urbanMSP

Last time I checked the best proposal was a park, which would be a complete waste.

I for one am happy to take this useless and speculative thread off topic. Do you really think that Downtown Minneapolis has enough parks? Where do you go to eat your lunch outside?

How is stating that the development of one of the city's most important blocks into a park a useless comment? Honestly, just because YOU want a place to eat your lunch doesn't make my opinion any less relevant. If you or someone else wants to flex your Internet muscles and silence others who don't agree with you, then go ahead and lock the thread -- most of these threads are full of ridiculous posts anyway.

This thread is useless and speculative because we have 3 data points about any development here and they all were played on the first page. Your opinion isn't useless per se but it does seem myopic to me. Many commentators have noticed the lack of parks and greenery in downtown Minneapolis. This is the densest part of the city and it has the least dense park coverage. Parks and the informal social interactions that take place in them are necessary for the social health of a neighborhood. Many would say that they have aesthetic value too, even with minimal design. The onus is on you to back up your opinion that downtown has enough parks.

I don't think he ever said downtown has enough parks. He said it would be a waste for that block. Pretty big difference and nothing to get so worked up about.

This thread is useless and speculative because we have 3 data points about any development here and they all were played on the first page. Your opinion isn't useless per se but it does seem myopic to me. Many commentators have noticed the lack of parks and greenery in downtown Minneapolis. This is the densest part of the city and it has the least dense park coverage. Parks and the informal social interactions that take place in them are necessary for the social health of a neighborhood. Many would say that they have aesthetic value too, even with minimal design. The onus is on you to back up your opinion that downtown has enough parks.

First of all, where did I state that downtown has enough parks?

I agree that more greenery is needed. However, it doesn't need to take up the entirety of one of the city's most important blocks. Downtown has the riverfront and several other parking lots that could be developed into usable green space -- space that will primarily be used during summer months.

I don't think he ever said downtown has enough parks. He said it would be a waste for that block. Pretty big difference and nothing to get so worked up about.

No, he didn't specify that he was talking about this block. And how was I getting "worked up"? I was asking him to clarify his opinion, which this site could use a lot more of.

I agree that more greenery is needed. However, it doesn't need to take up the entirety of one of the city's most important blocks. Downtown has the riverfront and several other parking lots that could be developed into usable green space -- space that will primarily be used during summer months.

So which parking lots would you put a park on in place of this one? Why do you think that parks are only used in the summer?

Sorry to offend everyone's Minnesotanness by challenging someone's opinion.

Just don't call the park a yard.

(Kidding, Woofner.)

I'm by no means advocating a parking lot, but I've always felt that the open space just outside the library was a nice benefit. Using at least some of the western side of that block as a park/plaza seems like it could make some sense.

There's a long view corridor from North 3rd Street to the City Hall clock tower that it would be great to maintain. Also, the atrium at the library is aligned on this same view corridor.

As I recall, some of the comp plan documents officially recognize this as a resource to be protected. You could still build out most of the Ritz block at unlimited height, but it would be great to leave the southern third at a lower height (with perhaps a rocking roof terrace).

That's really cool. Funny how the bend in the Streets allows that to happen.

So, how about a split residential building (above floor 3 or so) with a diagonal roof garden and a tall office building on the SW corner?

This is some exciting news! I hope an unlocked version gets released soon so I can read more about the specs of this project. For everybody who is already bemoaning this project needs to chill. Unless you have seen the render, site plan, and what type of materials will be used just need to relax.

As far as I can tell at least part of this plan involves another 30 story apt tower. Add in another 500k in spec office space that may or may not already have a lead anchor lined up it can be as short as ten stories or be in the shape of a pencil and tower above the nearby apt tower. That will add both day and night time population to an area that seems to be expanding with another project announced it seems almost every month.

If you want to talk about downtown parks there is already a thread for that. One thing we all know is there will not be a park on this block so please take your needs to talk about park space to its dedicated thread. Thank you

https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1514

At the event, they said that it was very conceptual at this point and showed a rendering of a 35 story residential structure. couldn't catch whether it was two towers or if it was one tower with off-set components. looked taller than the nic. either way, i don't give much thought to the rendering because the plan is for a project that is a ways out. sounded like the office component would likely not be delivered for 5 years based on the conversation about when the next spec office building would likely be built, though perhaps it could be faster if it was a built-to-suit.

they talked about how they like how things are going with the nic and implied that the new skyway connections through the nic and xcel would allow the ritz block to have connections to the core

The "new" library was planned for up to three skyway connections. I think it was every neighboring block except this one (since there's a bigger setback to Nicollet).

Is it just me, or does the last slide of this doc show a bigger setback from Nicollet? http://www.nicolletmallproject.com/wp-c ... tation.pdf

It does look like it, but they screwed with the perspective in the rendering so it's really hard to overlay the two and compare.

Is it just me, or does the last slide of this doc show a bigger setback from Nicollet? http://www.nicolletmallproject.com/wp-c ... tation.pdf

The new design adds a curve to Nicollet on this block so they can put a small performance space in front of the library.

All of this looks amazing. If they build even just half of what is on that pdf it will be great.

The "new" library was planned for up to three skyway connections. I think it was every neighboring block except this one (since there's a bigger setback to Nicollet).

No, the Library is set up for a skyway to this block, but not across Hennepin.

Makes sense, since the block across Hennepin is mostly taken up by a building that's not set up for skyway connection. I'd assume the skyway across 4th is expected to go to the current parking lot, not the Xcel building, for that same reason.

^which is also why I'm surprised that the skyway connection northward will be made via the Xcel project rather than via the Mortenson tower's lobby. In a way, it makes sense that it will be "all-Opus" but I can't imagine why Xcel would want skyway traffic in their building.

When I worked in their 414 building, it was very disconnected from the skyway system and I think it was for more reasons than their 5th St setback (they could have connected via the parking ramp if they really wanted). Heck, we were split between 414 and Renaissance Square, and there wasn't a skyway for people to go to meetings. I actually remember walking a few blocks down Nicollet to US Bancorp Plaza for meetings (they had a few floors there). For the past 5+ years, their workforce has been split between 414 and Marquette Plaza, with no skyway between. Yet people still walk between their facilities for meetings. Almost like the Skyways aren't even necessary.

Almost like the Skyways aren't even necessary.

get off it... Lord, there's a whole thread for your personal skyway desires somewhere. clearly the developers and the businesses and the workers and the city (and probably tourists and pleanty of residents) want them or they wouldn't be in the plans

^which is also why I'm surprised that the skyway connection northward will be made via the Xcel project rather than via the Mortenson tower's lobby. In a way, it makes sense that it will be "all-Opus" but I can't imagine why Xcel would want skyway traffic in their building.

I was very, very surprised that Xcel agreed to any connection to the greater skyway system, and never in a million years would have expected an actual public passage through their building to be approved. My guess is that there won't be any doors at all between the skyway corridor and the building proper, and that you'll have to go down to the ground level and past a security desk to get into the offices, and that the cross-Nicollet skyway will either be similar on the 414 side, or up at the third-floor level so you're within building security on both sides.

As far as the skyways not being necessary, of course they're not, in the sense that people will still move around if they aren't there. But, by that standard, mass transit and bike lanes aren't necessary either, but we still think those are good ideas. Since I moved to Marquette Plaza, I haven't gone to a single meeting at 414 where someone hasn't commented about how nice it'll be when we're in buildings with direct skyway access to each other. (Admittedly, those meetings have invariably been on below-zero windchill days.)