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

[Nick]

No, the current and only ever trend in urban planning is losing sleep trying to tell people what they think the latest trend in urban planning is.

[seanrichardryan]

For shame.... Long live ugly!

[mullen]

ESG seems to be getting all the work. i can't think of a local arch firm with more recent buildings in town. they're everywhere.

AC is the marriott casual brand. If this was JW marriott brand we'd be getting a nicer building. not something you'd see off any suburban freeway exit.

[Silophant]

Nitpick: Out of those 13 quotes, only two suggested that the building shouldn't be built. The rest are supportive of the project and want it to be built, but are less than thrilled by the architectural quality. Only one of the posts mentioned height, and even that one wasn't suggesting a super-tall, but wishing the height didn't clash with the Lumber Exchange.

[Edit: Oh look there was another page.]

[Nathan]

I'm not sure why you quoted me Lance. I clearly said I didn't hate it, that it was a good infill in our market and that the design was ok for that. All the things you then tried to qualify. If you're really upset about a group of people always striving for better rather than budgeted mediocrity though... you're going to face some opposition. It's only in the past few decades that such has been built in our downtown.

[HiawathaGuy]

I'm not sure why you quoted me Lance. I clearly said I didn't hate it, that it was a good infill in our market and that the design was ok for that. All the things you then tried to qualify. If you're really upset about a group of people always striving for better rather than budgeted mediocrity though... you're going to face some opposition. It's only in the past few decades that such has been built in our downtown.

Thank you, this is what I was thinking.
Lance, you took a small snipit of one of my sentences - making it seem like I somehow was opposed to this infill project. That isn't the case at all and it's too bad you did that. In fact I'm elated this fugly lot will soon be gone. I'm hopeful it helps catapult the 90s owners to finally step up and do the improvements that building SO desperately needs. I'm also hopeful that it might even help make the surface lots at 5th & Hennepin become even more prime and result in more infill projects happening.

[twincitizen]

Lileks: http://lileks.com/mpls/hotels/andrews/index.html

[HiawathaGuy]

That's an amazing link! Thanks!!

It's Interesting how the new AC Hotel sort of looks a little like the old Andrews Hotel (if you squint and turn your head slightly sideways). I wonder if there was more red tones in the new building if it would help tie it into the Lumber Exchange better?

[Minneboy]

Meh, could they at least come up with a new color scheme?

I had expected a little bit more...

The Lumber Exchange deserves a better neighbor.

A decent infill project I guess.

I don't love it, I don't hate it... it'll do.

I don't hate this either I think it'll fill a good place in our hotel market and the design isn't terrible.

Reminds me too much of the Hampton Inn. Can't we have some variety?

...but it looks harsh next to the Lumber Exchange.

I was excited when i saw this news but the rendering is disappointing. I wish money was no object and the architects could dream. we're deserving of a grand hotel similar to the JW Marriott in Indianapolis.

As for the hotel itself... meh.

Wow, a ten story dud.

I'd rather not see it developed if getting this is the answer. Holy Ugh is this building hideous.

This insincere nod to context is more painful than doing nothing at all. The lack of height relationships to the Lumber Exchange is a big problem...

...is it just me or is the New trend in Urban planning to instantly hate everything, complain about any budgeted design, and ridicule any project developer's vision unless they design a building that spare no expense as they ignore everything they learned in businesses.

I think the height does a great job at leaving view of the exposed brick on the Lumber Exchange, allowing for people to appreciate the look of the older building (which so many fuss about when we tear them down). Plus the height won't tower over the 90's (like LPM towers over Jungle Red) Plus it will fill an empty parking lot and will block the view of the older parking ramp. This project will greatly improve Hennepin Ave. Plus add some hotel rooms right on the "Hennepin Strip".

I don't think most of you are true urbanists, but instead architecturalist seeking designs over function and reality. This building will fit into the community well, and fill a hole. Walking downtown barhopping and ending up at a decent hotel will greatly enhance peoples experience downtown. Instead some of you suggest we should reject this project and keep it a parking lot because it is not grand enough and not tall enough? Supply and Demand be dammed! I guess we could build 1,000 ft. tall buildings on every parking lot!

With ALL those quotes was it once mentioned we needed a 1000 footer here? Negative. Again with all those quotes you apparently think we are all wrong and yet you and maybe a few others are correct. Okay then.

[John]

The issue with this project 's architecture is not about height. It's about upgrading the exterior to a higher quality with texture , and giving it some context to the surrounding area rather than being so generic. It's about a lack of understanding of how to design a building in an urban setting rather than along a freeway. Many of our local developers are still a little backwards and provincial that way.

[FISHMANPET]

While we all decry the sameness of this exterior, allow me to point out that brick is brick is brick, and 100 years ago there were no unique claddings, just brick.

I'm sure the telegraph form of UrbanMSP in 1900 would decry the sameness of all these brown brick buildings.

[Minneboy]

They didn't have many other choices back then.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm sure they had plenty of choices back then, it's just that most of them were far too expensive.

I guess my point is that it's easy to look back after 100 years and say what works and what doesn't, but it's much harder to look at something right now and decide it will be good for 100 years. Many architectural movements seem to be a reaction to the previous one being undesirable, yet looking back 100 years into the past, there isn't much of anything we can look at and decide is truly awful, it just took time for us to appreciate it. It takes stuff about 50-60 years for it to become universally loved. Remember, the Metropolitan building was an ugly eye sore, or at the very least not remarkable enough to save, when it was torn down, at 70 years old.

We may look at the Lumber Exchange building right now and think it's a beautiful architectural treasure, but when it was built it was just another brick building.

[lordmoke]

We may look at the Lumber Exchange building right now and think it's a beautiful architectural treasure, but when it was built it was just another brick building.

Going to argue with that. When it was built, it was the tallest building in the city. I guarantee you there was fanfare. Hell, it's the oldest skyscraper of its height on Earth, outside of NYC.

And of course, the building across 4th is a civic institution designed by one of the most prominent living architects. Call me crazy if you want, but I think it's pretty fair to demand better than painted stucco panels for this location.

[Lancestar2]

With ALL those quotes was it once mentioned we needed a 1000 footer here? Negative. Again with all those quotes you apparently think we are all wrong and yet you and maybe a few others are correct. Okay then.

Perhaps the hotel may be a "budget" design but it's positive effects on the community have not even been mentioned, unless I skipped over them. It does appear at times like a rich snooty boys club. I would love for somebody to explain why they view the building as being a negative addition to the community by being more specifics beyond using a thesauruses to come up with new synonyms for ugly. Feel free to discuss your minimal requirements for a desirable building at this location. What textures, window ratio, height, ect ect. would convert this design into a winner?

[John]

We may look at the Lumber Exchange building right now and think it's a beautiful architectural treasure, but when it was built it was just another brick building.

Going to argue with that. When it was built, it was the tallest building in the city. I guarantee you there was fanfare. Hell, it's the oldest skyscraper of its height on Earth, outside of NYC.

And of course, the building across 4th is a civic institution designed by one of the most prominent living architects. Call me crazy if you want, but I think it's pretty fair to demand better than painted stucco panels for this location.

Great comment Lordmoke. The Lumber Exchange is designated an historical landmark by the city. That could hold some weight when this project goes through the city approval process. We have just seen the issues with the Kraus and Anderson project. I'm hopeful there is a trend to better scrutinize proposals that fall short.

[FISHMANPET]

It was tall, and there for engineeringly significant, but was it architecturally significant at the time? Isn't it on the historic registry because of it's engineering, not its architecture? Was it built as an architectural landmark? I would say that something like the Foshay tower was certainly built to be a landmark, and therefore historic designation wouldn't surprise the designers and engineers. But would the original builders of the Lumber Exchange think that? Or did they merely set out to build a big sturdy building with a lot of leasable space?

It's easy to look back now 100 years later and say this is a landmark, this isn't, this should have been, etc etc. But it's not so easy to say while you're building what it's fate is going to be in 100 years.

[Tyler]

Pretty sure the AC Slater museum won't become a landmark.

[beykite]

It's easy to look back now 100 years later and say this is a landmark, this isn't, this should have been, etc etc. But it's not so easy to say while you're building what it's fate is going to be in 100 years.

That's why we need to bring back the ruin value concept! Sure the building may not look that great now... but just till it collapses! Then you'll see its true beauty

[Wedgeguy]

My term for the AC is awful crap. That is one schizophrenic building. Can't really tell what the Hennepin Ave side looks like, but the 4th Street side is so disjointed. ESG needs to go back to the drawing board with the exterior of this building. They can do so much better than this hodge podge of facades.