Alia Tower - 200 Central - 483' / 40 Stories

[MNdible]

Here are a couple of modern classics, right across the street from each other (both were actually built in the 1950's, but I think that still counts).

Seagram Building

Lever House

But what's the difference between fauxstoric 30s and fauxstoric 60s?

You raise a valid point, but I think most of the contemporary neo-modern buildings are thoughtful exercises inspired by the aesthetics and (to some extent) principles of the 1960's -- but nobody would mistake them for a 1960's building. Whereas a lot of the faux-historical stuff tends to be an embarrassing cartoon of the real style (see Carlyle and Grant Park). And I think the Carlyle looks pretty good, as long as you're looking at it from about a mile away.

[Silophant]

I really don't know of many 60's icons that we lavish praise on.

IDS construction started in 1968.

It is, though the Rampton was proposed for the west side (and the top) of the parking ramp.

Wasn't Rampton proposed for the north and east sides of the parking ramp, facing the General Mills parking lot?

Speaking of, that surface lot is an obvious development opportunity.

You're right, east, not west. I got my directions confused.

[mattaudio]

You bring up an excellent point. Grant Park definitely looks cheesy, but I like it. Why? I think we might be viewing eras of building design through different lenses. When I think about faux-1960s, I think of buildings such as CP Plaza or Xcel Energy's 414 Nicollet Mall building which may have compelling plaza spaces but do not address the sidewalk in a classical manner. Whereas buildings from the 40s and before were built at more of a human scale, meant to be approached by walking on a street, and rewarding those who got closer to the building. In that sense, I'll take "classical" (even "boring") architecture any day over modern towers-in-the-park. Even though Grant Park is a little cheesy, it is ringed by three-story walkup townhomes which activate the sidewalk.

I'm hoping whatever gets built here brings a strong presence to the sidewalk, especially the corner of Central and University. It should respect all outer edges of the block, activating all the sidewalks it touches. If it does this, they could cover it with pink metal panels and magic packs and it would still be a winner from a street-level perspective.

[twincitizen]

Five thoughts.

1. Wow, this is an unexpected location.
2. I assume this means the Rampton proposal is dead. It probably is/was dead anyways, hence why we haven't heard anything in almost 2 years. It was always kind of iffy, methinks. Perhaps it will be resurrected as Section 42 or something if they run into some tax credits.
3. This certainly gives the East Bank neighborhood something to point to in their talks with the Dolce (DLC) development on the Superior Plating site. The developer there said they couldn't do anything but 6 stories of stick. Now the neighborhood can say, "but Alatus..." Not sure it will get them anywhere, but perhaps Dolce will reconsider doing something more substantial over there.
4. This is actually in the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how they react to the tower and rezoning request.
5. Is this the next boom area of Minneapolis? There sure is a lot of land to go around that is currently parking or grossly underutilized (USBank & Wells 80-lane drive through banks, General Mills parking, Labor Center parking, etc.) Uptown is almost completely built out, at least for big empty parcels anyways. For big institutional investment money needing a place to go, this area could really benefit. Every building proposed makes the streetcar thta much more likely to move forward.

[mattaudio]

If anything, I think this project would compliment the Rampton proposal. It would wrap housing around nearly the entire block. Maybe Alatus could work with Rampton and share vertical circulation etc.

[FISHMANPET]

Depending on how much parking this building and the Rampton each take from the parking ramp, it may not be feasible to build both of them.

And I have to wonder if a tower pencils out here because there's no need to burrow deep down for parking?

I'm also really confused about what buildings are preserved here as "historic buildings" in each option. Neither building have the shape as what's given in the diagrams so I'm pretty confused.

[mulad]

That's a pretty tall ramp -- it has 600 spaces according to this PDF about the A Mill Artist Lofts. Well, it sounds like the ramp is getting divided up a lot, but I think this is an area where it's probably worth going below 1 parking space per residential unit. It's one of the more walkable neighborhoods around with a grocery a block away and a bunch of bus routes that converge nearby. The non-contract daily rate for people parking there before 10 a.m. is still just $3.50.

[twincitizen]

It has "900+ stalls" according to the document. Documents for "The Rampton" proposal also quote 900 stalls.

At 250-300 units, and ~1.25 spaces/unit (as is typical for the area) that's 300-350 spaces reserved for the residential component. That's still a lot of spaces leftover for the restaurant component, general public use, St. Anthony Main / Riverplace, etc. etc. This isn't the only public parking structure in the area either. And something tells me there would be room for some parking in the pedestal of this new building anyways...I highly doubt it will be built with ZERO parking, just very little.

I'm fairly confident this is being proposed instead of the Rampton proposal. When the City sold off those 6-8 parking ramps several years ago, many of them carried a development obligation. See the apartment building that replaced Grandma's on the West Bank and Alatus' under-construction Latitude 45 building. The Rampton was being proposed in that vein. If it were not feasible, they could instead propose a nearby development of at least $10MM value. It appears they are doing just that. Of course, if the buyer of the St. Anthony ramp was not Alatus, but someone else entirely, feel free to disregard everything I just typed. I agree with you Matt, that Rampton would only complement this proposed building, but I have a sneaking suspicion Rampton is not moving forward at this time.

[David Greene]

1-10 appear to be old design ideas recycled for this presentation. Note "SAN DIEGO TOWER" on #2. Of the lot only #1 mildly appeals to me. C'mon, do something bold here!

[FISHMANPET]

They're all recycled ides because they're not design proposals they're just style ideas. All the "design" they've put into this site is dropping a big square on top of the map to figure out how they should site the building. Making expensive designs that will inevitably be changed is probably one of the things that makes projects expensive, so not putting too much money in any particular direction is probably a good idea.

Separating form from design seems like a good idea, because then you can better react to criticisms of either.

[Wedgeguy]

If anything, I think this project would compliment the Rampton proposal. It would wrap housing around nearly the entire block. Maybe Alatus could work with Rampton and share vertical circulation etc.

To the best of my knowledge the Rampton will only face the street side of the parking ramp.

I believe that the historic building is the old Tudor building minus some garages that were added by the funeral home.

[EOst]

4. This is actually in the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how they react to the tower and rezoning request.

MHNA is a lot less anti-development than they're stereotyped to be; given this is in an area of existing density and doesn't destroy historic buildings, I doubt it'll have a ton of trouble.

[uptowncarag]

I still consider this downtown.

[Anondson]

I really like the idea that downtown straddles both sides of the river and I'm glad this tower is happening because it emphasizes that.

[ECtransplant]

Uptown is almost completely built out, at least for big empty parcels anyways.

Well, except for the Lunds parking lot, the surface lot behind Mesa/the Uptown Theater, the Rainbow surface lot, the Sons of Norway parking lot, the surface lot off Lagoon by Barbette, the Calhoun Square vacant lot. There's still plenty of surface parking lots and vacant space to build on in uptown. Plus the under utilized parcels -- Arbys, Planned Parenthood, Cheapo, etc.

[David Greene]

Uptown is almost completely built out, at least for big empty parcels anyways.

Well, except for the Lunds parking lot, the surface lot behind Mesa/the Uptown Theater, the Rainbow surface lot, the Sons of Norway parking lot, the surface lot off Lagoon by Barbette, the Calhoun Square vacant lot. There's still plenty of surface parking lots and vacant space to build on in uptown. Plus the under utilized parcels -- Arbys, Planned Parenthood, Cheapo, etc.

The Boneyard parking lot, the Acme site, the Buzza parking lot, the Tadka block, the CVS parking lot, the McDonald's, the Lund's parking lot, the parking lots NW of Brueggers, the parking lot behind Tum Rup...

There's a *ton* of work to be done in Uptown.

[dmdhashw]

I still consider this downtown.

As does Metro Transit, for what that's worth.

[twincitizen]

Coupla notes from the F&C print edition:

This actually sounds pretty far along. They may not have renderings yet, but there are a few massing options being considered. One is a 25-story tower and the other two options are 30-stories. So it's not a range of "a 25-30 story building" as some may have interpreted. All three massing options include 280 units. The McReavy building may or may not be relocated on the site. Alatus is using the same architect as Grant Park and The Carlyle. They still haven't decided on ownership condo vs. rentals. They know the market is there for more apartments, condos are less of a sure thing, but possible here. There was a quote from a Marcy-Holmes guy. The neighborhood is receptive to density, but it has to be the right site and benefit the neighborhood in some way. It was vaguely supportive of the concept as long as it includes retail space, good architecture, etc. He wanted to see renderings / massing diagrams before saying anything more specific.

[Wedgeguy]

Then it sound like it maybe more retro looking to blend in with the historic nature of the area. Hopefully this mean more brick and stone vs cement board and ill fitting metal panels.

[mulad]

I tend to feel like people would hardly notice, since it's sitting next to a 9-story parking structure and across the street from a 15-story residential building already. It's pretty unlikely that the rest of the block will be developed anytime soon due to historic designations, so it's worthwhile to cram as much density as you can onto the one developable spot.