Super Talls

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3880
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Super Talls

Postby Nathan » September 28th, 2013, 10:16 am

you mean... It's about time MKE!!! ;)

*it is totally beautiful though, and I'm happy to see the midwest getting some killer buildings.

MS3

Re: Super Talls

Postby MS3 » September 28th, 2013, 1:04 pm

To think Minneapolis won't be getting a tower over 500 feet within the next 10 yrs without a F500 coming here is kinda viewing it with tunnel vision. I can think of several possibilities that would bring at least one tower over 500 feet here within 10 years.

Suburban Outcast
Landmark Center
Posts: 237
Joined: June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby Suburban Outcast » September 29th, 2013, 2:03 pm

Not really, because most if not all of the buildings taller than 500 feet here were built for large companies, and even if they weren't F500 they were at least a large business nationally. Even with expansion from a company like Target, the scale of expansion might be just a high-rise depending on what they do with their Brooklyn Park Campus (yes they might not expand it much more, but unless they become more serious on a new development downtown I'm gonna be a bit skeptical on that) There have been HQ moves to different buildings in downtown throughout the years, but I don't think that's gonna make another skyscraper (at least one over 500 ft tall) pop up.

Also I said if a mixed-use tower (not just only another F500 company moving in) was planned it could work, because even the tallest residential developments getting built right now were downsized from their original heights (LPM/1368 LaSalle and Nic on 5th) and the most well-known proposed residential development that was actually a skyscraper (the Nicollet) got canned. I just think developers in Minneapolis want to focus on high-rise developments over skyscrapers for the time being.

Gman12
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 122
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Location: Capital of the North

Re: Super Talls

Postby Gman12 » September 30th, 2013, 10:01 am

Suburban Outcast wrote:Not really, because most if not all of the buildings taller than 500 feet here were built for large companies, and even if they weren't F500 they were at least a large business nationally. Even with expansion from a company like Target, the scale of expansion might be just a high-rise depending on what they do with their Brooklyn Park Campus (yes they might not expand it much more, but unless they become more serious on a new development downtown I'm gonna be a bit skeptical on that) There have been HQ moves to different buildings in downtown throughout the years, but I don't think that's gonna make another skyscraper (at least one over 500 ft tall) pop up.

Also I said if a mixed-use tower (not just only another F500 company moving in) was planned it could work, because even the tallest residential developments getting built right now were downsized from their original heights (LPM/1368 LaSalle and Nic on 5th) and the most well-known proposed residential development that was actually a skyscraper (the Nicollet) got canned. I just think developers in Minneapolis want to focus on high-rise developments over skyscrapers for the time being.
I tend to agree with you about Targets plans for a new downtown building, they don't really need it. I think they have 700,000 sqf that will be ready in Brooklyn Park in 2014 for people to move to. They have lower taxes and tax breaks from Brooklyn Park, why would they build a supertall?

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4355
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Super Talls

Postby FISHMANPET » September 30th, 2013, 10:12 am

A factor that can't be ignored is that young people don't all want to work in Brooklyn Park. Young employees are counting the location of a job downtown as a perk, and if you want that top talent you have to locate downtown. Yes it costs more, but so does every other facet of attracting and keeping the top talent.

Suburban Outcast
Landmark Center
Posts: 237
Joined: June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby Suburban Outcast » September 30th, 2013, 11:32 am

True (I personally wouldn't want to live in Brooklyn Park), but I doubt a building taller than 500 feet would pop up given their current HQ is 33 and 14 stories tall, so I think the tallest they would build would possibly match the height of the South HQ building (491 ft, which is close to 500 ft).

If they do mixed-use it could work. Maybe have the residential portion geared towards Target workers (plus other workers in the downtown core).

MS3

Re: Super Talls

Postby MS3 » September 30th, 2013, 7:13 pm

I think when Target decides to build, there's a very good chance it will be taller than 500 ft. I wouldn't be surprise if they build the tallest building in Minneapolis. There have been speculation and rumors about this for the last couple of yrs. I've heard so many different heights but heard nothing shorter than 600 feet, and as tall as 1000. The convention center hotel is another possibility of a tower over 500 ft and If the condo market hits again, and with the plans and goals for Mpls to increase the Downtown population by 2025, I think a 500+ ft condo project would be realistic to predict.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2234
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby John » September 30th, 2013, 9:32 pm

I really think a 500+ foot condo tower could work if it was announced soon. The inventory of condos downtown is getting small. There is virtually no new condo construction so they would have no competition. I think Jim Stanton saw this opportunity with Stonebridge Lofts which is successful. The problem is financing. Lenders are still leery of condo developments. It would have to be privately financed like Stanton's project.

skyrab

Re: Super Talls

Postby skyrab » November 11th, 2013, 9:36 pm

So... I see it's been awhile since a post here; yet, I seem to return to re-read much of what many of you have shared, to dream a little (thank you all). Here is a link to, perhaps, get the juices flowing once more:) subject is definitely what we're interested in, "are tall buildings bad for downtown?". (Minneapolis is included in this article)
http://www.planetizen.com/node/61262
from 03.17.2013

User avatar
Avian
Union Depot
Posts: 393
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 6:56 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: Super Talls

Postby Avian » November 12th, 2013, 2:33 pm

^Thanks. It's an Interesting idea to explore but the author does not present a cogent argument. His conclusion is this: "To put it another way: cities with lots of skyscrapers tend to have strong downtowns, but not all cities with strong downtowns have lots of skyscrapers"

That's not saying much. We can also say "ice cream with lots of sprinkles is delicious, but not all ice cream that's delicious has sprinkles." Really? What do we do with that? He doesn't answer the question that's posed in the title of the article.
Last edited by Avian on November 12th, 2013, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”
― Plato

Scott16475
City Center
Posts: 43
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 12:49 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby Scott16475 » November 12th, 2013, 2:58 pm

^^THIS^^. Avian says it beautifully.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4355
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Super Talls

Postby FISHMANPET » November 12th, 2013, 3:24 pm

It makes sense in the context it was written, which is the discussion of the DC Height Act. But as a blanket statement it's not any good, and since DC just wants to go above 130 feet it doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of super talls.

City slicker

Re: Super Talls

Postby City slicker » November 12th, 2013, 3:45 pm

Stumbling upon this topic of supertalls and reading the all posts was really interesting. I'm not sure what a supertall is.. Maybe over 300 meters- or 1000 feet? My opinion would be like this- if someone built a huge luxurious beautiful mansion in a neighborhood of very nice large homes, would it hurt that neighborhood? I doubt it. As long as I've been aware, every cities/towns/ small town, downtown district contains the larges and tallest buildings. Hugh cities like NY, LA, Chicago, ect have Hugh buildings. Makes sense to me. Sometimes you can only go up. I was driving through Oklahoma City last spring and I noticed a new really tall (maybe a supertall) awesome looking glass tower sticking out way above everything. At the gas station I asked a fellow-"when was that tower built?" He said "last year. Someone just wanted to build a tall building". I thought that was cool. It sure looks cool. Maybe a little out of place there but yet not really.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 662
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby Minneboy » November 12th, 2013, 9:26 pm

It was also the first building above 17 stories built downtown in 30 years. I know because I lived downtown OKC back then. But those dang energy companies have plenty of our money to work with.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2234
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby John » November 12th, 2013, 11:07 pm

^^^An image of the Devon Tower for reference. 50 stories, 850 feet tall, and is the tallest building in the state of Oklahoma. Pickard Chilton architects:
Image

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7709
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Super Talls

Postby mattaudio » November 13th, 2013, 9:45 am

I was in OKC earlier this year, and I can say they have a fancy new tower with a nice park next to it, but if you walk two blocks to the west it changes quite fast. Maybe if OKC had spread that office space into a dozen 6-20 story buildings rather than one ego-stroking building, their downtown would be nicer for people who aren't taking skyline photos from across the river.

User avatar
trkaiser
Landmark Center
Posts: 255
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:05 am
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: Super Talls

Postby trkaiser » November 13th, 2013, 10:28 am

Kinda like the IDS Center when it was built? I see what you mean, but I see nothing to criticize about this project reaching high rather than spreading the square footage out. OKC's economy is apparently doing quite well these days. That beast will soon get company.

City slicker

Re: Super Talls

Postby City slicker » November 13th, 2013, 10:29 am

I don't agree at all with that mattaudio. This tower is awesome and invites more bigger projects. If this were St. Cloud Mn, then I'd agree with you.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1509
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Super Talls

Postby talindsay » November 13th, 2013, 11:14 am

mattaudio wrote:I was in OKC earlier this year, and I can say they have a fancy new tower with a nice park next to it, but if you walk two blocks to the west it changes quite fast. Maybe if OKC had spread that office space into a dozen 6-20 story buildings rather than one ego-stroking building, their downtown would be nicer for people who aren't taking skyline photos from across the river.
Absolutely. I've tried to stay out of this thread because height-fetishists are unlikely to ever agree with me on anything about urban form, but that OKC skyline picture is absurd. Nobody would build a building like that in a place like that if they gave a damn about the city itself - you only build higher when all land near enough to where you need to be is already developed, if you want to have a good urban form for lively, thriving downtowns in my opinion. New York City in Lower Manhattan *needs* supertall buildings because so much is compressed into such a small area; Oklahoma City has no reason for a building of that scale except ego. They'll have substantial vacancy in office space for decades, which will make their downtown feel less lively.

John
Capella Tower
Posts: 2234
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 2:06 pm

Re: Super Talls

Postby John » November 13th, 2013, 12:39 pm

trkaiser wrote:Kinda like the IDS Center when it was built? I see what you mean, but I see nothing to criticize about this project reaching high rather than spreading the square footage out. OKC's economy is apparently doing quite well these days. That beast will soon get company.
Yes, it also reminds me quite a bit of the Minneapolis Skyline when the IDS was alone here. And just as the IDS tower was a major game changer and spurred development around it , I suspect Devon Tower will do the same for OKC. This will take some time and at least 10-20 years to see the results.
Image


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests