Alia Tower - 200 Central - 483' / 40 Stories

[lorwest]

Good post.

Agreed.

[Avian]

Good post.

Agreed.

Agreed Twice.

Archiapolis is a practicing architect (and, I might add, I was as well before I was seduced by CG modeling ). I put far more faith in his "armchair criticisms" than I do most of those on this forum. No offense, but I am sometimes appalled at the shallow comments about some project's form, materials or scope by people who apparently have no idea about how a project evolves from concept to execution. Or how architect's decisions are often overidden by stupid developers or owners who never give a rat's ass about design or urban planning but instead just focus upon short-term gains.

Maybe I am a naive idealist, but I really believe that good design is worth paying for. And I wholeheartedly agree that the faux-historicism of projects like Grant Park is barely above the level of Block E. Seriously, do you dress in 1890's fashion? Show us a picture of you in Victorian dress! Shouldn't your home be reflective of 19th-Century design??

Humphrey's designs are generally god-awful. I agree that they are churning out crap that is equally at home in Edina, Dallas, Portland, Charlotte or Erie, PA.

I maintain that Minneapolis is better than that.

[schmitzm03]

Good post.

Agreed.

Archiopolis, I almost always find your posts insightful, but this one was particularly good. Keep it up.

[John]

In a perfect world, I think it would have been much better if Alatus hired one of local and more quirky/ creative architects for this project given its prominent site. Their contributions are very underrepresented in our current building boom.

Because this is in the heart of where our city was born , I do believe the historical context should be a major factor in how it looks on the exterior. However, I agree it should be interpreted in a contemporary way that reflects 2014, and not designed so literally like the faux historical façade of the Grant Park condo tower. Humphreys occasionally has done some pretty good work and The Carlyle is a good example of this. 222 is not so successful, but part of the reason is the developer ( Ryan) didn't give them the budget to do the job right. I really don't think we should completely write them off as architects. A lot depends on the feedback from the neighborhood and if the developer is willing to spend money on design quality beyond the goal of pure monetary profit. I do have more faith in Alatus than some of the other developers in this town.

[Archiapolis]

Cheers to everyone for engaging. I appreciate the comments.

I've been accused (rightly) of being long-winded (typed?) so I try to limit comments but looking at architecture critically is an absolutely essential part of the profession of architecture. I try to look at my work just as critically. I'm sure that I miss opportunities in massing, materials and other aspects of design and I try to hear/read comments objectively when it happens so I can do better next time. I also get beaten up by developers and contractors but it is part of the job - what do you stand up for? what is non-negotiable? what sacrifices do you make over there to get what you want over here? how do you minimize "damage" when developers/contractors cheap out? how do you push your message through the din to convince the developer to spend the money? All of these questions are germane to real architecture (projects that actually get built). I can almost guarantee you that NO architect starts the discussion with, "Let's put Hardie panel on most of the building" unless they are either so defeated after years of fighting (and losing) or they KNOW going into it that their client does low-quality buildings (woe be upon such an architect or, I should say, time to move into another line of work).

[Jez]

Good post.

Agreed.

I honestly believe Archiapolis should start his/her own blog. His writing frankly takes my breath away.

[uptowncarag]

Good post.

Agreed.

Agreed Twice.

Archiapolis is a practicing architect (and, I might add, I was as well before I was seduced by CG modeling ). I put far more faith in his "armchair criticisms" than I do most of those on this forum. No offense, but I am sometimes appalled at the shallow comments about some project's form, materials or scope by people who apparently have no idea about how a project evolves from concept to execution. Or how architect's decisions are often overidden by stupid developers or owners who never give a rat's ass about design or urban planning but instead just focus upon short-term gains.

Maybe I am a naive idealist, but I really believe that good design is worth paying for. And I wholeheartedly agree that the faux-historicism of projects like Grant Park is barely above the level of Block E. Seriously, do you dress in 1890's fashion? Show us a picture of you in Victorian dress! Shouldn't your home be reflective of 19th-Century design??

Humphrey's designs are generally god-awful. I agree that they are churning out crap that is equally at home in Edina, Dallas, Portland, Charlotte or Erie, PA.

I maintain that Minneapolis is better than that.

So in other words, we are to dress in according to the year the home we live in was constucted?

[NE_love]

So in other words, we are to dress in according to the year the home we live in was constucted?

Perhaps a building should?

[Architorture]

Is there not an Ellsworth Toohey among us to counter Archiapolis’s rant, can’t all the towers/super talls be neo-whatever? J/K
Good posts Archiapolis, you do an excellent job of shedding light on the profession. It’s certainly different than the idealism that is allowed in school. But then again your school projects don’t get built.

[RailBaronYarr]

Just throwing this out there, because I get a little frustrated when people complain about fauxstoric places/architecture: http://www.placemakers.com/2012/09/17/fake-or-so-real/

Ok, yes, I agree that using sub-par materials or stretching designs/details over 20 stories when the original is traditionally known for being 2-4 stories is crap practice - it ruins the proportions that were inherent to the flair but also oftentimes structural integrity of the building.

But we shouldn't be so critical of places like Grant Park. Barely above Block E? Yes, the tower part is barely above Vegas-level design quality. But it's meant to be viewed from a distance (or from the street with neck craning upward), and as such I wouldn't care if it's all-glass (LPM) or faux-brick so long as it holds population and the units themselves keep prices down. Is the tower portion of the Empire State Building or Chrysler Tower much better? Does it really matter to anyone walking on the street (at least those who don't own the condo and necessarily care about finish material from a personal statement perspective) that the details are concrete instead of real limestone? Maybe slightly. But if getting this type of infill in today's day and age, where we actually pay laborers real (at least better) wages and benefits compared to 100+ years ago, is what it takes to get financing to pencil out by sacrificing material quality, then count me as the uncultured swine in favor. Seriously, the level of urban amenities is striking - trees, grates, gates, stoops, windows, "appropriate" heights, etc.

Getting back to the design of 222 Hennepin for a second, do you have any argument for why a truncated metal pyramid is an appropriate way to "meet the sky?" Can you point toward ANY existing architectural precedent in the area for such an expression? This building is across the street from a post-modern gem (ING building), a nearby beautiful moderne/art deco historic post office, a mid-century modern housing tower project that truly expresses its vintage and has aged very well (Towers), a nearby very contemporary library and truly historic "brick and mortar" towards the north loop. These pyramids are yet another example of Humphreys penchant for design that is completely devoid of context and thus, “awful.”

Just wanted to get you to expand on this point. You personally highlight a corner with no less than 5 architectural styles and then complain that there is no precedent for a truncated metal pyramid. Who's to say 30 years from now a truncated metal pyramid won't be among that list of things people complain new development doesn't follow local precedent? Just curious your take on the balance between new styles vs context.

[Minneapolisite]

Meh. All this means is there'll be a new expensive restaurant I'll never go to. Why only one retail space for this whole block? At least if there were more there might be something worth visiting for the rest of us.

As opposed to the funeral home you go to all the time?

You live in a major city, despite what some may think. Part of the deal is that many things that happen in it may not directly benefit each and every citizen. However, consider that four or five hundred new residents in the neighborhood might make it more likely that future neighborhood developments will contain a destination for the poor downtrodden Loring Park set.

I did qualify my statement with "the rest of us". In major cities, despite what some may think, a single large mixed-use building holds various, maybe even several, different retail spaces because high density residential should be complimented with high density commercial. Back in my hometown I took a picture of a new five story development yesterday, "The Hub" which, as you can see is a good deal less dense than what's proposed in this thread, yet there are a minimum of three retail spaces facing High St: there are three others on the south side of the building (pictured below is the west side). It's a matter of good urbanism and there's no reason why it couldn't happen with this development.

[grant1simons2]

Is there solid proof this won't have retail or open lease space on the lower floor?

[Minneapolisite]

Might already be posted, but this link only lists a single "best in class" restaurant as the retail component. http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/al ... r-downtown

[grant1simons2]

And what's the big problem with that?

[twincitizen]

If this project was in a commercial corridor, I'm sure it would include more retail space. It's not, so it doesn't. Hennepin and Main are the commercial corridors in this neighborhood...Central Ave really doesn't pick up until north of the intersection with Hennepin. Retail along Central here would be pretty isolated...and probably excessive. I'd rather see Main Street be fully leased up and future development along Hennepin can meet future retail space demands.

[Wedgeguy]

The site is suitable for a restaurant, maybe a drycleaners. The site is off the beaten retail path. The pathen path with hundreds to thousand of foot steps still sits empty in Riverplace and St. Anthony Main. While Lunds maybe on Central the rest of Central is a gallery, a bar and a few offices. No real retail mass, with really no chance of it developing with townhouses already there. The park across the street can't be developed. the Fitterman Gallery is historic and can't be redeveloped. Where do you get your customer counts from and how do you get them to stop. Hennepin is where the retail mass is and people expect it. Riverplace as proven that if you build it they don't always come. There are 2 to 3 times the number of units of this building. People at this time aren't willing to walk out of their way to get to retail that is optional in their lives. If this were the case, then both Riverplace and St. Anthony Main would have very few vacant spots in their retail areas. Your are not going to get a line of store like the photo above. This area is not anything like Washington Ave at Stadium Village. The foot traffic in the numbers you need will not be there. Unless there is a locked in guaranteed store that wants to take the gamble and be willing to lose their shirt if the customers do not come, store fronts like that are not going to fly over the long run. Sorry I'm a pessimist. But I have watched retail wax and wane in the city for over 30 years now. Atalus I'm sure have some solid market studies on what traffic count and foot count are along the area. They know what the people who are moving in want in the neighborhood that they are moving into. They will put feelers out to brokers to see if there is anyone that wants to have a go with committing to the building. Sorry to be a buzz kill, but you are maybe going to see a restaurant and/ or 2 service oriented stores like a dry cleaners. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I've been waiting 15 years now for retail to take off along the riverfront as a compliment to all of the restaurants that have solidly built up followings along there. It is built, yet retailers will not invest even when they have hundreds of people going along the river each week.
Good urbanism or not, builders will build only what they can make money on. Empty store fronts are a drain and loss for most. They are also unsightly blight when you walk by. Sorry to bring up the real world again but...

[go4guy]

The example above is done all over the city, in retail nodes that would support such retail. This is not one of them, and trying to force it would just cause empty store fronts. Just because we have a big development, doesnt mean we have to pack with retail. The use they are assumed to be going for would fit just perfectly with this lot. And I am pretty sure a developer would have already done their research as to what would best fit here, so they should know.

[xandrex]

The site is suitable for a restaurant, maybe a drycleaners. The site is off the beaten retail path.

No need for a dry cleaner here - Lunds has one between the Caribou Coffee and their convenience/drug store (on a side note, I've seen Jacob Frey using the dry cleaner there multiple times...I swear it's nearly every time I walk over there).

I'm not saying that retail would be the best bet here at this time, but this isn't exactly some far-flung area. It's literally a block away from Hennepin (a block without any significant storefront gaps) and almost kitty-corner from Lunds. It's certainly no farther away from the Hennepin/University node than several parts of First Avenue that have retail/restaurant/office space. And it's really just a half block from the only "solid" retail stretch on Central - between University and Fourth (Lunds pharmacy/convenience store, North Memorial Clinic, Cost Cutters, Chuck and Don's Pet Food, Mac's Industrial Bar, the barber apparently in the Labor Centre, and the bank).

So again, maybe retail isn't meant to be here. But I don't see an awful lot of merit in a high-end restaurant either. Any trekking there would be fairly close to a good selection of restaurants down at Main Street that frankly have better views (and no Central Avenue traffic rushing by any potential patio space). At best, you could wedge outdoor seating by the parking ramp, but that's hardly enticing.

[Minneapolisite]

It's hilarious that a bunch of urbanists think this area is too isolated for retail to work, because you'd have to walk across the street. And clearly, Mac's and Lunds are doing horribly: they probably won't make it for the ground-breaking of this project.

[John]

Well, I think the neighborhood feedback will include the strong desire for fairly comprehensive retail street frontage, especially along Third Ave. I think it's important to remember this project's design is still very tentative. Let's not get our undies in a bundle until this project is more fully planned.

Minneapolisite's example of projects in the "Short North" neighborhood Columbus along High Street is great. People should take note. I toured that street last summer and it's a wonderful example of a pedestrian friendly street with lots of good infill.