Stadium Parking Ramp Development Site - 25 stories / 294'

[GrowMPLS]

How would one figure out what they are doing with the brick? I would hope at the very least the brick could be repurposed.

On a different subject......I am not in the industry but have a passion for architecture/design/urban development. I was drawn to this site because there are some very interesting discussions and insight. But I have to say that I have found some of the rants childish, disrespectful and catty. Very mean spirited. I am completely shocked.

[TroyGBiv]

People have been a bit brittle and for some reason some of the discussions have gotten a bit ugly. I think that people are now trying to focus on our shared interests and are stepping back to a place where different opinions can be exchanged civilly.

[Archiapolis]

As one of the people responsible for fanning all these flames, I just want to say this: no, I don't think that building was Historic. No, I don't think it was particularly beautiful. Or important. Or significant. Or special. I also don't have any concept of the engineering requirements of a high rise or parking ramp. I simply thought that integrating an old building into the new development would be neat. That's all. Just neat.

Agreed. I also agree that the examples put forward that show such a reuse are very cool/interesting. It would be great to see developers in this town that value historic referents (even if the building itself is not "historic) and would be willing to do something unique to refer to that history.

[Archiapolis]

People have been a bit brittle and for some reason some of the discussions have gotten a bit ugly. I think that people are now trying to focus on our shared interests and are stepping back to a place where different opinions can be exchanged civilly.

My opinion is this, as long as we aren't making ad hominem attacks then I don't see a problem. People are passionate and a passionate argument is great (even if the opinion is opposite to one's own). I don't mind someone attacking my opinion on urbanism/architecture as long as the argument doesn't stray away from the subject at hand. "Minnesota Nice" is, in my opinion, a pejorative - it's passive/aggressive and to genuine. I'll take genuine anytime.

Last point, we should remember that we *probably* agree on about 80% of issues on urbanism and we are parsing/arguing/scrutinizing the other 20%. I'm just glad people care enough to argue that 20%.

[mullen]

It would have been nice to save the facade to wrap around the ramp, but that probably would have been ungodly expensive.

I think the lesson here is that the stadium is responsible for some very poor urbanism.

such as? the stadium itself is either liked or diskliked, it's a big, big building. hovering, swallowing. you can see it hapening already as the prow is in place. some hate the new guthrie. it remimds me of that debate. and everyone bring's their bias, some not purely based on design but on the public's stake in professional sports. all well and good but they are passing judgement on the politics of the deal not the building's design or urban footprint. most of this development is still in the design phase and we cannot pass judgement.

no renderings have been released for the park, apartment tower. i don't think the ramp design has even been released.

i'm thankful that after decades something is finally happening for downtown east. and for wells fargo choosing to stay and expand downtown. their new offices appear fine to me, nothing groundbreaking, but these are bank offices i wasn't expecting frank gehry.

[mattaudio]

Poor urbanism, not poor architecture. Very different things we're talking about here.

[FISHMANPET]

Architecture (how a building looks physically) is fairly subjective, urbanism (how a building interacts with the street level) is fairly objective. They're certainly very closely related, and one often plays off the other (City Center is architecture so bad it ruins the urbanism) but on the whole they're not really related.

So I have no strong opinions on how any of the developments around here look, but I do think that due to the nature of the legislation that some of these things won't intersect the street the best.

[FISHMANPET]

I have no idea if the warehouse was worth saving, but we'll never know because we weren't able to take it through the wringer of our normal approval process, the state legislation steamrolled us.
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/278838001.html

[go4guy]

I dont think there is any way the stadium could have been good urbanism in your definition. Just like the Post Office building, Armory, Guthrie, HCMC, Target Center, Target Field, etc.. They are not meant to. And the site needs to be so large that it is impossible to surround it with residential/commercial unless we take up more city blocks. Because of this, we need the surrounding developments to have good urbanism. The WF development certainly does that, as we have residential surrounding the property with plenty of eyes on the street. We have a park that will be a great use. And we have a parking ramp, where nobody really knows how well that will meet the street. I think the stadium will be just fine, as long as it has good landscaping around the property. But I am not sure it is necessarily fair to refer to the stadium, or any of the other examples I used above, as poor urbanism. Most of those are necessary to have a healthy urban environment.

[seanrichardryan]

Here ya are:
McClellan building fades after a century downtown
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/278838001.html

[Tom H.]

I dont think there is any way the stadium could have been good urbanism in your definition...

It's not impossible, in principle, for a stadium to have good street-level urbanism. We just choose to prioritize other things instead.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_Park.jpg

Target Field is a good example of good street-level presence. It's probably harder to do with NFL stadiums, but to be honest, there hasn't really been any effort to get a good-quality street level for the Vikings Stadium.

[FISHMANPET]

I'd also say that the Post Office and Guthrie are both good Urbanism. While the post office may be a little sleepy now, I'd bet when it was built it was a hive of activity, creating lots of pedestrian traffic. And I think the Guthrie does a really good job of meeting both the river side and the downtown side. So urbanism doesn't just mean storefronts on the ground floor with apartments upstairs, it's about how the building interacts with the street, I'd say especially at the pedestrian level. A high traffic building like the post office would bring lots of activity, whenever I'm near the Guthrie I see tons of activity in all directions.

And I don't know enough about the HCMC campus to say if it's good or bad urbanism, but even if it's bad, I'd say the social good of a hospital outweighs not having enough doors. I'm not sure if a parking ramp merits that same leniency.

[Wedgeguy]

We talk about street level, but the stadium is in an island of roads and substations. There is little reason to walk next to the stadium except on event days. The only real street that will need a good street presence is Chicago and I think that end of the building will be very pedestrian friendly. You are not going to get much foot traffic around the stadium other than event days so standard retail would be a waste of space. Unlike Hubert's in Target Center there would be little nearby foot traffic to make a bar there very profitable. Some help me, does Hrbek's stay open year round or just during the baseball season?

[mister.shoes]

The stadium is on an island at the present, but it isn't a stretch to imagine a not-too-distant future in which the wasteland of DTE gets filled in with people and businesses.

[mattaudio]

But that's going to be more difficult when a lot of these full-block-scale developments provide little opportunity for businesses. Many of these block faces are lucky if they have one storefront space in the plans. I really feel like creating flexible, easily activated street frontage that can adapt to changing needs and development intensities should be the top priority for zoning/planning reform in downtown Mpls.

[mister.shoes]

Right, which is why it's so disappointing that the stadium and other new construction has such mediocre urbanism.

[Wedgeguy]

The stadium is on an island at the present, but it isn't a stretch to imagine a not-too-distant future in which the wasteland of DTE gets filled in with people and businesses.

There will be little opportunity to knit in the stadium to the north due to the LRT and the 4th street grade drop. To the east you have a substation and one office building and beyond that freeways so you will have little being developed along that side of the stadium. Due to the HCMC campus and the freeway to the east what there is of available land along 6th will be separated from the stadium for public safety in limited crosswalks across 6th. You have maybe 2 to 3 parcels that can be redeveloped along that stretch. There will not be a lot of foot traffic being created along that side of the stadium. The only real end of the Stadium is the west end facing DT that will have much foot traffic. Even if Elliot Park does get more redevelopment, there are too many obstacles that prevent a lot of development that would generate much foot traffic. Chicago and 11th will be the main N/S routes for walking if someone wants to get around the stadium. There is nothing that generates foot traffic to the east of 11th or even Chicago other than the stadium itself. Developments that are done North or south of the stadium will have Chicago and 11th as their link to get over to each other.

[nickmgray]

I think we forget that the stadium is really the bookend for downtown. There's really nothing much beyond it. Yes, there are two blocks between the stadium and 35W which could be developed, but there's really not much that can be done with those even if the stadium had better connection with the street on the east side.

On the Chicago side, the stadium has a massive plaza and a huge glass wall which opens up to the outside. What can be more inviting than that? There are a handful of stadiums which integrate really well into their surrounding neighborhoods. The new stadium we're getting isn't perfect, but it's far better than 90% of the stadiums that have been built in the past two decades. Also, the comment regarding the Twins stadium having a better urban design just doesn't sit well with me. The stadium is hidden behind another stadium, surrounded by parking lots and a trash burning facility.

[Tom H.]

Also, the comment regarding the Twins stadium having a better urban design just doesn't sit well with me. The stadium is hidden behind another stadium, surrounded by parking lots and a trash burning facility.

Well, neither stadium can really control what their surroundings are, but I think that Target Field does a better job meeting the street on all 4 sides than it looks like the Vikings Stadium will. Of course, I may change my mind once I can actually see the finished Vikings Stadium product.

[grant1simons2]

Well, neither stadium can really control what their surroundings are,

Oh the irony surrounding that comment