RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[David Greene]

All this talk about refining and the city demanding something "iconic" here has stirred up some old thoughts. Rather than have the city request "iconic" buildings everywhere, it's much more important that when they approve a design, they hold the developer accountable to it. I'm tired of watered-down projects like MoZaic. If *any* project changes substantially during the process the developers should have to redo the approval process.

[Wedgeguy]

People aren't south of 6th because tall buildings are calling to them. It's cause that's where shit is.

That is the case, 20+ years ago we were worried that the south end of the Mall was never going to gain pedestrians to connect to the then new convention center. The area of the mall south of 9th was in pretty desperate shape. There was no Retak Tower, no Target Towers, and no US Bank Tower. The buildings that are now restaurant row were pretty much looking not so good. Once Target committed to moving it's tower south did the people start to invest in these building and build new buildings to support Target. This is why the 2 building north of WCCO TV sat in despair for such a long time. There was never the foot traffic to make these building viable compared to the area of the mall between 8th and 6th. Then an entrepreneur opened the Local in that untested area where nothing seems have much foot traffic. It was a hit and others slowly saw the potential and we now have what we have because of it. No Tyler, tall buildings alone did not bring those people, but tall building filled with jobs and people is what created foot traffic and made it possible for the restaurant row we have on the mall.

The IDS was the epicenter of this city for many years. Why after all these years it is still a premier address and where people will ask how to get to. They can see it and know that it is a destination. That is the Hub of the Mall. That is why you need an Icon at the north end of the mall to draw people to that big tall gleaming building. Why the CM's and architects and developers have to do there best job to increase the number of people at that end of the mall. Target and US Bank are the south end generators of foot traffic. The IDS and Macy's are the center draw. This is why we need for the City Center to have a kick@ss exterior renovation to help create more of a retail draw to the Mall's street level. The Gateway Block will be the pedestrian generator as well as the Ritz block for the north section. You need to have all of the components to create foot traffic. Office space for daily workers, Hotels for weekend tourists and business people in town for business, and residential for people living in the area to help support the businesses that are going to set up in this area for an 18 hour day on the mall.

This is why the Duval project get's the most points with me. It is 3 separate projects that happen to be stack on top of each other. Really you have 4 with the street level with it's retail, restaurants, and TV/Radio studio. You have a manageable office component. It is not 600 thousand SF component, but it will be part of a new signature address and will not swamp the city with a lot of extra square footage.. You will have a Hotel for business people and tourists that is not that far from the LRT stations compared to many other hotels here in the city. Last but not least you will have residential that will have some of the best views in the Midwest. You will be able to see the Capital and St. Paul, the Mississippi river and the Falls, the view of the lakes in any part of the city all from your window. Each of the 3 parts are not huge so they will not overwhelm the supply side of things. But put together they create a large catalyst for future development and appreciation around it. It becomes a magnet to draw other development to other areas near by. The north Loop, the Mill District, DTE can feed off of that growth. Just like the original catalyst, the IDS, did some 50 years ago.

You can call me crazy, but I have just laid out a no brainer for why this needs all of these components if we want to make the north end of the mall a destination. This has nothing to do with it being the tallest, sleekest, or whatever building. It has to do with getting as large of a concentration of people into that area from 7am to 10pm. This means office workers, Hotel customers, and residents. You are not going to energize that end of the mall with night time residents or hotel patrons alone. You need people in there 15 hours a day like there is on the south and central parts of the mall.

I'd like to hear what others think of this, because all I have heard is people dealing with looks and not what is actually going to needed to be happening for ANY plan to work. This is why I'm very worried about the Ritz block as there is no office component to help with the bring people into the area from 8 to 5. It can not be a bedroom block and us having an energized north mall. The better the north end of the mall the more desirable other office space is along Washington near that end of the mall. Your tax base grows due to increased office rates on what are some first class building that are just outside of the real value core and being in a more desirable area. If we increase the circumference of that value core to include the north mall it is better for everyone.

[David Greene]

Excellent writeup, Wedgeguy!

[kirby96]

I hear a lot of talk (here and in the press) about how the market probably 'can't support' the Duval proposal. But I find it hard to believe that any real analysis would support that conclusion. I'm not inclined to do the actual match right now, but think of all the square footage of all types added/planned for downtown right now (and this would be a mixed use building). There's 4Marq, Nic on 5th recently, the Wells Fargo tower, Latitude, Xcel Energy, Hampton Inn, etc., etc., etc..

With the small footprint (and thus less efficient floorplates), I think the 80 story proposal probably isn't all that much more useable area than say, 4Marq and Nic on 5th together is it? And considering it's competition is squatter 30 story buildings, it's really only like adding one more such project. In the grand scheme I would guess that's probably less than a 10% increase in total coming on/planned/recently completed usable space over what would exist with the other options. If an extra 10% or so would glut the market, we are pretty close to being done with the recent boom anyways (which would make any of these proposals which are years out unlikely).

[Record Machine]

For those of you calling for something more iconic, are there any relatively recent examples you can point to as high water marks? I'm fairly new to this world and would love to know what we're shooting for here.

[Wedgeguy]

For those of you calling for something more iconic, are there any relatively recent examples you can point to as high water marks? I'm fairly new to this world and would love to know what we're shooting for here.

For this project it would be the largest concentration of people that we can get into that small area that can generate a lot of foot traffic.

As has been brought up before. None of the 3 components are huge where they would over whelm us. It might mean some less suitable projects don't get funded as they don't feel they would have a chance against a building like this. No 600K SF office section, no 500 hotel rooms, no 600 residential unit. I see all as manageable piece to a puzzle that will fit nicely.

[John]

The other projects could be anywhere downtown. It is too bad we could not do all 4. The Duval project would be fantastic here and the other 3 would make great in-fill.

Yes! And may I suggest sites that are more appropriate for those other 3 proposals: Nicollet and Fifth, The Portland Block, Kraus and Anderson, Hampton Inn, 222 Hennepin, The Eclipse site!

[Tyler]

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about wedgeguy. You stated

Why I'm for the height is it will be the visual calling card to draw people to that end of the mall

This is the quote I responded to.

And now, among other things, you've stated

I have just laid out a no brainer for why this needs all of these components if we want to make the north end of the mall a destination. This has nothing to do with it being the tallest, sleekest, or whatever building. It has to do with getting as large of a concentration of people into that area from 7am to 10pm.

Which I completely agree with.

But I still see no evidence tall buildings visually draw people to a certain location in an urban environment. Of all the awesome urban places I've visited none are defined by a tall building.

[go4guy]

I will say that every time I have been to Michigan Ave, I have specifically walked to the north end, where there isn't much but the Hancock Tower.

Same with the Empire State Building. Not sure there is much else around it, but I went there because it's such a tall and iconic building

[Aville_37]

Again, while also a fan of the Duval proposal - people keep referring to the atrium as having the potential to be as successful as the Crystal Court. The IDS and Crystal Court, however, are basically located in and connect the city core and owe much of their success to that fact. The Duval atrium, however, will only be connected by one skyway and will be far outside the city core. To be successful - it needs to focus on its street presence and activating the immediate area around it - not drawing people inside an atrium.

[Tyler]

I will say that every time I have been to Michigan Ave, I have specifically walked to the north end, where there isn't much but the Hancock Tower.
Same with the Empire State Building. Not sure there is much else around it, but I went there because it's such a tall and iconic building

Sorry, but those buildings kind of prove my point.

[Aville_37]

The Hancock has retail/dining at its base as well as an observation deck. The Empire State Building IS iconic and also allows access to an observation deck. PUBLIC access.

[John]

Of all the awesome urban places I've visited none are defined by a tall building.

Its not to define the whole city but be a placemaker and create a strong identity for the north end of Nicollet Mall, which only Duval's proposal comes even close to achieving. I've also traveled to many many awesome cities. Believe me, having the last several blocks of Nicollet Mall lined with 30 story rentals with a Starbucks fronting Nicollet Mall is not going to be "awesome".

[Tyler]

The Hancock has retail/dining at its base as well as an observation deck. The Empire State Building IS iconic and also allows access to an observation deck. PUBLIC access.

Huh? Are you sure you're following the conversation here?

[Tyler]

Of all the awesome urban places I've visited none are defined by a tall building.

Its not to define the whole city but be a placemaker and create a strong identity for the north end of Nicollet Mall, which only Duval's proposal comes even close to achieving. I've also traveled to many many awesome cities. Believe me, having the last several blocks of Nicollet Mall lined with 30 story rentals with a Starbucks fronting Nicollet Mall is not going to be "awesome".

Thanks John. Totally relevant points. I'll think about not being so pro-Starbucks in the future.

[Andrew_F]

But I still see no evidence tall buildings visually draw people to a certain location in an urban environment.

I will say that every time I have been to Michigan Ave, I have specifically walked to the north end, where there isn't much but the Hancock Tower.

Sorry, but those buildings kind of prove my point.

What? How does the Hancock Center support your point that tall buildings do not visually draw foot traffic? I think it's very hard to walk down Michigan and not be drawn towards the Hancock from a half mile or more away. The Duval proposal and the Hancock really have a lot in common. Hancock is mixed residential/office, and was by far the tallest building in the area when it was built. Obviously the Duval proposal isn't as iconic, nor is Nicollet the same environment as Michigan (thank god), but I do think there is evidence that iconic buildings draw more street traffic than what one would expect for their density. This applies to the IDS, and I think it would apply to the Duval proposal.

I may have missed it, but I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone excited about Perkins + Will in this thread. That gives me huge hope for the base being laid out for successful retail, as well as properly respecting the library.

[min-chi-cbus]

For the person/people questioning the level of demand for certain space types, remember this: for the better part of 15 years downtown Minneapolis has seen relatively little in the way of new construction (especially office and retail construction) and there's a backlog of tenants who are looking to expand, consolidate, or relocate due to expiring leases.

When it comes to residential units, the metro area as a whole saw relatively little new construction (supply) over the past 8 years since the start of the Recession, and as the metro continues to chug along at a modest growth rate of about 1% population increase per year, demand (new people) is outpacing supply (new housing), as evidenced by generally-rising housing costs and very low rental vacancies (<3% metro-wide, I believe). At the same time, people are less risk tolerant than ever before due to the Recession and fallout with big banks, and as a result have become more willing to rent than anytime in the recent past. Finally, the aging Baby Boom population coupled with the ever-growing population of Millennials who live on their own are starting to prefer core living to the suburban lifestyle, meaning much of the new housing supply is being built within the core of the metro in cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park and Bloomington, for example.

Those are just the macro forces at work, which impact most cities across the country and even worldwide. Within the MSP marketplace, ours is one with one of THE lowest percentages of rental housing relative to owner-occupied housing in the nation, so it could be argued that the market was already under-supplied prior to the Recession (again, looking at market vacancy rates as one indicator). The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are both relatively compact and urban compared to many cities, especially in the South/Southwest, and we have good preexisting infrastructure to support denser forms of redevelopment like multifamily housing. We're also expanding our mass transit network to reach more people and more places, and redevelopment seems to follow in the wake of expanded mass transit -- especially rail transit. Also, the demographics of our population growth are largely made up of immigrants, lower-income families from neighboring Midwest states, and younger educated transplants from around the nation -- all three rent more often compared to other population subsets, such as middle-income families. The cities and inner-ring suburbs here also have some very good public schools, especially compared to most core cities around the nation, making it easier for those people with children to consider relocating to the core vs. staying in the suburbs (whether they chose to rent or buy housing, it puts pressure on total supply). Finally, the Twin Cities has a very diverse and heavily-concentrated employment pool, making it one of the better places in the country to a.) get employed, b.) afford to live in, and c.) enjoy regional amenities, especially for the cost. It's also one of the few places in the country where the centers of commerce, education and politics are all concentrated in the same region (others include Denver and Atlanta, for ex.). So between the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, there's the State Capitol, the U of Minn, and both downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul -- not to mention Bloomington and the MOA -- where FIRE and STEM jobs are heavily concentrated.

In short, both macro and micro/regional forces seem to be feeding the current (and future) redevelopment boom in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, and I for one do not see any imminent end in sight.

[Tyler]

What? How does the Hancock Center support your point that tall buildings do not visually draw foot traffic? I think it's very hard to walk down Michigan and not be drawn towards the Hancock from a half mile or more away.

I'd submit that the Cheesecake Factory draws more people to the Hancock center than its tall building magnetism.

but I do think there is evidence that iconic buildings draw more street traffic than what one would expect for their density.

Where? I'd be happily proven wrong.

[LakeCharles]

I'd submit that the Cheesecake Factory draws more people to the Hancock center than its tall building magnetism.

I think you are wrong on the Hancock Center. It is an easy visual guide for where you might want to go. If there was a Cheesecake Factory 2 blocks north of the Hancock Center, it wouldn't draw as many people, and whatever restaurant was in it's place would draw a lot.

That doesn't negate your larger point, and I don't know whether I agree with you or not, but I think large buildings can certainly draw people to them. Do we need that on this block? Would an active streetscape draw them anyway? All good questions, but I don't think you can keep pretending that people aren't drawn to large buildings.

[nordeast homer]

I can say that I have gone to the John Hancock tower simply because it was such a unique building and I wanted to see the observation deck. (and I did NOT go the Cheesecake Factory while I was there).