AC Marriott Hotel - 401 Hennepin Ave (Andrews Hotel site)

[nickmgray]

I think what most people don't get is that developers want a need constructive criticism. If we're going to give feedback and talk about how we don't like the way the building meets the sidewalk or the choice in design materials we should do so by proposing subtle variations which make the project better.

I take issue with anyone who says that they will be building with "cheap" materials. I think what most people are trying to say is that they don't like the look. Using the word "cheap" implies that is will fall apart in a few years. Developers build these things so that they can withstand decades of MN's harsh winters without needing a face-lift. But if you don't like the look, that's something that the city has no say over.

To those who say we shouldn't waste this lot on something so small or bland - have you counted how many surface lots we have on Hennepin? Between Washington and 10th there are at least 8 lots which can be used for development.

[David Greene]

I take issue with anyone who says that they will be building with "cheap" materials. I think what most people are trying to say is that they don't like the look. Using the word "cheap" implies that is will fall apart in a few years. Developers build these things so that they can withstand decades of MN's harsh winters without needing a face-lift.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha

*sniff sniff*

Oh geez...

This just made my day. Thank you for that!

[MplsSteve]

The way things get knocked down in this city it will be gone within a decade anyway. There...problem solved.

[mullen]

The way things get knocked down in this city it will be gone within a decade anyway. There...problem solved.

you couldn't be wronger..the myth of "teardownapolis" as promulgated by our stupid local media. it's as if this was the only city in the united states that tore down buildings in the 50s/60s.

as for this hotel, i don't get the fuss.

[MplsSteve]

you couldn't be wronger..the myth of "teardownapolis" as promulgated by our stupid local media. it's as if this was the only city in the united states that tore down buildings in the 50s/60s.

No, but we've certainly continued. What about buildings like the Conservatory and most of the first generation urban renewal buildings (Sheraton Ritz, Public library, IBM Building). I'm not mourning them (although it is an alarming waste or resources), but it's a simple fact.

[sanguinic]

Mullen, I have to disagree. Teardownapolis is a worthy name for this city. Consider the site discussed in this thread. Were the Andrews Hotel still standing -- it was demolished 30 years ago -- the building would have been renovated and either converted to condos or apartments, or remained as a hotel (and by now it would probably be a great boutique hotel, a la the Ace in Portland, Ore.) The Andrews certainly looked a heck of a lot better than this generic Marriott proposal.

[mattaudio]

Does Mpls even have a boutique hotel that has been a historic and continuous hotel? Or are they all conversions?

[seanrichardryan]

Minneapolis has no historic hotels.

[MNdible]

Just because you can point to old buildings in another city doesn't mean that they didn't tear down old buildings. I can point to old buildings in Minneapolis too.

Yes, we tore down a lot of old buildings. So did most every other city in the US. Most cities had a lot of obsolete, economically broken, run-down old buildings by the time the 1950's came around.

There were few buildings that were torn down for no particularly good reason. The Metropolitan was one of these. A lot of other buildings were torn down because nobody knew what to do with them.

It's very easy to look at a picture of a cool old building (or a fairly pedestrian one in the case of the Andrews) and think that it would make a great boutique hotel fifty years later. But what's supposed to have happened with the building for the intervening fifty years?

[sanguinic]

Better that they sit empty or underused than be demolished and replaced with a parking lot, which removes all options for the future.

[MNdible]

You're aware of what happens to an already degraded building when it sits empty and unused for fifty years in a harsh northern climate, right?

[sanguinic]

I should clarify. You might be talking about 50 years, but I am not (besides,the Andrews was demolished 30 years ago, not 50). But imagine if the Andrews had been closed and stabilized, waiting for a new owner and purpose. Who is to say that that wouldn't have happened five years later? The Andrews wasn't a brilliant building by any means, but it was head and shoulders above this proposed Marriott. As for buildings that have stood empty until they were restored, all you have to do is go three blocks south to the Pantages Theater. It also sat empty, for years. Now look at it. Or go two blocks south of there, to the Chambers Le Meridien Hotel. That building was a notorious flophouse, with a porn store on the first floor, and it was a wreck. Look at it now. I'm not saying all buildings are worthy of preservation. But many are. (And I'm not saying that Portland didn't demolish its share of buildings. I don't know if that's the case, or not, I haven't spent enough time there to know. I was just pointing out a fine remake worthy of example. I don't see anything wrong with looking to other cities for inspiration.)

[Nick]

imagine

[xandrex]

You're aware of what happens to an already degraded building when it sits empty and unused for fifty years in a harsh northern climate, right?

The magical urbanist preservation fairies guard it, right? I've heard they even pay the property taxes on it!

[sanguinic]

What is it with the snark on this board? I was under the impression that this was a place for reasonable dialogue and idea-sharing, and not the Strib's toxic comments section. I guess I was wrong. (As for property taxes, the smart cities recognize the qualities that make them attractive as cities and work to preserve them, and that sometimes include financial investments of many different stripes).

[xandrex]

What is it with the snark on this board? I was under the impression that this was a place for reasonable dialogue and idea-sharing, and not the Strib's toxic comments section. I guess I was wrong. (As for property taxes, the smart cities recognize the qualities that make them attractive as cities and work to preserve them, and that sometimes include financial investments of many different stripes).

If you're referring to me, I was joking.

I think you'll find approximately 0 people on this board who are pro-historic-building-to-parking-lot conversions.

[IllogicalJake]

What is it with the snark on this board? I was under the impression that this was a place for reasonable dialogue and idea-sharing...

To borrow from another post,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha

*sniff sniff*

Oh geez...

This just made my day. Thank you for that!

[Architorture]

Wait - Speak for yourself! I am a big pro surface parking lot guy. I am really hoping for the Foshay to come down for some convenient parking downtown! J/K

[David Greene]

What is it with the snark on this board? I was under the impression that this was a place for reasonable dialogue and idea-sharing...

To borrow from another post,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha

*sniff sniff*

Oh geez...

This just made my day. Thank you for that!

I in no way endorse this use of my post. It's kind of rude, actually.

[David Greene]

What is it with the snark on this board?

It's a problem. Noted many times.