Washington Square - 20, 100, 111 Washington Avenue S

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby EOst » September 1st, 2016, 7:21 am

FISHMANPET wrote:For all of human history, with the exception of the past 50-100 years, cities have been built on a pedestrian scale because there was no other option. In the 20th century we were able to ignore the pedestrian and focus on the car. This lead to some architectural movements that should be preserved, but are often hostile to a pedestrian city.

So we can view a city as a museum, or we can view it as a functioning city. Many places have the luxury of being built in a way that is functional so that preserving what is in place preserves a city that functions on a pedestrian scale. When we preserve this pedestrian hostile architecture in place we preserve a city that does not function.
You're making a HUGE leap from "is not super inviting to pedestrians" to "does not function." And at any rate, this building is way more pedestrian-friendly than, say, the Old Post Office Building (or even the new one!).

Not every building needs street-level retail to be "functional."
mattaudio wrote:A simple Apple-style glass curtain wall between the four legs of the building would create an indoor space that could function all year round, with island-format retail or food vendors inside.
And it would also destroy the artistic integrity of the structure.

Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 881
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby Tyler » September 1st, 2016, 7:23 am

EOst wrote: And it would also destroy the artistic integrity of the structure.
meh.
Towns!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7918
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby mattaudio » September 1st, 2016, 7:35 am

Buildings are not art.

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

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby EOst » September 1st, 2016, 7:50 am

mattaudio wrote:Buildings are not art.
I would *love* to see you try to define art in a way that could never include buildings.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 830
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby LakeCharles » September 1st, 2016, 7:56 am

Art = things that aren't buildings

But Patrick Schumacher (Zaha Hadid's partner), has said architecture is not an art: https://www.facebook.com/patrik.schumac ... 1928712343

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7918
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby mattaudio » September 1st, 2016, 8:05 am

Jim Kunstler.

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4000
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby Nathan » September 1st, 2016, 8:12 am

LakeCharles wrote:But Patrick Schumacher (Zaha Hadid's partner), has said architecture is not an art: https://www.facebook.com/patrik.schumac ... 1928712343
Must be true!

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

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby EOst » September 1st, 2016, 8:14 am

And Phillip Johnson once said "architecture is art, nothing else."

So we can throw dumb quotations back and forth at each other, or...

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 830
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby LakeCharles » September 1st, 2016, 8:27 am

Haha, I wasn't trying to argue anything, only saying that at least one architect has tried to make this argument. My you guys are touchy.

I would have assumed my "definition" would have clued you in I was not that serious.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby amiller92 » September 1st, 2016, 9:22 am

EOst wrote:Plenty of cities *are* run like museums, and they "function" just fine.

But no one's arguing for that anyway. A unique sculptural skyscraper by a world-renowned architect isn't just another building.
I'm not architect, but the skyway running through the "legs" seems way worse to me than the new glass entry.

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, 9:26 am

LakeCharles: Sorry then, no offense. :)

amiller92: I don't know if I'd say one is worse than the other, but they're both pretty bad.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

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

Postby amiller92 » September 1st, 2016, 9:27 am

Went over there to see yesterday, but did not take a picture. Will attempt to do so again today to get one to share. For what it's worth, it didn't look that bad to me, and better than enclosing the entire area.

Also, the area is not pedestrian friendly at all, but I'd say that has more to do with the hostile design of Washington Ave than this building not having a ground floor.

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

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby grant1simons2 » September 1st, 2016, 9:43 am

mattaudio wrote:Buildings are not art.
Matt...

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 1st, 2016, 10:11 am

#hottake: I think 20 Washington Square should be torn down. It's terrible for downtown, terrible for its location, etc. Nice to look at (I even have a commemorative cocktail glass of it), but the time has come to replace it with something urban - something that addresses the very important streets that surround it. Beyond pleasing aesthetics and the significance of who designed it 50+ years ago, also taken into consideration should be what it provides to downtown: less than 185,000 square feet of office space. It's a short building that provides a relatively small amount of office space, and no other uses or benefits to downtown (no residences, no hotel rooms, no retail spaces, etc.) It provides minimally more positive benefit to downtown than an attractive parking garage.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3800
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

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

Postby Silophant » September 1st, 2016, 10:24 am

It is basically the attractive downtown equivalent of the Nicollet/Lake Kmart.

The problem is that, while there's still so many even less developed lots in this area, by the time there's development pressure to actually do something like that, it'll probably be historically protected and locked in place for eternity.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7918
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, 12:30 pm

Maybe we could move it to the Little Log House Pioneer Village / Epcot Expansion south of Hastings?

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

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

Postby amiller92 » September 1st, 2016, 12:33 pm

Pics:
Image
Image

Image

Mcgizz
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 144
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 11:08 pm

Re: Washington Avenue

Postby Mcgizz » September 1st, 2016, 12:34 pm

EOst wrote:
mattaudio wrote:Buildings are not art.
I would *love* to see you try to define art in a way that could never include buildings.
For the first time in my life I agree with EOst.

Buildings are absolutely art. Many of them have art integrated into the building. I'm curious to hear your argument as to why/how buildings are not art.

nBode
Union Depot
Posts: 323
Joined: August 20th, 2013, 3:25 pm
Location: University of Minnesota

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

Postby nBode » September 1st, 2016, 12:51 pm

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.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

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

Postby FISHMANPET » September 1st, 2016, 12:56 pm

Here's a stab:
(visual) Art is something created primarily for it's aesthetic value, not for its function.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lorwest and 2 guests