Super Talls

[MS3]

I like the 8-20 story buildings too. But Minneapolis has a dense and tall skyline, it's perfect for a supertall. In the right location of the city, it would be an awesome site and and add even more character and elegance to an already near perfect skyline. I'd say something in the 1000-1100 foot range. I totally agree with John about the crown. That China proposed tower is awesome-Imagine that here.

[RailBaronYarr]

If we could have both, that'd be great. But I agree there's such a disparity between DT East and the CBD. 30-50 stories next to surface lots. Still a good number of surface lots in and around the CBD, too (though they are disappearing with the good infill going on). But I think if I had to pick, right now, I'd rather have infill of 8-20 story buildings that drive a healthy mix of residential, office, and ground-level amenities. A supertall would then be even more lucrative in 15-20 years on an under-utilized site in or near the CBD. Release the hounds!

[gpete]

Agree. Supertalls are overrated around here. I'd much rather see continued development of surface parking lots. DTE is a wasteland, not to mention all the surface lots that still exist on Hennepin.

[Suburban Outcast]

I would like to see an expansion of the downtown core eastward, from 1-2 more blocks of 30-50 story towers, 10-20 story mixed-use towers around the stadium area, and then 6-10 story apartments near 35W. Supertalls are awesome, but they aren't required to have a world-class skyline.

[kregger22]

I agree with MS3. A supertall would take the Mpls skyline to a different level with the density and architecture it currently has. I can't speak for anyone else, but waiting 15-20 years for a Supertall?? You're exercising significant patience if you have that kind of time RailBaronYarr.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Here's the disconnect -- some people want a better city to live in and some people want a better-looking city to view from a distance.

I appreciate the skyline as much as anyone. But the skyline is incidental to the way the city is built, It is not the purpose of building the city.

[RailBaronYarr]

I agree with MS3. A supertall would take the Mpls skyline to a different level with the density and architecture it currently has. I can't speak for anyone else, but waiting 15-20 years for a Supertall?? You're exercising significant patience if you have that kind of time RailBaronYarr.

I think Viktor summed up my thoughts precisely. To me, NYC is both a great city to view from a distance but also very great to live in (from a pure urban standpoint). We shouldn't have to choose, but if I'm forced to, I'd rather see X amount of capital spread out making Minneapolis as a whole a better place to live and work rather than looking really cool from 3-20 miles away.

Besides, I'm only 28, I've got 15 to 20 years

[Nathan]

I feel like Minneapolis is fairly often criticized by urbanists for exactly some of these things. I mean imagine you're coming in on the interstate and you see this (IMO) beautiful and dense looking skyline, and you're totally pumped to explore this city. Then you arrive downtown to find an underwhelming use of the actual space. Nicollet mall is nice, some of the core areas are nice, but if you walk more than a few blocks from the DT Core, you enter either cross an interstate into residential neighborhoods or blighted lots/industrial space. We've been relying on the same skyline a long time I understand, but it's hardly lacking. creating a larger more cohesive downtown is what I would feel is more important. I'd rather have 2 more 600-700 foot buildings and extend the skyline and street scape at the same time, than one super tall project. Livable/viable/sustainable cities are rarely about the skyline. We're not just a commuter showpiece, some people live/work/travel here too... I'm all about a super tall, but let Target or Gen. Mills, or a private company drive it, a developer could make far better investments in our city for spec space.

[ECtransplant]

Can't we please have both?

[MS3]

Yes both. I agree. But if I could pick the next skyscraper for Minneapolis, I wouldn't hesitate to make it a 1000 foot tower in the core of Minneapolis. 8-20 story buildings are always popping up, which is good, but a supertall is a rare thing, and I think Minneapolis is overdue for one, not just to look at and drool. We're not Oklahoma City, or Nashville or San Antonio. We have a skyline that's impressive, tall and full of world class architectural buildings. We're a prime candidate for something supertall, because it would fit so well. In other words, we have the height already to make one fit. It would do a lot for our city, just like the IDS did 40 years ago.

[Minneboy]

I hope that when we get that possible supertall that it has an observation tower. One more element to bring people downtown, old and young alike.

[Suburban Outcast]

Vancouver and San Francisco do not have supertalls and their skylines are world-famous. SF may be getting one (Transbay development), but their downtown is one of the strongest and largest in the nation even without a supertall. A super-tall does not define whether a skyline is world class or not. Cities like Oklahoma City and Charlotte have taller buildings than us, but that does not mean our skyline lacks in comparison to theirs. Seattle has a near-supertall, but that one building is not the keystone of their skyline (I would assume the Space Needle is).

Do I want a supertall in Minneapolis? Yes, as long as it does not stick out like a sore thumb.
Am I fine if there is not one, but the city still keeps improving on urbanism? Yes.

[emcee squared]

As my first post (lurked here forever), I'll say we're due for something taller than the Big 3. However, it better fit in with the environment and look well-placed. If it sticks out like the Mecca Royal Hotel Clock Tower, then no thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraj_Al_Bait

[Suburban Outcast]

Albraj Al-Bait Towers = The Block E of Supertalls

[MS3]

I'm surprised how few supertall fans there are on here. I would be curious to see if the people on here could have one building added to our Minneapolis skyline, of their height preference, how tall would it be?

[Suburban Outcast]

If most of Central was built out, 1-2 800-900' towers and a 1000' tower would be nice to see.

Something like on the scale of the Nicollet (about 650' tall) or Calgary's new skyscrapers would be good within this decade.

[emcee squared]

I'm surprised how few supertall fans there are on here. I would be curious to see if the people on here could have one building added to our Minneapolis skyline, of their height preference, how tall would it be?

1000'ft - 1100ft would be my preference. Something that is taller than our current ~750ft plateau, but not wildly out of place. If on the right block, in the core, a supertall would look perfect. A sleek and slender 1100ft tower would be ideal.

[Nathan]

I'm by no means anti super tall, I mean, I even started this thread. I'm just anti super tall, for the sake of a super tall. 5-10 years ago, I would have been falling over myself for something/anything over 1000' being built in Minneapolis. But after some study of urban planning and having traveled quite a bit more to cities known for their great urban experience, my ideals have moved farther from height for the sake of height. I'm much more interested in the design, how it fits into our current skyline, and how it helps the streetscape develop. Do NOT get me wrong. the day a WELL designed and integrated 1000'+ building breaks ground, I'll probably have tears of joy.

[John]

I'm surprised how few supertall fans there are on here. I would be curious to see if the people on here could have one building added to our Minneapolis skyline, of their height preference, how tall would it be?

I am a fan of supertalls and I think a tower about 200 feet taller than The IDS would be perfect to cap the skyline. However, anything taller than 1000 feet I think would look out of place. As has been stated before, we have two of the best examples of skyscrapers from Philip Johnson and Cesar Pelli. I think a new taller building should somehow demonstrate respect to them so as not to overwhelm them.

As far as the argument of tall versus shorter, I think there is really no good argument for only one way to create urban density. Both are necessary. The issue now is we need to add some taller buildings downtown to add variety and enhance the sense of focus and concentration of downtown Minneapolis as the undisputable center of the Upper Midwest. And I guess I really feel strongly that part of what makes the urban experience so exciting is not just viewing horizontal density walking down the street, but too also look up and see buildings soar into the sky.

[Nathan]

Also, being I have a chest piece that features the skyline, so going too tall is going to be hard to be cover up when I have to update it