Target Field Station (the Hotel) & Target Field Station (the Station)

[mullen]

i think people are just responding to a series of squat, plain new buildings across various uses. a sameness coming from the developers. at least for me, this is the case. i'm biased but this site, or anything downtown for that matter, should be unlike what we can in any twin cities suburban retail, office, residential cluster.

brunsfield place is the bext example of taking the box building and giving a modern, innovative take. and it's developer is from another country.

[Nathan]

Because I know I'll convince you...

Not that this is an excuse for not designing the perfect building, but it's pretty clear to me that the grade of this building is being set by its frontage on the Target Field Station Plaza, where (by the written description) it does have an active and engaged facade. The way that this site slopes away means that its difficult to maintain that active engagement all of the way around. Could it be done? Yes, probably, at significant cost and little benefit to the developer.

I could also point to about umpteen examples in the north loop where the warehouses have really quite bad interactions with the sidewalks on their non-primary facades.

Don't think I don't understand their motivation for doing it the way they are doing it. If I was concerned about them making the plaza side look nice is be complaining that we don't have renderings of the other side of the building. But I don't doubt that side will look nice. Eventually we'll have district 600 and Fulton and to an extent be the match making this a desirable corner, turning it into a neighborhood, but it'll never bea complete neighborhood because a retail bay would take up 8 parking spots on 6th. Imagine Lyn and lake or hen and lake with three active corners and one dead, it changes the entire feel. This is one of our mostdense/future most dense neighborhoods, I think it easily deserves active street fronts.

[MNdible]

My comment was actually directed at Matt -- you snuck in while I was posting.

And I'm not saying that they can't/shouldn't/won't do better -- I was just reacting to the gag-reflex responses that projects get. "WHY DON'T THEY DESIGN THE BUILDING LIKE I WANT!?" I'm not saying that we shouldn't criticize projects, but that the criticism would be more valuable if people took a second to dig into why things might be the way they are proposed (including that this is probably a very preliminary pass at a complicated site).

[John]

i think people are just responding to a series of squat, plain new buildings across various uses. a sameness coming from the developers. at least for me, this is the case. i'm biased but this site, or anything downtown for that matter, should be unlike what we can in any twin cities suburban retail, office, residential cluster.

brunsfield place is the bext example of taking the box building and giving a modern, innovative take. and it's developer is from another country.

Mullen , thanks for the comment. I think Matt and Nathan well state the biggest concern with the first levels and the need for it to be more pedestrian oriented.

[mattaudio]

Yeah, it's not complicated. Better urbanism. It's not what specific people want, it's what is good versus bad for a neighborhood. Let's not be Richfield, taking what we can get. We're better than that.

[John]

^^^We're better than that and we are not desperate. This is a highly desirable downtown/neighborhood for a developer to build a project in. Our city should have high expectations and they should deliver.

[mattaudio]

I'm confident that some modifications can be made to address 6th Ave N, especially the corner with 5th.

[FISHMANPET]

Ignoring the ground level for a second, what do people think of the rest of the building? I think it's a nice nod to the warehouse district without trying to directly copy the look of warehouse buildings.

[mattaudio]

Not the best piece of architecture, but looks fine to me. If anything, I wish they could do some sort of accent lining up with the protrusion into the 5th St viewshed. That would be a simple change that would be quite cool.

[mullen]

it looks like a medical office buidling out by southdale. but it has doors and windows, sidewalks and bike racks so all good.

banal looking structures that "address the pedestrian experience".

we have only one dt mpls. only so many parcels.

[EOst]

So what would transform this from "a medical office building in the burbs" to urban utopia, if doors, windows, sidewalks, bike racks, and ground level retail aren't enough? Would it suddenly become urban if there were retail on both sides, and not just the plaza side?

I really just don't understand what you're hoping for. It's plain, sure, but it's plain in a way that makes it fit in very well with its surroundings. I don't think something cylindrical with a wacky spire would fit in.

[Wedgeguy]

What is worse a blank wall hiding actual parking, or empty store fronts that are papered over because no retailer is going to put a store where there is very little foot traffic, during the summer the garbage trucks waiting outside would keep patrons away with their stink, and the traffic coming into the city on 6th is not going to be stopping on their way to and from work. Some will call me short sighted, But I prefer the word realist instead.

[mattaudio]

You would seriously prefer parking? A storefront has its price... it can be used as a small office, or many different uses. Activation of the sidewalk should be mandatory.

[Wedgeguy]

You would seriously prefer parking? A storefront has its price... it can be used as a small office, or many different uses. Activation of the sidewalk should be mandatory. We've had people self-identifying as "realists" destroying the urban fabric for far too long.

When you have the money to take write downs for a tax lose because you can't rent a property, Then I'll call you a realist. Not every developer want to pay taxes and maintenance, heat on something that will most likely get them little or no ROI. In 25 years we can see if you are still a Utopian.
Matt would you really buy a house next to a land fill if you thought there was a Utopian vision coming in the next 25 years might be a park? Because it could just as well turn into an industrial site too. Just asking?

[mattaudio]

I honestly don't care how they have to make it work to develop here. But we need to enforce land use forms and community standards which avoid buildings giving the finger to neighborhoods. If that means a specific development no longer pencils out in a specific location, big deal. Why do you think we should kowtow to developers' anti-urban plans? Desperate, much?

[mattaudio]

Matt would you really buy a house next to a land fill if you thought there was a Utopian vision coming in the next 25 years might be a park? Because it could just as well turn into an industrial site too.

The failure of the Euclidian zoning model in one tiny capsule.

[John]

Yet despite the garbage burner, this area will have way more people working and living here in the next few years. It won't be barren for long, and there will be lots of pedestrian traffic. This project and neighborhood will surely be able to support street level retail. It will actually be a nice amenity.

[Wedgeguy]

Then you should put your own money into the development and demand as an investor that they put retail on 6th.

[mattaudio]

Are you seriously claiming we should have a libertarian approach to local land use regulation?

[grant1simons2]

No. It just means it looks like a building you'd see in the suburbs. Like the purgatory creek office building in Eden Prairie or the Tri-Tech building. They're uninspired and cookie cutter. Repeats.