Nicollet Mall

[mister.shoes]

Baaaaaack to the designs...

I was surprised at how much I liked the Tom Leader Studio/!melk design. I really dug the organic/wavy treatment of the pavers and the way the lines flowed all throughout the design. It really did a nice job of blending the sidewalk and street space into one big mixed mode realm. I also got a kick out of their proposal to tear down the east half of City Center and pull the streetscape onto that portion of the block with a dedicated food truck area. The treatment for the bus stop hub on 7th in that same location was particularly nifty.

The best feature of the the other two designs was the crystal staircase. I thought that was gorgeous. I also really liked the raised intersections from that same James Corner Field proposal. It would do a marvelous job of calming cross-traffic.

[mullen]

yes i like the staircase. reminds me of the red stairs in times square nyc which are wonderul.

i like the ballsy thinking there, to. just tear down that ugly city center mall frontage lol. blow it up real good. it was mistake from the beginning. probably out of the project budge to undertake that though.

[Seth]

I only have the PDF to go off from the design presentation, but I'd agree with other posters that James Corner's team has the best proposal on the table. The Daoust team didn't push themselves enough imo. Their proposal would probably be the easiest to execute, but does little to push what can be done with the space. Tom Leader's proposal is certainly creative, probably the opposite end of the spectrum from Daoust, but is almost too ambitious, too pie in the sky. Also, they really need to hire a new graphic designer for their presentations. It's super hard to decipher their presentation boards.

I'm a little biased towards James Corner's work, love the highline, but in general their team seems to have thought everything through without getting too carried away conceptually. Great ideas for connecting Nicollet to the skyway; the stairs to the crystal court are awesome. Solid use of materials that should hold up well. Overall the design seems like it will hold up over time and not feel too dated. Simply a solid plan.

[MNdible]

Great ideas for connecting Nicollet to the skyway; the stairs to the crystal court are awesome.

While the idea of this is sort of cool, it seems poor planning to locate it at IDS, where there is currently the best connection between street level and skyway in the whole system, and where you'll be maiming an architecturally significant urban ensemble.

[Aville_37]

More and more loving Corner's proposal: crystal staircase, fire pits, pine groves, theater in the round, etc. However, with any of the proposals - things to seriously consider:

Sustainability/cost of city maintainance/ease of replacing original materials over a extended time period (20 years);
Feasibility of building as proposed (crystal staircase for use in winter, fire pits?)
Willingness/legality/liability of building owners to modify their properties as suggested by the plans (i.e. - balcony on skyway, crystal staircase linked/attached to IDS).

What I like best about Corner and Leader's proposals is the fact that they created more than just a street - they opened it up and created unique spaces - not linear.

[talindsay]

I really like the pedestrian experience of Aleksanterinkatu in Helsinki, so I like that James Corner points to that as a precedent. I'll have to spend more time with these to reach a conclusion.

[Aville_37]

Also - I'd like to see some of the current art/features incorporated into the new design - the clock near Peavey Plaza, the loon fountain and the granite sculptures by US Bank's headquarters, etc.

[talindsay]

So I think I like the Tom Leader proposal the best. I think they posit a plan that's sensitive to what's unique about Minneapolis, while also addressing some problematic spots gracefully. I'm not sure the proposal is fleshed out enough to give a good sense of its feasibility though - of the three it struck me that this one relies the most on concept art and the least on actual details of implementation.

I don't like the way Corner's proposal relies so heavily on kitschy, "clever" things that would quickly lead to problems with vandalism and operations. A fire pit is something everybody agrees is *clever*, but given that half the city's fountains don't even work at any give time in the summer (and of course have to be shut off for two thirds of the year) a fire pit seems very ambitious, and also a legal liability waiting to happen. The crystal staircase in my opinion completely ignores the architectural beauty of the IDS Center while at the same time destroying one of our better-functioning public spaces.

My concern with both Corner and Leader though is that they're ambitious, which is good, but they also bring with them a tremendous burden for ongoing upkeep. I know that we do now have the DID so at least cleaning and daily maintenance can actually be counted on, but I'm concerned about the significant lifetime replacement costs and burdens that both of these imply.

[min-chi-cbus]

The line extensions won't double the train traffic through downtown - those trips which already run on the Blue line (or Green line) will simply continue to/from the west on the new extensions.

I give up explaining it.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Don't give up explaining it; just admit you're wrong. Because you are.

[Tom H.]

four lines routing through the street between the DTE and North Loop stations, depending on where the trains stop for each route. If there was a train headed West and one headed East on the Green Line, and a train headed North and one headed South on the Blue line, theoretically they could all be on 5th St. at the same time.

This is already true (or will be, once CCLRT is up and running) - there can be EB & WB Greens + NB & SB Blues, all at the same time DT, without the extensions. Adding the extensions only changes the origins and destinations of these trips, not the total throughput in the bottleneck.

[John]

Also - I'd like to see some of the current art/features incorporated into the new design - the clock near Peavey Plaza, the loon fountain and the granite sculptures by US Bank's headquarters, etc.

The clock by Peavey Plaza is artwork from the original Nicollet Mall and the only remaining piece from that era. It doesn't currently work, but could be fixed and definitely worth preserving. I also agree some of the other sculptures should be saved. It's both a cost effective measure and would give the new design some connection to the past. A "win win".

[trkaiser]

I vote Tom Leader as well. It seems very compatible with the landscaping around the library, obvious given the association, with a lot of variety. I love the crystal staircase, but agree that it could really screw up the design of the IDS at the street level, the best skyway connection we have. I wonder what other building could theoretically allow such a connection...

[MplsSteve]

While the idea of this is sort of cool, it seems poor planning to locate it at IDS, where there is currently the best connection between street level and skyway in the whole system, and where you'll be maiming an architecturally significant urban ensemble.

Exactly! There are plenty of places to improve skyway/street conections (actually just about everywhere), but this is definitely not one of them. Why do some many people (who should know better) seem intent on disfiguring the IDS Center?

[Avian]

You can't have underground light rail until the city is large enough population wise and land wise. Downtown is too small for this right now and Nicollet isn't long enough for a subway type development. Unless the Sunway goes all the way to uptown and had like 4 stops it could kind of makes sense, but not really as that is too expensive. As the city grows much later that is a possibility.

I just have to back up a little bit and address this notion. All I can do is point to Atlanta which built their downtown rail tunnels in 1982 when their metro population was only 2.5 million. Plus, Atlanta was and still is one of the least dense metro area in the US. The Twin Cities - for all of their progressiveness - is way behind many other metros in their rail transit system.

[John]

My concern with both Corner and Leader though is that they're ambitious, which is good, but they also bring with them a tremendous burden for ongoing upkeep. I know that we do now have the DID so at least cleaning and daily maintenance can actually be counted on, but I'm concerned about the significant lifetime replacement costs and burdens that both of these imply.

Yes, as we have seen by the great example of the city's upkeep of Peavey Plaza. Remember, the presentations were merely conceptual. I'm confident budget restraints will put the kebosh on some of these whimsical and grandiose ideas.

Realistically, the biggest issue is the mall needs a good, durable repaving that will last awhile. The northern end needs brick and mortar to create street frontage. City Center's facade needs to be renovated ( which is going to happen). Their needs to be a stronger sense of security around 7th and Nicollet and elsewhere downtown. These are what are going to make the mall more succesful.

[Tyler]

Daoust Lestage must really love the work they did in Montreal. It's fine work but that space is not really what we want Nicollet mall to be like. It's more like a park, actually. But I guess its a decent approximation of what they would do here -- simple and modern. I like the consistency on surface materials and the lack of extra "crap." I'm not blown away but this is by far my favorite.

100% agree with Tom on Corner's proposal. No thanks. This isn't Aspen.

Leadar's plan has the big ideas, but I'm not a fan of the design aesthetic at all. I mean -- it would be awesome to knock down half of city center and build a great public space, but I'd rather Daoust Lestage design it.

[RailBaronYarr]

You can't have underground light rail until the city is large enough population wise and land wise. Downtown is too small for this right now and Nicollet isn't long enough for a subway type development. Unless the Sunway goes all the way to uptown and had like 4 stops it could kind of makes sense, but not really as that is too expensive. As the city grows much later that is a possibility.

I just have to back up a little bit and address this notion. All I can do is point to Atlanta which built their downtown rail tunnels in 1982 when their metro population was only 2.5 million. Plus, Atlanta was and still is one of the least dense metro area in the US. The Twin Cities - for all of their progressiveness - is way behind many other metros in their rail transit system.

Not to mention DC breaking ground on their metro system when their metro population was 2.86M, with a LOT running underground miles outside the city.

Granted, we have issues in that our metro population doesn't center around 1 city, but it isn't that outrageous to envision doing underground work in our city. Outside the cores, stops would be .5-1 mile apart. If only we could achieve tunneling costs as cheap as this place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brescia_Metro where most of it (70%+) is underground. Think what we could build.

As for the surface of the Mall itself... the designs all seem to be lacking something that makes me feel like they're work the $80m+ we'll invest in it. I don't know.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm gonna chime in on the train thing...

The number of trains going through Downtown per unit of time won't double. It may increase by a few at peak times, but it won't double. Right now a train goes from the Mall of America to Target Field and it stops, has its layover, and turns around. When there are more lines, instead of having a layover it will just keep going. There will be more trains on the line at a single time yes, but that's because there will be more track. Blue line and green line trains will still come every 10-15 minutes.

Starting the green line will double the frequency of trains on the shared portion of tracks, but the extensions to those lines won't.

Now if MetroTransit starts running both lines with 5 minute headways, then yes, there will be more trains going through downtown. But as it stands the headways won't be changing significantly.

[RailBaronYarr]

^^ Where Copenhagen Metro's M1 and M2 interline, they have 2 minute headways at peak hours, 3 minute headways all other times of the day (non-weekends or late night). Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro#Service