DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby mattaudio » November 26th, 2013, 1:44 pm

This thing is too far along to really adjust too much. There's a desire to have an open stretch from Chicago to 5th Ave (or, a new stick residential east of 5th Ave) and symmetry on the Ryan complex between 5th and Park. I don't see a chance that the Strib facade will stay. I do agree it's a shame the stick residential at 5th and 5th will really kill the opportunity of the Armory to frame the park (especially when there's adaptive reuse of the Armory).

If the facade were to stay in tact, I'd rather see it get moved a) to wherever the Strib ends up (I was hoping for this to be a half block facade of Block E along with the Strib moving there - alas, not happening) or b) flip it across 5th to the old HCMC Hyperbaric quarter block, so it would frame the new park alongside the Armory. My guess is that both of these things are prohibitively expensive and not likely to happen.

If there's going to be public advocacy to try and build a better outcome, I think it would be best to accept the current "save the medallions" compromise and move on. There are much bigger fish to fry.

#1 If this is going to be a 2+ block park, Park/Portland need to be closed on this stretch despite what the county says (or at least converted to 1 thru lane so people can jaywalk across these blocks). Anything less and this becomes three poorly-positioned parks rather than one.

#2. This needs to be well designed and well programmed, not just an afterthought. And for that I defer to Max Musicant.

Rich
Rice Park
Posts: 413
Joined: June 30th, 2012, 7:12 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Rich » November 26th, 2013, 1:52 pm

^ All of this exactly.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby MNdible » November 26th, 2013, 2:35 pm

mattaudio wrote:I do agree it's a shame the stick residential at 5th and 5th will really kill the opportunity of the Armory to frame the park (especially when there's adaptive reuse of the Armory).


I don't think this is meaningfully true. The residential building is likely not much more than 60' wide, and the central mass of the armory is set back at least that far from 5th Avenue. The Armory will defintely still have a very strong presence on the park.

Chauncey87
Landmark Center
Posts: 200
Joined: August 20th, 2012, 9:53 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Chauncey87 » November 26th, 2013, 3:00 pm

I have to wonder what the odds would be when they raise the Star Tribune building and get the two block park. How hard it would be to temporarily shut down Park and Portland? Just on game days to start but then increase that. Just because this park will at first be separated by north/south streets doesn't mean that one day the two blocks can't join up.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby twincitizen » November 26th, 2013, 3:32 pm

Can we maybe take the hysteria down a notch and just wait to see what the City Council's Zoning & Planning Committee decides on December 9th? They will be hearing an appeal of the HPC decision to block demolition. The Z&P committee decision would then go to the full council that Friday(the 13th...DOOMSDAY). That is getting dangerously close to the last meeting of the full council until 2014 (new council) but you've got to believe they want to get this done.

m b p
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 198
Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby m b p » December 2nd, 2013, 1:42 pm


User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4003
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Nathan » December 2nd, 2013, 2:54 pm

Thanks for being crazy awesome and allowing me to nerd out on Google earth for far too much time...

Chef
Landmark Center
Posts: 296
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 7:33 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Chef » December 2nd, 2013, 9:14 pm

To be honest I don't really see why there is so much love for the Star Tribune building. It is one of the ugliest "important" older buildings downtown. Aesthetically it is stuck in no-man's-land between baroque high Victorian and sleek minimalist modernism without doing anything very well. It is a plain and awkward building with few redeeming features aside from some ornamentation. I think people want to save it because it is old and they want to atone for the mistakes of the previous generations, but this is no Metropolitan Building (or Peavey Plaza or even Riverside Plaza). If Minneapolis had more and better older architecture nobody would care about this building.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Wedgeguy » December 3rd, 2013, 12:06 pm

You see a dump and I see Art Deco and Moderne. I follow architectural styles so to those that do the same, this is an example that we happen to think is worth saving. Funny how 30 years ago those hot warehouses were considered a waste land and should best be bulldozed. That is your opinion of the Star Trib building and you can have it. Others of us see a diamond in the rough that can be repurposed into something pretty fantastic with the right developer.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby twincitizen » December 3rd, 2013, 12:29 pm

Chef wrote:I think people want to save it because it is old and they want to atone for the mistakes of the previous generations, but this is no Metropolitan Building.
Agreed. I feel this way about a lot of things.

MplsSteve
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 147
Joined: May 2nd, 2013, 9:11 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby MplsSteve » December 3rd, 2013, 12:47 pm

twincitizen wrote:
Chef wrote:I think people want to save it because it is old and they want to atone for the mistakes of the previous generations, but this is no Metropolitan Building.
Agreed. I feel this way about a lot of things.
It's important to remember that in the late 1950's there was very little love for the Metropolitan Building either, or Victorian Architecture in general for that matter. We tend to think of historic preservation as recent phenomenon, but it existed back then too. However back then a building had to date back to the 1700's to be considered worthy of preservation. Time has a way of changing perspective.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby FISHMANPET » December 3rd, 2013, 1:52 pm

I'm particularly a fan of the Art Deco entrance, but I think most of the rest of the building isn't anything special. If I had to make a binary choice between saving the building and not saving the building, I'd choose not saving the building. However I think there should be something in between, I really like the idea of preserving the entrance facade in some capacity, maybe at this park, or maybe somewhere else.

I'm generally cool on the idea of historic preservation. It's a laudable goal, but I think it's one that's often co opted as an excuse to oppose new development. The Metropolitan building is of course the classic go to example of a building that could have been saved by historic preservation, but it was only 70 years old when it got torn down. I think now 120 years after it was built we all think that it should have been saved, but in 1961 would we have thought that a 70 year old building was old enough to be saved? For sure I'd oppose tearing down any building that was still structurally functional until there was a very real plan to replace it (didn't that land sit vacant for a while after it was torn down?).

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Wedgeguy » December 3rd, 2013, 2:06 pm

I have no problem tearing down the printing press and locking docks side of the building. It is the 5th and Portland side that I feel can be worked into a reuse building. If you Google map the building you will see that it is basically two separate portions with a 4 story section and a 2-3 story section that was printing and distribution. You have almost a 1/2 block that can become a green promenade along 4th that can be part of the so called mall park and that they want. With that green space behind they will still see any Wells Fargo sign from a blimp or light rail car.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 986
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby mullen » December 3rd, 2013, 2:08 pm

the old totinos building should have been preseved. that structure hadn't changed in 100 years. somehow that buildng was just fine to bullldoze in the name of progress by regular posters to this forum. strib building exterior was substantially altered in the 40's.

go check the posts on that project. laughable how people pick and choose their bitching. oh right, this one involves making the area around the new stadium nicer. stadiums bad!

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby mplsjaromir » December 3rd, 2013, 2:30 pm

I think that having a two block park in this part of town will make the area worse. Currently there is not enough people in the area 99% of the time to occupy a half block park. The idea that the whole two blocks will be used is absurd. Unless you have total geniuses programming the park with a healthy budget this place is going to be boring, ergo its going to be empty.

I say treat the Strib building like the Totino's building. Keep it around for a half decade, if no one has a desire to do anything with it, then feel free to raze it. If keeping the southern half of the Strib building is going to make or break this project, I would say the project is quite weak.

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4003
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Nathan » December 3rd, 2013, 7:42 pm

mullen wrote:the old totinos building should have been preseved. that structure hadn't changed in 100 years. somehow that buildng was just fine to bullldoze in the name of progress by regular posters to this forum. strib building exterior was substantially altered in the 40's.

go check the posts on that project. laughable how people pick and choose their bitching. oh right, this one involves making the area around the new stadium nicer. stadiums bad!
I'd like to suggest that I'm a fairly consistent preservationist and that I do my best not to pick and choose. I've argued in favor of totinos, riverside plaza, peavy, the walker library, the strib building, and I do volunteer stuff for things like the pan am world port terminal... just about everything short of house of Hanson ;) historic doesn't mean just old, it often exemplifies the architecture of a period or a social movement or a prominent business or a specific architect. rarely does my actual taste or feelings about that building come into play if the building has significant historical context which the strib building does in not just Minneapolis but other cities that have shortages of 40s deco facades. our park system blows other cities out of the water, the number of historic structures in our city fabric does not.

Rich
Rice Park
Posts: 413
Joined: June 30th, 2012, 7:12 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Rich » December 3rd, 2013, 8:02 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:Keep it around for a half decade, if no one has a desire to do anything with it, then feel free to raze it.
For the record, the Star Tribune building has been officially available for purchase since the beginning of 2008 (more than half a decade). Developers have been well aware of this. Nobody seems to want it.

http://finance-commerce.com/2008/02/sta ... -for-sale/

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2438
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby Didier » December 3rd, 2013, 8:10 pm

I'll say this again: The assumption that the Star Tribune building could or would be incorporated into the Ryan development seems far fetched.

The park wouldn't make any sense with a building arbitrarily sitting at that location, not to mention the added costs of renovating the building.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby mplsjaromir » December 3rd, 2013, 8:57 pm

Rich wrote:
mplsjaromir wrote:Keep it around for a half decade, if no one has a desire to do anything with it, then feel free to raze it.
For the record, the Star Tribune building has been officially available for purchase since the beginning of 2008 (more than half a decade). Developers have been well aware of this. Nobody seems to want it.

http://finance-commerce.com/2008/02/sta ... -for-sale/
Let it sit empty for a half decade. Everything is for sale.

dmdhashw
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 166
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 4:10 pm

Re: Star Tribune Blocks

Postby dmdhashw » December 3rd, 2013, 10:11 pm

I wonder if it would be feasible to move the Star Tribune building over one block, where the standalone residential / prison screen building is proposed. It could then be converted to housing or some other usage.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KML_1981 and 2 guests