Maverick - 100 Hennepin Avenue S

[John]

It looks a lot better than how it appeared in the earlier rendering. Still, the scale and massing seems like a better fit for Uptown or Dinkytown. This project should really have a stronger presence given its visible site on a major corridor of downtown. Something like Latitude 45 seems more appropriate here.

[Nathan]

I still don't get the placement of the white on the nearest face there. In the original renderingi thought there was a set back, but no such luck.

[MNdible]

I know I won't change your mind, John, but I actually think there's something very appropriate about continuing the mid-rise scale of the Warehouse District right up to Hennepin.

That said, the facade of this building facing 1st Street will be super-prominent coming across the bridge, and will be for a long time to come because it's unlikely that the Federal Reserve plaza will get built out in my lifetime. So, I'd like to see the city really push the developers to make the design top-notch. Which doesn't mean it needs to be crazy or "iconic" [shudder], just well proportioned and with good materials. Based on the rendering, I'd say they're about half way there.

[John]

I know I won't change your mind, John, but I actually think there's something very appropriate about continuing the mid-rise scale of the Warehouse District right up to Hennepin.

That said, the facade of this building facing 1st Street will be super-prominent coming across the bridge, and will be for a long time to come because it's unlikely that the Federal Reserve plaza will get built out in my lifetime. So, I'd like to see the city really push the developers to make the design top-notch. Which doesn't mean it needs to be crazy or "iconic" [shudder], just well proportioned and with good materials. Based on the rendering, I'd say they're about half way there.

I really agree with you for the most part. Just needs to be a bit taller and look more assertive. It's a tricky site. It delineates the eastern edge of The North Loop, yet it's also a gateway building as you cross the bridge. It's orientation is really more towards downtown, yet it's part of the North Loop. Tough to design a building that fits here.

[Archiapolis]

I know I won't change your mind, John, but I actually think there's something very appropriate about continuing the mid-rise scale of the Warehouse District right up to Hennepin.

That said, the facade of this building facing 1st Street will be super-prominent coming across the bridge, and will be for a long time to come because it's unlikely that the Federal Reserve plaza will get built out in my lifetime. So, I'd like to see the city really push the developers to make the design top-notch. Which doesn't mean it needs to be crazy or "iconic" [shudder], just well proportioned and with good materials. Based on the rendering, I'd say they're about half way there.

I really agree with you for the most part. Just needs to be a bit taller and look more assertive. It's a tricky site. It delineates the eastern edge of The North Loop, yet it's also a gateway building as you cross the bridge. It's orientation is really more towards downtown, yet it's part of the North Loop. Tough to design a building that fits here.

"A little taller" doesn't work financially. Look around, you don't really see 7-10 story buildings with this kind of footprint. This "type" of building (5 stories of wood framing over concrete [precast or post-tensioned]) is a "no brainer" for developers and banks because there are comps all over the city. This is why you either get these 6 story things OR Latitude 45 (13 stories) - you need to make a big jump in scale/rentable sf/unit count if you want to go bigger than 6 stories and it is a risk/reward calculation for the developer/bank.

[Didier]

A crown or a cornice or ... something seems missing.

That's my thought as well. The little towers on 222 make a big difference, and this one — even with the extra floor on the corners — just feels flat.

[Avian]

It's a real snoozer of a building.

[John]

"A little taller" doesn't work financially. Look around, you don't really see 7-10 story buildings with this kind of footprint. This "type" of building (5 stories of wood framing over concrete [precast or post-tensioned]) is a "no brainer" for developers and banks because there are comps all over the city. This is why you either get these 6 story things OR Latitude 45 (13 stories) - you need to make a big jump in scale/rentable sf/unit count if you want to go bigger than 6 stories and it is a risk/reward calculation for the developer/bank.

Well, then there is a big problem here! This is far more than a plot of land some greedy/asshole developer can build whatever they want so they can flip it a couple years later. This site has significant visibility in an area with civic and historical importance. The community is spending millions to upgrade and expand the nearby Nicollet Mall and riverfront parks. We deserve better.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah, I just am so underwhelmed when I come across Pont Neuf and see this 6 story building. Really underwhelming. I agree the design is a bit bland, and something like a crown would do wonders to help. But scale really isn't an issue for me.

[MNdible]

Yeah! Let's French this sh*t up!

[Nathan]

I think the thing that we're all looking for here is a sense of place as you cross the bridge and arrive in downtown. For some people a little bit of height could give a blander exterior that, and for some a more thoughtful and detailed exterior could do it for a building of this size. Either way, it's super generic and doesn't create that sense of place we're searching for. Decent urban form and density, but boring.

[twincitizen]

What I said in the original post holds up pretty good:

With the presence of the 1,000-space ramp there, you have to imagine they're not going to build much, if any additional parking under the apartment building. Given that cost savings (and the basically incidental cost of acquiring this lot), I really hope they spend extra money on the design and high-quality exterior materials. This is way too prominent of a site to be "just another 6-story building". It had better be a great one, if not the best, out of the current apartment boom.

[Archiapolis]

"... I really hope they spend extra money on the design and high-quality exterior materials. This is way too prominent of a site to be "just another 6-story building". It had better be a great one, if not the best, out of the current apartment boom.

[/quote]

Hahahahaha...that would require the city to reject a proposal in favor of an uncertain future project that is "better designed" and has "high quality materials." Again, look around - the market has been set for what constitutes "l*xury" apartments in this town. Why would the developer exceed the market with "better design" and/or "high quality materials?" Do you think developers care about design/their legacy/urbanism/Minneapolis?

[acs]

What I said in the original post holds up pretty good:

With the presence of the 1,000-space ramp there, you have to imagine they're not going to build much, if any additional parking under the apartment building. Given that cost savings (and the basically incidental cost of acquiring this lot), I really hope they spend extra money on the design and high-quality exterior materials. This is way too prominent of a site to be "just another 6-story building". It had better be a great one, if not the best, out of the current apartment boom.

Add to that indignity that they are indeed building additional parking on top of a design that isn't very dense to begin with.

[MNdible]

Hahahahaha...that would require the city to reject a proposal in favor of an uncertain future project that is "better designed" and has "high quality materials."

That would require the city to reject a proposal without any legally justifiable reasons. Unlike the Nicollet Block, where the city owned the land and could attach all sorts of wants and desires to the RFP, this is a developer proposing to build something allowed by zoning code on land that they own. The city doesn't have much leverage in a situation like that.

[Archiapolis]

Hahahahaha...that would require the city to reject a proposal in favor of an uncertain future project that is "better designed" and has "high quality materials."

That would require the city to reject a proposal without any legally justifiable reasons. Unlike the Nicollet Block, where the city owned the land and could attach all sorts of wants and desires to the RFP, this is a developer proposing to build something allowed by zoning code on land that they own. The city doesn't have much leverage in a situation like that.

<FATALITY!>

[John]

That would require the city to reject a proposal without any legally justifiable reasons. Unlike the Nicollet Block, where the city owned the land and could attach all sorts of wants and desires to the RFP, this is a developer proposing to build something allowed by zoning code on land that they own. The city doesn't have much leverage in a situation like that.

Actually, this site is within the design guidelines of The St.Anthony Falls Historic District. The city does have some leverage with the use of exterior materials / massing/ height /character. My hunch is the design will be tweaked to incorporate more brick. The Planning Commission also wants the developer and architects to eliminate the use of flat surface fiber cement, which tends to make a building look flimsy if not a bit shoddy. So the good news is it will be improved somewhat.

[grant1simons2]

Too bad the CoW doesn't air live

[Archiapolis]

That would require the city to reject a proposal without any legally justifiable reasons. Unlike the Nicollet Block, where the city owned the land and could attach all sorts of wants and desires to the RFP, this is a developer proposing to build something allowed by zoning code on land that they own. The city doesn't have much leverage in a situation like that.

Actually, this site is within the design guidelines of The St.Anthony Falls Historic District. The city does have some leverage with the use of exterior materials / massing/ height /character. My hunch is the design will be tweaked to incorporate more brick. The Planning Commission also wants the developer and architects to eliminate the use of flat surface fiber cement, which tends to make a building look flimsy if not a bit shoddy. So the good news is it will be improved somewhat.

Planning Commission already happened? Did they vote it down and ask for such improvements based on the St. Anthony area guidelines? What did they suggest in place of "flat" cement fiber board?

[acs]

No, it looks like it's just a joint discussion with the HPC, no voting yet.
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/p ... S1P-141198

If it goes to a public hearing then that would be an ideal place to voice concerns, but even if not I would email the staff in charge with your thoughts. I've had good luck so far getting them included in the discussion of the COW, especially if they agree with what the staff wants .