Velo Apartments - (103 Second Street North)

[seanrichardryan]

Cheaper than it's neighbor?

[John]

^^^One of the best apartment projects in the North Loop.

I initially agreed with that sentiment, but I walked around the site a few days ago and I think it's one of the worst. It looks remarkably cheap.

Yeah , unfortunately almost all these apartment projects look cheap to some extent. For me, somehow the design of Velo follows through better than 222. I think it has to do with the nice stone base and it's a little bit more colorful. I especially like the maroon metal panels.

[jennifat]

Honestly, anything with paneling that looks even remotely like plastic/vinyl looks cheap to me, e.g. almost every single infill development that's gone up in the last five years.

[jet777]

In the six story stick-built world we live in, curb appeal seems to be correlated with number of different facades used, and the designers of this one decided it would differentiate itself by having the most used in the north loop. I count at least 8 different panelling colors, none of which really complement each other that well. So while the structure facing 2nd street at least has some protrusions to add shape and interest, the rest looks like a cheap piece of shit, IMHO.

[exiled_antipodean]

The multi-colored aluminium or vinyl siding trend is not a pathology unique to this metropolitan area. It's worldwide.

[mullen]

multi residential housing is very similar worldwide i agree. just be thankful we don't have a ton of tall concrete piles of crap blotting the cityscape.

and i rather like this project.

[seanrichardryan]

SOo.. architecture is dead. Long live BKV.

[Nick]

One of the things that quickly struck me when I saw this yesterday was how boring all the new buildings look:

http://gizmodo.com/tracking-brooklyns-r ... 1594799132

And that's in one of the most expensive cities in the country. I dunno what everyone is expecting for six story apartment buildings, other than to not The Marshall them.

[FISHMANPET]

Yeah I'm not sure what some people here like, other than ego induced skyscrapers.

[John]

Seattle and Denver have tons of six story stick going up and many are similar to the mediocre quality of what's going up here. I actually think Velo is better than many. The metal paneling ( note: no warped or "oil canned" effect visible) works well with the stone base ( which is actually real stone! ). It will have lots of street retail. It's much better than 222. We do have some good apartment projects going up in terms of quality : Latitude45 and LPM come to mind. Greystar's project is good. However, these are not stick which means they are more expensive to build.

[schmitzm03]

Let's not forget Brunsfield, which is fantastic.

[mullen]

so you're dissing a local arch firm.

what is architecture to you? i guess a buildng needs to have the name of a big name architect to be deemed worthy? or have only concrete and steel. what we're building in this town is no different for good or bad than every city in the world. it's housing not a museum or opera house.

[Nathan]

so you're dissing a local arch firm.

what is architecture to you? i guess a buildng needs to have the name of a big name architect to be deemed worthy? or have only concrete and steel. what we're building in this town is no different for good or bad than every city in the world. it's housing not a museum or opera house.

I understand what you're saying, but being it's not an opera house our a museum means it should be old hat, easy to make look balanced and thought out, not gimmicky and cheap. The Elysian looks classic and timeless, Brunsfield looks modern and minimal, It seems like it wasn't too hard to design these nice projects. What are all these other places trying to look like? and why can't they 100% commit to a style. For example 222 Hen, I love the Hen ave side, but Washington is just ok, and the other two sides blow chunks. (I actually like the design of Velo, but I understand some of the complaints people are making.)

[jet777]

Let's not forget Brunsfield, which is fantastic.

This is a great example that < 6 story housing can be aesthetically pleasing (subjective, I know), and doesn't need to use every shade of siding in the book to hide the fact that it is a mass-produced box.

Look, I understand the reason all of this housing is only differentiated by different colors in different patterns. There is a lot of housing and using a pattern and sticks is much less expensive than having an architect give it some unique and defining features. I get it. This isn't exactly low-income housing though- I'm really bemoaning the fact that units will rent for $2500 and I guess some people are tricked into thinking they're different because they used a little stone around the base. Expense may be reserved for "opera houses", but I've travelled to many places where originality is applied liberally. Not to say it doesn't happen here either, but I don't think Velo is a shining example.

[Archiapolis]

Honestly, anything with paneling that looks even remotely like plastic/vinyl looks cheap to me, e.g. almost every single infill development that's gone up in the last five years.

FWIW: None of the stuff that is being done in Uptown or Downtown is "plastic or vinyl." As for whether or not it *looks* like such, I will leave to your judgment. Architects certainly would rather NOT design anything that "looks cheap."

[Archiapolis]

SOo.. architecture is dead. Long live BKV.

This is not a BKV project but maybe BKV is just a placeholder for all of the local multi-family architecture firms.

[Archiapolis]

Let's not forget Brunsfield, which is fantastic.

Brunsfield is a good building but it was designed from the outside in unfortunately and the unit plans suffer as a result.

[Archiapolis]

so you're dissing a local arch firm.

what is architecture to you? i guess a buildng needs to have the name of a big name architect to be deemed worthy? or have only concrete and steel. what we're building in this town is no different for good or bad than every city in the world. it's housing not a museum or opera house.

I understand what you're saying, but being it's not an opera house our a museum means it should be old hat, easy to make look balanced and thought out, not gimmicky and cheap. The Elysian looks classic and timeless, Brunsfield looks modern and minimal, It seems like it wasn't too hard to design these nice projects. What are all these other places trying to look like? and why can't they 100% commit to a style. For example 222 Hen, I love the Hen ave side, but Washington is just ok, and the other two sides blow chunks. (I actually like the design of Velo, but I understand some of the complaints people are making.)

Okay now imagine yourself in a VE meeting room with developers and contractors and they have a red pen in their hands.

"Okay, let's spend the money on the most prominent sides (Hennepin and Washington - in that order) and save some money on the rest of it...you know, the back of the building."

I'm not saying it is right or good. In fact, I'm saying that it sucks but this is the reality.

[Archiapolis]

Let's not forget Brunsfield, which is fantastic.

This is a great example that < 6 story housing can be aesthetically pleasing (subjective, I know), and doesn't need to use every shade of siding in the book to hide the fact that it is a mass-produced box.

Look, I understand the reason all of this housing is only differentiated by different colors in different patterns. There is a lot of housing and using a pattern and sticks is much less expensive than having an architect give it some unique and defining features. I get it. This isn't exactly low-income housing though- I'm really bemoaning the fact that units will rent for $2500 and I guess some people are tricked into thinking they're different because they used a little stone around the base. Expense may be reserved for "opera houses", but I've travelled to many places where originality is applied liberally. Not to say it doesn't happen here either, but I don't think Velo is a shining example.

Think about what you just said, "...units will rent for $2500..."
The operative word here is UNITS and this is absolutely the main focus for developers. What do the units look like? What are the amenities? Well down the list and WELL after "Budget" lies "architecture." Developers aren't necessarily comfortable with "timeless." They are more comfortable with "different", "striking", "bold", etc. However, given the typical budget constraints, it is VERY hard to achieve "different" outside of color and material changes. Again, I'm not advocating for this approach. I think it is a bad approach but I'm not the one putting money on the line to develop a site. I'm just a guy clicking on a mouse.

[Nathan]

so you're dissing a local arch firm.

what is architecture to you? i guess a buildng needs to have the name of a big name architect to be deemed worthy? or have only concrete and steel. what we're building in this town is no different for good or bad than every city in the world. it's housing not a museum or opera house.

I understand what you're saying, but being it's not an opera house our a museum means it should be old hat, easy to make look balanced and thought out, not gimmicky and cheap. The Elysian looks classic and timeless, Brunsfield looks modern and minimal, It seems like it wasn't too hard to design these nice projects. What are all these other places trying to look like? and why can't they 100% commit to a style. For example 222 Hen, I love the Hen ave side, but Washington is just ok, and the other two sides blow chunks. (I actually like the design of Velo, but I understand some of the complaints people are making.)

Okay now imagine yourself in a VE meeting room with developers and contractors and they have a red pen in their hands.

"Okay, let's spend the money on the most prominent sides (Hennepin and Washington - in that order) and save some money on the rest of it...you know, the back of the building."

I'm not saying it is right or good. In fact, I'm saying that it sucks but this is the reality.

Right... Have you seen the corner of 1st ave and 2nd st... that isn't just budget cutting that is tacky attempts at trying to put detail into the project. The budget was cut, they can keep it simple. there is no NO reason for two colors of metal paneling on that side. that isn't cost saving that is just ugly, and bad design, and had nothing to do with the executive team.