urbanMSP

Going before Committee of the Whole (CoW) on 4/2: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 139350.pdf

The street level is great, but not so fond of the upper levels. To uniform and monolithic. Could use a little more variation. The metal shingles look very similar to the ones used at The Walker Library.

Going before Committee of the Whole (CoW) on 4/2: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 139350.pdf

The street level is great, but not so fond of the upper levels. To uniform and monolithic. Could use a little more variation. The metal shingles look very similar to the ones used at The Walker Library.

I have to agree with you on every point John. There is potential to make that one building look like 2-4 different buildings and still work very well. Not sure I'm for a whole block long with that metal shingle look.

Needs a cornice, like most new projects lately.

Going before Committee of the Whole (CoW) on 4/2: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 139350.pdf

The street level is great, but not so fond of the upper levels. To uniform and monolithic. Could use a little more variation. The metal shingles look very similar to the ones used at The Walker Library.

Oh boy.

I'm just sitting here laughing because architects can't win for losing.

Tom Fisher (Dean of the College of Design at the U of M) writes an article shredding the city's design guidelines for giving rise to multi-family residential architecture that looks like a "collage." The city responds with the retort that not one project has been built according to the guidelines as thus putting the onus BACK on the architects who have been doing most of these projects. Looking up and down these forums and the complaints about "every building looking the same" and/or "every building has too many materials." The Brunsfield gets universal praise and AIA awards and held up as a model of simplicity and restraint.

Here we have a building that has adopted a monolithic look AAAAAAAND...the comments are that it should look like "several buildings" and "have more variation."

I guess this is why "art" is so interesting - subjectivity.

In everybody's defense, this project is probably three time as big as the Brunsfield.

When this project takes up 2/3 or more of the street frontage on Washington, All of the street frontage on Chicago, and half the street frontage on 3rd street it is almost 2/3's of a city block. This is what we lament about in the burbs, a big block of sameness. This area should be a grouping of buildings that play off each other. There could easily be 3 different facades that are not made to look like a collage with a half dozen different materials all fighting to be noticed.
The building that is being renovated has two different facades and compliment each other very well. Why this monolith can't be broken into at least 3 section is beyond me. One facing Washington, one facing 3rd, and the 3rd would be the lynch pin that fills in the area on Chicago. We don't need the way out of Velo or 222 with 6 different material all fighting in a small space. But we can surely have brick buildings facing Washington and 3rd with the metal shingle on Chicago as the complimentary lynch pin that would connect the other two facades together. I just think there can be a lot more done to make this building fit into the neighborhood a whole lot better. Just my opinion.

When this project takes up 2/3 or more of the street frontage on Washington, All of the street frontage on Chicago, and half the street frontage on 3rd street it is almost 2/3's of a city block. The building that is being renovated has two different facades and compliment each other very well. Why this monolith can't be broken into at least 3 section is beyond me. One facing Washington, one facing 3rd, and the 3rd would be the lynch pin that fills in the area on Chicago.

Agree , If they did something like this it would look better and improve it's relationship with the scale of the older buildings on the block. It could be subtle yet just enough variation to break up the massing to soften it's blocky appearance. It's not about reinventing the wheel here.

When this project takes up 2/3 or more of the street frontage on Washington, All of the street frontage on Chicago, and half the street frontage on 3rd street it is almost 2/3's of a city block. This is what we lament about in the burbs, a big block of sameness. This area should be a grouping of buildings that play off each other. There could easily be 3 different facades that are not made to look like a collage with a half dozen different materials all fighting to be noticed.
The building that is being renovated has two different facades and compliment each other very well. Why this monolith can't be broken into at least 3 section is beyond me. One facing Washington, one facing 3rd, and the 3rd would be the lynch pin that fills in the area on Chicago. We don't need the way out of Velo or 222 with 6 different material all fighting in a small space. But we can surely have brick buildings facing Washington and 3rd with the metal shingle on Chicago as the complimentary lynch pin that would connect the other two facades together. I just think there can be a lot more done to make this building fit into the neighborhood a whole lot better. Just my opinion.

Perfectly legitimate opinions. I'd dispute an earlier comment that it is 3x bigger than Brunsfield but maybe it's true.

This all points up how difficult it is to do a meaningful/beautiful building in multi-family housing.
-"It's too big" (almost NEVER in architect's control)
-"The materials are bad" (difficult to pinpoint but I've NEVER heard an architect propose a "cheaper/worse" material when given a choice).
-"Too monolithic." (there are some real difficulties here which are economic as well as city code driven).
-"Too many materials." (see above).
-"It should be taller" (almost never in architect's control).

I love my job and I jump out of bed each morning so this isn't a "woe is [us]" complaint. I'm trying to illustrate that it is difficult to thread the needle with the perfect building and especially so in this building type.

Last point: I'd offer that there is merit in monolithic aspects to this building. Architects throughout time have talked about "truth in materials" and a way that this building is expressing some truthfulness is to say, "From level 2-6 this building has a certain function/use (housing). That function is being called out in a very consistent way with materials and a very simple massing so as to make it distinct from the existing historic buildings and the ground level commercial uses." The "millennium" panels (see Walker Library) are best used in a "field" where their inconsistencies, reflectivity, etc can become a pattern unto itself. Brick has been used historically for the same idea and to great effect. I'd say, give it a chance...

Anyway, thanks for engaging and caring about buildings as always.

I don't think anyone is putting this (or any other building's design) solely on the architect. Sherman and ESG have proved together they are capable of much better. So, presumably, this is them working on a stricter budget. That said this proposal is fine here. It really a pretty crappy place to be presently (yes, I know things are changing).

Sherman also said from the get-go that this was intended to be a more moderately-priced (non-"luxury") project.

I do complain about design from time to time, but I honestly don't think it makes a difference unless it's a building that truly stands out and is intended to be a center point for the neighborhood. In this case, the building's main feature is its retail tenant. It could be the ugliest building in the world and people will not care as long as the retail portion is done right and connects well with the street.

When I lived downtown, I used to walk down Chicago and turn on Washington a few times a week. At the time, the area was all surface parking lots. A complete dead zone. None of the buildings along Washington Ave are great, but I think all of us would agree that the new construction over the past decade has created a neighborhood that's quite attractive.

Sherman Associates is seeking $316,050 in environmental cleanup funds and $250,000 in transit-oriented development grants:

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/04/min ... in-grants/

Filed report to HPC on renovation of Thresher Square

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 141312.pdf

They will be activating the roof space.

According to the Sherman website this will be called "Zentro"

http://www.sherman-associates.com/713-s ... on-avenue/

Did anybody gather how many hotel rooms were proposed altogether?

152 pages of a planning commission report

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 143405.pdf

Did anybody gather how many hotel rooms were proposed altogether?

I think it may be 143 according to the staff report

So is this still happening or did it fall apart? Maybe the Trader Joe curse is a thing!

So is this still happening or did it fall apart? Maybe the Trader Joe curse is a thing!

They are just trying to time out the next apartment break where they are not part of a large block that has to fight for attention! Better to start when the snow is falling!

So is this still happening or did it fall apart? Maybe the Trader Joe curse is a thing!

They are just trying to time out the next apartment break where they are not part of a large block that has to fight for attention! Better to start when the snow is falling!

good to know. I still wonder if Trader Joe's is still a part of it. You would think they would have confirmed it by now. They were so dead set on that skyway part I wonder if they still went through with it or not. It doesn't seem that unrealistic that Lunds would have jumped at the opportunity to take another segment of the downtown market you know with the coming storm and all (hyvee)