urbanMSP

Looks like they are finally getting the glass going up on the corner of 4th and Nicollet. That will help with the look of this building.

DSC_1578 by grant.simons, on Flickr

DSC_1571 by grant.simons, on Flickr

DSC_1570 by grant.simons, on Flickr

DSC_1568 by grant.simons, on Flickr

DSC_1572 by grant.simons, on Flickr

Thanks as always for the photos.

Building: Bland, staid, lacking context, suburban corporate, anywhere-itecture.

Let me be the first to set the bar for you guys:
"It's better than surface parking!"

Hahaha! I'm no architect but -- as a "normy" -- this building doesn't bother me, aesthetically-speaking. Maybe I just don't have enough of a trained eye to see why this building sucks. I've definitely seen worse, and it certainly is better than just a surface parking lot. My only disappointment with this site is its scale, which is small-ish for such a prominent location, however considering the build-out of the rest of the block I really can't complain. Maybe I'm just too complacent!

lacking context"

As the reference to its neighbor across the street is pretty obviously, I'm not so sure about this particular criticism.

But yeah, it's a "meh" building.

It's not the worst office building downtown. I wish they used some higher quality material's, and removed the vertical precast on the north wall replacing it with glass. That corner that's all glass would be an amazing spot for retail. I'll bet they're just going to use it as a lounge or something, really sad.

If you looked at their new building in Denver - you would be bummed by this building.

Please read through the last iteration of this argument (from less than three weeks ago!) before having it again.

Just to show the Denver finished product

Well that's nothing to write home about either. Could someone explain the random blue boxes?

I'll give the Denver's building height advantage, but it look very schizophrenic as far as style for it's exterior. Looks like precast panels used on that tower also. While we don't have the height , the lower tower on that block will work with the taller 4Marq, Nic on 5th, and the proposed 360 tower across the street. It will allow some sunlight to actually reach the mall and the library's plaza on Nicollet.

This random stuff seems to be a trend that was started a few years ago. The 333 N Hennepin in NE has that random box theme also. I think it will be a short lived style, at least I hope so.

Well that's nothing to write home about either. Could someone explain the random blue boxes?

ARCHITECTURE! That's just the type of "design feature" that the new Minneapolis Design Approval Committee will mandate in future buildings.

lacking context"

As the reference to its neighbor across the street is pretty obviously, I'm not so sure about this particular criticism.

But yeah, it's a "meh" building.

Sorry, my architecture degree seems to be failing me...since there is a parking lot across the street, I can only assume that you mean the "old" Xcel building (see Grant's side by side image).

Are you implying that these two buildings are in any way "related" or that the new building is somehow taking contextual design cues from the old building? Do you care to elaborate? It is obvious that they appear to share a VERY basic massing (short and squat) but the similarities end there.

Here is what I'm seeing:

New:
Primarily opaque/solid wall with horizontal bands
Old:
Primarily glass and some solid/some "punched windows" with horizontal bands*

New:
Salmon precast
Old:
Terra cotta brick

New:
"Punched" windows: large/square aspect with mullion pattern
Old:
"Gunslit" windows with a detailed shroud/extension

New:
"Main Corner":
Massing change/all glass carrying through to attic story
Old:
"Main Corner": What's a main corner?

New:
Base: What's a base? Do you mean a corner?
Old:
Base: Pilotis with full height glass

*Horizontal bands are just about the ONLY** thing that the new building appears to be drawing from. In the old building they are actually showing something about where the floor framing is (the old "honesty in materials" thing) and in the new one, the bands just draw lines that time out with the heads/sills of what amount to "strip windows" which are typical of any/all nondescript, suburban, corporate architecture. I wouldn't give the new building any credit for this banding being a contextual reference to the old building.

**Other than being short and squat.

Please read through the last iteration of this argument (from less than three weeks ago!) before having it again.

Whoops! You miss a week and you start World War Three!!!! Sorry - never mind! (giggle)

In the old building they are actually showing something about where the floor framing is (the old "honesty in materials" thing) and in the new one, the bands just draw lines that time out with the heads/sills of what amount to "strip windows" which are typical of any/all nondescript, suburban, corporate architecture. I wouldn't give the new building any credit for this banding being a contextual reference to the old building.

I get that you hate everything being done in Minneapolis right now. But be that as it may, I don't understand the "corporate architecture" point. Is it the fact that a corporation designed it? Isn't that true for most designs? Are there many mom-and-pop architecture firms designing skyscrapers? If it relates to the fact that Xcel is a corporation, isn't that also true for all of our buildings? IDS was a corporation, as was Norwest, First Bank, International Multifoods, Piper Jaffray etc. Who else has the money to build a building downtown for themselves?

I think what he means is that it looks very similar to something that might be built by TCF out in Plymouth designed by the company that also builds it. Simple, basic and uninspired.

(I am neutral about this building)

Well the nondescript and suburban parts I understood what he was saying, was just curious what "corporate" meant in this context.

Well the nondescript and suburban parts I understood what he was saying, was just curious what "corporate" meant in this context.

"Nondescript?!"
"Suburban?!"

You must hate everything in Minneapolis!

Couple of things...

1. Architects by nature (and definition) are critical - our entire profession is built on being critical.

2. Any opinion/criticism should be supported. I tried to support my opinion.

3. I'd like the architecture in this city to be great. If it can't be great, I'd like it to be good. If it can't be good, then I'd rather it be somewhere else.

4. Great, good and not good are subjective. A gradient exists from "great to awful." This building exists somewhere on this gradient. Just because I offered an opinion doesn't mean I'm right. I tried to support my opinion but I'd be happy to read an argument to the contrary. Feel free to offer an opinion, preferably with support (see #2 above).

5. Isn't offering an opinion about buildings, urbanism and transportation the ENTIRE point of this forum?

6. I don't know what implication you are making about my "corporate" criticism. If the implication has anything to do with "capitalism" or economics, you are (mostly) wrong. Everyone should be a billionaire, go make a billion. IF you (or your organization) makes a tidy profit, please propose/build great buildings in Minneapolis. If not, please go elsewhere. The "corporate" pejorative was meant to compare it to other bland buildings of corporate america that could exist anywhere. Perhaps I should have identified the building as "Business" (code definition) or "Office" and meant THAT as a pejorative.

I feel like if xcel had had more influence, it would actually have been better, but they don't own this development correct? Or does xcel own this? This is mostly driven by opus... and trying to make as much money as they can when they sell it. it's just really uninspired.

I'm OK with generic infill a lot of places but this kind of cheap just shouldn't be acceptable for Nicollet mall. All cast concrete?

Who's looking forward Opus throwing up Nic on 5th 2.0 next year?!! Anyone? guess not...