urbanMSP

Can't read it - so the approved it? Did they have any suggested changes?

Can't read it - so the approved it? Did they have any suggested changes?

Whoops. I'm new. Updated to add link above.

Thinking about it more today, I also feel better about the design. I wasn't thrilled with the renderings of 4Marq either, but it grew on me once it was up. That'll probably happen here too.

This appears to be moving forward with some urgency. Sent out by the North East Business Association today.

The city packet for your reading pleasure:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 201737.pdf

I...don't hate it.

This building is not going to age well. The "z stripe" will look ridiculous and is reminiscent of bad '80s PoMo.

The "z stripe" will look ridiculous and is reminiscent of bad '80s PoMo.

Patrick Bateman is appalled.

There is nothing post modern about this design.

I was thinking in terms of using swathes of color to make designs within the building. It reminds me of a less absurd version of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Building
http://style.time.com/2012/11/05/15-bui ... -building/

This is going to be one of those designs where 40 years from now people won't be able to believe that a bunch of people thought that something so hideous was a good idea.

It is clunky and inelegant, which would be ok if it was a 2 story building, but it is going to be a 28 story eye sore for a very long time.

Post modernism caricaturizes classical concepts, geometry and proportion. This is bad modernism (if you could classify this into an architectural category)... it's definitely not good design. It's a box with color to optically fool people into thinking it has any style.

But decent housing density and ok urban presence so... eh.

Where is that nimby neighborhood association when we really need them..

Where is that nimby neighborhood association when we really need them..

NIEBNA is probably the most YIMBY neighborhood org in the city.

FWIW they did oppose the earlier version of the building, hence why it was sent back and revised. Beyond that, if it meets zoning ordinance sections regulating building materials, percentages, etc. there is little the city can do. I saw recently the city was again revising some of that language.

Yuckity, yuck! (don't build that)

This was unanimously approved by the planning commission, so now it is best if we just make peace with it.

I can somewhat understand the disdain for this project. I feel it too. Maybe it is coming from the fact that we are starved for truly tall, exceptional new buildings. So - to assuage our thirst - we expect every single medium-sized tower to live up to some internationally-recognized brilliant architectural ideal.

But the fact is that the 333 building is just fine. And it is a better building than most cities have a right to expect in this height-range of modest apartment towers. I've walked the streets of the vaunted Vancouver, and 333 is far better than most of those bland towers. We could have been saddled again with something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9664492 ... 312!8i6656.

At least 333 has some sense of design to it. And it is a good effort given the budget and modesty of the project.

Edit: And I have to say that 333 is a much better building than the anonymous Ft. Lauderdale clone that Lennar is building a block away.

Weird - Double Post! Ignore this, and thanks for your participation

I had thought just like that Avian...but I was just in Austin, TX for the first time in a long time. They have a ton of new 25-35 floor buildings that make almost every new one here look like a communist era apartment block. I am starting to think for some reason we just get bad/cheap finishes with horribly shielded (or unshielded) mechanicals.

And as for vancouver...I kind of feel like every residential tower in this area is better than any of ours:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2722247 ... 312!8i6656