RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[talindsay]

We don't even know a height yet. But height shouldn't constitute whether it's *WORD NOT FOUND* or not. I used to think that sometimes too. This could be the start of a new gateway path to the river. Also isn't it already *WORD NOT FOUND*? We're arguing about it being so, so it must be a bit of an icon

Grant, you're going to *OWN* poststructuralism when you encounter it in college. This is a good post.

[Munch'n]

We don't even know a height yet. But height shouldn't constitute whether it's *WORD NOT FOUND* or not. I used to think that sometimes too. This could be the start of a new gateway path to the river. Also isn't it already *WORD NOT FOUND*? We're arguing about it being so, so it must be a bit of an icon

To me the lighting feature is what makes this *WORD NOT FOUND* material. The street level appeal of the LED feature would be absolutely stunning.

[mog]

Well that's not true, you've been posting the same thing in this thread since October (page 3) and every few pages since.

Moving on...

That's a pretty high purchase price, especially considering all of the quasi-public extras they have to include for "free" (huge plaza, streetcar accommodations, etc.)

Anyone know from the RFP or from United's agreement if they are also on the hook to pay for skyway connection (later of course, when the library actually connects to something)

I find this hilarious. Everyone on this site repeats themselves. If being repetitive is grounds for having your post deleted, there should be a lot more deleting going on.

[Munch'n]

there should be a lot more deleting going on.

O god no.

[Lancestar2]

Well that's not true, you've been posting the same thing in this thread since October (page 3) and every few pages since.

Moving on...

That's a pretty high purchase price, especially considering all of the quasi-public extras they have to include for "free" (huge plaza, streetcar accommodations, etc.)

Anyone know from the RFP or from United's agreement if they are also on the hook to pay for skyway connection (later of course, when the library actually connects to something)

I find this hilarious. Everyone on this site repeats themselves. If being repetitive is grounds for having your post deleted, there should be a lot more deleting going on.

Perhaps we all need to be more respectful and acknowledge that others are still at different stages in the grieving process of the 80 floor proposal on the Nicollet block.

Just to review the stages of grieving a loss are as followed

1. Denial

Hope city staff is transparent about what they found lacking. Hope there was a dialog offered for Duval to show his cards as clear as business would let him.

2. Anger

This is an embarrassment to the city no matter who is at fault. I really can't take another generic apartment tower on the most important block in the city. I was really high on Jacob Frey before this too. Just last night while introducing the riverfront partnership he talked about a future scenario about walking to the riverfront starting at the Nicollet hotel block 40 stories up.

3. Bargaining

Sure Duval can build it elsewhere, but for this block the city requested *WORD NOT FOUND* and we're getting infill. The opportunity cost is huge.

4. Depression

^The letter to Mr. Duval pretty clearly lays out that he provided next to no details about his proposal, financials, or anything of the sort, even after the city gave a chance for follow up.

This was Mr. Duval's to lose. And he lost it.

5. Acceptance

Let's just admit that we'll never get a new tallest tower here as the local developers don't have the expertise or finances to built it and the city will block all competition from outside.

...and after reaching step 5 you are free to continue the process by complaining, complaining and complaining until people stop reading what you say... it's the American free speech rights that convinces everyone that they need voice each negative thought that they can come up with to spread the negative viewpoint until everyone agrees with them.

[Aville_37]

Wish the Twin Cities had something like this... http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/

I like this site for being a central site to find/post the latest development news/ images, etc. and to read other's creative ideas about design issues for the cities, but honestly the immaturity and lack of civility on here is embarrassing at times.

[Silophant]

This seems kinda similar.

[Munch'n]

Wish the Twin Cities had something like this... http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/

I like this site for being a central site to find/post the latest development news/ images, etc. and to read other's creative ideas about design issues for the cities, but honestly the immaturity and lack of civility on here is embarrassing at times.

This website looks cool.

http://www.thedevelopmenttracker.com/th ... nneapolis/

[David Greene]

I hate anonymous blogs.

[FISHMANPET]

That is an awful lot of information to remain totally anonymous. Kind of weird actually. But impressive nonetheless.

[Archiapolis]

Well that's not true, you've been posting the same thing in this thread since October (page 3) and every few pages since.

Moving on...

That's a pretty high purchase price, especially considering all of the quasi-public extras they have to include for "free" (huge plaza, streetcar accommodations, etc.)

Anyone know from the RFP or from United's agreement if they are also on the hook to pay for skyway connection (later of course, when the library actually connects to something)

I find this hilarious. Everyone on this site repeats themselves. If being repetitive is grounds for having your post deleted, there should be a lot more deleting going on.

Perhaps we all need to be more respectful and acknowledge that others are still at different stages in the grieving process of the 80 floor proposal on the Nicollet block.

Just to review the stages of grieving a loss are as followed


...and after reaching step 5 you are free to continue the process by complaining, complaining and complaining until people stop reading what you say... it's the American free speech rights that convinces everyone that they need voice each negative thought that they can come up with to spread the negative viewpoint until everyone agrees with them.

One of the biggest disconnects on this site is that there is a group that knows about/cares about architecture and a group that knows about/cares about streets. Sometimes there is crossover, often there isn't. This site is a case of the latter where the "streets" folks tendency to "not care" what happens above street level is clashing with some of the "architecture" folks who want to see a phallus. Sprinkle in provincial pride and the desire to make this a "world-class" city and some misleading language in an RFP and *presto*!

Disclaimer: I'm an architect and wanted this site to be...a park! I was hoping for Nicollet Mall to be bookended by special parks and that this site had the opportunity to introduce some connectivity to the river...Now that those hopes are dashed, my next hope is that something meaningful and of high quality gets built here. It isn't possible to evaluate what UP intends to do at this site because their "proposal" was merely a framework or "proto-architecture", not a real building. I've been in many a room like this. The developer works like crazy to get their pro forma settled and then at the 11th hour says, "Hey architect, we need x number of units stacked into this site somehow and also, make the streetscape appealing (more people and trees in the renderings!) so we can get approved/win the RFP. We'll worry about the building later, this phase is all about the deal. Period."

[John]

Thanks for your excellent comments Archiapolis. Really a great urban building needs to work on many different levels simultaneously. It needs to both relate the street level ( and pedestrian), be visually interesting, work well for it's users. contributes to the character of the community, etc. It's about looking at urban design holistically rather than approaching it from a dualistic viewpoint that one thing is more important than the other. I do believe United' s proposal will be scrutinized quite closely by the Planning Commission, and council members Mr Frey and Lisa Goodman in particular are pretty passionate that United make this high quality that lives up to it's promise. So there is some hope here!

[DFPegg]

This website looks cool.

http://www.thedevelopmenttracker.com/th ... nneapolis/

When I first looked at the name I read it as: The Development Attacker, and thought it was another MRRDC-type site.

Is this the site Illogicaljake was creating?

[Lancestar2]

One of the biggest disconnects on this site is that there is a group that knows about/cares about architecture and a group that knows about/cares about streets. Sometimes there is crossover, often there isn't. This site is a case of the latter where the "streets" folks tendency to "not care" what happens above street level is clashing with some of the "architecture" folks who want to see a phallus. Sprinkle in provincial pride and the desire to make this a "world-class" city and some misleading language in an RFP and *presto*!

Disclaimer: I'm an architect and wanted this site to be...a park! I was hoping for Nicollet Mall to be bookended by special parks and that this site had the opportunity to introduce some connectivity to the river...Now that those hopes are dashed, my next hope is that something meaningful and of high quality gets built here. It isn't possible to evaluate what UP intends to do at this site because their "proposal" was merely a framework or "proto-architecture", not a real building. I've been in many a room like this. The developer works like crazy to get their pro forma settled and then at the 11th hour says, "Hey architect, we need x number of units stacked into this site somehow and also, make the streetscape appealing (more people and trees in the renderings!) so we can get approved/win the RFP. We'll worry about the building later, this phase is all about the deal. Period."

you left out the part where the developer needs to make a s***load of money! ...the city requested 20+ floors not 30+ or even 80+ floors. Regarding density lets not confuse the FACTS

Duval (which everyone claims is iconic-ish enough) Would have 220 Housing Units 250 Hotel rooms, and 183 above ground parking stalls while UP 300 Housing Units, and 182 Hotel rooms, and 0 above ground parking stalls. Just because somebody disagrees with your logic on what the developer should be forced to built does not mean they don't care about what they build above the first floor.

UP will have no parking podium, will have 12 more housing and hotel units, will have a modern design that looks appealing and blends well into area, and should make the developer a s***load of money! ...so the developer will have an incentive to get it done!

This block will have park elements (sadly not a connected park that ties in well with the other blocks) and will increase density and have a unique design. What specifically are you complaining about? The design is it not architecturally appealing (pretty ) enough for this location? Is that what you are not saying? If you want to complain then by all means complain just have a specific point in which you are complaining so I can judge it to see if you have a persuasive argument, or if nothing sticks.

What would make you happy on this block? A park was your 1st choice but it sounds like you would be happy with a building of substance correct? Can you define what that would look like to make you satisfied with this block?

[Archiapolis]

One of the biggest disconnects on this site is that there is a group that knows about/cares about architecture and a group that knows about/cares about streets. Sometimes there is crossover, often there isn't. This site is a case of the latter where the "streets" folks tendency to "not care" what happens above street level is clashing with some of the "architecture" folks who want to see a phallus. Sprinkle in provincial pride and the desire to make this a "world-class" city and some misleading language in an RFP and *presto*!

Disclaimer: I'm an architect and wanted this site to be...a park! I was hoping for Nicollet Mall to be bookended by special parks and that this site had the opportunity to introduce some connectivity to the river...Now that those hopes are dashed, my next hope is that something meaningful and of high quality gets built here. It isn't possible to evaluate what UP intends to do at this site because their "proposal" was merely a framework or "proto-architecture", not a real building. I've been in many a room like this. The developer works like crazy to get their pro forma settled and then at the 11th hour says, "Hey architect, we need x number of units stacked into this site somehow and also, make the streetscape appealing (more people and trees in the renderings!) so we can get approved/win the RFP. We'll worry about the building later, this phase is all about the deal. Period."

you left out the part where the developer needs to make a s***load of money! ...the city requested 20+ floors not 30+ or even 80+ floors. Regarding density lets not confuse the FACTS

UP would NOT be involved if there wasn’t a sh1tload of money to be made. The Pohlad’s didn’t get to where they are by making bad business deals.

Duval (which everyone claims is iconic-ish enough) Would have 220 Housing Units 250 Hotel rooms, and 183 above ground parking stalls while UP 300 Housing Units, and 182 Hotel rooms, and 0 above ground parking stalls. Just because somebody disagrees with your logic on what the developer should be forced to built does not mean they don't care about what they build above the first floor.

I was making a point about what the developers should be forced to build? It must be in the subtext that you are reading into because I was making no such point. As for the comment that “ *they* don’t care about what they build above the first floor”, perhaps a little bit of parsing is in order here. My comment is that POSTERS to this forum tend to fall into two camps - those that care about streets and those that care about buildings/architecture. Of course there is intermingling but the point that I was trying to make is that people crying for height/ic0nic status/etc appear to fall into the category of those that care more about buildings and this group isn’t so focused on what is happening at the street or the numbers. The “streets/urbanism” crowd cares more about the ground level and numbers (of tenants, hotel keys and retail square footage). Having spent a lot of time in the “market driven” development world, I can tell you DEFINITIVELY that the developer “[doesn’t] care about what they build” - full stop. Developers want to build the cheapest project that they can get approved with the most rentable square footage. Period. This isn’t an “anti-capitalism” rant, this is just a fact and anyone who tells you otherwise is either a developer or working for/with a developer to get projects approved. The market is what it is and I have nothing against people getting rich BUT, “the city” [everyone who ISN’T the developer] also has a say and if “we” care, then we should pushback on things that we don’t like.

UP will have no parking podium, will have 12 more housing and hotel units, will have a modern design that looks appealing and blends well into area, and should make the developer a s***load of money! ...so the developer will have an incentive to get it done!

Parking Podium: Apologies but I’ve not meticulously studied each proposal. Having said that, I’ll be REALLY interested to see them get 1:1 parking for 300 housing units and 182 hotel rooms below ground knowing what I know about the water table in this area and the expense of going deeply into the ground. Perhaps they are getting around the 1:1 parking requirement, as I said, I haven’t seen their parking plates or the matrices for the project. Above ground parking can be well done so it isn’t a matter of having it or not having it that makes a good building/project.

Design: First, there are reasons why most of the shots focus on the ground level which I illuminated in my original post (“more trees, more smiling people!”). I know all of the tricks for getting projects approved. At this stage, what “the tower” looks like is meaningless so to see you write that it will “have a modern design that looks appealing and blends well into the area” holds no water. The “design” is so schematic at this point that it doesn’t matter what it looks like. Write more after Planning Commission and CoW meetings as the building takes shape and by “takes shape” I mean, gets more cement fiberboard cladding and less glass. Simply put, it is impossible to evaluate this building but AS PROPOSED the Duval proposal was a better building. In fairness to you, there were no assurances that project would be built as proposed but what we *can* say is that it expressed a complete building, not just glass, floor plates and lights.

“A sh1tload of money”: See “cement fiberboard cladding” above. The developers ONLY concern is making money, and not doing one jot more than is necessary to get the project approved.

This block will have park elements (sadly not a connected park that ties in well with the other blocks) and will increase density and have a unique design. What specifically are you complaining about? The design is it not architecturally appealing (pretty ) enough for this location? Is that what you are not saying? If you want to complain then by all means complain just have a specific point in which you are complaining so I can judge it to see if you have a persuasive argument, or if nothing sticks.

Emphasis on “park-like” and “not connected.” Again, my apologies for not exhaustively pouring over the proposal but is there anything there stating explicitly what will be “common” (to ANYONE) and what will be “private” in this “park-like” space? Sorry if I appear jaded but my experience has been that developers love to make things look attractive to get approved but ALSO love to hold as much square footage as “amenity” for their tenants and provide as little as possible to the unwashed masses for free. Let’s see what this looks like at Planning Commission and CoW. Case in point, in the aerial image, the proposal “grays out” much of the context but the park across Nicollet is shown in all of its green splendor, the trees in front of the Yamasaki building are in full bloom and there is a nice green space across Hennepin that Stanton surely intends to leave as green space for the enjoyment of the UP tenants.

I am excited about the density. It is impossible to evaluate whether or not the design will be unique.

As for what I am complaining about, I wasn’t aware that I was complaining because (as I keep belaboring) this proposal is “proto-architecture”, nothing more. However, if you want to argue (and judging by your “eye rolling”, you do) let me ask you what local developer has done a “unique” (your words describing this proposal) project in this town? I offer the complaints up and down this forum about multi-family housing “looking the same” and “being bland” and so on ad infinitum. If the complaints offered here aren’t enough, perhaps the Dean of the College of Design and his recent comments in the Strib will add the necessary gravitas. Last question, you feel that this project is going to have a “unique design” but in an earlier bit, you wrote, “… [it] will have a modern design that looks appealing and blends well into area” how exactly does this design do that? By your comments, you feel that this project is going to be “unique”, “modern” and also “blend well” into an area with a mid-century “starchitect” building to the north (commercial office), a contemporary master to the south (public library), bounded by two major streets and kitty-corner from developer driven mediocrity. Let me continue the eye-rolling and say that you must not be interested in the architectural theory of “critical regionalism.” You should check it out.

What would make you happy on this block? A park was your 1st choice but it sounds like you would be happy with a building of substance correct? Can you define what that would look like to make you satisfied with this block?

I guess my only complaint is that this won’t be a park - the neighborhood needs one. I would like a building of substance and I can define what that would be but what is the point? This is the project that got approved - the focus should be on pushing UP to make this building the best that it can be. Finally, please don’t confuse me with others who are clawing their eyes out because the Duval proposal got refused. I *did* like it better but art can be subjective and it doesn’t matter what I think. The Duval proposal didn’t work out and the city took a better deal - I’m fine with that. However, I am excited about the addition of density and I want to see this proposal move from a schematic box to an actual building. Best of luck to the architects.

[FISHMANPET]

FYI there's no parking minimum downtown. I don't recall what the parking situation is, but there's no requirement to get around, the legal requirement is zero.

Unless the RFP required something in which case never mind.

[Archiapolis]

FYI there's no parking minimum downtown. I don't recall what the parking situation is, but there's no requirement to get around, the legal requirement is zero.

Unless the RFP required something in which case never mind.

I have yet to see a "market rate" multi-family project that didn't pursue a 1:1 parking ratio.

[twincitizen]

^I was going to say the same. The roadblock to lowered parking requirements is the banks/financiers, not city government (at least in Minneapolis and other parking progressive cities).

Technically speaking, developments have been built (and proposed) with little to no parking, but they happen to be adjacent to or skyway connected to massive parking ramps.

I agree with you that the residential parking proposed on this site seems low, considering the top-of-the-market units. Rich people can and will continue to own cars...they just aren't that expensive to own, especially if you barely drive. Perhaps one car per household instead of one per adult, but there's still a need for enough parking to support those high rents. For the hotel/visitors, there is a massive parking ramp on Hennepin just a block and a half away, along with numerous others in the area. More and more, I suspect most downtown hotel guests will arrive by train or cab, not private car.

[Lancestar2]

I will say that I disagree with you on the parking podium issue. by getting rid of that feature it allows for more 2-6 floor windows that help improve the look from the street level and helps hide parking a bit more with underground only options. When I say it is unique but blends into the community I mean it blends into the community with the height it will be tall but not to short and underwhelming, yet of course it should go without saying it's not overwhelming nor would have been the 80 floor building. You suggest the building is to early to tell on the design as to what it will look like correct? How was the 80 floor proposal different to ensure it was going to look just like that? Was it because it was made mostly out of glass? What is the difference. I also don't study all the plans out there so this is a hobby for myself as well.

I don't disagree with your logic that developers would push just about anything that makes money, yet with rules in place such as keeping them liable for construction failure and the city needs to ensure the building is able to withstand years of usage the city needs to have some standards indeed. For example the Nic on fifth developers planning on building twin buildings I am rather concerned about the related height and styles and designs. Maybe they would be open to building a 20 floor and a 40 floor "twin" towers? something to give a touch of variety IMO. Yet, that is a bit off topic.

Also based on the picture below I do think this project will lack in it's ability to interact with Nicollet and won't be a very good bookend on the street level. Yet, it will have enough height to add a lot of hotel and residential units to the area. The green space is lacking, however I don't see anything that could be so overwhelmingly negative about this project, and

[Nathan]

FYI there's no parking minimum downtown. I don't recall what the parking situation is, but there's no requirement to get around, the legal requirement is zero.

Unless the RFP required something in which case never mind.

I have yet to see a "market rate" multi-family project that didn't pursue a 1:1 parking ratio.

10th and Marquette?