Vikings Stadium Miscellaneous Discussion

[trkaiser]

^^ I don't think anybody here expects this stadium to spark a boom around the site. Nevertheless, shouldn't we still try to make this building as good a neighbor as possible? Someday soon, I expect downtown east to be growing almost as quickly as the North Loop for many of the same reasons that area has taken off.

[Nathan]

^^ I don't think anybody here expects this stadium to spark a boom around the site. Nevertheless, shouldn't we still try to make this building as good a neighbor as possible? Someday soon, I expect downtown east to be growing almost as quickly as the North Loop for many of the same reasons that area has taken off.

Right, I don't think anyone claims that a stadium grows a community and creates a demand for development. BUT that isn't the purpose of a stadium. The stadium isn't built to create development. It's built to create civic pride, be a place for lots of events, and hopefully in our case become a design icon. All of that being said, it's being put into the next obvious place for Minneapolis to expand developmentally. Regardless of the stadium, that area is going to develop. SO it has to fit into a future neighborhood. I think that RT, Dayton, and the Stadium Commission are doing a fantastic job of making sure that this is known, and are going to make it happen. I think it's awful that the strib is publishing articles trying to make people think this stadium is being built for the sake of development, it's an extremely single faceted article.

[Wedgeguy]

^^ I don't think anybody here expects this stadium to spark a boom around the site. Nevertheless, shouldn't we still try to make this building as good a neighbor as possible? Someday soon, I expect downtown east to be growing almost as quickly as the North Loop for many of the same reasons that area has taken off.

Except that this area is mostly surface parking lots. Unlike the North Loop which had building like the Ford Building and other buildings on Third that can and will be redeveloped next to the Twins Stadium. Here you don't have to build mega blocks which generally are very sterile and not very street friendly. They don't really fit into the urban core. The only DTE blocks at this point that I see any developement potential that is not mega block is the block with the Sexton condo's on it and the 500 Block of Washington where the 501 Club and Eagle are located. You have two bare spots on each of the blocks that can be developed separately! Full Block developments will end up pretty much like the 222 Hennepin with huge walls that make for a fortress to have to get into. With residential you really need pocket parks and retail and restraunts and not just underground garage enterance facing the streets. The Mega blocks will take very big $$$ to redevelope.

[PhilmerPhil]

The greatest threat a new development boom faces with a stadium here is the "need" to support and encourage the easy flow of car traffic on the 8 (or however many) game days a year. Unless these roads are reconfigured to livable streets with trees, boulevards, better sidewalks, and bike facilities, residential development will come slow--if at all. A new stadium makes it unlikely that we will see a major downsizing of the roads here, even though I can guarantee you that Vikings fans will find a more efficient way to get to the game if the streets were improved to the point that they can't handle the flow of traffic on those few days.

[mattaudio]

But Downtown East is not a neighborhood, but rather a conduit for traffic between the CBD and 35W/94 correct?

[martykoessel]

That's exactly the point.

City leaders want to see DTE become a neighborhood and an extension of the business district, and they want the new stadium to become a catalyst for this rather than a deterrent.

That's a tall order, since there have so far been no NFL stadiums to which people want to cozy up.

[helsinki]

Except that this area is mostly surface parking lots. Unlike the North Loop which had building like the Ford Building and other buildings on Third that can and will be redeveloped next to the Twins Stadium. Here you don't have to build mega blocks which generally are very sterile and not very street friendly. They don't really fit into the urban core. The only DTE blocks at this point that I see any developement potential that is not mega block is the block with the Sexton condo's on it and the 500 Block of Washington where the 501 Club and Eagle are located. You have two bare spots on each of the blocks that can be developed separately! Full Block developments will end up pretty much like the 222 Hennepin with huge walls that make for a fortress to have to get into. With residential you really need pocket parks and retail and restraunts and not just underground garage enterance facing the streets. The Mega blocks will take very big $$$ to redevelope.

First, there are a few buildings like the Ford building (that have been redeveloped!); the Advance Thresher building is super cool for instance, and I can personally attest to the fact that 250 Park Avenue right next door is an extremely comfortable place to live. It's not a neighborhood, but it has great potential to be one.

Which leads to my second point: the parking lots could actually help make this a great neighborhood, rather than hinder it's development, because they present blank slates. Sure, if we get a bunch of Bridgewater's, it's not going to be very charming (why, oh why, couldn't they have set that building back a few feet/widened the sidewalk on Washington and planted trees that would actually survive?). Team the right developer with the right architect, though, and one project has the potential to be transformative. I think once the psychological hurdle is breached, people will realize that, oh yeah, DTE is within walking distance of the CBD and the river and is centered around an LRT station with connections to both the Green and Blue lines.

Honestly, I think the Hospital might present just as much of an obstacle to development here as the Dome. It (1) takes brutalist bunker architecture to an extreme (I wonder sometimes whether it was designed by Brezhnev), (2) attracts swarms of blaring sirens at all hours, and (3) requires tons of parking all the time, not just on game day.

[min-chi-cbus]

The Hospital is due for a MAJOR renovation though, so the exterior should become less of an issue in the future/near future.

[Didier]

I think expectations need to be tempered for the stadium. There's little evidence to expect a stadium that is nestled in quietly among a bunch of bustling townhomes. Even Target Field, despite the rose-colored glasses many of us look at the building through (including me), isn't really "active" the other 283 days when it is unused.

That is not the same thing as accepting a Metrodome 2.0, though. The new stadium should absolutely have useable space for every day, which likely includes park features (things such as an ice rink, skateboard facilities have been discussed here). In addition, it should absolutely be expected that the stadium better connects to its surroundings. It shouldn't be awkward to walk in the vicinity of the stadium on non-game days, and on game days the stadium should effectively connect people with the rest of the city.

So far it sounds like this is off to a solid start by doing things like better aligning stadium entrances to the streets and incorporating a big year-round plaza between the stadium and the CBD. Alternate tailgating options appear to be gaining momentum as well. The biggest key, though, will be actually redeveloping most of the surface parking lots into buildings. It remains to be seen how that will work out, but the biggest thing that area has going for it (in my opinion) is the LRT station, which will eventually be the first shared station for Central Corridor and Hiawatha.

[trkaiser]

The Hospital is due for a MAJOR renovation though, so the exterior should become less of an issue in the future/near future.

Not to drag us too far off topic, but I feel like we've been hearing about this major HCMC upgrade for years. Has anybody heard when this could happen, what the priorities are and/or what would change? I'd guess it would be very difficult to spruce up the looks of a building like that (or Moos Tower) when they're so ... brutal.

[Nathan]

The Hospital is due for a MAJOR renovation though, so the exterior should become less of an issue in the future/near future.

Not to drag us too far off topic, but I feel like we've been hearing about this major HCMC upgrade for years. Has anybody heard when this could happen, what the priorities are and/or what would change? I'd guess it would be very difficult to spruce up the looks of a building like that (or Moos Tower) when they're so ... brutal.

I think HCMC is Brutiful.

I think they should be restored, aging and soiling is particularly detrimental to the appearance of brutalist buildings, but they are a very valuable style of architecture, and HCMC is hardly hiddeous (I'd say their parking garages are more of a culprit to a friendly street scene). It seems exceptionally visible because there is nothing around it, but fill in the blocks and it is just a part of the neighborhood, a part of the evolving timeline of architecture that exists in a city.

[mattaudio]

I thought there was talk of a new HCMC building on the block with the Lehmans and Finance & Commerce.

[Tom H.]

I think HCMC is Brutiful.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but in my mind, calling Brutalism "beautiful" or lauding it because of its historic significance is just another false equivalence. Barren, hulking, and hostile should never be words used to describe civic structures.

[mattaudio]

Brutalism doesn't have to be barren, hulking or hostile. There are other core characteristics of brutalism, such as embracing the nature of building and structure materials like concrete and steel.

That said, many examples of Brutalism suck, especially to people on sidewalks next to barren, hulking, and hostile examples. But I think that's primarily the result of Brutalism being popular at a time when it was assumed that streets were no longer the domain of people. It's more a result of culture at the time rather than the specific architectural style, especially considering that examples of ALL architectural styles during the mid- to late-20th century were barren, hulking, and hostile.

[trkaiser]

I think that's primarily the result of Brutalism being popular at a time when it was assumed that streets were no longer the domain of people. It's more a result of culture at the time rather than the specific architectural style, especially considering that examples of ALL architectural styles during the mid- to late-20th century were barren, hulking, and hostile.

Excellent point, Matt.

[Nathan]

I think that's primarily the result of Brutalism being popular at a time when it was assumed that streets were no longer the domain of people. It's more a result of culture at the time rather than the specific architectural style, especially considering that examples of ALL architectural styles during the mid- to late-20th century were barren, hulking, and hostile.

Excellent point, Matt.

Which is why they have such important historical context... you can label a period's culture and ideals by it's buildings, art, music etc etc... I'd just as soon have the buildings and not let mpls be void of 2 decades of architecture (urban renewal), only to find 30 years from now those types of buildings become desirable historic condo renovations in other cities...

[helsinki]

I think that's primarily the result of Brutalism being popular at a time when it was assumed that streets were no longer the domain of people. It's more a result of culture at the time rather than the specific architectural style, especially considering that examples of ALL architectural styles during the mid- to late-20th century were barren, hulking, and hostile.

Excellent point, Matt.

Agreed - fair point.

My dislike of brutalism derives primarily from it's unsuitability to our climate. Exposed concrete might be fine in a dry place, like California or Egypt. In Minnesota, however, the concrete stains and cracks easily. The embedded rebar rusts. The entire structure will often appear sodden and turn an unfortunate brown color.

The same critique applies to flat roofs. Why we continue to build nearly all new large buildings with flat roofs in a climate with so much precipitation is beyond me. To any architects: the Bauhaus closed almost 80 years ago; it's not modern any more.

[Nathan]

The same critique applies to flat roofs. Why we continue to build nearly all new large buildings with flat roofs in a climate with so much precipitation is beyond me. To any architects: the Bauhaus closed almost 80 years ago; it's not modern any more.

I agree about flat roofs in OUR climate because architects should be designing for the set environment, but bauhaus was and is amazing... It closed because of Nazis... not because it wasn't popular.

[helsinki]

The same critique applies to flat roofs. Why we continue to build nearly all new large buildings with flat roofs in a climate with so much precipitation is beyond me. To any architects: the Bauhaus closed almost 80 years ago; it's not modern any more.

I agree about flat roofs in OUR climate because architects should be designing for the set environment, but bauhaus was and is amazing... It closed because of Nazis... not because it wasn't popular.

Flat roofs in our climate really are impractical. But they're cheap! (in the short term - long term they're way, way more expensive to maintain).

But I agree, Bauhaus was and remains super cool. Nazis were jerks. Indiana Jones said it best in The Last Crusade with the line: "Nazis. I hate these guys." (during ultimately successful attempt to rescue Sean Connery from captivity in Alpine castle).

[MNdible]

Flat roofs allow you to control and capture rain and snow, and prevents it from sheeting/sliding off of the building onto whatever's below. For large commercial/institutional buildings, a sloped roof creates a vast attic area that isn't really usable -- pretty wasteful, actually. It's one thing with small residential buildings, which tend to have most of their weight bearing on the exterior walls and where you're actually using the truss properties of the sloped roof and you can more easily use the attic space. But with larger buildings, where you'll need a significant number of internal load bearing columns anyway, building a flat roof tends to be more efficient and more structurally "honest". You'll know what I mean if you've ever seen the absurd wood roof trusses that they use on large multifamily housing projects with sloped roofs.

How is it that we're talking about this in the Vikings thread again?