on the sixth floor of a wooden six story building is a disaster. Ask Emerald Gardens of University.

[Didier]

Out of curiosity, how do you know about the situation at Emerald Gardens?

But yes, we have learned over the last several years that our buildings were put together with an almost criminal disregard to functional design and construction standards. From my understanding this negligence isn't entirely uncommon from these mid-level complexes that were hastily built during the last condo boom. Not surprisingly, many of the companies involved in the construction here no longer exist.

[FISHMANPET]

Does anyone know how long it takes for a stick built project like this to turn a "profit" for... whoever needs to do so? Or in other words, how long before these (222 & other similar buildings) pay themselves off so they can be torn down and replaced?

[beykite]

Oy vey. Is this a serious question? Well since you asked. The standard formula is usually: building square feet/avg price per unit, then take that number times it by 12 months in a year then divide all that by the average price of wood over the last decade then take the percentage of people who would rather tear down a building thats paid off and profitable only to build a new building and start all over and it equals out to about 63.45 years.

Or we could start actually talking about the developments themselves and posting pictures and news and all that good stuff instead of just constantly bashing all the projects going on and ending up in this continuous circle jerk of how they aren't tall or architecturally significant enough.

We are undergoing a construction boom like one we havent seen in almost a decade yet getting actual info on the projects or seeing pics of construction requires sifting through tons of garbage. Should we discuss the overall design and critique it? Yes absolutely. Should we constantly bitch and moan over it throughout the entire duration of its construction...? Well I'd rather not and if that means using SSC as a primary source of info on construction well then I guess so be it.

[ECtransplant]

To be fair, there's a bit of a difference between a "continuous circle jerk of how they aren't tall or architecturally significant enough" and noting that the cheap materials used are showing noticeable signs of wear before the project is even finished.

[beykite]

Right... which is why I didn't mention it. For one I'm not talking about just this thread but besides that the post I was responding to had nothing to do with the materials showing signs of wear.

[Le Sueur]

Or we could start actually talking about the developments themselves and posting pictures and news and all that good stuf...

^^This. Thanks for posting your pictures on Friday BTW.

[FISHMANPET]

Right... which is why I didn't mention it. For one I'm not talking about just this thread but besides that the post I was responding to had nothing to do with the materials showing signs of wear.

If the materials are already wearing then maybe the building is being built with a short lifespan in mind? It's not unprecedented in the history of development:
http://www.oldhouseweb.com/blog/taxpayer-buildings/

Could buildings like this be a form of land banking where the building pays itself off in a few years and then makes a little bit of profit until it can be torn down and something bigger, better, and more permanent built?

[alleycat]

I can't see knocking down the whole building as good idea, but perhaps improving upon the metal panel portion in the future. One of my favorite parts of this project is that they reused a portion of the old dealership. By the time there is no land to redevelop in downtown/North Loop a better land use will be possible.

[robotlollipop]

An honest question: Out of curiosity, what specifically makes this building unattractive to everyone? Aside from better material, were you hoping for more glass, different colors, or what? Isn't this exactly what the renderings showed?

[Suburban Outcast]

It's not that bad, but the quality of the materials seems to make people talk in this thread. Some wanted it to be taller, and some want it to be architecturally significant. I wouldn't call it suburban like a couple people, but the architectural design seems similar to other developments of this magnitude in the city. Oh well, I am happy that vacant dealership is gone.

It reminds me of the high-rise condos/apartments getting built in Toronto, many of them look similar but they are increasing density in the area regardless. Many cities seems to have a sort of a trademark style for their medium to high density housing. Look at Paris and the Second Empire/Haussmann styled buildings, Vancouver's glass condos, old rowhouses/brownstones in major Northeastern US cities, etc. There are cookie-cutter styles in every city, and I get sick of it but as long as it benefits the area then I am fine with it because not every development has to be groundbreaking for the city.

Like I said in another thread, if I really cared so much about height and architectural styles I would have just become a developer.

[RailBaronYarr]

I think someone pointed out in a different thread (maybe a UMN one?) that the pre-cast stone/brick/concrete facades typically have the windows set at the same place. Therefore you get a building front with very little depth - everything is flat, there's no texture to the building, so to speak. Add to that many of these things have no architectural detail along the roof line, nothing fancy along street level for door/window dressings, and the general 'fake looking' nature of pre-cast to begin with and you get a very bland-feeling building.

My take is that it's fine, as long as 15-25% of developers are willing to spend the extra bit on exterior finishes to make neighborhoods have varying degrees of 'cool' to them. Every house built at the turn of the 20th century didn't have awesome architectural details, interesting rooflines, etc.

[Aville_37]

Or we could start actually talking about the developments themselves and posting pictures and news and all that good stuf...

^^This. Thanks for posting your pictures on Friday BTW.

Ditto that. Great pic of the Soo Line building. So excited to see those huge arched windows again!

[John]

The project looks better (than even a week ago) as the facade goes up. They are using both corrugated metal panels and flat metal panels, and personally I think the corrugated ones look better. The base with the stone and brick looks great. The problem with the bronze flat panels is they are intended to have a very smooth, even surface (to contrast with the other materials) and the wobbling detracts from that effect. I think when the balconies are installed that will distract from that issue somewhat.