urbanMSP

From the article about the Conrad- http://www.startribune.com/business/268545542.html

However, the renovation of the former Nate’s Clothing store into a Warehouse District boutique hotel has hit a snag, according to Tom Biegler, of South Dakota-based Regency Hotel Management.

“It’s probably still going to happen; we had a holdup with the [historic] tax credits, and we’re exploring other options,” he said.

Sounds like he wanted tax credits, but did't want to follow the guidelines.

Finally, newz: office for Nate's

http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/na ... sold-again

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/284161551.html

Man, to walk around in this picture:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/o ... 414091.jpg

That's cool. I didn't realize the Soo Line was that old.

These kinds of things tend to make me question whether anything we're doing these days is right/good. Everything seems like a good idea at the time (like that Radisson makeover). But I'm dreading that in 50 years we'll still be shaking our heads saying, "What were they thinking?"

Exactly.

And why I hate trying to judge a new building through the same lens with which we judge a 100 year old building. How can anybody really say what people will think about a building for the next 75 years or so. Sure let's do our best to push for good architecture, but let's be sure to understand that we won't really be sure what that means until we're all dead.

That presumes that good design is based entirely upon opinion, and it's not. Great design survives the vagaries of fashion.

At least, it should.

And yet somehow we do things like tear down our Metropolitan Bulding because we think it's old and ugly. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to assume that we're sooooooo much smarter than we were then, or even 25 years ago when we tore down the Nicollet Hotel.

So to say "is this something we'll be glad to have in 100 years, or wish it never existed after 100 years" is basically not possible.

The obliteration of Gateway Park is possibly the biggest piece of vandalism here. The buildings are pretty, but at least they've mostly been replaced. That Park, though, could've become iconic of Minneapolis. Imagine this with all the towers of downtown shining behind it. Instead, we have this.

The obliteration of Gateway Park is possibly the biggest piece of vandalism here. The buildings are pretty, but at least they've mostly been replaced. That Park, though, could've become iconic of Minneapolis. Imagine this with all the towers of downtown shining behind it. Instead, we have this.

So... I'm not the only one who hates the way Nicollet was obliterated between Washington and Hennepin? I mean, Yamasaki's building at the end of the Mall is pretty and all, but the half-assed way that last triangle of land is treated sucks. Three-sided lots are awesome because they force creativity to make the best use of them. We've welded ours to a great big block and stuck a building (and stairs!) between Nicollet Mall and the river. Nice job, us. /s

Yep. The Yamsaki building is a terminating vista, which by definition gives the sense that the corridor terminates. As in, terminates without connecting to the riverfront.

The easiest solution to undo some of this disgrace is to ensure a meaningful connection for the Nicollet Hotel block. Ideally some greenspace, along with the streetcar cutover, to draw people to Hennepin (and the north loop) coupled with calming of Hennepin to the riverfront (no need for 6-8 lanes in a stroad configuration).

Since we're so far off-topic.... I always fantasized about putting the 'Temple of Nimes' on rollers and pushing it back onto the useless tiny parking lot behind it on Marquette to free up the ROW for Nicollet.

I'm not quite understanding the disappointment in the Yamasaki building. The building's portico is the gateway to a pedestrian "mall" that terminates at 1st Street. That pedestrian greenway with the fountain is an extension of Nicollet Mall, but without the bothersome traffic.

The real problem is the Post office parking ramp that disconnects this pedestrian mall from the river.

Since we're so far off-topic.... I always fantasized about putting the 'Temple of Nimes' on rollers and pushing it back onto the useless tiny parking lot behind it on Marquette to free up the ROW for Nicollet.

I think I've made this very comment before. Though some like how the colonnade serves as the continuing vista of Nicollet Ave, it isn't and will never be public land. Moving it to the Marquette side is a cool thought experiment in that it would pave the way for returning the old Nicollet ROW to public ownership

I'm not quite understanding the disappointment in the Yamasaki building. The building's portico is the gateway to a pedestrian "mall" that terminates at 1st Street. That pedestrian greenway with the fountain is an extension of Nicollet Mall, but without the bothersome traffic.

Thing is, it doesn't feel like it terminates at 1st Street. It feels like it terminates at Washington. Traversing those last two blocks on foot feels more than a little bit like trespassing. The stairs, the pools, the colonnade, the big stupid yellow traffic sign—all of it combines to say quite loudly that there is nothing to see/do/visit past Washington.

The real problem is the Post office parking ramp that disconnects this pedestrian mall from the river.

The ramp sucks, no argument here.

Oh, sure that. Yes the "official" Nicollet Mall does terminate at Washington. But I've always seen the block between Washington and 1st as the park extension of the mall. Much like the Greenway to Loring as a southern extension of the Mall. As far as "nothing to see/do" past Washington, I'd argue that there hasn't been anything to see/do between 4th and Washington for quite some time anyway, apart from the Library.

I think the existing gateway park is used by people far more frequently than the north end of the Mall itself. The Gateway Fountain is a destination. And I guess that's why I kind of think it is redundant to make the former Nicollet Hotel block into yet another park. This "superblock" that contains the Towers Condos and the Yamasaki building is really a nice respite from the busy traffic on Washington and Hennepin. In the summer you can hear kids playing in the Tower's pool and the grunts from players on the tennis courts from the wide pedestrian promenades. Having lived in the Churchill Apartments across the street, I considered this block to really be a formal park with 3 big buildings in it.

It's probably the closest thing we have to a successful example of Le Corbusier's ideal of a city in the park.

Getting back to hotels, I've spent a lot of time browsing this lately: http://www.lileks.com/mpls/hotels/index.html

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/284161551.html

Oddly, in that article, Lileks failed to note that the Drake Hotel technically still exists today. Though far less grand than the others he mentions, he did chronicle it on his website. How crazy is it that the West Hotel was torn down in 1940, and NOTHING has been built on that site in the 75 years since?

It's super weird to me that some of the grand old hotels weren't torn down until the 80s or 90s, decades after "urban renewal" was supposedly over and the idea of historic preservation had taken hold. The Nicollet Hotel came down in 1991...I mean, what? Since the city did it with federal money earmarked for a transit hub, I suppose that can be counted as a sort of aftershock of urban renewal policies. But the Andrews in 1984? That one makes no sense, since the government wasn't involved. It was demolished for a privately-owned surface parking lot, and might finally be replaced with a similarly-sized hotel by next year.

And Leamington was razed in 1990. Replaced with a fugly full-block municipal parking ramp.

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmvbrFFQ-Jc