DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

[BigIdeasGuy]

So you are arguing that we shouldn't save the Star Tribune building because of it's history you are arguing it should be saved because a two block park is more than we need correct?

And yes the Vikings Stadium will get built, there is a law requiring that it does whether the Wells Fargo plan happen or not. Is this project ideal in my mind, no, I would have preferred something grander and bigger yet. But we are looking at very solid proposal that will turn 5 dead blocks around. It will bring 6,000 employees and 1,000 residents to the area. That's huge. If this proposal falls apart who knows when the next time a developer would be able to come up with a plan, and more importantly the financing for these blocks. I'm going out on a limb here but I'm going to guess the next plan would be less ambitious than the current one as well.

As for you idea of a hotel, I like it, I really do but there are plenty of other lots where it could go and be just as successful.

[Didier]

Wedgeguy if you condense your point into 1/10th of that some of us might actually read it.

[Wedgeguy]

If I did most of you would not understand what my point is! Short enough for you!

[mplsjaromir]

Is 1,200 workers and 200 residents per block a high or low number compared to say what is typical to a block on Nicolett [sic] or Marquette?

If this project requires two blocks of dedicated parkland and a free parking garage to be constructed what freebies will one mandate for a supertall? If this amount of subsidy is needed for office construction it leads me to believe that demand for office space is extremely soft.

Don't get me wrong, this could be the silver bullet that acts as a catalyst for much more development.

Look at what Amazon demanded from the city of Seattle to expand into a underutilized part of its downtown, nothing. The pitch to the city was that they were going to build. No concessions from the city, cranes going up with no favors from the public.

Those who are hopeful for a huge office building in Minneapolis may be waiting for a bit.

[Aville_37]

Great idea to turn the facade into a archway with stage for use in the park.

[the kid]

Great idea to turn the facade into a archway with stage for use in the park.

Amen Sister!..I mean Aville 87. I completely agree. The arch would look great. This would become the iconic civic monument that Mpls was know for. The Arch would be the cut away shot on the networks for every event at the stadium. Sort of like a modern L'Arch de Triomphe. Or something. The park would be so much more inviting and trafficked if it was open to the west rather than blockaded by the lame apartment building that is proposed.

[m b p]

This project is not that bad. I know the internet, in general, comes across negative. However, I feel there are a lot of cheap shots being thrown at this thing.

I'm totally digging the re-introduction of something art-deco into our city. I agree that mixing residential and commercial components, in their separate forms, into one building is weird. The residential component looks like an after thought. I cannot disagree with anyone with that complaint. However, I've gotten past that.

The biggest thing, I feel, that people are forgetting is that this will bridge downtown with the eastern areas of Washington Ave. To me, it seems like they are clearly emphasizing residential life on the lower levels... which will make the park vibrant. With a vibrant park, who knows what else could follow.

Anyone want to build a residential tower by the armory?

[helsinki]

I don't understand why everyone is straining to envision immediate uses for the Strib building, and, failing to find any plausible ones, it is therefore necessary to tear the thing down? This is overcomplicating things. The building can simply be sold. The binary choice "Have Ryan turn it into X" or "Tear it down and build a park" is false.

This thinking (to paraphrase: "If it has no immediate use, it must go") would have led to, over the years, the destruction of not only the Armory, the Shubert Theater, the Milwaukee Road Depot, the Ivy Tower, the Washburn "A" Mill, the Pillsbury "A" Mill, the Schmidt Brewery, the Hamm's brewery, most of the Warehouse district, and indeed probably vast majority of historic structures rendered redundant by the transition from an industrial economy to a services economy. The adaptive re-use of these buildings has led to more interesting developments than would have occurred if those same sites had presented blank slates. The Twin Cities' collective forgetting of itself results from the city being torn down and being re-built according to the latest fad.

Ryan and Wells Fargo should chill out for a second, flip through the work of Larry Millet (preferably "Twin Cities then and Now"), take a breath and ask themselves "What exactly are we hoping to accomplish by having a park that is two city blocks instead of one? Is it worth demolishing the 80 year old home of the local daily paper?"

[Wedgeguy]

Thanks for shedding that very necessary light onto this. Everything that you have said above it so true. We have to quit being a throw away city. The main reason why they want this building torn down is so they have some so called unobstructed view of downtown. A pretty lame excuse when it is only a 4 story building and the skyline is 30 to 40 stories up in the air. IMHO

[TroyGBiv]

The reason they want the building torn down is that it opens up the view for advertising. They know that the new stadium is designed to frame up the skyline view and that national networks will always grab those views throughout broadcasts. The "added value" for Wells Fargo is to have their logos in frame. There had rumors that Wells might want the naming rights to the stadium - but in terms of "brand impressions" their strategically placed logos deliver some pretty prime visibility. Part of the reason why these two structures are only 15 to 20 stories is that it puts those logos within camera shot. In essence - these are like billboards. This is not the only reason for the two building heights - but it is a deal closer for sure.

[Rich]

So Ryan is razing a building on the off chance it’ll improve the likelihood that a guy might someday glimpse Wells Fargo’s logo on TV?

[TroyGBiv]

yes - it is worth millions… ten of millions. I worked for Target marketing when the Target Center deal was struck. Every single angle, view and visibility option is planned and packaged. The money is not in historic preservation in this development. Sadly. If you look at the most circulated rendering for the project - it is designed show the "view" from the stadium perspective. This is also the "camera view" and it will go a long way to sell the opportunity. It makes those buildings more valuable and the park actually protects the view of the tower logos for a long long time.

[Rich]

So it's 2016 and I’m standing by the main entry of the new stadium looking west. How does a 4-story building visible to my left obstruct the view of a logo on top of a 17-story building visible to my right?

[MplsSteve]

I guess I can understand the logic behind it, however in the age of social media using signs on top of buildings as a way of branding seems a bit out of date. Does anyone even notice signs anymore?

[go4guy]

I still do not get the love for this building. I think the main entrance is really cool and should be preserved. But the rest of the building is just a 4 story crappy building. How is it historic at all? I say move the front entrance portoin over by the jail end of the park as a backdrop for events. But dont save an entire building just because a small portion of the facade is worth saving.

[spearson]

I still do not get the love for this building. I think the main entrance is really cool and should be preserved. But the rest of the building is just a 4 story crappy building. How is it historic at all?

That attitude is why there are so many parking lots in the first place.

[Didier]

I just refreshed my mind on Google Street View, and anybody who thinks this building could be seamlessly incorporated into the park is lying to themselves.

If you're going to argue for historic preservation then stick to that. The other arguments — that this building could be easily restored, or that it is actually a nice bookend to a major park — are Stretch Armstrong. If you look at the building(s), big stretches do not even reach the sidewalk, and at least one big portion appears to be a windowless industrial facility.

https://maps.google.com/maps?client=saf ... =0CKQBELYD

Finally, I'm just realizing this now, but I'm pretty sure the Star Tribune building is on what would be the eastern block of the yard, no? In which case, the Yard would not be connected to the stadium grounds. Instead the Yard would be a one-block park surrounded by the Star Tribune building, the jail, the Armory and Wells Fargo.

I hope that I'm wrong about this last part, because if not, the idea of incorporating the Star Tribune remnants into the Ryan plan appears incredibly naive.

[woofner]

The historic strib building is on the south half of the block only. When we talk about preservation of the building, it is only that section that is discussed for preservation, not the later additions. It would still leave the north half of the block free for park development. I think a much better design would be to shift the apartment building from the western third of the southwest block to the southern third of the southwest block, so you could still have a park that forms an axis along the northern half of the top two blocks as well as the LRT plaza. This would be a much better park size, in my opinion.

Overall I think the development is worth doing even with the obese park that Ryan is threatening is do or die, but it would be great if the city could push for a compromise.

Edit: here is an illustration:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit? ... tWPZsdgwuU

[lordmoke]

What about taking the facade off of the building and putting it on that stupid 6 story apartment they want to put in front of the jail? The the stick apartments won't look as terrible as I suspect they otherwise will, the Strib building remains (more or less) intact, and Ryan gets their park. What would it cost, an extra 30K, 40K, 100K? Who cares, this thing already costs $400M+.

[mister.shoes]

What if the apartment building proposed for the western third of the southwest block were instead put on the northern third of the Strib block where the non-historic portion of that building currently is? Obviously, the park wouldn't directly connect to the LRT plaza, but there'd be one solid block of 4th St lined with residential/retail on both sides.

Bonus: the Armory wouldn't get half-covered up by a stick-built apartment building and some clever landscaping/access across 5th could tie that building into the park nicely. The Armory + Park + LRT corridor becomes the focus of the "railgating" pregame scene.

Ryan could get more creative with their building designs and instead of doing a fully symmetric design for the two blocks, the western one facing the park would address the park, while the eastern one would address the residential and historic Strib building across 4th.