RBC Gateway & Four Seasons - 37 stories - 519'

[MSPtoMKE]

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/G...endaID5189.pdf

Well, this is curious (and yes, first time post). Stumbled on this while checking out Seattle's development news (amazing stuff happening out there). The project is a 440' residential tower (3rd and Lenora on SSC). On page 30 of the document, there's a rejected project proposal that looks similar to the Duval proposal. And then on page 38, there's a diagram of the crown, and the treatment sure looks similar to Duval. And the architect is Perkins + Will. Hmmm...almost looks like they took the rejected proposal, slapped 460' of glass box on top and used the same lighting treatment. Sure, architects use a blend of ideas all the time, but this is supposed to be a unique iconic building. So, is Duval just trying to get some company visibility with the proposal? If Duval is selected, will he work up a more unique proposal? Thoughts?

I'm not sure if looks totally similar, but I guess there is some similarity. But yeah, the construction happening is Seattle is pretty impressive, I believe I walked by the site for this project (along with many others) last week. I tried to count the number of cranes in the South Lake Union area last night driving by on the way to the airport, but I lost track...

[EOst]

Yeah, though it's hard to compare Seattle to anything outside the big three. Amazon alone is adding 70,000 (!) new workers downtown in the next couple of years, and they're really just the beginning.

[mullen]

that United properties building looks interesting.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 63771.html

[7sisters]

Heck, if you added just 10 stories to the United proposal it's still the tallest all-residential building in the city (if you consider the hotel portion to be separate). Generally speaking though, it is really hard to compare and contrast them since three proposals clock in between 30 and 36 stories, while Duval went all the way to 80 (but couldn't self-finance like the 3 big local firms). Right now we have one very ambitious proposal that is the obvious favorite, but might not be realistic, and three others that are very realistic but far too unambitious. A "mid-range" proposal of anywhere from 45-65 stories would make this a lot more interesting.

I do agree and there should have been a 50 story minimum instead of the 20 that was layed out in the requirements for these developments.

50 story minimum in Minneapolis?!? You almost have a better chance saying that about the next building in Farmington. Think about it- Minneapolis's is ok with 20 stories being "iconic" downtown. 20 stories would be "iconic" in Farmington. I don't even think 20 stories would be iconic in St. Cloud! That's what I like about the Duval proposal- he's like- " in your face" to everything proposed in Minneapolis in the last 25 years.

[PhilmerPhil]

tall ≠ iconic

[MplsSteve]

I love how everyone obsesses about downtown Minneapolis building height (and the lack of) as if it was connected to some kind of deep seated civic inferiority complex. Doesn't it really boil down to economics? If the market could support taller buildings downtown, someone would build them. By the way, I do think the Duval proposal has a chance of succeeding because it combines three different uses that separately would probably not be viable in a building that size.

[MN Fats]

tall ≠ iconic

Why not both? All of the buildings I recognize on that page are very tall.

[go4guy]

tall ≠ iconic

Why not both? All of the buildings I recognize on that page are very tall.

Agreed. The shortest one I can see that I am familiar with is the London Egg which is 40 stories tall. And that is also in an area that does not have buildings much taller, IIRC. Burj Al Arab is over 1000 ft. So that is absolutely tall. Or was this sarcasm that I did not pick up on?

[EOst]

Iconic has much more to do with historical prestige than height. Being tallest is one way to get prestige (eg. the Empire State Building); another is a famous architect (Pan Am Building); another is an unusual design (Flatiron Building). You don't need more than one for something to become the icon of most cities.

I mean, hell, when I think of Toronto, my first thought isn't of the tallest, it's of this.

[Silophant]

Yep. No ones saying that tall buildings aren't iconic, just that height isn't the only factor. To use everyone's favorite punching bag, 33 South Sixth is about 200 feet taller than the Accenture Tower, but I'd argue that the much more interesting design of the latter makes it more iconic.

[MN Fats]

Iconic has much more to do with historical prestige than height. Being tallest is one way to get prestige (eg. the Empire State Building); another is a famous architect (Pan Am Building); another is an unusual design (Flatiron Building). You don't need more than one for something to become the icon of most cities.

I mean, hell, when I think of Toronto, my first thought isn't of the tallest, it's of this.

Funny, when I think of Toronto it's the CN Tower

[Wedgeguy]

Iconic has much more to do with historical prestige than height. Being tallest is one way to get prestige (eg. the Empire State Building); another is a famous architect (Pan Am Building); another is an unusual design (Flatiron Building). You don't need more than one for something to become the icon of most cities.

I mean, hell, when I think of Toronto, my first thought isn't of the tallest, it's of this.

I'd have to agree with MnFats in the CN Tower is definitely the Icon of Toronto. The building you showed is like the Rookery in Chicago that has the charm and the grace of the past that stands out. There will never be buildings like that build again. But to most people that would just be an old building and not so cool. To those of use that appreciate architecture, that is a building that is very classy.

Well it looks like Mr. Duval had woke the developers up in this city and said we can do great or we can do average. The average are now trying desperately to compete with his tower. Developers now have to be looking over their shoulders as they have someone that can out perform them. HE has a great set of references and some pretty big names that he can draw from. Let's hope his ability to get foreign capital into the city can pay off!!

[mnmike]

Why are so many only talking about skyscrapers when we are talking about iconic buildings. Is the Sydney opera house not iconic? The Walt Disney Concert Hall? The Guggenheim? Maybe even The Guthrie Theater on a local level. The Spike in Dublin? Not even talking about this (Nicollet) site...but for a stucture to be iconic it certainly doesn't have to be tall, speaking generally on the subject of "icons". There are plenty of iconic buildings/structures/objects people remember or that are landmarks that are not huge skyscrapers...and a lot of people here seem to be saying "iconic" has to mean tall. Just sayin'. I would argue the biggest "icon" in Minneapolis right now is probably the cherry and spoonbridge...and a quick google search for those words did indeed bring up many pics of that!

I would agree that with the proposals at hand, the Duval one is probably the only one that says "iconic" in any kind of terms...but the idea that the only buildings people remember as iconic are tall ones is incorrect, I think. I also think the city was using the term "iconic" loosely in their RFP, to be honest. They wanted to use a strong enough word to evoke more creativity than just a parking podium with a box, and it seems to have worked with all these developers bringing more than we are used to seeing from them.

PS, I really agree with Eost's post...that is a good summary of what can acheive icon status...history is a big factor, onvioulsy new can't have that:) There are other ways, aside from height.

I do like the Duval tower, don't get me wrong...I just feel like a lot of people are getting hung up on this term iconic and saying it has to mean huge...it doesn't. But again, I do think of the 4 proposals, Duval would be the only one that says icon yes...just because it is the most different (in it's particular case because of height). A really cool tower design of 40-50 floors could easily be more "iconic". How many times can I use that word?

[MN Fats]

Why are so many only talking about skyscrapers when we are talking about iconic buildings. Is the Sydney opera house not iconic? The Walt Disney Concert Hall? The Guggenheim? Maybe even The Guthrie Theater on a local level

Of course all of those buildings are iconic. I'm just discussing "iconic" through the lens of this particular project. How can this particular project be iconic and also satisfy the requirement of "a mix of commercial, retail, residential, office and hotel uses"? This is why people are talking skyscraper, in my opinion tall and iconic go hand in hand here.

[mnmike]

Ah yes, that makes sense, I was speaking more generally.

Even if one of the proposals was for a 30 floor tower and some amazingly designed unique space/use at the bottom. Not sure what that is, but that could sure be an icon. I think it would have been cool if one of the devlopers would have included an amazing cutting edge planetarium in their design, but I know the ship on that has kind of sailed for downtown. Would have been perfect for this project, in my opionion. I want to see some sort of destination at the base.

[min-chi-cbus]

If somebody is willing to chisel a 100 foot tall block of marble into the second coming of St. Peter's Basilica (in the Vatican), then I guess height doesn't have to be a factor. But short of that (or thereabouts), I think height probably has to be at least one of the key factors for something iconic in the City of Minneapolis today. Duval's proposal is iconic -- the rest are not. I could see the argument that their proposal wouldn't be the most popular if it were the same height as the others, but I personally wouldn't agree, since I really like the sleek and simple-looking design of Duval's proposal. But Duval at 35 floors would probably NOT be iconic. The height definitely matters on this block.

Generally speaking though, you don't need height to make a truly great or iconic project that integrates well with the street and the city. For the most part, that's true.

[Wedgeguy]

Again, Why the height make the difference here, because we want to draw people to the north end of the mall. We need something that can visually draw people to it and keep them coming back or staying by having a well designed ground level that has cache to make people remember it. The building will not be what the city hopes for if they botch the ground level. We have enough botched up street levels in this city already. I myself don't feel like the street car going thru part of the block is going to be a saving grace. I look at it more of a nuances that much be designed around and will give us walls of nothing where they go by. Hopefully they can prove me wrong. The thing that I don't like is that there will be curve on the mall for this street car and the squeal of the wheels as they round the curve would keep me from wanting to eat at a restaurant on the mall in that area. Bad enough to hear that squeal on the blue and green lines as it makes curves when you are on the inside of the train.

[LakeCharles]

I get the larger theoretical argument that height ≠ iconic. But here we have four uniconic buildings by design. One of them happens to be really tall, hence it is iconic. So people gravitate toward that one. If the other buildings were the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim, and St. Basil's Cathedral, people would be more torn. But they're not. So while I sympathize with people who don't want height just for heights sake, there is a reason people are gravitating toward it in this case.

Edit: I guess what I'm attempting to say is that some people have a reason to like the Duval project, and detractors have mostly just said "Height is a dumb reason to pick a building" versus giving any reasons to prefer the other projects more.

[Archiapolis]

Why are so many only talking about skyscrapers when we are talking about iconic buildings. Is the Sydney opera house not iconic? The Walt Disney Concert Hall? The Guggenheim? Maybe even The Guthrie Theater on a local level. The Spike in Dublin? Not even talking about this (Nicollet) site...but for a stucture to be iconic it certainly doesn't have to be tall, speaking generally on the subject of "icons". There are plenty of iconic buildings/structures/objects people remember or that are landmarks that are not huge skyscrapers...and a lot of people here seem to be saying "iconic" has to mean tall. Just sayin'. I would argue the biggest "icon" in Minneapolis right now is probably the cherry and spoonbridge...and a quick google search for those words did indeed bring up many pics of that!

I would agree that with the proposals at hand, the Duval one is probably the only one that says "iconic" in any kind of terms...but the idea that the only buildings people remember as iconic are tall ones is incorrect, I think. I also think the city was using the term "iconic" loosely in their RFP, to be honest. They wanted to use a strong enough word to evoke more creativity than just a parking podium with a box, and it seems to have worked with all these developers bringing more than we are used to seeing from them.

PS, I really agree with Eost's post...that is a good summary of what can acheive icon status...history is a big factor, onvioulsy new can't have that:) There are other ways, aside from height.

I do like the Duval tower, don't get me wrong...I just feel like a lot of people are getting hung up on this term iconic and saying it has to mean huge...it doesn't. But again, I do think of the 4 proposals, Duval would be the only one that says icon yes...just because it is the most different (in it's particular case because of height). A really cool tower design of 40-50 floors could easily be more "iconic". How many times can I use that word?

Care to name a few current/modern buildings that are NOT arts/culture related that fit your criteria for "iconic?" Can you point to a building that is predominately housing/hotel that you consider "iconic" for the city in question?

[xandrex]

I definitely like Duval's proposal best, but if height is the defining factor (as many for the project have indicated), then I have to wonder how "iconic" this building would be later on should we get a much taller building. Right now, this proposed building's status relies mostly on it being taller than IDS.