Page 3 of 9

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: March 29th, 2017, 4:34 pm
by seanrichardryan
Have we asked the River how it feels about the proposal?

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: March 29th, 2017, 4:51 pm
by Gman12
Have we asked the River how it feels about the proposal?
It's indifferent, just goes with the flow.

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: March 29th, 2017, 4:55 pm
by grant1simons2
She just loves all the new attention of everyone trying to live near her

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: March 29th, 2017, 5:01 pm
by EOst
I don't really mind tall here (though I think 7 would look a little less out of place), but if they're going to do tall, they should kill that half-hearted front setback. Looks way more awkward than if they just copied the massing of the taller historic buildings in the district. Kill those Juliet balconies, too.

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: March 29th, 2017, 8:50 pm
by Nathan
Totally. It's way too shallow of a setback to count.

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: April 4th, 2017, 7:51 am
by Architorture
Great back and forth all. I do agree that it feels a little tall for the site, however I think they have done a good job of stepping the building back at the sixth level to relate more to near by structures (Maverick, the parking garage, Velo, 222). It would be a let down for me if all the remaining infill buildings in the district are stuck at 6 stories - I enjoy some variety. One of the most compelling reasons for the height for the hotel is to be taller than the low portion of the federal reserve to have views of the river corridor (May not have any nearby river views). Then they will have have good views on both major sides of the building. I look forward to learning more about the exterior and hoping for an interesting facade and pedestrian experience. We don't need another 212 Lofts on that block.

Re: West Elm Hotel

Posted: April 4th, 2017, 11:07 am
by at40man
Will the hotel feature over-priced cheaply-built furniture?

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 4th, 2017, 9:08 pm
by mamundsen
It makes me laugh a little that no one seems upset about 40 stories and a four seasons here, but 3 blocks away 6 or 7 stories would be better than 9 for another hotel that includes retail and residential... 3 blocks, another world.
Completely agree. Height limits are dumb. I say let them build as tall as they want.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 10:12 am
by MNdible
It makes me laugh a little that no one seems upset about 40 stories and a four seasons here, but 3 blocks away 6 or 7 stories would be better than 9 for another hotel that includes retail and residential... 3 blocks, another world.
You're right, it is a completely different situation. The West Elm site is nestled amongst some of the most important contributing properties to perhaps the most important historical district in the state.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 11:02 am
by amiller92
Which properties would somehow be changed by something tall being next to them... :roll:

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 11:30 am
by MNdible
You may not think so, but the entire concept of a historical district would seem to argue otherwise.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 12:01 pm
by 1West
It's extremely irritating hearing people complain about buildings being too tall in the downtown district.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 1:03 pm
by amiller92
You may not think so, but the entire concept of a historical district would seem to argue otherwise.
Which is what makes the concept highly questionable.

Or, more accurately, it's what makes the guidelines written by people who are way to excited about preventing change to implement them questionable.

Either there are enough contributing structures left to maintain the "character" that's supposed to be preserved such that something taller won't make any difference or there aren't and there's no "character" to be preserved.

It's really almost comical. "This neighborhood is characterized by buildings less than X feet, which no one will be able to tell if we build this proposed project." Uh. Okay.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 1:59 pm
by RailBaronYarr
Ok. Off the top of my head...

Forum members who are fundamentally skeptical of the need for regulating new uses in a historic district and/or the public benefit (relative to costs) historic districts generally provide:

RailBaronYarr
amiller92
fishmanpet (?)
VAStationDude (?)
mplsjaromir (?)
others?

People who fundamentally, strongly favor the benefits historic districts provide to the general public (exceeding costs) and that a cohesive form/style is necessary to maintain that public benefit:

EOst
seanrichardryan
MNdible
others?

We all good? I promise to keep bringing this fundamental disagreement up to a minimum if other people do as well.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 2:03 pm
by Sacrelicio
Ok. Off the top of my head...

Forum members who are fundamentally skeptical of the need for regulating new uses in a historic district and/or the public benefit (relative to costs) historic districts generally provide:

RailBaronYarr
amiller92
fishmanpet (?)
VAStationDude (?)
mplsjaromir (?)
others?

People who fundamentally, strongly favor the benefits historic districts provide to the general public (exceeding costs) and that a cohesive form/style is necessary to maintain that public benefit:

EOst
seanrichardryan
MNdible
others?

We all good? I promise to keep bringing this fundamental disagreement up to a minimum if other people do as well.
I just like historic districts for selfish reasons. They're neat.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 2:29 pm
by MNdible
People who fundamentally, strongly favor the benefits historic districts provide to the general public (exceeding costs) and that a cohesive form/style is necessary to maintain that public benefit:

EOst
seanrichardryan
MNdible
others?
I won't speak for the others, but I'm not supportive of a mandatory cohesive "style" -- and in fact I've argued against new buildings that parrot historic styles in these districts. But I don't think it's too much to ask that, in a few special places, new buildings are scaled to be respectful towards the neighboring buildings that the public have deemed valuable.

And no, this probably won't be the last time it's brought up, because in spite of some who'd like to paint this as black and white, it's a discussion that will always require nuance and judgement.

Although this particular conversation should probably be moved to the West Elm thread.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 3:08 pm
by amiller92

I just like historic districts for selfish reasons. They're neat.
I like historic districts! Well, as long as they don't include height restrictions or otherwise prevent increasing density.

Regulate styles and materials and whatnot all you want (well, within reason, you could use those tools to make anything new prohibitively expensive too). Protect all the contributing structures in a district, as long as it's defined coherently (i.e., not single family homes).

It's the stuff that goes too far that bothers me.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 5th, 2017, 7:00 pm
by VAStationDude
I'm good with many historic districts. Warehouse District historic district ticks every box a city should strive for - density, increased fiscal capacity, diversity of uses, and sustainably. It also tells the story of working people and their struggle for decent pay. Marq2 on 4th avenue would be detract from both urbanism and the district's historic value. I strongly disagree gilded age mansions are worthy of protection. The social conditions that allowed them to exist shouldn't be forgotten but the mansions are a poor vehicle for communicating that part of our history.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 6th, 2017, 2:23 pm
by Nathan
I know we're way off topic but what I don't understand about a historic district is what exactly we're preserving. Obviously the buildings, in a grouping... But are we really preserving the mentality of Minneapolis in that time period? My perception of Minneapolis in that time was bustling, pro growth, loving architectural innovation and pursuing the best they could have. I've worked in the north loop for some time now, and I get the idea that they definitely would have built more or taller if the money and capability would have been there. My building had floors added 3 times. Something that wouldn't be allowed now, but is historically common in that time period. Do we want to preserve Minneapolis's turn of the century feel (which we aren't since it was all industrial) or the mentality of productivity and progression. I think everything there worth preserving should be, but I'm not as down with the district thing as much.

Re: United Properties / Four Seasons "Gateway" Project (Nicollet Hotel Block)

Posted: April 6th, 2017, 2:35 pm
by FISHMANPET
Yeah, this idea that the way to preserve history is to lock the built environment in amber is just... weird? I've never understood how we're supposed to convey the fullness of history with... a building.