Stadium Parking Ramp Development Site - 25 stories / 294'

[Nathan]

obviously mistakes were made 50s and 60s. it was a different time. new york city tore down penn station. mpls was not alone tearing down buidlings it deemed standing in the way of progress.

our riverfront and warehouse district/north loop which we now celebrate are a direct result of the 180 done on this issue in the 70s. i believe we as a city do value our history.

The question is why should it be limited to north loop and the river when we could have little pockets of it all over the city. Is it only valuable en masse?

[Lancestar2]

I kinda wish they tried to salvage this building too, but what's done is done. Hopefully next time more consideration is given towards saving historic buildings, even 3 story warehouses. This thing has character that you just don't see anymore.

How would they salvage this building? Would it still look nice with a big skyway through it as connecting the Stadium is a must. I don't understand why everyone disappointment. This 3 floor building is going to be replaced with a 28 floor tower correct? Any opportunity to increase density at this huge amount (25 additional floors) in an existing footprint of a building means we won't loose our available parking lots which provide dependable future growth. Parking lots are easy to develop, while tearing down existing buildings add more costs which requires increased incentives right? Collectively people were disappointed that 222 Hennepin was so short... well this structure was far shorter and decrease downtown's density possibilities.

Granted it's a nice looking building I will give you that, yet if downtown preserves any 3 floor building when they could have built a 20+ floor tower how is that not encouraging low density growth? Of course some historic and unique architecture buildings may deserve being preserved (while decreasing the density opportunity) How is suggesting they keep a 3 floor building going to improve downtown?

It's clear we are seeing growth downtown, yet we are not seeing any plans unfold that include new super tall buildings. What we are seeing are plans to build several 20-30ish floor buildings which give us the opportunity to greatly increase density downtown. In what ways are you suggesting it would be beneficial to salvage this older building? Of course it's to late now but I just am curious to understand your vision. In your opinion, the design of the building worth more than the 25 additional floors of growth?

Also if you suggestion is to build the 28 floor building next to the existing 3 floor building, such as the north side of the block. In doing so your still decreasing development opportunity in the future so in full build out of downtown density will still be decreased? Is that perhaps how you justify salvaging the building? How long will it take before downtown is completely built out? I don't mean any offense I am just curious to understand your reasoning. Also if anyone else who has an thoughts feel free to share.

Maybe it's just my bias opinion as I personally would prefer seeing more 10 20-40 floor buildings instead of seeing 1 60 floor building and 30 8 floor buildings.

[Nathan]

I kinda wish they tried to salvage this building too, but what's done is done. Hopefully next time more consideration is given towards saving historic buildings, even 3 story warehouses. This thing has character that you just don't see anymore.

How would they salvage this building? Would it still look nice with a big skyway through it as connecting the Stadium is a must. I don't understand why everyone disappointment. This 3 floor building is going to be replaced with a 28 floor tower correct? Any opportunity to increase density at this huge amount (25 additional floors) in an existing footprint of a building means we won't loose our available parking lots which provide dependable future growth. Parking lots are easy to develop, while tearing down existing buildings add more costs which requires increased incentives right? Collectively people were disappointed that 222 Hennepin was so short... well this structure was far shorter and decrease downtown's density possibilities.

Granted it's a nice looking building I will give you that, yet if downtown preserves any 3 floor building when they could have built a 20+ floor tower how is that not encouraging low density growth? Of course some historic and unique architecture buildings may deserve being preserved (while decreasing the density opportunity) How is suggesting they keep a 3 floor building going to improve downtown?

It's clear we are seeing growth downtown, yet we are not seeing any plans unfold that include new super tall buildings. What we are seeing are plans to build several 20-30ish floor buildings which give us the opportunity to greatly increase density downtown. In what ways are you suggesting it would be beneficial to salvage this older building? Of course it's to late now but I just am curious to understand your vision. In your opinion, the design of the building worth more than the 25 additional floors of growth?

Also if you suggestion is to build the 28 floor building next to the existing 3 floor building, such as the north side of the block. In doing so your still decreasing development opportunity in the future so in full build out of downtown density will still be decreased? Is that perhaps how you justify salvaging the building? How long will it take before downtown is completely built out? I don't mean any offense I am just curious to understand your reasoning. Also if anyone else who has an thoughts feel free to share.

Maybe it's just my bias opinion as I personally would prefer seeing more 10 20-40 floor buildings instead of seeing 1 60 floor building and 30 8 floor buildings.

The point is it only takes up a small percentage of a large vacant lot, there is plenty of room for a tower and a parking lot on this lot while preserving it. A skyway would be fine, it could hold the lobby area and a restaurant and some loft type units, while the tower has a different type of unit, the roof could be used as the green area and deck for both sections. It's fairly easy to imagine the same height and parking use happening on this block while keeping this structure. Point is no one valued it enough or other minor historic structures, like they do in other cities, to keep this architectural diversity alive.

Also did you not see the link to the project in Toronto I posted?

[PhilmerPhil]

[min-chi-cbus]

I kinda wish they tried to salvage this building too, but what's done is done. Hopefully next time more consideration is given towards saving historic buildings, even 3 story warehouses. This thing has character that you just don't see anymore.

How would they salvage this building? Would it still look nice with a big skyway through it as connecting the Stadium is a must. I don't understand why everyone disappointment. This 3 floor building is going to be replaced with a 28 floor tower correct? Any opportunity to increase density at this huge amount (25 additional floors) in an existing footprint of a building means we won't loose our available parking lots which provide dependable future growth. Parking lots are easy to develop, while tearing down existing buildings add more costs which requires increased incentives right? Collectively people were disappointed that 222 Hennepin was so short... well this structure was far shorter and decrease downtown's density possibilities.

Granted it's a nice looking building I will give you that, yet if downtown preserves any 3 floor building when they could have built a 20+ floor tower how is that not encouraging low density growth? Of course some historic and unique architecture buildings may deserve being preserved (while decreasing the density opportunity) How is suggesting they keep a 3 floor building going to improve downtown?

It's clear we are seeing growth downtown, yet we are not seeing any plans unfold that include new super tall buildings. What we are seeing are plans to build several 20-30ish floor buildings which give us the opportunity to greatly increase density downtown. In what ways are you suggesting it would be beneficial to salvage this older building? Of course it's to late now but I just am curious to understand your vision. In your opinion, the design of the building worth more than the 25 additional floors of growth?

Also if you suggestion is to build the 28 floor building next to the existing 3 floor building, such as the north side of the block. In doing so your still decreasing development opportunity in the future so in full build out of downtown density will still be decreased? Is that perhaps how you justify salvaging the building? How long will it take before downtown is completely built out? I don't mean any offense I am just curious to understand your reasoning. Also if anyone else who has an thoughts feel free to share.

Maybe it's just my bias opinion as I personally would prefer seeing more 10 20-40 floor buildings instead of seeing 1 60 floor building and 30 8 floor buildings.

Two words: Adaptive Re-use. I like it when old things are incorporated with new things, or in this case, the 3 story existing building's shell could be the base for the ramp + residential tower. People (i.e. myself) find the current shell of the building beautiful, not necessarily its function. I won't mind if they gutted the building and just kept the shell, or maybe just reused some of the old material in the new project. For example.

By the way, I really didn't take any strong positions on this project/building, so I'm not sure why you're so hot and bothered by what I said. I said what's done is done. The old building sure is pretty (they just don't make them like that anymore). I didn't suggest that the new project shouldn't be done. I think you're overreacting....big time.

[Smoothuser]

...Two words: Adaptive Re-use. I like it when old things are incorporated with new things, or in this case, the 3 story existing building's shell could be the base for the ramp + residential tower. People (i.e. myself) find the current shell of the building beautiful, not necessarily its function. I won't mind if they gutted the building and just kept the shell, or maybe just reused some of the old material in the new project.

Makes me think of the Hearst Tower:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_Base.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... wernyc.JPG

[Lancestar2]

Two words: Adaptive Re-use. I like it when old things are incorporated with new things, or in this case, the 3 story existing building's shell could be the base for the ramp + residential tower. People (i.e. myself) find the current shell of the building beautiful, not necessarily its function. I won't mind if they gutted the building and just kept the shell, or maybe just reused some of the old material in the new project. For example.

By the way, I really didn't take any strong positions on this project/building, so I'm not sure why you're so hot and bothered by what I said. I said what's done is done. The old building sure is pretty (they just don't make them like that anymore). I didn't suggest that the new project shouldn't be done. I think you're overreacting....big time.

My apologies if you felt I was singling you out. Collectively there was a lot of talk about preserving the building and disappointment with the proposed tower. I think the main difference in our viewpoints is mine is density focused with architecture secondary vs architecture first and density secondary. Though even that is open to debate, and interpretation as your ideal building may have the same density.



I believe this is the proposed design. Not sure how they would extend the existing building into the entire base of the tower. Though Nathan did post a few links to how the blended a tower into an existing building. I will be honest I thought he was joking at first based on the cover photo of a bigger wider building above a small building, but when I looked at it again with the other pictures they seem much more realistic. Still a very unique design indeed. I guess if the building was gutted and only kept for architecture reasons I may have to agree with you. Thanks for taking the time to share and explain your view point. I guess maybe someday we will all have to discuss WHY modern architecture does not create the "warm fuzzies" that older buildings do?

[Tom H.]

I don't know why, but I always kind of liked that building. I think it was its complete ordinariness that stood out - that once upon a time, even the meanest of buildings had some TLC put into them.

RIP boring little warehouse building.

Man - sorry for starting a firestorm here.

[Minneboy]

Sorry for this question but it wasn't until more recently that the new building isn't actually part of the ramp. I was under some deluded reasoning thinking it was going to be built on top of the ramp. So my question is why isn't it? Couldn't they get a lot more traction with bigger floor plates, though that seems to be not so much in favor these days.

[MNdible]

Based on the last documents the city released, it appears that it will be built partially above the ramp -- they reference the added cost of reinforcing one or two gridlines of columns in the parking garage to bear the additional weight of the building above. But that said, residential buildings don't gain as much from getting wider as an office building does. The ideal width of an apartment building is the depth of two apartments plus a double loaded corridor -- probably not much more than 80' altogether, and probably less.

[Minneboy]

Thanks for the info and initially it didn't have to be residential did it? I thought the RFP was for just about anything, commercial, hotel, residential with many of us hoping a mixture of all 3 so it could go a bit higher.

[min-chi-cbus]

Two words: Adaptive Re-use. I like it when old things are incorporated with new things, or in this case, the 3 story existing building's shell could be the base for the ramp + residential tower. People (i.e. myself) find the current shell of the building beautiful, not necessarily its function. I won't mind if they gutted the building and just kept the shell, or maybe just reused some of the old material in the new project. For example.

By the way, I really didn't take any strong positions on this project/building, so I'm not sure why you're so hot and bothered by what I said. I said what's done is done. The old building sure is pretty (they just don't make them like that anymore). I didn't suggest that the new project shouldn't be done. I think you're overreacting....big time.

My apologies if you felt I was singling you out. Collectively there was a lot of talk about preserving the building and disappointment with the proposed tower. I think the main difference in our viewpoints is mine is density focused with architecture secondary vs architecture first and density secondary. Though even that is open to debate, and interpretation as your ideal building may have the same density.



I believe this is the proposed design. Not sure how they would extend the existing building into the entire base of the tower. Though Nathan did post a few links to how the blended a tower into an existing building. I will be honest I thought he was joking at first based on the cover photo of a bigger wider building above a small building, but when I looked at it again with the other pictures they seem much more realistic. Still a very unique design indeed. I guess if the building was gutted and only kept for architecture reasons I may have to agree with you. Thanks for taking the time to share and explain your view point. I guess maybe someday we will all have to discuss WHY modern architecture does not create the "warm fuzzies" that older buildings do?

No hard feelings, we're good!

I'm not sure what I support first: density or architecture. I guess I'm an urban fabric fan, so that's a combination of both I think. What makes European or almost every non-US big city in the world so great and walkable is a.) the density, b.) the architecture/quality, c.) the zoning/land uses, and d.) the history.....and not necessarily in that order (if anything, perhaps the reverse order). I'd be genuinely curious (and someday soon maybe I'll be making these decisions) to see what the costs would be to do an adaptive reuse vs. a tear-down -- same building being added. If it's anywhere near the same, steps should be taken to preserve older buildings to make them part of newer developments (like allowing some demo for parking access).

[seanrichardryan]

It had a name : McClellan http://finance-commerce.com/2014/10/dem ... -building/

[bapster2006]

Bye bye

McClellan building demo 10-10-14 by bapster2006, on Flickr

[Archiapolis]

Cities make mistakes (alert the media).

What happened in Gateway and lots of downtown were mistakes. It is fine to lament mistakes but please have some perspective on the social context of building demolition. It was a bit more complicated than "We should tear down this brick and stone building to make way for a surface parking lot because people need places to park."

Preserving little 18' tall warehouses peppered around downtown isn't going to bring back the flour milling industry.

Also, sorry to be so positive but has anyone seen the North Loop lately? Some pretty excellent reuse of "unremarkable buildings" that are adding a LOT of density to the city of Minneapolis.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

3 stories... 18 feet. .. people were so much shorter in the old days. I just showed good examples of good urban infill using smaller warehouse buildings like this. It's all about the values of a city and Minneapolis obviously doesn't value historic buildings unless there is money behind it.

Sorry for spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by implying that THIS specific building was 18 feet. I thought I was making a general point that *smallish* warehouses peppering the city are not all worth saving because history.

People are arguing up and down that "this is the only area of 'downtown' with large swaths of 'open' land and thus, are prime for development." We can't have it both ways. The land values don't support salvaging a tiny building like this IN THIS LOCATION. If it is possible to put 100's of units in its place and develop the land use given the new context of a giant stadium and bank towers, then I think we'll have to rely on the warehouse and Mill District preservation to communicate the history of Minneapolis.

[Nathan]

Cities make mistakes (alert the media).

What happened in Gateway and lots of downtown were mistakes. It is fine to lament mistakes but please have some perspective on the social context of building demolition. It was a bit more complicated than "We should tear down this brick and stone building to make way for a surface parking lot because people need places to park."

Preserving little 18' tall warehouses peppered around downtown isn't going to bring back the flour milling industry.

Also, sorry to be so positive but has anyone seen the North Loop lately? Some pretty excellent reuse of "unremarkable buildings" that are adding a LOT of density to the city of Minneapolis.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

3 stories... 18 feet. .. people were so much shorter in the old days. I just showed good examples of good urban infill using smaller warehouse buildings like this. It's all about the values of a city and Minneapolis obviously doesn't value historic buildings unless there is money behind it.

Sorry for spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by implying that THIS specific building was 18 feet. I thought I was making a general point that *smallish* warehouses peppering the city are not all worth saving because history.

People are arguing up and down that "this is the only area of 'downtown' with large swaths of 'open' land and thus, are prime for development." We can't have it both ways. The land values don't support salvaging a tiny building like this IN THIS LOCATION. If it is possible to put 100's of units in its place and develop the land use given the new context of a giant stadium and bank towers, then I think we'll have to rely on the warehouse and Mill District preservation to communicate the history of Minneapolis.

I clearly showed taller denser use options that didn't just leave it at 3 stories. It's failure to appreciate the history and be creative about uses by people like you that make buildings come down not actual necessity.

[Archiapolis]

How to turn a site with random historic buildings into a modern mix use site, Thanks Canada.

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/fi ... -31078.jpg

*article

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/10/uni ... g-qrc-west

Also: One King West http://s453.photobucket.com/user/isaids ... t.jpg.html

Do you realize how expensive this "X" frame idea is?

Also, the other thing is built over the top of a pretty tall building. Lastly, the footing in your last example would have to be oversized (big time) to handle the new load from that tower - or, you'd need to spend gobs of money for underpinning, new footings for the additional load.

I like the first project but there is no way that anyone is going to spend that kind of money on "unremarkable warehouse building."

[VAStationDude]

There should be forum rule against Toronto, Vancouver and Manhattan design envy. If Ryan could get Toronto rents in DTE and this Park Avenue building were something special you'd have a good argument.

[J2K]

I think that warehouse was an eyesore and am glad they tore it down. Not everyone agrees about preserving this ugly building! Get rid of it and move forward with something clean and fresh. Well done RYAN!!

[FISHMANPET]

Also, just because its old doesn't make it historic. The word "historic" gets thrown around too much when we want to say something is "old" and it's just not correct. Whether or not this building was worth saving is beside the point, but there's nothing "historic" about it and thus "historic" preservation would not be the right tool.