RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[Wedgeguy]

This thing looks WAY out of proportion.

Let's remember that the IDS was considered the same when it was first proposed and especially after it was first completed. Only when more taller towers were completed did it look less out of place.

[nate]

IF the Duval proposal is for real and it gets built in a non-watered down fashion, then I don't see any way it isn't the clear winner. I love everything about the tower: it's skinny profile, the way it transitions seamlessly to a lighted crown, and it's skyline presence. It's a beautiful piece of architecture from an ambitious developer and a top-notch designer. MOAR PLZ.

[Michael]

Lot of good comments.

My thoughts about the Duval:

As someone doing 90% of my living/working downtown, the lack of park space doesn't really bother me given the development of the green space by the Stadium/Downtown East, the proposed Waterworks and existing green space along the river, and some of the preexisting spaces, there is actually going to be some positive development in this regard anyway.

As for positioning, again, I don't see it as being "too far away" from the taller buildings in the downtown core, especially given the proposal is residential/hotel in nature. I do think it has great potential to drive some interesting infill proposals between the core and the riverfront, which if you go back to the phrases "gateway" and "iconic", is exactly what you would think Minneapolis should want.

For me, if they have the financing and can make a commitment to build in a reasonable time-frame, the Duval proposal should be a no-brainer.

[nickmgray]

The idea of the Duval proposal may seem outlandish, but if you think of all the different components that they have proposed, it's really just three medium developments wrapped up into one. We have not seen the square footage for the proposed office portion of the project, but it can't be more than what's supposedly being worked on for the TCF block.

I could care less about the lack of park or external public space. We have public space right across the street and the river is just two blocks away. I think the atrium in the one piece of this project which will make or break it. If they are proposing something that will be a retail center like the Crystal Court at the IDS, it'll surely get a positive reaction from the public and the committee reviewing the proposals. With any of these proposals, this area will have the highers residential density in all of Minneapolis and will naturally support more retail.

[Wedgeguy]

There is more green space in this city that is not being used wisely. There is land in front of the Voya Building facing Hennepin that should be USED as a park and not just grass that gets mowed. There is a good half block piece of land there where there is no benches, paths, or other public amenities. Let's do something productive with that land before we gripe that there is not a park in town. Let's see Peavey Plaza actual work as a park before we waste tax dollars on something that will not live up to expectations like the two I've just mentioned.

[John]

It will be interesting to hear more details about Duval's proposal and how its going to work out for such a tall building. Having three uses in one tower is complicated and I doubt most local developers would ever want to touch that. According to the media, Duval has international experience and I would bet he has previous experience with this type of project. It's in such a different league than what we're used to on the prairie, so perhaps that's why some people may be skeptical of his credibility.

I also agree with the comments for no further need of large, new public spaces downtown. We are getting a huge park by the stadium. The renovated Nicollet Mall will be green enough for this part of town. Focus on renovating the existing Peavey Plaza. We need more brick and mortar density.

[Minneboy]

I'm wondering how Duvals would look if the tower was turned 90 degrees instead of following the street grid.

[bugmenot]

Minneboy - you meant 45 degrees I assume.

[Minneboy]

You're right lol

[Nathan]

Wouldn't we want an interesting tallest? I mean there is something to say about minimalist beauty, but this thing is just a square right? With a flat square light up crown? That doesn't really do our skyline any justice. Just a square tube sticking out of the ground. I'm not eager to bite at the first tall tower proposed, there will be more in our day.

[Seth]

I think it's important to keep in mind that all of these proposals are fairly preliminary and whichever one is selected would go through some refinements. Doesn't necessarily mean drastic changes, but some I'm sure.

[Nathan]

While that's true, essentially what Duval is doing is throwing the cheapest shortest tall building he could build at Minnesota and hoping that just the height will be enough to wow the fly over country. There's no curves, no facets, no angles, no arches. Seattle would still have a building taller and better looking than this. It's not an icon, and it's not good enough for a city that values architectural creativity and innovation.

[m b p]

While that's true, essentially what Duval is doing is throwing the cheapest shortest tall building he could build at Minnesota and hoping that just the height will be enough to wow the fly over country. There's no curves, no facets, no angles, no arches. Seattle would still have a building taller and better looking than this. It's not an icon, and it's not good enough for a city that values architectural creativity and innovation.

I don't think it looks cheap. It does looks simple. Many are ignoring the use of cutouts/negative space on the tower... and saying it's just a square that rises straight up. I disagree with that as well.

Keep in mind it's primarily a hotel/residential tower. It can't really be more substantial.

To each there own though.

[LakeCharles]

So we should select a shorter one? Why? If another, better supertall is in the near distant future, it will still happen, and then we'll have two.

[Nathan]

While that's true, essentially what Duval is doing is throwing the cheapest shortest tall building he could build at Minnesota and hoping that just the height will be enough to wow the fly over country. There's no curves, no facets, no angles, no arches. Seattle would still have a building taller and better looking than this. It's not an icon, and it's not good enough for a city that values architectural creativity and innovation.

I don't think it looks cheap. It does looks simple. Many are ignoring the use of cutouts/negative space on the tower... and saying it's just a square that rises straight up. I disagree with that as well.

Keep in mind it's primarily a hotel/residential tower. It can't really be more substantial.

To each there own though.

It can't be more substantial!? Clearly you haven't seen a lot of other tall buildings. On the extreme spectrum frank gehry new York. Clearly apartments don't have to be a box.

I'm glad you are wooed. But I'm not impressed by the cut outs. I think dubai has 8 of this building.

[Seth]

While that's true, essentially what Duval is doing is throwing the cheapest shortest tall building he could build at Minnesota and hoping that just the height will be enough to wow the fly over country. There's no curves, no facets, no angles, no arches. Seattle would still have a building taller and better looking than this. It's not an icon, and it's not good enough for a city that values architectural creativity and innovation.

Totally - just for the record I think it's a great building, and wouldn't be disappointed if it were built as is, but for a new tallest I'm not blown away. I was hoping that when we saw the side fronting Wash & Henn there would be something a bit more inspired, but the night rendering from the Plymouth bridge has sort of squashed that hope...for the time being anyway.

[Nathan]

So we should select a shorter one? Why? If another, better supertall is in the near distant future, it will still happen, and then we'll have two.

If you think every proposal floating around for a tall building right now is going to get built irregardless to others getting built you have a very skewed perception of demand. And build a shorter one because it steps up from the river nicely, it's beautiful and iconic, it serves the city and street scape well, I could go on.

[LakeCharles]

If there is a great clamoring for building supertalls in our city, one quarter block 70 story building will not quash that. Or to put it another way, if this building scares off all developers from building tall buildings in our city then there was not a great demand to build them in the first place.

And this building can serve the streetscape well. The city can demand that it does.

[Minneboy]

I like it just fine. I think it's beautiful in its simplicity. Sort of like the WTC was but perhaps even more so but alas not as tall.

At some point there will be newer and taller towers. No cities are stagnant forever. Though some seem to be.

There I've made me views known and I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with it be repeating myself over and over.

[aeisenberg]

Wouldn't we want an interesting tallest? I mean there is something to say about minimalist beauty, but this thing is just a square right? With a flat square light up crown? That doesn't really do our skyline any justice. Just a square tube sticking out of the ground. I'm not eager to bite at the first tall tower proposed, there will be more in our day.

-1