urbanMSP

LOL, From a contractors point, "You can pay me once for quality, or you can pay me as many time as you want with substandard materials. I get paid each time I put it up. Not sure I'd want to hold on to any cement board stocks, as I have a feeling they will have some warrantee work to pay out in the years to come. That building next to Tryg's is already replacing siding and it is less that 5 years old. Gotta love stick construction!! :-{)

LOL, Short of minimalism, just about ever architectural style has had an over the top style to it. Deco, Victorian, Nuevo, Can we say post modern, Italianate, all have been far from simple. Many of those are now considered masterpieces, where I'm sure some thought those styles were gaudy and unattractive. The Metropolitan building, the decorative exterior of the Plymouth building were lost because someone thought they were ugly or not clean lined enough for them. So really I will continue to differ in opinions with you on this building. To each his own. As one who walks thru the area many times a week, I'll be enjoying its presence.

You're right, in 75 years they'll be comparing this trend of myriad cheap siding materials to the Metropolitan Building and the Plymouth Building.

LOL, Short of minimalism, just about ever architectural style has had an over the top style to it. Deco, Victorian, Nuevo, Can we say post modern, Italianate, all have been far from simple. Many of those are now considered masterpieces, where I'm sure some thought those styles were gaudy and unattractive. The Metropolitan building, the decorative exterior of the Plymouth building were lost because someone thought they were ugly or not clean lined enough for them. So really I will continue to differ in opinions with you on this building. To each his own. As one who walks thru the area many times a week, I'll be enjoying its presence.

You're right, in 75 years they'll be comparing this trend of myriad cheap siding materials to the Metropolitan Building and the Plymouth Building.

They will have to last 30 years WITH THE CHEAP STICK CONSTRUCTION first. Sorry, but I see no landmarks being built theses days in the housing/office market. Hate to say but the MPLS glory years of possible landmarks ended in the late 80's and 90's. Most everything is cheap and low quality in the designs that I see. There is nothing that stands out. I just don't agree that this is an ugly building. I happen to find it appealing is all.

LOL, Short of minimalism, just about ever architectural style has had an over the top style to it. Deco, Victorian, Nuevo, Can we say post modern, Italianate, all have been far from simple. Many of those are now considered masterpieces, where I'm sure some thought those styles were gaudy and unattractive. The Metropolitan building, the decorative exterior of the Plymouth building were lost because someone thought they were ugly or not clean lined enough for them. So really I will continue to differ in opinions with you on this building. To each his own. As one who walks thru the area many times a week, I'll be enjoying its presence.

You're right, in 75 years they'll be comparing this trend of myriad cheap siding materials to the Metropolitan Building and the Plymouth Building.

But those historic buildings were inefficient for energy and expensive to maintain the stone work to the point enough people thought it was worth it to tear them down, for the same reason people think it's bad to maintain these buildings. I don't condone cement board or poor quality materials, that's a different topic than the theme of the building. Which I like because it's funky and playful and more in tune with the vibe of uptown. (It's not exactly ed hardy tacky.) Which I don't really see as a historic brick only neighborhood.

^^^The area around it has , until recently, been either parking lots or very underutilized properties for decades. Not much built around it to give it context as far as style or historical period etc.

Also, when I look at the rendering, I get the impression they are not using cement board for the white siding but rather metal paneling. Of course I may be wrong.

Agreed. This building fits in much better than the fauxstoric building across the street.

Having seen more of the images in the CoW, I agree that this isn't as bad of a design as I originally thought. It's not as boxy as I had originally thought, and the yellow/white/black contrasts shown in the original image is only on one side of the building, and I thought it was going to be a pattern repeated on all 4 sides of the building. I especially like the juxtaposition on the side facing Lake Street.

Here is a stupid article (see below). GENTRIFICATION! <dun-dun-DUNNNNNN>

http://go963mn.com/news/2015/farewell-u ... po-records

Here is a stupid article (see below). GENTRIFICATION! <dun-dun-DUNNNNNN>

http://go963mn.com/news/2015/farewell-u ... po-records

How do you gentrify an area that is already predominately white?? More people talking out their ass and farting in their brains. There are those that think , because I say it , it is true. Which can be shredded apart with facts very easily. The living in MPLS vs Mayberry syndrome, some just will never grasp the concept that they live in a city and not a village!

How do you gentrify an area that is already predominately white??

Huh? Easily. How do you gentrify a neighborhood that is not "poor" or "deteriorated" to start with I guess would be a better question at this location....but I guess the answer always is by displacing the people that make less money with people who make more money...even if the ones being displaced aren't really "poor" to begin with. Anyway, yeah, lame article.

How do you gentrify an area that is already predominately white?? More people talking out their ass and farting in their brains. There are those that think , because I say it , it is true. Which can be shredded apart with facts very easily. The living in MPLS vs Mayberry syndrome, some just will never grasp the concept that they live in a city and not a village!

Despite how its often used, gentrification has nothing to do with race necessarily. Wikipedia:"It is the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by wealthier individuals, which in effect improves property values but also can displace low-income families and small businesses." People talk about gentrification routinely in homogeneous Scandinavia. And people talk about gentrification in majority black parts of Atlanta (wealthier African-Americans displacing poorer African-Americans).

Though agreed it's silly to talk about it in present day Uptown.

I am not sure it really is THAT silly to talk about in uptown...I mean, people on lower incomes that used to be able to live close to Henn and Lake are indeed being priced out of the area due to the new development and higher property values...which is pretty much the definition of Gentrification. So I don't think it is totally out of line to bring that word into play. But for the most part, the area had already been "gentrified" long ago...I guess this is just another level of gentrification? Though, as they say...that's life in the big city.

Contrary to popular opinion, Uptown still does have quite a few low(er)-income households. Those folks are indeed slowly getting priced out. 2320 Colfax is a perfect example. So "gentrification" is a relevant topic, though in the case of this particular article it doesn't make sense, since "poor" people don't generally shop at Cheapo. I'd go as far to say that if you shop at Cheapo, you're privileged to some degree.

Yeah, Colfax is a good example.

The "soon this will be just a memory" caption of the picture of the cheapo back parking lot is laughable! And for some reason calling everything condos always irks me. All in all a terrible article. Didn't go96 "gentrify" b96?

Didn't go96 "gentrify" b96?

If you don't tweet that at them or comment on the article on their website, I will.

Don't worry, lasagnacat has your back (mostly)

As I'm told by my landlord that bought his house in 73 when the wedge was not an area that one wanted to invest in, many people did buy and did rent due to it's location. Houses were run down, Apartments not much better. Now we are on a war path because the area is successful and home owner now know that they can invest in their homes and they should get their value back. So some who bought when it was not a good neighborhood, who now don't have the means or want to fix up their property are up in arms because the value of their neighbors houses, that they fixed up, are pushing up property taxes.
Funny how when Uptown was in its decline. the neighborhoods were up in arms that the values of their homes were falling and that not so good tenants were moving in. Now that the table have turned that want to do a 189 and say no, we don't want anymore people to share our good fortune that comes from living in the area.

The classic "Wanting their cake ,but to eat it too." This get tiring after a time.

I mean, people on lower incomes that used to be able to live close to Henn and Lake are indeed being priced out of the area due to the new development and higher property values...

You mean being priced out of the area due to demand for housing there leading to higher prices.

You mean being priced out of the area due to demand for housing there leading to higher prices.

You can't separate the effects of new development from increased demand. Even when new development increases the available supply, it can also make the neighborhood more appealing and, by extension, still increase demand.