Washington Square - 20, 100, 111 Washington Avenue S
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
ARTchitecture....the word is (almost) in the name.....I rest my case!
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7764
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
archiTORTURE. I rest my case!
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4371
- Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
- Location: Marcy-Holmes
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Delete your account
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4093
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
The temple of Nimes could be picked up and moved back onto that silly surface lot, thus opening Nicollet to bridge square again.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
I don't think that works. First of all, of course, "aesthetics" is a function. But even then you can name plenty of things that are obviously art but are also meant to serve a practical function. Think of a floor mosaic, or a sculptural fountain.Here's a stab:
(visual) Art is something created primarily for it's aesthetic value, not for its function.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.
That said, it's laughable that anyone who claims to care about the "function" of the built environment would do so to defend the addition of a coffee shop to an office building. Much of what, in certain circles, passes for the quote-unquote "urban" "function" of a structure amounts to little more than an à-la-mode preference for certain setback distances and exterior siding materials–in other words, for certain aesthetic/cosmetic features. Yes, these can serve practical ends from the perspective of developers, landlords and other stakeholders in terms of the subjective desirability of a building vis-à-vis tenants/clients/etc with big discretionary budgets, but those considerations are only "functional" insofar as real estate, as an institution, is and has always been a fetishization of exchange-value over use-value.
If anyone really cared about the "function" of the built environment, we would be talking about how to urgently address homelessness and the affordable housing crisis in Minneapolis, not whether or not office workers get to have Urban™ simulated for them when they go to purchase the caffeine they require to meet their productivity quotas.
That said, it's laughable that anyone who claims to care about the "function" of the built environment would do so to defend the addition of a coffee shop to an office building. Much of what, in certain circles, passes for the quote-unquote "urban" "function" of a structure amounts to little more than an à-la-mode preference for certain setback distances and exterior siding materials–in other words, for certain aesthetic/cosmetic features. Yes, these can serve practical ends from the perspective of developers, landlords and other stakeholders in terms of the subjective desirability of a building vis-à-vis tenants/clients/etc with big discretionary budgets, but those considerations are only "functional" insofar as real estate, as an institution, is and has always been a fetishization of exchange-value over use-value.
If anyone really cared about the "function" of the built environment, we would be talking about how to urgently address homelessness and the affordable housing crisis in Minneapolis, not whether or not office workers get to have Urban™ simulated for them when they go to purchase the caffeine they require to meet their productivity quotas.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
What I REALLY want to know is whether or not coffee is an art form.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4617
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: RE: Re: Washington Avenue
That's just ridiculous.Buildings are not art.
Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk
-
- Nicollet Mall
- Posts: 128
- Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
There's a place over by 27th and Hennepin whose owners and employees probably agree with you. (And likely think coffee is an art form, also too).I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 768
- Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Twin Cities Leather and Latte?There's a place over by 27th and Hennepin whose owners and employees probably agree with you. (And likely think coffee is an art form, also too).I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.
-
- Union Depot
- Posts: 321
- Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
- Location: Lyndale Neighborhood
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.
I am glad that I do not live in your world. There is always room for beauty in even the most simple and functional of objects/buildings. "beige_box" seems to be a well chosen screen name.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Architecture IS about art. Engineering is not.I would say architecture's primary function is almost never art. This is true of probably 99% of buildings, with some exceptions being monuments and starchitectural creations.
That is, if architecture (practice) is to buildings (product) as sculpture (practice) is to a sculpture (product).
Anyways, I find the addition acceptable. It's minorly intrusive and respects the geometries of the original design.
Architecture is about making the space liveable... enjoyable... interesting. Engineering is about making those ideas practical.
Sometimes the engineers do whatever possible to make the architects vision come to fruition; sometimes architects take a back seat to the engineers.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7764
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
So we all agree on tearing down these three buildings, then?
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Eh, 111 is fine.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6388
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Agreed, 111 is fine. 100 is also fine for now, and contributes enough office space that it's unlikely to come down anytime soon. Once the Opus block and Nicollet Hotel block have been built out, and the post office has been repurposed (including parking ramp removal), it will be time for 20 Washington to come down. I will fight any attempt at protecting that building.
It's really too bad that The Towers are condos instead of apartments. Condos make redevelopment basically impossible. I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
It's really too bad that The Towers are condos instead of apartments. Condos make redevelopment basically impossible. I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Can't wait to fight you. <3it will be time for 20 Washington to come down. I will fight any attempt at protecting that building.
http://www.startribune.com/streetscapes ... 318449111/I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
These buildings are definitely admired, I show people from out of town this area a lot and the modernism is definitely appreciated. Especially as it becomes more vintage and retro to younger and younger people.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
I wonder if it would be possible to rotate 20 Washington 90 degrees and push it up against Marquette. That would would at least allow some development on that block and also allow for the possibility of running Nicollet through to a reconnected 2nd street.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests