Theories

[HiawathaGuy]

I feel like I'm listening to some right-wing radio show with all these conspiracy theories about Minneapolis height restrictions.
We have ZERO geographic boundaries to keep our city "hemmed" in. 94/35W and the Mississippi do not count, IMO.

I personally believe Minneapolis is one of the most beautiful downtown skylines compared with any others the same size. The fact that there haven't been any new supertalls built since the 90s has a lot more to do with population movements/competition/economics/mergers more than some hypothetical height restriction.

Unless someone can actually give evidence from City Hall, I really wish this talk of wild conspiracies would stop. It's annoying and feels desperate. Not to mention it's completely irrelevant to this 365 Nicollet thread.

[cnelson]

obvious troll is obvious

Except for the Wells Fargo tower 30 years ago, is there any evidence whatsoever that developers are clamoring to build taller buildings here but are being shot down by City Hall?

(Note: Duval was shot down based on not having any discernable financials, not because his proposal was too tall.)

I don't know of any others with certainty, but I was told Best Buy was very interested in the downtown location in Minneapolis and went to Bloomington instead and so was medtronic or whatever they're called in Moundsview I believe.
The Cappella tower was supposed to be over 1100 feet tall but Minneapolis wouldn't allow it.. Yet there was no reason to cut that building down in height the tenants were all lined up any the financing was in place.
I can't remember the guys name that used to post on here something banker or banker something, but he knew of all the developers and potential tenants that lost interest in Minneapolis.
We have a great city with a lot of potential. Reminds me of Philadelphia when they had restrictions on height and strict building codes for some reason or other. The city lifted the codes and exploded with developers business and tenants over the last decade or two.

But we don't have a height limit in the core. If we did it would be public information. The city was very ready to allow (or did allow) The Nicollet which would have been 656'. By the way, that can still happen. The architects own all the rights to the drawings.

I'm not aware of any height restrictions in downtown Minneapolis, so I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. however if there is a height restriction, I would bet with confidence Its 1' shorter then the IDS.

The biggest reason is the city of Minneapolis. They don't want height, and they run those proposals and developers out of town. Minnespolis is an easy city to build in, and very welcoming if the building is under 30 stories.
And for the last time I'm not referring to Medtronic in Fridley I'm referring to medtronic on coral sea Ne In Mounds view off 35w and 85th sve I believe. It's my understanding that they're first choice to build was a tower in Minneapolis however instead they were "run out if town" and buildt 3-10 story massive boxes in Moundsview Minnesota. I'm not 100% sure on this But it's my understanding it would've been a tower of significant height but Minneapolis wouldn't allow it. And no I have no proof of this. it this was some 10 years ago. Same with Best Buy. Whether this is true or false it's hard to believe otherwise if you look at the track record in Minneapolis since the early 90s.

[Avian]

...However, now the city runs every interested developer out of town who takes interest in U.S. Keys tower in Cleveland is a prime example, it was supposed to be here but the city wouldnt allow it. It was too tall. "We don't want to dishonor our IDS" was the reason quoted, .....

This is patently untrue. It's amazing to see that this urban legend still persists. The Norwest building was redesigned at the request of the bank because they could not reach a development agreement with the owners of the other half of the block. The original design was in NO WAY rejected by the city.

Don't believe it? Read the glowing 1989 article in the New York Times about the building:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/15/arts/ ... raper.html

[mattaudio]

Duval was just called "poor man's Trump" in a Strib comment thread.
http://www.startribune.com/metro-counti ... 373308751/

[MS3]

Originally proposed at 36 stories. I've heard over 10 reasons for its decline in story count. Keep in mind this was suppose to be the invite to the big one.. The iconic. Since getting the nod, it's lost several floors and a lot of architectural class. Regardless of the floor count or it's now mediocre appearance, It's evident this is reinforcement of the pattern of any upcoming Minnespolis skyscrapers. In my line of work, I can say this with complete confidence- Minneapolis seen its last skyscrapers years ago. Anything from this point on will be short by today's standards. Any upcoming development and proposals will be nothing to get excited over unless your loving 15-30ish story averaging buildings that lack architectural character. An article or two may pop up with a new proposal of significant height, but like the past 20 years in Minneapolis have basically proven- the city will shoot it down or the few dull developers we are stuck with will only be able to handle what's in they're league.. (15-30ish) stories.
I'm sure they'll be a lot of disagreement with what I wrote. Keep in mind.. The market for Minneapolis is unable to support tall towers because the "city has for decades turned away those interested" so they go to other city's. We're stuck with a 15-30ish story apt boxes as needed only.

[grant1simons2]

Wut

Who's paying you to troll?

[MS3]

Study the facts and evidence grant1simons2. Both the Wells Fargo tower and Cappella tower were suppose to be near 1000 feet. (Capella 1100' WF 947') The city wouldn't allow neither to surpass the IDS. That's why Cleveland has the 947 foot keys tower. In mid to late 90s Target wanted to build a tower of 900 meters. The city won't allow it to be over 300 Meters (492 feet) it was built soon after at 492 feet.. One of the main reasons (but not only) Target has a huge campus in Brooklyn Park. The The twin Wells Fargo towers just completed were originally described as one tower in the 600+ foot range.. But the city didn't want the height so two towers were building instead. Magellen planned on a tower at 432' in loring park 3 yrs ago. It now stands at 376' because Minneapolis would not allow it to be over 400 feet. How much evidence do you need? Our "iconic" building now has declined too. Not to mention Minneapolis's idea of a iconic building is a minimum of 22 stories ! Where do you want to admit it or not.. Minneapolis is finished with anything if substantial height. Especially by today standards. Even the rumored 50 storyTCF building has been reduced down to 30 to 35 stories. At least that's what I've heard from very reliable sources. That's if it even gets built at all. The pattern is set.

[Anondson]

If we build higher than the IDS we would hit the hovering lizard people space craft positioned above the downtown. The evidence is clear! Facts.

[nBode]

Somebody is very confused about what a meter is.

[nBode]

It's probably a good thing the city stepped in and blocked that Target project, though. A 2,952 foot tower might have looked a bit out of place here.

Would've been cool to have tallest in the world, though, eh?

EDIT: Sorry, I'm in a trolling mood.

[Silophant]

"Out of scale with the neighborhood."

[MS3]

Hahaha.. Hey, at least I didn't confuse meters with miles instead of feet. At least with a 900 mile tall tower, there would be no need for a iconic building anymore?

[MS3]

Haha.. At least I confesed my meters with feet not miles.. Can you imagine a 900 miles? There would be no more need For iconic

[SamHartmen]

Haha.. At least I confesed my meters with feet not miles.. Can you imagine a 900 miles? There would be no more need For iconic

...a space elevator would be iconic? the height obsessed club needs to disband.

[go4guy]

Well, you know, except the whole 40 story tower about to be built across the river. Also, when was it ever rumored that Wells Fargo was going to build a 600 foot tower? There would be absolutely no reason to spend that money for the type of employees to be housed in those two towers.

[cnelson]

Study the facts and evidence grant1simons2. Both the Wells Fargo tower and Cappella tower were suppose to be near 1000 feet. (Capella 1100' WF 947') The city wouldn't allow neither to surpass the IDS. That's why Cleveland has the 947 foot keys tower. In mid to late 90s Target wanted to build a tower of 900 meters. The city won't allow it to be over 300 Meters (492 feet) it was built soon after at 492 feet.. One of the main reasons (but not only) Target has a huge campus in Brooklyn Park. The The twin Wells Fargo towers just completed were originally described as one tower in the 600+ foot range.. But the city didn't want the height so two towers were building instead. Magellen planned on a tower at 432' in loring park 3 yrs ago. It now stands at 376' because Minneapolis would not allow it to be over 400 feet. How much evidence do you need? Our "iconic" building now has declined too. Not to mention Minneapolis's idea of a iconic building is a minimum of 22 stories ! Where do you want to admit it or not.. Minneapolis is finished with anything if substantial height. Especially by today standards. Even the rumored 50 storyTCF building has been reduced down to 30 to 35 stories. At least that's what I've heard from very reliable sources. That's if it even gets built at all. The pattern is set.

Evidence? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

[TroyGBiv]

I think we miss the big picture in corporate office trends. Over the last 10 to 15 years clients have wanted more employees on bigger floor plates. Corporations also have shifted their marketing strategies to "naming" high visibility buildings like stadiums, plazas, or focal points like a playing field, or a megatron TV screen, or news promos "Today's Financial News is brought to you by Anchor Bank".... The marketing naming value is in places that have built in media exposures... putting your name on a tower is a "nice to have" not a "need to have" in marketing strategies... building heights are, in a large part, determined by land price vs. land availability vs. market demand... if you look at the Minneapolis map you see dozens of empty blocks and surface parking lots disappearing rapidly. There is no question that the decreasing available downtown lots will lead to more taller buildings. That is what happens with increased density. There is no city policy to discourage taller buildings. The building proposed for the Nicollet block that was 900 feet tall was not credible, much of the basic "paperwork" was insufficient or completely missing when it was submitted for consideration by the city. The old "can't be taller than the IDS" was originally driven by the microwave towers on the roof that would be blocked by a nearby taller tower... there were potential lawsuits that put a damper on other proposed structures. That is no longer the case and as we've seen the Capella tower is in fact almost 3 feet taller than the IDS. Corporations are run in a major part by the Board of Directors and Wall Street Investors... "Statement" or "Iconic Towers" can be perceived to be a negative in some situations and many corporate CEO's are not encouraged to push for these types of corporate statements...

[MS3]

Like anything.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there is no "inside information" needed. However when it comes to floor count reduction, Just a look back over the last 20+ years of the track record of taller buildings built in Minneapolis.. A 100% guaranteed floor count reduction. This isn't negativity it's facts.

[Nathan]

Like anything.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there is no "inside information" needed. However when it comes to floor count reduction, Just a look back over the last 20+ years of the track record of taller buildings built in Minneapolis.. A 100% guaranteed floor count reduction. This isn't negativity it's facts.

I think the word you're looking for is "trend"

It's definitely a trend. We get it. But it's not a fact.

It's more of a fact that developers play with many options, concepts, and layouts for a project before ultimately deciding how they want to build it, in their best financial interest. The part where you value and think the tallest and most radical of all of these were the only viable options and anything less is the city or anyone else's fault is your own bag.

[mattaudio]

There would be absolutely no reason to spend that money for the type of employees to be housed in those two towers.

You fronting?