Xcel Energy HQ - 401 Nicollet

[helsinki]

this [...] just shouldn't be acceptable for Nicollet mall.

As long as the facade of City Center continues to inflict itself upon Nicollet Mall, I question whether the street has a legitimate claim to architectural pretensions.

[Nathan]

this [...] just shouldn't be acceptable for Nicollet mall.

As long as the facade of City Center continues to inflict itself upon Nicollet Mall, I question whether the street has a legitimate claim to architectural pretensions.

Now there's some logic for ya, thanks for that insightful addition.

city center exists so let's all give up on aesthetics.

Good talk.

[Silophant]

I feel like if xcel had had more influence, it would actually have been better, but they don't own this development correct? Or does xcel own this? This is mostly driven by opus... and trying to make as much money as they can when they sell it. it's just really uninspired.

Opus owns the building, but as far as I know Xcel has been slated to be the sole tenant all the way through the process. So, I feel like Xcel probably should have or maybe did have a fair bit of influence, but maybe not.

Who's looking forward Opus throwing up Nic on 5th 2.0 next year?!! Anyone? guess not...

Eh, I am. I don't think the 365 Nicollet proposal looks that bad, unless they change the precast to a gross color like they did with 401. I do hope they reconsider their future plans to build a twin later, though.

[bapster2006]

I like how the block turned out. Of course, I'm not an expert in materials, but I like how it looks.

4Marq and Xcel Energy HQ Minneapolis 10-29-15 by Matt Bappe, on Flickr

[grant1simons2]

My biggest gripe is the gap between Xcel and Nic on Fifth for the skyway and the alley. Nice place to squeeze in a little bit of commercial. If not that, then some sort of interesting space and not another gap on Nicollet.

[Nathan]

If you see in this picture where xcel is wet, that's what color it would be in they cleaned and sealed it with a color enhancing sealer. Reds look better sealed like that.

[helsinki]

this [...] just shouldn't be acceptable for Nicollet mall.

As long as the facade of City Center continues to inflict itself upon Nicollet Mall, I question whether the street has a legitimate claim to architectural pretensions.

Now there's some logic for ya, thanks for that insightful addition.

city center exists so let's all give up on aesthetics.

Good talk.

Well, no. Obviously aesthetics are important. But if we're honest about it, there aren't really any buildings of significant architectural merit on Nicollet Mall. Some might argue for the IDS building, Orchestra Hall, or the Central Library -- all nice buildings. But in general, the Mall is lined with unremarkable 20th century office buildings. So the addition of one more isn't exactly offensive to the character of the street in general. Would it be nice to have something more novel or beautiful? Sure. But does the unique nature of Nicollet Mall as the only pedestrianized street downtown somehow require that the buildings fronting it must themselves be unique? I guess that doesn't really make sense to me - particularly when the new building itself is such an obvious improvement over the horrendously ugly parking ramp that preceded it.

[seanrichardryan]

If you see in this picture where xcel is wet, that's what color it would be in they cleaned and sealed it with a color enhancing sealer. Reds look better sealed like that.

Yes please, my thought exactly.

[Nathan]

Well, no. Obviously aesthetics are important. But if we're honest about it, there aren't really any buildings of significant architectural merit on Nicollet Mall. Some might argue for the IDS building, Orchestra Hall, or the Central Library -- all nice buildings. But in general, the Mall is lined with unremarkable 20th century office buildings. So the addition of one more isn't exactly offensive to the character of the street in general. Would it be nice to have something more novel or beautiful? Sure. But does the unique nature of Nicollet Mall as the only pedestrianized street downtown somehow require that the buildings fronting it must themselves be unique? I guess that doesn't really make sense to me - particularly when the new building itself is such an obvious improvement over the horrendously ugly parking ramp that preceded it.

I'm going to ignore your comment about "might argue" blah blah, those are substantial buildings by important architects, you're out of touch if you don't recognize it, and it's not my job to coddle you.

The 20th century is when almost everything in Minneapolis was built so I'm not sure why you think it's important to include that, we're not suddenly going to have some 17th century Parisian structures around, that doesn't make our history less important to our city.

This isn't even a particularly urban building to your only reasonable argument. It's single use, only has one function at the ground floor and adds quite a bit to the skyway system that so many people think hurts the street presence in our city.

I also don't care what it's replacing, that's no excuse. The developer is doing whatever it can to spend the least and make the most, and that's not fair when the people of our state spend so much of their tax money on this region to have a great main street.

Plus it's bland and boring.

It seems like you are OK with... whatever, and I want it all. Feel free to continue being OK with mediocrity, but there are places having their cake and eating it too.

This is about elevating the status of the street, and I'd argue that this is actually taking it down just by the quality of materials. Opus is creating a ticky tacky cast concrete subdivision on the most important street (visually, economically, tourist) it's not a net neutral with what exists on the mall today.

[helsinki]

Well, no. Obviously aesthetics are important. But if we're honest about it, there aren't really any buildings of significant architectural merit on Nicollet Mall. Some might argue for the IDS building, Orchestra Hall, or the Central Library -- all nice buildings. But in general, the Mall is lined with unremarkable 20th century office buildings. So the addition of one more isn't exactly offensive to the character of the street in general. Would it be nice to have something more novel or beautiful? Sure. But does the unique nature of Nicollet Mall as the only pedestrianized street downtown somehow require that the buildings fronting it must themselves be unique? I guess that doesn't really make sense to me - particularly when the new building itself is such an obvious improvement over the horrendously ugly parking ramp that preceded it.

I'm going to ignore your comment about "might argue" blah blah, those are substantial buildings by important architects, you're out of touch if you don't recognize it, and it's not my job to coddle you.

The 20th century is when almost everything in Minneapolis was built so I'm not sure why you think it's important to include that, we're not suddenly going to have some 17th century Parisian structures around, that doesn't make our history less important to our city.

This isn't even a particularly urban building to your only reasonable argument. It's single use, only has one function at the ground floor and adds quite a bit to the skyway system that so many people think hurts the street presence in our city.

I also don't care what it's replacing, that's no excuse. The developer is doing whatever it can to spend the least and make the most, and that's not fair when the people of our state spend so much of their tax money on this region to have a great main street.

Plus it's bland and boring.

It seems like you are OK with... whatever, and I want it all. Feel free to continue being OK with mediocrity, but there are places having their cake and eating it too.

This is about elevating the status of the street, and I'd argue that this is actually taking it down just by the quality of materials. Opus is creating a ticky tacky cast concrete subdivision on the most important street (visually, economically, tourist) it's not a net neutral with what exists on the mall today.

I just don't agree that the prominence of the architect automatically confers merit upon their work. Sure, Philip Johnson was a starchitecht of the midcentury. And a lot of Frank Gehry work is garbage. Ironically, the IDS anchors the skyway system that you find such a degrading design element of this new building.

History is important. Does Nicollet have many historical buildings? Certainly none that would receive official sanction - even the handsome brick structure at 10th and Marquette isn't deemed worthy. Plus: I've always found the comparison with European cities odd- sure, Paris has a tiny medieval core, but most buildings were built by Haussmann between 1850 and 1870 - just around the same time Minneapolis was starting off.

It matters what it's replacing. The transition from god-awful to mediocre is a good one. And castigating developers for seeking a profit is not a useful exercise.

I guess I just think there are really harsh judgments we could make, but this building is not one of them.

[seamonster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xJkUyotSc4

[Nathan]

Those of us with design and architecture degrees have made our points.

I never advocate for mediocre in anything. If there was no transit line somewhere and you helinski, who seem pretty knowledgeable about transit, advocated for abrt and we were getting a traditional low frequency bus route instead, I wouldn't be here telling you well mediocre is OK, it's better than nothing. I'd be advocating for the best from the educated people on this board help me understand. You can choose to do that or not.

[FISHMANPET]

If nothing else, some people seem to like it, so your "objective" opinion that it's mediocre is objectively wrong.

Because the entire field of architectural criticism is garbage!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[amiller92]

Does Nicollet have many historical buildings? Certainly none that would receive official sanction

I don't know about official sanction, but I can make a case for Dayton's, Medical Arts, Young Quinlan, WCCO,and the IDS (which might end up with official sanction if it's ever needed). I suspect you'd get a pretty big stink if you tried to tear down, Renaissance Square, or the building that houses The Local. Perhaps also the one that house Brits and Vincent (for now).

Plus: I've always found the comparison with European cities odd- sure, Paris has a tiny medieval core, but most buildings were built by Haussmann between 1850 and 1870 - just around the same time Minneapolis was starting off.

We don't have many structures left from that time, in part because we were just starting out, not rebuilding for grandeur.

[Nathan]

If nothing else, some people seem to like it, so your "objective" opinion that it's mediocre is objectively wrong.

Because the entire field of architectural criticism is garbage!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I've already discussed and shown you that architecture isn't objective and there are ways to quantify and qualify it, but thanks for the dead horse.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm gonna keep beating the dead horse, because you posted a link to some hippie article about feelings and claimed it provided an objective framework (and at the very least you didn't use that framework to explain what was wrong with this building).

So here I am, still searching for an objective truth. If an objective truth is created when you combine enough subjective opinions of trained architects and designers, so be it. If the answer is the technocratic explanation of "you need to be trained to understand it" then so be it.

And I'm not searching for objective truth just to piss you off, it's to try and solve a problem. If this building really truly is objectively bad, then what could have been done to prevent it? Is there some city process that could have been implemented to create an objectively better building? I don't know! But maybe you do. I mean, I get it, I'm a pain in the ass, but in a world where I'm "pro" bland buildings and you're "anti" I can't help but look around and see that bland is winning! The status quo is bland! And the status quo is the easiest thing in the world to do! So if we're going to move the needle, there has to be a very strong description of the "problem" and at least some ideas for fixing that problem.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nathan]

OK resume echo chamber. I'm not going to make all the leaps for you.

[mplsjaromir]

Sorry but a listicle on Architecture.com does not constitute a unified and generally accepted objective framework in which to view building design.

All aesthetic interpretation is an interpretation, meaning people view things differently based on their lived experiences. One can make a case for what makes a good building, but the ultimate decision is made by the observer.

From my experience the building looks just fine.

[Nathan]

You know what else is "just fine" riding bikes on the street with no bike lane, no transit and everyone driving, and bland buildings with poor quality materials, it's all fine, we all know it's fine, we don't come to this board to talk about things that are just fine. If everything was OK being just fine we'd have nothing to talk about.

I want things to be better than just fine, and I'd also like you all to appreciate what means better in my industry the way I appreciate better in your industry/fandom, and that usually means i just take your word for it because I have some faith in your past experience or expertise. If you don't hold me in the same regard, Bummer. It'll be just fine for y'all. How am i supposed to engage you in a conversation about design when you don't fundamentally understand the added value of better design, the sense of place that it creates, the civic pride it evokes, there are plenty of things in life that make life better that aren't measurable on a perfect scientific scale and if you can't accept that and move on, so be it. But I'm not going to stifle myself and what I envision for a better city because some people are visually and creatively inept. It takes a village.

[MNdible]

I'm going to try to walk the tightrope on this one. I'm generally in agreement with Nathan on the building -- it's weak sauce, a mailed-in building that is mediocre at best. The shot that Bapster posted above is the most generous view I've seen of the thing, because the building is hazy and wet and at far enough of a distance to conceal the fact that the detailing that you're not seeing is simply not there. The massing isn't terrible is the least faint of praise I can deliver for the project. The building doesn't need to be avant garde to be good architecture -- it just needs to be designed by somebody who gives a damn and isn't looking at the pro forma more often than the design.

That said, I also tend to agree with some of the other comments, in that I have no idea what we (and by "we" I mean both the population of people who care about stuff like this and the City with a capital C) should be doing about this to change the course and get better projects.

Also, I'm not convinced by the argument that other places are doing it better -- certainly some are, but most aren't. If somebody posts another picture of that not-good Denver Xcel project, so help me... but also, Denver is a red hot market, because it has the dumb luck to be next to the Rocky Mountains and have a better climate than we do. Not to get into a totally off-track discussion, but I've sort of decided that Minneapolis doesn't really have any true peer cities.

Last thoughts on this, in list form:

1. We have the blessing / curse of being the home to two large developers (Opus and Ryan) who have gotten very good at efficiently doing buildings and making lots of money doing it.

2. We have unusually expensive construction labor costs for a non-coastal market. This makes nice details an expensive thing that gets whacked when things get tight on the pro forma.

3. We have unusually harsh weather (the greatest temperature delta of any major city in the US), which means that exotic detailing is extra risky.