AC Marriott Hotel - 401 Hennepin Ave (Andrews Hotel site)

[trkaiser]

Newsflash (since I see a bunch of UrbanMSPers wrote in): We do not operate in a planned economy where the city government dictates exactly what will be built.

We don't?

[acs]

I mean really it's a decent infill project that fits the height and size of the area well. A skyscraper would just look ridiculously out of place. The only complaint I have is about the alley entrance. I just hope it doesn't funnel guests away from using the Hennepin ave entrance.

[Wedgeguy]

I mean really it's a decent infill project that fits the height and size of the area well. A skyscraper would just look ridiculously out of place. The only complaint I have is about the alley entrance. I just hope it doesn't funnel guests away from using the Hennepin ave entrance.

Not sure what you mean that a tower would be out of place. To the north the Nicollet block will have a 20+ tower on it. To the east will be a new tower for Exel a block away. Kiddy corner across Hennepin is a highrise, so towers in the area are not out of place. We are not talking a 35 story hotel, but one that will stand out on Hennepin better than this stump.

[GrowMPLS]

I don't care how tall it is.....just not this hum drum design that looks like it should be in Chaska. They could jazz the design up without much added expense.........now its just boring!!!

[Silophant]

The rumour is that retiredbanker/ The Consortium was planning a 60-story economy hotel for this lot before Mortonson swooped in and outbid them. Honestly, I don't know if it would be better than the current scheme. A 20-story building here would be fine, but a near-supertall? Idk. Also, I'm no real estate tycoon, but I have no idea how the economics can possibly work for a supertall cheap hotel.

[twincitizen]

Newsflash (since I see a bunch of UrbanMSPers wrote in)...

Actually, I think a lot of that was thanks to Grant1Simons2 urging folks over at SkyscraperCity to email CM Frey. I'll give him props for that. Without his urging, there wouldn't be any known opposition or frustration with the design at all. Sure, some of those emails were a little , but the fact that CM Frey and the Planning Commission will at least hear some feedback makes me happy. If you get past the height-obsession that defines SSC, they're not wrong about the terrible design. This thing stinks at any height. Perhaps these responses will be enough for the Planning Commission to kick it back to the developer and ask for some design revisions. It won't get taller, but asking for better exterior materials and a little pizzazz at this corner is not a bad thing.

[FISHMANPET]

On the other hand, if all they're getting are about height, nobody's going to take them seriously.

[xandrex]

^A good reason for those who don't fetishize height to write in then?

[IllogicalJake]

This thing looks terrible. I do feel one of the last remaining prime spots on one of our busiest avenues deserves better and denser than a 9 story hotel. If that's fetishizing height, so be it, I suppose.

And, yes, please write in. Or show up. Or do something to make your opinion known outside of forum posts! Bitching at each other is fun but makes no difference to the actual projects.

[FISHMANPET]

The thing is, the city can't just say "instead of approving this 9 story hotel, we're going to approve a 50 story glass skyscraper, you have to build that now." That's not how it works. All the wishing in the world won't make things work that way. Four out of the five emails want something else to be built there. The first even want into how many suites they could fit into the upper floors of his imaginary tower, as if it was Frey and the city that designed this thing.

There's some mythical proposal that got posted on SSC and people are taking that as gospel. Sorry to say, but Mortenson brought this to the table, and this shadowy other proposal was not brought to the table. Thems the breaks. Crying and whining to Frey won't make this other proposal suddenly materialize and become financed and approved.

On the Nicollet Block the city does have some power because they can decide to not sell the land. Does the city have any legal authority to deny the project because it's not ambitous enough? I'm sure the city could deny the CUPs for parking spaces (and maybe they should) and for signs as a way to torpedo the project, but I'd imagine they'd be on shaky legal ground if they denied the CUP based on factors unrelated to the CUP.

Does the city have any leverage to ensure good design and massing here?

[Silophant]

I don't think so. I wonder if denying the parking variance would just make Mortenson shrug, build a roof over the parking lot, them probably cut some corners elsewhere to make up the cost. The city had leverage with The Venue at Dinkytown, because they were asking for variances and permissions that were crucial to the project. These variances, not so much.

[IllogicalJake]

The thing is, the city can't just say "instead of approving this 9 story hotel, we're going to approve a 50 story glass skyscraper, you have to build that now." That's not how it works. All the wishing in the world won't make things work that way.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, most of us get how "it" works. But the city is serving the interest of the public and I think it's important to show, as a public, what we're interested and what we're not. You can argue "It won't change anything!" and act like people are dumb til the cows come home, but what's the point?

If you're trying to say people should not give input during the process, then I wholeheartedly disagree, for reasons I won't hijack the thread for.

If you're trying to say people shouldn't submit comment unless you have a specific fix for the problem, then I still disagree. The role of the people is not to come up with the solution in this instance, it's to give feedback to this project. If the people submitting comment would be more interested in something tall here, let them speak it.

"There's some mythical proposal that got posted on SSC and people are taking that as gospel." Not really, a majority of that forum are pretty rational and understand that not all said is true and not all that's true will come to fruition. Occasionally it draws some people that are -worthy, but what large group doesn't.

I expect this hotel will probably get built. I'm not going to pretend I like it, and I wish more would do the same.

[seanrichardryan]

I think we all need to take a deep breath and ask, 'What would Retired Banker do?

[FISHMANPET]

Maybe the whole process needs to change, but right now, as it stands, the city has a fairly limited criteria that they can use to judge a project, and in fact if you go to planning commission meetings they'll implore you to stay within the very narrow band of feedback they can work with. And requesting a totally different building be built is way outside that band of feedback, so far in fact that it makes the requestor seem like someone that isn't in touch with reality.

And I'm not going to speak to the whole of SSC because I don't read it, but looking at the correspondence, it's quite clear that 4 out of the 5 people that wrote in have completely bought into this weird cult around The Consortium to the point where they asked Jacob to think about that magic proposal instead. Of the 5 people that cared enough to write in, 4 of them came from a completely irrelevant position.

People should give input that's within scope of the process. The current process for allowing a building doesn't allow a completely different building to be approved instead. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to submit comments on this building and talk about my feelings on the University apartment boom, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask for a different building here instead.

I don't think that all criticism should come with a possible solution, but again, the criticism has to be within the scope of the process. There is (to my knowledge) no place where the city council weighs in on the design or massing of this proposal. Commenting on those are basically out of scope of the process.

If someone wants to contact Frey and let him know that they're not satisfied with how ambitious proposals, they're certainly free to do that (although I don't think it will do much good, despite what some people may think, I highly doubt Frey is discouraging people from building tall). But in the very specific context of this project and the process it's going through, that kind of comment isn't relevant.

If you think it should be relevant, then by all means contact Frey and talk to him about how you wish the city took more of a heavy hand in development. But as much as I may not like the design, I don't want the city designing building exteriors, I don't want them dictating minimum heights, I don't want them financing projects, etc etc. I don't want the city designing projects, and that's basically what's being asked for here.

[sushisimo]

That right there was a gratifying read, and applies to so many sagas on this board.

[mullen]

design and massing are broad terms. i do believe this is within the scope of our planning commission. how the building meets the sidewalk, quality of building materials, height and so on. and the planning commission results are then reviewed by the city council's planning committee and eventually the full council. a city councilmember can exert influence.

i reminded of the debates when block e and Target's hq were up for a city approvals. i specificially recall councilmember schiff expressing concerns over the quality of materials being proposed for the building. a specific councilmember basically forced Target to remove a few floors from the building over complaints from a neighborhood group.

[mister.shoes]

I'm struggling to see how the design of this hotel is somehow worse than the flat, boring, featureless ... thing ... being build on the corner of 1st Ave and 8th Street. That Hampton Inn is as uninteresting a hotel as I've ever seen. This one actually has a modicum of visual interest, what with the tower-ish thing and the off-kilter angle of the lighter section.

Is it shorter than I'd like? Yes.
Is it less interesting than some of the AC Marriott designs in other cities? Yes.
Does it have one too many curb cuts? Definitely yes. (It'd be nice if both went away and it shared the cut off 4th with the ramp since it's connecting to it anyway)

Is it worth the unbelievable level of outrage being spewed, primarily over at SSC but also a little bit here? Um, no. I'm sorry, but no it isn't.

This empty lot on the corner of Hennepin and *th is sad in its emptiness, but you know what other empty lots on the corner of Hennepin and *th are far more deserving of being filled with taller, more interesting, denser buildings? Hint: look south one block. You know, the two corners that just happen to be LRT-adjacent. Then, look north one block. You know, the Nicollet Hotel and potential-Eclipse lots. I'm not mourning the entirely theoretical lost potential of this lot. The corner of 4th Street is an order of magnitude less interesting and less deserving than 5th, 3rd, and Washington. If we can get this one off the market, it only makes the others more valuable than they already are. That's not being pessimistic or defeatist or "accepting of the mediocrity of local developers." That's finding a silver lining in this dark cloud and looking forward to what's next.

[Silophant]

I'm struggling to see how the design of this hotel is somehow worse than the flat, boring, featureless ... thing ... being build on the corner of 1st Ave and 8th Street.

IMO, it isn't a worse design. Its just that a bad design is more acceptable for a cheap hotel on a secondary street than a luxury hotel on a primary street.

That being said, I agree with you. I'd like a better design, but there's too many surface lots left on Hennepin to be shooting down merely sub-par designs.

[xandrex]

i reminded of the debates when block e and Target's hq were up for a city approvals. i specificially recall councilmember schiff expressing concerns over the quality of materials being proposed for the building. a specific councilmember basically forced Target to remove a few floors from the building over complaints from a neighborhood group.

Was any of that power related to the subsidy the city offered up around some of Target's downtown development? In other words, was it more than typical project approval? I know the downtown Target opened roughly around when the shiny new headquarters opened, but I honestly don't know exact timelines or if any of it is related.

[mister.shoes]

I'm struggling to see how the design of this hotel is somehow worse than the flat, boring, featureless ... thing ... being build on the corner of 1st Ave and 8th Street.

IMO, it isn't a worse design. Its just that a bad design is more acceptable for a cheap hotel on a secondary street than a luxury hotel on a primary street.

I was under the impression that AC was Marriott's fun, young, urban brand whereas JW was their luxury marque. I'll conceded that none of "fun" or "young" or "urban" apply to Hampton Inn and that Hennepin/4th is far more prestigious a corner than 1st/8th and that context matters when discussing design...

That being said, I agree with you. I'd like a better design, but there's too many surface lots left on Hennepin to be shooting down merely sub-par designs.

...and context also matters when deciding how upset to get. As I pointed out and you agreed with. So thank you. Let's keep wiping away surface lots and take note of how each subsequent development is better/denser than the last.