Century Plaza / Convention Hotel rumoring (archive)

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby Andrew_F » August 31st, 2012, 3:00 pm

I'm with MNdible here... I would be expecting something around 350 feet.

Still certainly qualifies as "significant height" in Minneapolis.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2254
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby John » August 31st, 2012, 3:12 pm

There are many many urban areas where building horizontally is not feasible. You can only build tall. Minneapolis is a rare exception where we still have the luxury of space. Nasa will hate me for saying this, but some of that has been good because it has allowed all these smaller apartment projects to fill up vacant lots. For most developers who build in dense urban cores worldwide, however, building taller is part of the package and cost of construction. I think some of the issue is also how the project is financed, and the developers reputation and experience in getting the project built within budget. I'm confident a 40+ story building can be built here to be efficient and cost effective if the developer knows what they are doing.

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 704
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby nordeast homer » August 31st, 2012, 3:20 pm

I'd be kind of disappointed if it was only 50 feet taller than the Ivy. Seems to me it might be a little taller if there are that many rooms, but then again they'd be paying the construction costs not me...

nasa35

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby nasa35 » August 31st, 2012, 3:20 pm

John wrote:There are many many urban areas where building horizontally is not feasible. You can only build tall. Minneapolis is a rare exception where we still have the luxury of space. Nasa will hate me for saying this, but some of that has been good because it has allowed all these smaller apartment projects to fill up vacant lots. For most developers who build in dense urban cores worldwide, however, building taller is part of the package and cost of construction. I think some of the issue is also how the project is financed, and the developers reputation and experience in getting the project built within budget. I'm confident a 40+ story building can be built here to be efficient and cost effective if the developer knows what they are doing.
John-

i don't mind infill, I like creativity....we have been building the same six story APT building for about 5 years.

My fingers are crossed that if this build happens it will be a building that draws a look.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5838
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby MNdible » August 31st, 2012, 3:28 pm

John wrote:There are many many urban areas where building horizontally is not feasible. You can only build tall. Minneapolis is a rare exception where we still have the luxury of space.
Perhaps worldwide there are many areas where this is true, but in the US, I'd suggest that there are really only three such places. Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco. Every other city in the country has underused land to spread out in their downtown cores. I know people look at our parking lots in DTE and freak out, and think that there's something wrong with us, but travel around the country a bit -- we're better off than most.

Anyway, we're not talking about building horizontally. We're talking about a building that is over 300' tall. But let's say it's 350' tall -- that would qualify it to be the tallest building in 14 of the 50 states. Unfortunately, it's likely also over 300' wide (on one side, narrower on the other). It's not going to be a point tower.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2254
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby John » August 31st, 2012, 3:47 pm

nasa35 wrote:
John wrote:There are many many urban areas where building horizontally is not feasible. You can only build tall. Minneapolis is a rare exception where we still have the luxury of space. Nasa will hate me for saying this, but some of that has been good because it has allowed all these smaller apartment projects to fill up vacant lots. For most developers who build in dense urban cores worldwide, however, building taller is part of the package and cost of construction. I think some of the issue is also how the project is financed, and the developers reputation and experience in getting the project built within budget. I'm confident a 40+ story building can be built here to be efficient and cost effective if the developer knows what they are doing.
John-

i don't mind infill, I like creativity....we have been building the same six story APT building for about 5 years.

My fingers are crossed that if this build happens it will be a building that draws a look.
I'm in 100% agreement with you we need something different. It's a shame we haven't seen more creatively designed apartment projects go up ( in a city that was once famed for its cutting edge architecture). I'm keeping my fingers crossed they do something bold here.

Minneapolisite

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby Minneapolisite » August 31st, 2012, 4:40 pm

Portland would be up there I'd think: just try and find enough parking lots to count on one hand, it's harder than you'd think.

Aville_37
Union Depot
Posts: 388
Joined: August 28th, 2012, 4:51 am

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby Aville_37 » August 31st, 2012, 4:43 pm

Is no one else upset about losing another older building? I'd rather have the hotel built on a surface parking lot.

612transplant
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 178
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 7:57 am

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby 612transplant » August 31st, 2012, 6:26 pm

MNdible wrote:
John wrote:There are many many urban areas where building horizontally is not feasible. You can only build tall. Minneapolis is a rare exception where we still have the luxury of space.
Perhaps worldwide there are many areas where this is true, but in the US, I'd suggest that there are really only three such places. Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco. Every other city in the country has underused land to spread out in their downtown cores. I know people look at our parking lots in DTE and freak out, and think that there's something wrong with us, but travel around the country a bit -- we're better off than most.

Anyway, we're not talking about building horizontally. We're talking about a building that is over 300' tall. But let's say it's 350' tall -- that would qualify it to be the tallest building in 14 of the 50 states. Unfortunately, it's likely also over 300' wide (on one side, narrower on the other). It's not going to be a point tower.
I'm not so sure about that. Not to get us sidetracked, but if you do a quick bird's eye view of the downtown cores of Boston, Philly, or Pittsburgh, or even Baltimore, Atlanta or Cincy, you'd find that there is not a lot of large, attractive surface parking lots for development downtown like there is in Minneapolis. I walk by the site of PNC's new "green" tower at 5th and Wood in Pittsburgh everyday-- it is an extremely tight plot, and construction equipment consequently pours out well into the street. Building the same square footage at half the height anywhere in downtown Pittsburgh would be absolutely impossible.

Now, I agree that Minneapolis is not by any means the only city with space conducive to building "out," instead of "up." But we are most definitely one of the poster children....

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5838
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby MNdible » August 31st, 2012, 11:06 pm

So, I looked around on Google, and I'll stand by my statement (which wasn't that Minneapolis was the 4th best city in this regard, rather that there are few American cities where land is at such a premium to drive the economics of small footprint towers). (Cincinnati seems a strange choice to reference, because it appears to have a shocking amount of underused land).

612transplant
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 178
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 7:57 am

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby 612transplant » September 1st, 2012, 2:11 am

You're more than entitled to your opinion, even if I'm not sure how you got it.

Pittsburgh only has three surface level parking lots available downtown for development-- one on Grant, one on 4th, one behind the Human Services Bldg. by 1st Ave. Cincy I admit has more, but not nearly to the degree of Minneapolis.

Remember that #1: downtown Pittsburgh has approximately the same square footage of office space as downtown Minneapolis on about half of the geographic footprint, and #2: there are a number of blocks split between 2-4 low or mid-rises that are difficult to develop, because they are split between different ownership groups. There is nowhere near the advantage of building out there that there is in Minneapolis. In order to justify obtaining a full city block for redevelopment in downtown Pittsburgh (the blocks are so small that skyscrapers rarely share them), you would *have* to be willing to build upwards.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5838
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby MNdible » September 1st, 2012, 11:36 am

At this point, we're badly off topic, and mostly just arguing about semantics. Pittsburgh has a very impressive, dense downtown, as do a number of other US cities besides the big three. My intent was not to defame them.

Carry on.

Minneapolisite

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby Minneapolisite » September 1st, 2012, 2:49 pm

Aville_37 wrote:Is no one else upset about losing another older building? I'd rather have the hotel built on a surface parking lot.
I'm thinking yes, but maybe it's expected? We could have two perfectly functional buildings with the added bonus that one is Art Deco or have just one in place of the other: no Art Deco :( . Guess arithmetic isn't their strength. In this economy it's a really stupid idea to go with the latter when you don't have to. Could have an UrbanMSP bar hop and stop at the meeting about this unnecessary demolition along the way to make members less Minnesota nice when speaking with the county commissioners. Well, it sounds fun to me.

612transplant
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 178
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 7:57 am

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby 612transplant » September 1st, 2012, 3:23 pm

MNdible wrote:At this point, we're badly off topic, and mostly just arguing about semantics. Pittsburgh has a very impressive, dense downtown, as do a number of other US cities besides the big three. My intent was not to defame them.

Carry on.
Sorry :|

Didn't mean to get us so sidetracked.

Anyway, I was thinking about typical 4 or 5 stars I've stayed at. I'd say they typically put about 25 rooms per floor in those, but of course it varies with bigger suites/en-suites. Just figuring that, we're at 40 stories. At maybe 11 foot ceilings, we're at 440', plus maybe a lobby with 15' ceiling? If it's thirty rooms per floor, we'd be at just under 400', I imagine.

This of course is all really fuzzy conjecture. Somebody that knows more about the square footage of this site than I probably knows better. I also understand that this is a larger-than-average Minneapolis block. Plus, most of the good hotels I've stayed at have been of the "tall and slender" variety...

On a totally unrelated note, yes: they totally need to restore/preserve that facade. Maybe Ivy's integration of the old tower will serve as inspiration? The two are only about a block apart, right? How cool would it be to have two large hotels with historic architecture integrated into the design right by each other....

sushisimo
Landmark Center
Posts: 232
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 3:47 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby sushisimo » September 1st, 2012, 6:26 pm

MNdible wrote: Perhaps worldwide there are many areas where this is true, but in the US, I'd suggest that there are really only three such places. Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco.
I think this is because of geography. All three of those cities have water restraints on them. We do not, and, have two central cities. I'm actually surprised downtown Minneapolis is as dense as it is. That said, I don't see why this hotel will automatically be a huge, squatty turd. Just don't build another Grant Park tower and I'm fine.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3946
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby seanrichardryan » September 1st, 2012, 7:43 pm

The base will have to fill the whole block in order to make large continuous ballroom space with ample service areas. I would expect 4 or 5 stories of that. After that it's fair game to the shape of the floors.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2254
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby John » September 1st, 2012, 8:55 pm

Austin Texas is building a 1000 room convention center hotel of 50 stories. Its not the greatest design, but it looks a heck of a lot better than our Hilton! lol!
Image

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2254
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby John » September 1st, 2012, 9:03 pm

Hello Minneapolis and welcome to the 21st century! This is a 50 story "green" hotel going up next to the Sears Tower in Chicago. Wouldn't that be something if our environmentally progressive city built a "green" convention center hotel!
Image
Last edited by John on September 1st, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Le Sueur
Landmark Center
Posts: 272
Joined: June 5th, 2012, 3:30 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby Le Sueur » September 1st, 2012, 9:26 pm

Business Hotel and Green Space? I'd take that. Reading about some of the LEED buildings in NYC like the new BoA tower, it seems like design is generally improved when a developer goes green.

I'm still partial to this one though http://www.stolaf.edu/news/index.cfm?fu ... ls&id=4767. It's no 400' convention hotel but they did manage to get a LEED platinum on a power hungry science center.

TroyGBiv
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 630
Joined: July 6th, 2012, 10:33 pm

Re: 330 South 12th

Postby TroyGBiv » September 2nd, 2012, 12:28 am

I worked in the Piper Jaffray now Campbell Mithun Tower - the surface parking lot immediately south is almost completely undeveloped - a small apartment building and the League of Catholic Women are mid block on 9th Street. That block has a few owners and has been kicked around for at least 20 years... At this point - the market is shifting again to mixed use buildings (more internationally, but more common here now that the economy is triggering new buildings). It might be more likely that the convention hotel will need significant underground parking, substantial meeting space for conventions, smaller conferences, formal events etc. Additionally putting residences (either apartments or "hotel condos") in hotel projects will likely continue here as we see new buildings proposed. It would not be unthinkable to have a full lot development on a block like the site between 3rd and 2nd Avenues and 9th and 10th Streets be multi-use. Meet Minneapolis is wanting the next major hotel to be very close to the convention center (like a block or maybe 2) - they have said that competitively centers across the country are expanding the other amenities to make the destination more attractive.

My guess is that any developer wants a cleared site with only one or maybe a couple lot owners and is a full block. They are going to want the city to cough up a lot for the underground ramp (think of almost any building in the city built in the last decade or 2...)... The challenge may be some of the new shifting forcus on the DTE/New Vikings Stadium area. That is quickly moving up in terms of city priorities... They don't want to see a Metrodome 2.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests