DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
That's fine, and you probably won't find many people here who disagree that the Star Tribune showed bias (although you could argue that they were biased toward the most common-sense solution anyway).
It's totally tangental to the discussion we were just having, though.
It's totally tangental to the discussion we were just having, though.
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 711
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Can people please stop comparing "The Yard" to Central Park? They're not remotely similar.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 593
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
My last comment was in response to Rich, adding to the already ample confusion.
The Star Tribune attempted to use their influence to build a new stadium on the Metrodome site. This suggests that the quickest way for the Star Tribune to sell their land for the highest sales price was for the Vikings Stadium to be built next door. So this supports the argument that that the stadium deal attracted development bigger and quicker in DT East than if the stadium moved elsewhere.
In other words - The Star Tribune's stadium bias suggests the owners (who were privy to development negotiations) felt that building a new stadium on the Metrodome site was the best way to cash out of their land.
Sorry for the tedious nature of all this. I'm just going to try to say this one more time.I understand the Star Tribune has wanted to sell its land for years and has finally found a willing buyer. But what is the connection you are trying to make?
It seems like you are just pointing out that the Star Tribune showed bias in the overall discussion, which nobody disagrees with. I am saying that bias is not relevant to the discussion of whether The Yard/Wells Fargo would have emerged so quickly without the adjoining stadium.
The Star Tribune attempted to use their influence to build a new stadium on the Metrodome site. This suggests that the quickest way for the Star Tribune to sell their land for the highest sales price was for the Vikings Stadium to be built next door. So this supports the argument that that the stadium deal attracted development bigger and quicker in DT East than if the stadium moved elsewhere.
In other words - The Star Tribune's stadium bias suggests the owners (who were privy to development negotiations) felt that building a new stadium on the Metrodome site was the best way to cash out of their land.
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Yes, I do, and if I'm not mistaken there were proposals in the works for a park somewhere in DTE before any talk of a new Vikings Stadium. Would it be "The Yard" with a massive Wells Fargo regional HQ? No.Do you really think The Yard would have been a viable proposal had it not been for the massive stadium bookending the far side?I tend to agree that any redevelopment in the immediate area is likely driven by naturally-occuring market forces more than it is driven by a new football stadium. I simply do not see the appeal of living next door to a stadium, especially football (baseball has some pros, but only if you can see the field or attend a lot of games). Let's not forget one of the key factors that makes this general area so attractive: the new park (The Yard?). Being next to Minneapolis' version of Central Park is what would drive me to live near there. That and the possibility of rising housing values.
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Also Chicago, Green Bay, St. Louis, Jacksonville, and Houston. MOST stadiums are actually downtown or close proximity to it. Of the 32 teams only 9 of them have "suburban" stadiums - Arizona (Glendale), Buffalo (Orchard Park), Dallas (Arlington), Kansas City (technically still IN KC), Miami (Davie/Miami Gardens), New England (Foxborough), New York (East Rutherford, NJ), San Diego (Serra Mesa), Washington (Landover, MD).m b p - while many NFL stadiums are located in the suburbs, not all are. Indy, Seattle, Cincy, Cleveland, New Orleans, Charlotte, Denver, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Atlanta all have urban sites.
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Not sure why it would be a big deal that they have signs on the roof. Does anyone ever notice the Target sign on top of the Target in Richfield? Nope, only if you are flying in. Does not impact a thing. And if it is because the Wilf's dont want it, then that is just really shady......which would fit the Wilf's perfectly.
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Yeah, and if you turned it "off" it would all but disappear, no? I, personally, am more concerned about the plethora of bright yellow Wells Fargo signs on the sides of the development. But we can always remove those, so Build It!
-
- Landmark Center
- Posts: 226
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:12 am
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Here's the problem with big signs atop the Wells Fargo buildings. One of the nice attributes of the Minneapolis skyline is that it isn't dotted with signs. If the city says Yes to Wells Fargo, on what basis can it say No to everyone else?
- trkaiser
- Landmark Center
- Posts: 259
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:05 am
- Location: Northeast Minneapolis
- Contact:
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
I'm anti roof sign, and not very thrilled with all the exterior non-roof signage either. I agree with marty that this could open the floodgates. Other than Center Village, I can't think of many other lighted signs on the skyline. It's very nice compared with cities that are all logo'd up.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
I agree. The St. Louis skyline has lots of lighted up signs, which bad enough. In addition they have lots of high rise buildings with vinyl signs. It looks very tacky.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
- Location: George Floyd Square
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Let's strike a deal- they can add signage, as long as it's in the form of a reconstructed Weatherball mast with a big "WF" instead of "NW." Old school neon and all. Problem solved.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 593
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Target's building is all set up to display logos with their LED display. They could even play commercials on that thing. But as I understand it, they've promised to keep their display non-commercial. I don't know whether they're actually prohibited from putting their logo on the skyline, but we really don't want to set a precedent here. I really don't want the skyline decked out like a Nascar driver, as are so many other aspects of our lives.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
I thought that this wasn't really a sign, per se, but rather the logo painted onto the roof. It would only be visible if viewed from above (i.e., blimps). I don't see this as really 'opening the floodgates' for billboard-style signage downtown (although there already is a huge billboard right next to the Metrodome across from the LRT station).
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Agree. It will only be viewable from Google Maps or the air.I thought that this wasn't really a sign, per se, but rather the logo painted onto the roof. It would only be visible if viewed from above (i.e., blimps). I don't see this as really 'opening the floodgates' for billboard-style signage downtown (although there already is a huge billboard right next to the Metrodome across from the LRT station).
And with regards to the signs at the top of the buildings. What precedent would it set. Have you not seen Hotel Ivy's sign? Or any of the hotels downtown? We are talking about a 17 story building. This will not really impact the skyline. YOu will just be able to see the signage from the park, stadium, and surrounding blocks. Not a big deal in my book. This is much different than a much taller building putting signage up.
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Yeah, think TCF Tower (17 stories), it "advertises," but it's not really tall enough for many to care. Plus it gives the temp!
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Hilton, Hyatt, Ivy, Centre Village, Thrivent. All about the same height, all have signage, all barely noticable.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6368
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
Right. That's because there is a height limit on signage. The City Code means to prevent rooftop signs, in the traditional sense, that you can see from the ground. Signs completely on top of the roof that you can only see from the air (or Google Maps) should not be an issue. It's not super surprising that the City Code doesn't account for this type of sign. Given the parking crater around the Dome, probably no one has proposed it before. As others have mentioned, obviously other communities have allowed this signage (see Richfield SuperTarget, Met Council HQ in St. Paul, etc.) so I'm sure we'll find a way to make it work.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7752
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Star Tribune Blocks
As a Wells Fargo trained "Brand Steward" I'm staying out of this one!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: BillsLeaves and 47 guests