urbanMSP

It already looks dated. Metal mesh screens were so 2007.

City Center and Block E are privately owned buildings, there is absolutely no relation to the Target Center.

YES WE ALL WANT CITY CENTER TO GET REMODELED why does it come up in 'literally' every thread? STAHP!!!

Again can we remember that dated means it has style? They are doing something different and funky. (I don't care if it's not your preferential style, but to say it's dated is sooooo subjective) Queen Anne Homes looked dated when they were built, that's how we can identify the period the home was built. The Rand Tower is Dated, we can tell that it's a deco skyscraper... the chasing the dragon of some timeless architecture is just some bullocks to not continue to create more new innovation and progress in design. No building or design is timeless until its old and the style is generally accepted by multiple generations, BUT that is still dated.

2007 still feels contemporary to me. It must be an age thing... I like the geometry of the mesh as it wraps around the complex. The semi transparent screens adds a lot of depth and variety to the exterior. From the renderings, it looks like they are going to accent them with a bluish color light which will look beautiful and add spice to our entertainment district at night. Sure looks a hell of a lot better than what it was.

I was just suggesting that we shouldn't triple down by having three contiguous buildings all matching.

As for things getting dated, it’s a matter of degrees. Just because you can tell that a building was built in the 1980’s doesn’t mean it has to scream 1980’s and hit you over the head with it. Buildings can be contemporary, and can be of their time, without having to use every trendy gimmick in the book. These buildings are more likely to last, while the badly dated buildings will get torn down or re-skinned (again).

I was just suggesting that we shouldn't triple down by having three contiguous buildings all matching.

As for things getting dated, it’s a matter of degrees. Just because you can tell that a building was built in the 1980’s doesn’t mean it has to scream 1980’s and hit you over the head with it. Buildings can be contemporary, and can be of their time, without having to use every trendy gimmick in the book. These buildings are more likely to last, while the badly dated buildings will get torn down or re-skinned (again).

Those interested in Architectural preservation would have to argue with you, but I could understand why the general public would want the white bread version of every generation of architecture to live on.

*see the plymouth building...

I was just suggesting that we shouldn't triple down by having three contiguous buildings all matching.

That's not going to happen . City Center and Target Arena will look quite different from Mayo. They want to brand and differentiate themselves based on their own needs and uses. The are owned by different entities.

If preservations argued that every building should be saved, rather than the best example of their time period, then you might be right. Just because a building is the most tarted up, doesn't mean its the best or most worthy of preservation.

I'd actually say that the Plymouth is a good example of this. The original Plymouth was not a well-balanced or well-composed building. Old and overly ornamented doesn't make it a great building.

If preservations argued that every building should be saved, rather than the best example otheir time period, then you might be right. Just because a building is the most tarted up, doesn't mean its the best or most worthy of preservation.

I'd actually say that the Plymouth is a good example of this. The original Plymouth was not a well-balanced or well-composed building. Old and overly ornamented doesn't make it a great building.

I'm not having this conversation on this board again. you're some understand what makes buildings historic, some dont its multifaceted. it could be the rarity or its tartiness or its archict or something that happened inside you dont get to be trivial about it if the building has certain qualities, you're obviously not objective in your take on historical.

I think I've taken enough architectural history classes to be able to speak to the issue with some authority. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that just because you disagree with me, you shouldn't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I think I've taken enough architectural history classes to be able to speak to the issue with some authority. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that just because you disagree with me, you shouldn't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

those classes are probably why you're so skewed on what is formally historic, why you need some certain aesthetic, to state your opinions about a buildings accent is not reason enough for a point to not be valid. I was merely pointing out earlier that the word dated is a hype word with a negative connotation that is not completely accurate.

Wow. I wish I had a balloon.

When architecture is done well, it does not become "dated"

When architecture is done well, it does not become "dated"

Most neighborhoods we consider "charming and historic" now were called "dated" 50 years ago.

Wow. I wish I had a balloon.

Of coke?

Labor Day pics.

That grey is hideous. Not that I liked the original color either. I've never liked this building at all as I've always thought this would have been our grand central park back before it was built. Great location for one.

So no matter what goes on here or what the finished project will look like I for one will not like it.

Seriously though, you realize that the final building facade is metal and stone, right? That the gross grey concrete is no more going to be visible on the finished building than the plastic sheeting is?

I guess preemptively hating all future buildings based on what you think should have happened with the plot decades ago is your prerogative, though.

So no matter what goes on here or what the finished project will look like I for one will not like it.

That's the spirit!

How could something be called a "grand central park" that would take less than 4 minutes to walk through?

There are quite a few new windows being cut into this building. Those on the 7th street side on the upper levels look a story and a half if not two stories. Saw the new portico for the Lowes Hotel this afternoon. Not sure how I feel about the cor-ton steel that faces the sidewalk. Also notice some new construction to the left of Lowes lobby where the Starbucks used to be. I thikg that is maybe the new first street entrance to the complex and skyways.