Uptown - LynLake - The Wedge - News & General

[Mdcastle]

About 25 years after we build something we stop appreciating that particular architectural style and it takes until about 75 years until just about everyone fully appreciates it again. Notable the Metropolitan Building was demolished at 71 years, feelings were very mixed at the time right at the turning of the phase rather than viewed of as universally a "good" building today. No one was even talking about saving the Southdale Library building despite how distinctive it was at 52 years. We lost the Prentice Nurses building in Chicago. They're talking about demolishing the Dallas city hall now.

[HiawathaGuy]

“We concluded that the rehabilitation option was not really feasible due to the condition of the building," Dickerson said. Some of the building issues include window damage, HVAC damage, asbestos, rotted interior pipes, leaking roof and the lack of a sprinkler system.

Translation: "It's a building built mid-century, and we don't want to rehab it." None of that stuff is unusual or especially hard to address.

Well it seems you have this all figured out and should secure financing to save the building...
I honestly do not understand arm chair conversations with regard to so many items on this forum. I would think if rehabilitating the building was economically viable, they'd chose that. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that they can secure financing or even make that happen. It's also clear that the previous owner wasn't able to maintain the building properly either, even with it having many tenants leasing the building. Just like owning an old house, trying to maintain can be very difficult.

[BikesOnFilm]

We can't build major projects in this country anymore because Robert Moses and freeway planners did it in an awful way and we overcorrected with elaborate planning rituals and byzantine scoring rubrics.

I would really hate to see us overcorrect from mistakes like demolishing the Gateway District into refusing to demolish any unwanted building that looks even remotely midcentury modern. And just because good buildings were demolished does not mean we need to clutch onto every mediocre building of the same vintage for fear we might regret it. The people who will live here won't regret it, and they're not theoretical!

[quagga]

Well it seems you have this all figured out and should secure financing to save the building...
I honestly do not understand arm chair conversations with regard to so many items on this forum. I would think if rehabilitating the building was economically viable, they'd chose that. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that they can secure financing or even make that happen. It's also clear that the previous owner wasn't able to maintain the building properly either, even with it having many tenants leasing the building. Just like owning an old house, trying to maintain can be very difficult.

If you think expressing opinions or sharing expertise on this forum is a waste of time, why are you here in the first place?

[HiawathaGuy]

If you think expressing opinions or sharing expertise on this forum is a waste of time, why are you here in the first place?

I appreciate project information and discussion, which this forum does well with. However, if I do post my opinions, I state that. Your post made an assumption by opinion, without evidence. I would think most of us on here appreciate information that has fact or insight when posing an opinion.

[GILBball]

There's some signs up on Lake Street and Pillsbury/Pleasant for a project called Yusuf Square that looks like it will go on the same block as Karmel Mall and be quite big (9 stories?). I couldn't get a picture, but there was a rendering of the building on the sign that looks like it would have a similar design to the mall.

[seanrichardryan]

“We concluded that the rehabilitation option was not really feasible due to the condition of the building," Dickerson said. Some of the building issues include window damage, HVAC damage, asbestos, rotted interior pipes, leaking roof and the lack of a sprinkler system.

Translation: "It's a building built mid-century, and we don't want to rehab it." None of that stuff is unusual or especially hard to address.

This was on the HPC agenda Aug 4. You can read the staff reports here: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/Ag ... &utm_term=

Scroll down to page 72 of the staff report to see cost breakdowns. $450,000 per housing unit for a rehab is not going to happen without significant subsidy.

[seanrichardryan]

“We concluded that the rehabilitation option was not really feasible due to the condition of the building," Dickerson said. Some of the building issues include window damage, HVAC damage, asbestos, rotted interior pipes, leaking roof and the lack of a sprinkler system.

Translation: "It's a building built mid-century, and we don't want to rehab it." None of that stuff is unusual or especially hard to address.

This was on the HPC agenda Aug 4. You can read the staff reports here: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/Ag ... &utm_term=

Scroll down to page 72 of the staff report to see cost breakdowns. $450,000 per housing unit for a rehab is not going to happen without significant subsidy.

Also, this is in the wrong thread! lol

[quagga]

Scroll down to page 72 of the staff report to see cost breakdowns. $450,000 per housing unit for a rehab is not going to happen without significant subsidy.

The email just before that (pages 70-71) clarifies that the overall cost if the existing building were retained would be $342,272/unit, vs. $245,888/unit with a full tear-down. Note that both estimates exclude a long list of elements that would almost certainly be higher in the full-demo scenario than in the rehab, and that the rehab estimate includes a number of things (including full curtain wall replacement!) that any developer actually interested in saving the building would undoubtedly attempt to value-engineer down.

But more broadly, so what? $245,888/unit isn't going to happen without significant subsidy either. If your position is "mid-century architecture isn't worth spending any money to save," then fine, but say that.

[BikesOnFilm]

This particular example of mid-century architecture isn't worth spending any money to save.

[Mdcastle]

Are there particular examples of mid-century buildings in the area that are worth spending money to save?

[MNdible]

While the tower portion of the building isn't especially noteworthy, the low-rise portion closest to Franklin really is quite lovely. Beautiful granite ashlar that nobody is doing anymore, fun and playful daylighting and screening, great terracing in the landscape. If they wanted to demo the tower and redevelop the rest of the site, I'd be fine with that. It would give you a huge site.

[And sorry for putting this in the wrong thread! Can we pin the broad geographical categories so they don't get buried?]