Re: Arby’s Island
Posted: June 14th, 2018, 3:34 pm
More speculation: what about Uniqulo. It’s that Chinese store. Minneapolis could really use one of those.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
It's not that it isn't possible. There are still good buildings being built. It's that good architecture just isn't valued by large segments of society. The culture of much of the past was that we should build nice buildings because they make a statement about what an area values and create a sense of community pride. These were philosophical arguments.At both the city and state level we fund the arts, from the Legacy amendment to public art/sculptures, couldn't we do something similar with architecture? Perhaps truly interesting and solid architecture isn't possible in this day and age without a public/private partnership. I think it's worth investigating as we are talking about our built environment and this impacts entire neighborhoods- the impact isn't limited just to the people who live in or own these buildings.
A Whole Foods/Amazon showroom with free delivery or electric cargo bikes for rent.If this remains a single retail space but they're increasing it to 9,000 square feet, it seems kind of unlikely that it would be an Arby's or really any fast food restaurant unless it's going to be a really big one. The average Arby's is apparently 3,000 square feet (based on what I could find online). The average McDonald's is 4,000.
For comparison, a Walgreens average 14,500 square feet and Applebee's (or most bland, suburban chains) is 5,500. So I'm kind of curious what sort of businesses fits in between those two in size. The only things I could find online were generally clothing stores, but you don't typically see those be described with words like "uniquely pedestrian-oriented urban configuration."
A scary trend I’m seeing in urbanist circles is the wholesale tossing out of the place making aspect of new urbanism, and a push for affordable housing on every available parcel at the lowest possible cost, with no thought to making cities livable and enjoyable.These days, utilitarian arguments win out. "Why spend money on ornamentation? Why spend money on beauty? That's just frivolous."
We can actually design and build structures that are aesthetically wonderful, functional, energy efficient and environmentally friendly -- but in the interests of the short term $$$ political planners, developers, many architects and others instead erect dully functional, wasteful, and disposable buildings that have only a couple of decades shelf life. We remember and learn from the greatest civilizations of the past because we can turn to their enduring architecture.
So forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to keep coming back to affordable housing... which this project isn't... as the antithesis of place making, and I just don't really understand. A lot of the "affordable" housing being built in the last building boom tends to have better design features than a lot of the luxury and market rate housing being built. I'm just not sure where you're going with this argument. There was never any evidence that this privately owned plot of land was ever going to be anything monumental, the city has never laid this lot out as a priority for anything specific and in the actual reality of its location it's not really that great of a plot of land. Also, this lot doesn't "grandly" split Lake street in any way. I've been checking this out coming west from Lynn lake area every day now and there's no way that it does anything other than add to the canyon effect that's beginning on lake. You don't actually see that the lot is triangular until you get past Colfax. This isn't like the grid iron in New York, nothing on the roof is going to shine like a beacon down lake until you are right on it. I just don't get it.
A scary trend I’m seeing in urbanist circles is the wholesale tossing out of the place making aspect of new urbanism, and a push for affordable housing on every available parcel at the lowest possible cost, with no thought to making cities livable and enjoyable.
Yes, we desperately need affordable housing.
No, not every lot should be treated the same. This is why we have planning.
Amazon Go definitely seems plausibleA Whole Foods/Amazon showroom with free delivery or electric cargo bikes for rent.If this remains a single retail space but they're increasing it to 9,000 square feet, it seems kind of unlikely that it would be an Arby's or really any fast food restaurant unless it's going to be a really big one. The average Arby's is apparently 3,000 square feet (based on what I could find online). The average McDonald's is 4,000.
For comparison, a Walgreens average 14,500 square feet and Applebee's (or most bland, suburban chains) is 5,500. So I'm kind of curious what sort of businesses fits in between those two in size. The only things I could find online were generally clothing stores, but you don't typically see those be described with words like "uniquely pedestrian-oriented urban configuration."
To your first point, well, this thread is a mishmash of things. The discussion started out before any idea of what would end up there was presented (so we started discussing this from a blank slate). Also, there’s been lots of talk about how affordable housing should be there, even if it’s not actually going to be there. So, yeah, it’s just a big jumble, where each post is responding to a number of different ideas.So forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to keep coming back to affordable housing... which this project isn't...
I also have a problem with the need for ornamentation. Ornamentation does not equal good design. There are plenty of tacky cheesy buildings with false ornamentation all over the city and burbs. It doesn't need to be perpetuated. Minimalism is just as legitimate of and desirable form of design as anything else. It also can do its own fair share of place making. I'll take this over any recent attempt at classic/historic architecture any day, because it's always very false unless there are unlimited dollars involved, which here there are not.
… Uptown's problem is that it has large vacant gaping holes, not that it's missing a marquee.
Much like my “monumental” idea, the Amazon/Whole Foods/eCargoBike was more a fantasy of what could/should be than what is likely, I suppose.A few people have mentioned an Amazon Go store. Problems with Amazon aside, it would certainly be a cool project.
But it seems unlikely. First, because the next expansions are announced...and they're in San Francisco and Chicago. There doesn't seem to be a reason Amazon wouldn't have announced Minneapolis if they really wanted to expand here. Second, the Amazon Go store in Seattle is 1,800 square feet. No reason to think their Minneapolis store would be over 4x larger than the Seattle store.
+10What frustrates me most about this project is the lack of retail frontage. Especially at Lake and Emerson. One of the things that excited me most about the hotel project was that it would begin to make a stronger pedestrian oriented connection between LynLake and Uptown. The design of Lake and Emerson shown in renderings is pretty closed off, giving a signal to pedestrians that the commercial district has ended and this is where you turn around and walk back. I hope the final design and additional retail suggested does a better job of encouraging exploration and pulling pedestrians eastbound.
I can concede that Nathan has a point, a minimalist building can make a more "ornamented" building in the area seem more dramatic and provide a counterpoint.... but, "There's a space! "FILL IT!" doesn't take into account potential enjoyment of a grand design in the future...I also have a problem with the need for ornamentation. Ornamentation does not equal good design. There are plenty of tacky cheesy buildings with false ornamentation all over the city and burbs. It doesn't need to be perpetuated. Minimalism is just as legitimate of and desirable form of design as anything else. It also can do its own fair share of place making. I'll take this over any recent attempt at classic/historic architecture any day, because it's always very false unless there are unlimited dollars involved, which here there are not.
If it's something a large portion of customers need to drive, this doesn't seem like great location for it.I know it isn’t the most glamorous addition, and that it would draw vehicles because there are many items they sell that just aren’t transportable by bike or walking so parking would have to be included in the planning.