Washington Square - 20, 100, 111 Washington Avenue S
Washington Square - 20, 100, 111 Washington Avenue S
Not sure if this is the right place to post this. (Did a search) The glass lobby addition to the 100 Washington building looks like tacked-on crap, IMHO. I know they needed their backside serviced because of leakage, so that work makes sense. Wasn't this a Minoru Yamasaki designed building? Like it or not, the beauty of it was the cold symmetry of everything. The ground level is now destroyed.
Re: Washington Avenue
Well, it has to be tacked on to preserve the architectural integrity of the building.
What it does:
takes the dirty dingy side door skyway entrance and makes it a fully day lit, more accessible from the street entrance.
Adds (if I remember correctly) another retail space to Washington in a very dead zone.
It's also super clear glass so you're going to see light and activity in this space rather than nothing.
I am huge on design and architectural preservation, but I think this is a win for the neighborhood and can easily be undone if needed.
(My dream concept was just glass in between all 4 legs apple store style, but this is alright.
What it does:
takes the dirty dingy side door skyway entrance and makes it a fully day lit, more accessible from the street entrance.
Adds (if I remember correctly) another retail space to Washington in a very dead zone.
It's also super clear glass so you're going to see light and activity in this space rather than nothing.
I am huge on design and architectural preservation, but I think this is a win for the neighborhood and can easily be undone if needed.
(My dream concept was just glass in between all 4 legs apple store style, but this is alright.
Re: Washington Avenue
Or, how about leaving the building vaulted on the 4 legs as designed. End of story. There's more than enough store frontage on Washington... if there was any interest.
Re: Washington Avenue
More than enough? There isn't a single storefront, vacant or occupied, on Washington between Hennepin and 3rd.
ETA: I guess there is one small bay tucked away by the garage entrance of The Crossings. Still, it's not like there's tons of empty spaces.
ETA: I guess there is one small bay tucked away by the garage entrance of The Crossings. Still, it's not like there's tons of empty spaces.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7566
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Avenue
I agree that some sort of at least most of our Minoru Yamasaki examples are worth preserving. But it's obvious that this building -like many of its era- has significant defects with regard to supporting, addressing, and interacting with the public/street realm.
The best strategy is to do lightweight modifications such as this to make the building less hostile to the streetscape, while still doing whatever possible to preserve its original design and ideally be completely reversible to its original design.
One of the most important parts of historic preservation is allowing buildings to evolve just enough to actually still stay functional and beloved. Unless they are in a museum.
The best strategy is to do lightweight modifications such as this to make the building less hostile to the streetscape, while still doing whatever possible to preserve its original design and ideally be completely reversible to its original design.
One of the most important parts of historic preservation is allowing buildings to evolve just enough to actually still stay functional and beloved. Unless they are in a museum.
Re: Washington Avenue
FYI the retail space in this building will be a coffee shop.
http://minneapolis.eater.com/2016/8/5/1 ... ons-owners
http://minneapolis.eater.com/2016/8/5/1 ... ons-owners
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7566
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Avenue
I'm in this building a few times a year for meetings. It's just *not* a place where you want to be, other than doing your business inside. The tiny lobby has felt so strange to me when I would enter this building. Especially during the winter, when the underside of the building creates awful wind tunnels between the sidewalk and the doorway.
A simple Apple-style glass curtain wall between the four legs of the building would create an indoor space that could function all year round, with island-format retail or food vendors inside. Sort of like a Crystal Court for the north end. Lighting could be provided in these kiosks or on park-style poles, preserving the barren wasteland that is the underside of the tower structure. In fact, light could shine up on the underside to warm the entire space with diffuse light.
Then, modify that ugg skyway that approaches the building like it's the original Trump-Pence logo, and make it a glassy mezzanine level on the eastern end with a beautiful indoor staircase near the corner pillar of Washington and Second. And bam, the north end of downtown finally has a better street-skyway interface to boot.
A simple Apple-style glass curtain wall between the four legs of the building would create an indoor space that could function all year round, with island-format retail or food vendors inside. Sort of like a Crystal Court for the north end. Lighting could be provided in these kiosks or on park-style poles, preserving the barren wasteland that is the underside of the tower structure. In fact, light could shine up on the underside to warm the entire space with diffuse light.
Then, modify that ugg skyway that approaches the building like it's the original Trump-Pence logo, and make it a glassy mezzanine level on the eastern end with a beautiful indoor staircase near the corner pillar of Washington and Second. And bam, the north end of downtown finally has a better street-skyway interface to boot.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Went over there to see yesterday, but did not take a picture. Will attempt to do so again today to get one to share. For what it's worth, it didn't look that bad to me, and better than enclosing the entire area.
Also, the area is not pedestrian friendly at all, but I'd say that has more to do with the hostile design of Washington Ave than this building not having a ground floor.
Also, the area is not pedestrian friendly at all, but I'd say that has more to do with the hostile design of Washington Ave than this building not having a ground floor.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6191
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
#hottake: I think 20 Washington Square should be torn down. It's terrible for downtown, terrible for its location, etc. Nice to look at (I even have a commemorative cocktail glass of it), but the time has come to replace it with something urban - something that addresses the very important streets that surround it. Beyond pleasing aesthetics and the significance of who designed it 50+ years ago, also taken into consideration should be what it provides to downtown: less than 185,000 square feet of office space. It's a short building that provides a relatively small amount of office space, and no other uses or benefits to downtown (no residences, no hotel rooms, no retail spaces, etc.) It provides minimally more positive benefit to downtown than an attractive parking garage.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
It is basically the attractive downtown equivalent of the Nicollet/Lake Kmart.
The problem is that, while there's still so many even less developed lots in this area, by the time there's development pressure to actually do something like that, it'll probably be historically protected and locked in place for eternity.
The problem is that, while there's still so many even less developed lots in this area, by the time there's development pressure to actually do something like that, it'll probably be historically protected and locked in place for eternity.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7566
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Maybe we could move it to the Little Log House Pioneer Village / Epcot Expansion south of Hastings?
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4015
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
The temple of Nimes could be picked up and moved back onto that silly surface lot, thus opening Nicollet to bridge square again.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7566
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
So we all agree on tearing down these three buildings, then?
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Eh, 111 is fine.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6191
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Agreed, 111 is fine. 100 is also fine for now, and contributes enough office space that it's unlikely to come down anytime soon. Once the Opus block and Nicollet Hotel block have been built out, and the post office has been repurposed (including parking ramp removal), it will be time for 20 Washington to come down.
It's really too bad that The Towers are condos instead of apartments. Condos make redevelopment basically impossible. I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
It's really too bad that The Towers are condos instead of apartments. Condos make redevelopment basically impossible. I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
Can't wait to fight you. <3twincitizen wrote: it will be time for 20 Washington to come down. I will fight any attempt at protecting that building.
http://www.startribune.com/streetscapes ... 318449111/twincitizen wrote:I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
These buildings are definitely admired, I show people from out of town this area a lot and the modernism is definitely appreciated. Especially as it becomes more vintage and retro to younger and younger people.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
I wonder if it would be possible to rotate 20 Washington 90 degrees and push it up against Marquette. That would would at least allow some development on that block and also allow for the possibility of running Nicollet through to a reconnected 2nd street.
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
..and also flip 100 and 111 upside down. That would vastly improve the streetscape issue.DanB wrote:I wonder if it would be possible to rotate 20 Washington 90 degrees and push it up against Marquette. That would would at least allow some development on that block and also allow for the possibility of running Nicollet through to a reconnected 2nd street.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4015
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)
The building is 300' long. It would easily fit on the lot if moved towards Marquette onto the current surface lot. A reopened Nicollet would still allow for a 325' frontage along Washington. But this really is a fantasy exercise.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.