Alia Tower - 200 Central - 483' / 40 Stories

[seanrichardryan]

And the photos I was looking for. My grandfather was a member of the club. I have a collection of lovely chairs from their dining room from when they sold off the main building and consolidated in the racquetball wing.

[Wedgeguy]

Thanks those help me to understand the earlier question that I trying to understand.

[aeisenberg]

Regarding architecture...Humphreys/Alatus did the Grant Park Condos - the tower is awful. Humphreys/Excelsior Group did 222 Hennepin - also a bad building. Humphreys/Alatus did The Carlyle - a decent/good building if derivative of Pelli's Wells Fargo tower. Regarding urbanism, Grant Park Condos *maybe* gets a pass for it's location (difficult to do mixed use/retail/commercial in such a place), 222 Hennepin is an INCREDIBLE location and Whole Foods is a great fit, The Carlyle gets a low grade for having no public amenities at grade with the caveats that the site is sloped at grade and at the time of construction it was pretty isolated for retail/commercial uses, etc.

I am sad to see Humphreys doing another tower building in this market as their "Houston" brand of architecture has a bad track record in this city.

I've been to Houston a lot. There is nothing "Houston" about the Carlyle, 222, or Grant Park.

Don't even get me started on your armchair design criticism.

[MplsSteve]

Thanks for the old pics, very interesting. It shouldn't be difficult to restore at all. The original entrance is still there behind some landscaping. I am a little skeptical of the feasibilty of moving this building around on the sight. I guess anything can be moved (schubert Theater), but it would seem like it would really add significantly to the cost.

[go4guy]

I wouldnt think it would cost more than $50k to move this building. This isnt much larger than a house. And a great deal of the cost in moving a house is getting the roads blocked off and the utilities moved or protected to get thru. This would me little more than lifting the home off the foundation and moving it 50 ft.

[Archiapolis]

Regarding architecture...Humphreys/Alatus did the Grant Park Condos - the tower is awful. Humphreys/Excelsior Group did 222 Hennepin - also a bad building. Humphreys/Alatus did The Carlyle - a decent/good building if derivative of Pelli's Wells Fargo tower. Regarding urbanism, Grant Park Condos *maybe* gets a pass for it's location (difficult to do mixed use/retail/commercial in such a place), 222 Hennepin is an INCREDIBLE location and Whole Foods is a great fit, The Carlyle gets a low grade for having no public amenities at grade with the caveats that the site is sloped at grade and at the time of construction it was pretty isolated for retail/commercial uses, etc.

I am sad to see Humphreys doing another tower building in this market as their "Houston" brand of architecture has a bad track record in this city.

I've been to Houston a lot. There is nothing "Houston" about the Carlyle, 222, or Grant Park.

Don't even get me started on your armchair design criticism.

Sorry that I've offended you.

In your opinion, what is the proper venue for design criticism if not a place like this?

Would you mind expanding on your opinions of the Carlyle, 222 Hennepin and Grant Park?

[twincitizen]

I had no idea people didn't like Grant Park Homes. I think it looks great.

I think it's an amazing feat anything was built there at all, let alone uber expensive condos and townhomes. I bet every single original buyer is severely underwater on their mortgage. Let's be honest... It's a relatively terrible location between a freeway and a bunch of social services and affordable housing in a not-so-great neighborhood. How silly did the pre-recession housing market have to be for that site to get built on, but not countless other WAY better locations that remain parking lots (or were only recently developed)?

[exiled_antipodean]

Humphreys/Alatus did The Carlyle - a decent/good building if derivative of Pelli's Wells Fargo tower.

The Carlyle gets a low grade for having no public amenities at grade with the caveats that the site is sloped at grade and at the time of construction it was pretty isolated for retail/commercial uses, etc.

Ultimately taste is just that, but nothing inherently wrong with being derivative of other buildings. If the Carlyle is derivative of a local building how is it "Houston" style?

Also, the Carlyle has retail/commercial space at ground level. It's just unleased. That should give people pause about the wisdom of requiring that developers provide retail space. Papered-up windows are not really great street frontage.

[twincitizen]

^That observation is particularly prophetic for the McReavy Site. Retail space (besides a destination restaurant in the historic building) would be inappropriate at this location.

[aeisenberg]

Regarding architecture...Humphreys/Alatus did the Grant Park Condos - the tower is awful. Humphreys/Excelsior Group did 222 Hennepin - also a bad building. Humphreys/Alatus did The Carlyle - a decent/good building if derivative of Pelli's Wells Fargo tower. Regarding urbanism, Grant Park Condos *maybe* gets a pass for it's location (difficult to do mixed use/retail/commercial in such a place), 222 Hennepin is an INCREDIBLE location and Whole Foods is a great fit, The Carlyle gets a low grade for having no public amenities at grade with the caveats that the site is sloped at grade and at the time of construction it was pretty isolated for retail/commercial uses, etc.

I am sad to see Humphreys doing another tower building in this market as their "Houston" brand of architecture has a bad track record in this city.

I've been to Houston a lot. There is nothing "Houston" about the Carlyle, 222, or Grant Park.

Don't even get me started on your armchair design criticism.

Sorry that I've offended you.

In your opinion, what is the proper venue for design criticism if not a place like this?

Would you mind expanding on your opinions of the Carlyle, 222 Hennepin and Grant Park?

It's not that this is the wrong place for design criticism-- This is EXACTLY the place for it. But saying 'the tower is awful" and "this is a bad building" "decent but derivative"-- okay, why are they so bad, exactly? And grading on every building on "urbanism" as defined by apparently how much retail it has is similarly not useful commentary. What about the quality of materials? What about how the building meets the street? What about how it changed the block/neighborhood?

While none of these developments are perfect, they all use quality materials. 222 and Grant Park dramatically improve the blocks on which they were built. For goodness sake, 222 won Mpls/StP Business Journal's "Best Overall Mixed Use" development last year!!!!!!!! You criticize the Carlyle for not having public amenities (and then walk it back?) but they've got retail space, which is saying something because (and you admit) it's a bad location for retail. Can't please everyone.

Which brings me to Houston. Houston development (broadly speaking) is characterized by bland towers, cheap, fortress-like, inward focused development, and parking lots. How are these examples Houston-like?

[Nick]

How are these examples Houston-like?

I think he means that they look like the Houston tileset in SimCity 4. Right?

[go4guy]

I would argue that Grant Park is one of the better condos built in this city. Has amazing street frontage that fits in perfectly with that neighborhood. Then you have the tower which sits back nicely and looks great. It especially looks nice at night coming up 35W. Carlyle is my favorite condo. Looks amazing, especially at night. That lighting scheme is beautiful. And I would argue that they should never have had retail at this location.

[mplsjaromir]

I bet every single original buyer is severely underwater on their mortgage.

I can assure you this is not the case. The unit I rented was purchased when the Grant Park opened and comparable units are going for a premium today. The stock market would have been a better investment.

Living at Grant Park felt like living on an island and not in a good way. We really wanted to enjoy walking to local amenities, there just are not that many. The saving grace was having a Niceride station 200' from the front door.

[fehler]

The street frontage at Grant Park is just for show. I've never seen a resident use/maintain that entrance. The few I've talked to have barricaded the door from the inside, due to attempted break-ins, and enter the building strictly through the parking garage. I wouldn't say it fits in with the Drake at all.

[mattaudio]

But over time, that will change, and Grant Park frontage will be valuable. It was built with the future, a future of good urbanism, in mind.

[kregger22]

There is no doubt, Grant Park is off the beaten path from amenities.

I am probably only one of a few that likes towers built outside of the core - I think this gives a big city an even bigger metro feel and look.

Could it have more glass and a sleeker look... sure. It does however look terrific lit up at night coming up 35 as go4guy states.

[NE_love]

It's not that this is the wrong place for design criticism-- This is EXACTLY the place for it. But saying 'the tower is awful" and "this is a bad building" "decent but derivative"-- okay, why are they so bad, exactly? And grading on every building on "urbanism" as defined by apparently how much retail it has is similarly not useful commentary. What about the quality of materials? What about how the building meets the street? What about how it changed the block/neighborhood?

While none of these developments are perfect, they all use quality materials. 222 and Grant Park dramatically improve the blocks on which they were built. For goodness sake, 222 won Mpls/StP Business Journal's "Best Overall Mixed Use" development last year!!!!!!!! You criticize the Carlyle for not having public amenities (and then walk it back?) but they've got retail space, which is saying something because (and you admit) it's a bad location for retail. Can't please everyone.

Which brings me to Houston. Houston development (broadly speaking) is characterized by bland towers, cheap, fortress-like, inward focused development, and parking lots. How are these examples Houston-like?

I would like to point out that The Marshall also won a Mpls/StP Business Journal award. The criteria they use is skewed toward the developer and doesn't really make your point about the architecture. Other then filling the block and perhaps addressing the street on 2 sides, this hardly meets your criteria.

I am curious if anyone is familiar with the commercial space at the Carlyle. Besides being in an area without much foot traffic, I wonder what the rent would be? Based on the cost/sf of the condos, I wonder if it is not high?

I personally bemoan the fact that a local firm does not get a chance to design these buildings and that is what I dislike about the "Houston-brand".

[Archiapolis]

It's not that this is the wrong place for design criticism-- This is EXACTLY the place for it. But saying 'the tower is awful" and "this is a bad building" "decent but derivative"-- okay, why are they so bad, exactly? And grading on every building on "urbanism" as defined by apparently how much retail it has is similarly not useful commentary. What about the quality of materials? What about how the building meets the street? What about how it changed the block/neighborhood?

Grant Park is awful because it is a historicist building that is completely disconnected from modern ideas and technology that were the very genesis of "towers" in the first place. Steel, reinforced concrete, advances in footing and foundation technology that allow a building to stand tall should be indicated in the architecture of a tower built circa 2000+. Looking around at the neighborhood form (3 story turn of the 20th century housing) and simply extruding that form for 20 stories is vacuous and lazy in the extreme. Taking neighborhood materials (brick and stone ) and cladding said tower with cheaper, less detailed versions of those materials exacerbates an already bad idea and the culmination of terrible form and empty materials is indeed "awful." You are welcome to criticize my taste but I am certainly not alone in the feeling that architecture, and specifically towers, should be indicative of technological progress and modern design ideas instead of shallow, vapid, regressive, historicism. I have now given my support for why this is an awful building. I'd be very interested to hear a defense of this building that is rooted in architectural ideas.

While none of these developments are perfect, they all use quality materials.

Allow me to interject here. I don't know what your background is or what your threshold for "quality" is but Hardi panels, "cultured stone" (concrete made to LOOK like stone - a falsehood), and large swaths of unbroken, undetailed, corrugated metal panel (not ribbed metal that might express a thoughtful profile), and off-the-shelf aluminum balconies are NOT "quality materials." There is a mountain of architectural opinion regarding the "true" nature of materials and using falsehoods in architecture - I'll let them speak for themselves. And, just as a preemptive measure, you need only go one block to see a building that made a choice to use REAL limestone instead of cast concrete made to LOOK like stone. Feel free to take issue with other material/color choices in Velo (and other projects around town) but other developers/architecture firms have made choices to use real materials here and there.

222 and Grant Park dramatically improve the blocks on which they were built.

I did try to make a distinction between the effect that these buildings have from an urbanism standpoint as separate from the architecture. I'm sorry I didn't support the arguments more fully.

From a strictly urban standpoint, Grant Park is an improvement over a building that doesn't exist. More people/density is generally a good thing. If it isn't clear that this is "damning with faint praise" let me be clear that that is exactly as intended. 222 Hennepin is also better than a run-down car dealership for the aforementioned reasons. Considering its location, 222 Hennepin should have been two to four times as dense (minimum). I applaud the introduction of Whole Foods to downtown but they were in negotiations to enter this site going back to original condo proposals in the mid aughts - this is business, they didn't do Minneapolis a "solid" by creating a store here.

For goodness sake, 222 won Mpls/StP Business Journal's "Best Overall Mixed Use" development last year!!!!!!!!

As others have pointed out, most of these awards are real estate driven and that is to say that they celebrate/laud "the deal." Let me be clear, this isn't a shot at your profession and real estate should certainly be allowed to have awards but these awards have little or nothing to do with architecture and urbanism. Building a 6 story "texas doughnut" housing project around an EXISTING parking structure with one commercial tenant at a very prominent corner in a booming mid-major metropolitan area isn't a jaw-dropping real estate achievement.

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.”

You criticize the Carlyle for not having public amenities (and then walk it back?) but they've got retail space, which is saying something because (and you admit) it's a bad location for retail. Can't please everyone.

Others have commented on "derivative design" so I'd like to address this idea as it relates to the Carlyle. I would argue that "derivative" in the Carlyle is less vacuous and lazy than Grant Park but not by much and I encourage you to do some googling because the "board has reached the attachment quota" or I'd include some images that illustrate my point.

Designing a building to be “like” another building is bad architecture because it diminishes the original and exposes itself as making no effort to express an architectural idea of its own. Cribbing the form, materials, lighting scheme and accoutrements of a great building and just “putting it over there” is cynical in the extreme, lazy and not good architecture. I can cite numerous examples of architecture that strives to heighten the relationship to the existing context/history at hand without replicating it (poorly) and thereby being derivative if you are interested.

Which brings me to Houston.

Apologies, I was mistaken. Humphreys is headquartered in Dallas - not Houston. My comment was relative to Humphreys not being a local firm with local relationships and investment in the future of a great city. They are a corporate widget factory squatting out their bland, cheap, contextually ignorant brand of architecture in whatever city they get hired to work in.

Houston development (broadly speaking) is characterized by bland towers, cheap, fortress-like, inward focused development, and parking lots. How are these examples Houston-like?

Speaking of bland, cheap, fortress-like, inward focus, and parking (structures) - giant columns with a porte cochere isn’t exactly welcoming to pedestrians and thus, not “meeting the street” very well. As for the unrented retail space, I was attempting to give them the benefit of the doubt based on where the building is located, I wasn’t trying to “walk back” my opinion that it isn’t good space. See the cheap off-the-shelf green canvas awnings with the fauxstoric parking podium above for evidence that this space is at the very best, an after-thought.

The accumulated evidence shows that Humphreys does architecture on a scale from fair to awful and I will leave the last word to you if you wish to make arguments to the contrary.

[Tyler]

Good post.

[Wedgeguy]

I'm not an architect so I'm only looking at what I've seen out there. In Chicago and New York I see older towers with brick facades. So to put brick on a tower is not unheard of. You talk about technology, are we to only now build all glass building as not too many companies can afford real limestone, granite, or marble slab on their apartment towers. Are there such thing as stone cutters anymore that are not done by machine tooling. Part of why I like Grant Park is that it does have some historic detail, faux or otherwise, that helps the row houses to better relate to the streets and the older parts of the neighborhood. Would I have preferred real stone for the accents on the tower and row houses. Sure, but this is not the gold coast in Chicago. So the price that would be needed for real stone, would have never been gotten to make this project work. I'll take a tower that has character, faux or otherwise, over a bland box that is built to today's technology levels. I can do without City Center like residential towers, even if they are the architectural technology of the times. I'll take a Grant Park and Carlyle over anything that looks like 110 Grant and Marquette Place anytime. This again is my opinion, I tend to like classical and deco architecture over the International Style. Not to say there are not beautiful towers from that period, but most look like they took the cheap way out with a cookie cutter rectangle with no styling what so ever. Those also had lousy street presence, windswept plazas. Again my personal opinion. We each have our own likes and dislikes when it come to architecture.