urbanMSP

I am starting to think for some reason we just get bad/cheap finishes with horribly shielded (or unshielded) mechanicals.

Look no further than the International Energy Conservation Code. The requirements for solid wall, materials, etc. all vary by geographic zone, severely limiting cold climate locations. Some cities (Chicago, for example) have their own energy code that circumvents a lot of the restrictions. But that's the exception. Really energy efficient buildings are either less attractive and affordable, or more attractive and expensive. Land values and economics drive what can be supported. Rental rates in Vancouver, Chicago, New York, etc. support the expense, where most other locations cannot.

And as for vancouver...I kind of feel like every residential tower in this area is better than any of ours:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2722247 ... 312!8i6656

Eh, they look pretty similar to LPM or Skyscape. Different people like different things, of course.

Interesting...

LPM is decent, but has giant exposed mechanicals and catwalks on the top, which ruins the whole thing for me...If only they had shielded with another level of facade. LPM is by far the best newer building though...I think Nordhaus is turning out OK.

And as for vancouver...I kind of feel like every residential tower in this area is better than any of ours:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2722247 ... 312!8i6656

Really? Only if you like walking past full-block sidewalk-adjacent fences and retaining walls.

Yes really, look at the buildings, I am not talking about the street level. And actually, now that I look again, I see beautiful landscaping and townhome type entries at the street level...so not sure what the problem is there? Also, I don't see any full half block parking podiums in that immediate area.

I don't like it, but it's not as outrage inducing as half the condo buildings in Dinkytown/Stadium Village, or the White Castle/Holiday cluster happening down the block. They did an adequate job addressing the lack of transparency along 4th, and if I hold my hand over the white/gray/orange tower part in the render, the streetscape along Hennepin looks fine.
It's blocky and uncreative, but I'll gladly take the housing density.

Given a choice between an architectural marvel with no street retail, curb cuts, and other anti-pedestrian design features and a lackluster tower that adds to the foot traffic of the neighborhood, I'll take the latter.

I don't know...I think that vancouver neighborhood looks very pleasant to walk in? Did you look? Anyway, doesn't really matter...looks good to me though, I'd rather walk there than most of treeless big one way street NE.

Lets hope this building turns out decent! I do like the added density, of course. I just hope we don't get anymore Nic on 5ths...I am by that one every day, and it is just awful. From the street and above.

It looks pleasant enough - but it sends a clear signal from the lack of street engagement: There's nothing to do here unless you're rich enough to live here, so you should go somewhere else.

Well i think that is preliminarily just a residential only area...so it is a bit different. And i kind of disagree with your assessment, because that area is surrounded by giant public parks and waterfront, and the Yaletown business district and transit station is a couple blocks over...but whatever. Just a nice residential area that also has public amenities, and there is nothing wrong with that, whether it is rich or not. It also happens to have many of the amenities that us urbanists like as well, but no, not on every single block. Great area, I would gladly have it in Minneapolis. Anyway, sorry, that is a bit of a tangent:)

As someone who has never been to Vancouver, I can only go off what I see in the provided link

condo buildings in Dinkytown/Stadium Village

You mean the apartments that were desperately needed for the area to mitigate a surge of students that desired living closer to campus? Or are we talking about the architectural features, which I can somewhat understand? In a way.

Feels like Mortenson usually has their ducks in a row. Think we can expect this to break ground quickly?

We'll see, given the construction labor shortage that's been holding up other projects, but I think so. They've been planning this for the whole time they were building the new USBank building.

condo buildings in Dinkytown/Stadium Village

You mean the apartments that were desperately needed for the area to mitigate a surge of students that desired living closer to campus? Or are we talking about the architectural features, which I can somewhat understand? In a way.

Yes, the architectural features, since the entire context of this conversation is "I don't like how this proposed tower looks." I frequently drive by the building on 4th St and 13th Ave, and I challenge anyone to argue the aesthetic merits of this monstrosity.

I frequently drive by the building on 4th St and 13th Ave, and I challenge anyone to argue the aesthetic merits of this monstrosity.

Challenge accepted. The design of the building addresses the pedestrian experience with a permeable and transparent façade, canopies over the adjacent sidewalk, and ample bicycle parking. It uses durable exterior materials, including real brick at the first floor. It is parked internally, eliminating yet another surface lot from the area. It replaced a rapidly aging brick/wood three story walk up circa 1960-ish. Do I like the aesthetics of that building? Not really. I can appreciate its role in bettering the overall experience of the public as well as adding much needed housing for students.

As someone who has never been to Vancouver, I can only go off what I see in the provided link

I think you might be pleasantly surprised if you ever did visit. While the pictures might not convey it, I always found Vancouver to be very inviting and walkable, I always wished our areas had the street presence they do.

I frequently drive by the building on 4th St and 13th Ave, and I challenge anyone to argue the aesthetic merits of this monstrosity.

Challenge accepted. The design of the building addresses the pedestrian experience with a permeable and transparent façade, canopies over the adjacent sidewalk, and ample bicycle parking. It uses durable exterior materials, including real brick at the first floor. It is parked internally, eliminating yet another surface lot from the area. It replaced a rapidly aging brick/wood three story walk up circa 1960-ish. Do I like the aesthetics of that building? Not really. I can appreciate its role in bettering the overall experience of the public as well as adding much needed housing for students.

I think you're missing my point. Functionally, yes, the building may be just fine and provide a strictly functional improvement to the neighborhood, but I'm not arguing that. The massing and material aesthetic of the 333 project was under debate, and I'm arguing that if I'm going to go after ugly buildings, there are worse offenders to get wound up about.
Internal parking and bike racks aside, the 4th & 13th building has almost no facade articulation aside from some clumsy entry bump-outs and material changes, and has what is easily the most obnoxious color scheme of any of the new cookie-cutter apartment buildings. This building will only become more of a dated eyesore over time - you yourself admit you don't like how the building looks.
Anyway - this is getting way off topic, so I'll stop there.

Counterpoint: I love that building's yellow color scheme. Reminds me of a sunrise.