Washington Square - 20, 100, 111 Washington Avenue S

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 1st, 2016, 1:00 pm

ARTchitecture....the word is (almost) in the name.....I rest my case!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7929
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby mattaudio » September 1st, 2016, 1:24 pm

archiTORTURE. I rest my case!

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4289
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby grant1simons2 » September 1st, 2016, 1:56 pm

Delete your account

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3934
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby seanrichardryan » September 1st, 2016, 1:59 pm

The temple of Nimes could be picked up and moved back onto that silly surface lot, thus opening Nicollet to bridge square again.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby EOst » September 1st, 2016, 5:49 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:Here's a stab:
(visual) Art is something created primarily for it's aesthetic value, not for its function.
I don't think that works. First of all, of course, "aesthetics" is a function. But even then you can name plenty of things that are obviously art but are also meant to serve a practical function. Think of a floor mosaic, or a sculptural fountain.

beige_box
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 104
Joined: April 24th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby beige_box » September 3rd, 2016, 3:27 pm

Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.

That said, it's laughable that anyone who claims to care about the "function" of the built environment would do so to defend the addition of a coffee shop to an office building. Much of what, in certain circles, passes for the quote-unquote "urban" "function" of a structure amounts to little more than an à-la-mode preference for certain setback distances and exterior siding materials–in other words, for certain aesthetic/cosmetic features. Yes, these can serve practical ends from the perspective of developers, landlords and other stakeholders in terms of the subjective desirability of a building vis-à-vis tenants/clients/etc with big discretionary budgets, but those considerations are only "functional" insofar as real estate, as an institution, is and has always been a fetishization of exchange-value over use-value.

If anyone really cared about the "function" of the built environment, we would be talking about how to urgently address homelessness and the affordable housing crisis in Minneapolis, not whether or not office workers get to have Urban™ simulated for them when they go to purchase the caffeine they require to meet their productivity quotas.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3806
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby Silophant » September 3rd, 2016, 3:36 pm

K.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby EOst » September 3rd, 2016, 4:08 pm

beige_box wrote:Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.
I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.

beige_box
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 104
Joined: April 24th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby beige_box » September 3rd, 2016, 4:16 pm

What I REALLY want to know is whether or not coffee is an art form.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4759
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: RE: Re: Washington Avenue

Postby David Greene » September 3rd, 2016, 10:22 pm

mattaudio wrote:Buildings are not art.
That's just ridiculous.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 121
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » September 4th, 2016, 4:08 am

EOst wrote:I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.
There's a place over by 27th and Hennepin whose owners and employees probably agree with you. (And likely think coffee is an art form, also too). :lol:

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby Archiapolis » September 6th, 2016, 7:12 am

UrsusUrbanicus wrote:
EOst wrote:I'm pretty sure it's still art even when it's a fetishistic imposition.
There's a place over by 27th and Hennepin whose owners and employees probably agree with you. (And likely think coffee is an art form, also too). :lol:
Twin Cities Leather and Latte?

BoredAgain
Landmark Center
Posts: 251
Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
Location: Lyndale Neighborhood

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby BoredAgain » September 6th, 2016, 1:04 pm

beige_box wrote:Prioritizing the cosmetic features of something as essential to human life as the very structures that separate us from the elements will always be an act of decadence, and nothing more. If you would like to contemplate the sublime mysteries of abstract objects, do so in its proper context – where it's known as "sculpture." But when you take sculpture out of the gallery and into human socioeconomic life, it's no longer art – it's the fetishistic imposition, by elites, of dominant ideologies onto the public.

I am glad that I do not live in your world. There is always room for beauty in even the most simple and functional of objects/buildings. "beige_box" seems to be a well chosen screen name.

m b p
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 198
Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby m b p » September 6th, 2016, 9:43 pm

nBode wrote:I would say architecture's primary function is almost never art. This is true of probably 99% of buildings, with some exceptions being monuments and starchitectural creations.

That is, if architecture (practice) is to buildings (product) as sculpture (practice) is to a sculpture (product).

Anyways, I find the addition acceptable. It's minorly intrusive and respects the geometries of the original design.
Architecture IS about art. Engineering is not.

Architecture is about making the space liveable... enjoyable... interesting. Engineering is about making those ideas practical.

Sometimes the engineers do whatever possible to make the architects vision come to fruition; sometimes architects take a back seat to the engineers.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7929
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby mattaudio » September 7th, 2016, 7:47 am

So we all agree on tearing down these three buildings, then?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3806
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby Silophant » September 7th, 2016, 7:51 am

Eh, 111 is fine.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6194
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby twincitizen » September 7th, 2016, 9:11 am

Agreed, 111 is fine. 100 is also fine for now, and contributes enough office space that it's unlikely to come down anytime soon. Once the Opus block and Nicollet Hotel block have been built out, and the post office has been repurposed (including parking ramp removal), it will be time for 20 Washington to come down. I will fight any attempt at protecting that building.

It's really too bad that The Towers are condos instead of apartments. Condos make redevelopment basically impossible. I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby EOst » September 7th, 2016, 9:35 am

twincitizen wrote: it will be time for 20 Washington to come down. I will fight any attempt at protecting that building.
Can't wait to fight you. <3
twincitizen wrote:I cannot envision any future where those buildings are viewed in a positive light. They've probably been mistaken for public housing towers since the day they were built.
http://www.startribune.com/streetscapes ... 318449111/

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4001
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby Nathan » September 7th, 2016, 9:51 am

These buildings are definitely admired, I show people from out of town this area a lot and the modernism is definitely appreciated. Especially as it becomes more vintage and retro to younger and younger people.

DanB
Metrodome
Posts: 84
Joined: January 28th, 2016, 10:10 pm
Location: Prospect Park

Re: Washington Square buildings (20, 100, 111 Washington Ave S)

Postby DanB » September 7th, 2016, 10:28 am

I wonder if it would be possible to rotate 20 Washington 90 degrees and push it up against Marquette. That would would at least allow some development on that block and also allow for the possibility of running Nicollet through to a reconnected 2nd street.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakken2016 and 2 guests