106 replies to this topic

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 14 2006, 08:23 PM, said:

Detroit has plenty of buildings that are in an abandoned state, those buildings don't even count as prospective office space. I'm not talking about buildings that are vacant but ready to lease. Now I feel like I'm repeating myself. Also Minneapolis has one building taller, which is about what ? 50 -60 ft. taller than the ren. Cen. ? and yes, the Ren. Cens actual peak height is on the riverfront side at 748 ft. Cleveland only has about 3/5ths the skyscrapers Detroit does in its cbd, and while I give props to its tallest building, it is just one building that gained height with its crown. Also I realize we are not talking lowrise or towers, that's why I said highrises and skyscrapers. Again, is this about physical size or economic status ? help me out here.

Minneapolis has three buildings taller than RenCen.  RenCen is 726.7 feet tall, not 748, with 5.5 million square feet of office space.  And I repeat, ONCOR counts ALL buildings, Class A,B,C AND vacant buildings in its international reports.  If the question is about "great midwest downtowns" you can argue all you like about subjective qualities.  That's not the point of my resonse! My response is to the person who claimed Detroit has the "second largest skyline" in the Midwest.

It simply doesn't.  Period.

So what are you arguing about?

Edited by AvianKeahi, 15 January 2006 - 02:19 AM.

[Exodus]

AvianKeahi, on Jan 15 2006, 02:14 AM, said:

Minneapolis has three buildings taller than RenCen.  RenCen is 726.7 feet tall, not 748, with 5.5 million square feet of office space.  And I repeat, ONCOR counts ALL buildings, Class A,B,C AND vacant buildings in its international reports.  If the question is about "great midwest downtowns" you can argue all you like about subjective qualities.  That's not the point of my resonse! My response is to the person who claimed Detroit has the "second largest skyline" in the Midwest.

It simply doesn't.  Period.

So what are you arguing about?

Again, Detroit has plenty of buildings that are in an abandoned state, those buildings don't even count as prospective office space. I'm not talking about buildings that are vacant but ready to lease. Buildings that are in virtual disrepair and or have unclear titles or futures. That's about the farthest I can break it down, and I doubt any building like this is counted as office space. Also office space in a cbd can mean any size of building, and highrise and skyscraper can be residential or hotel. The physical number of skyscrapers in the immediate cbd/downtown skyline of Detroit comes to about 50, this is buildings at least 20 stories and or around 250 ft. or taller. Again, this is within the sq. mile area known as downtown, and does not include midtown, Newcenter, Lafayette Park, Rivertown, or River East(Goldcoast). And your wrong, The Hotel in the Ren. Cen. was recorded at 748 ft. on the riverfront entrance by the Guiness Book of World records in 1977, which was the tallest hotel at the time. Too often sites and there resources like skyscraperpage and scyscrapers.com are inconsistant. For example, you say 726, but at one time it said 725, and at one time it was 721 and so forth. And I'm not trying to argue about nothing, I made my statements, and you are trying to contradict me, sounds like you are the one trying to argue. All I'm saying is that Detroit has the second largest downtown skyline in the midwest, and many other things in its downtown that make it great, despite some of the problems it has, which is slowly being worked on. Detroit has 50 known skyscrapers in its cbd, and at least 36 highrises in the cbd that I know of, Minneapolis has 37 skyscrapers in its cbd that I know of, and around 49 highrises in its cbd that I know of. In otherwords the number of skyscrapers and highrises in both cities cbd's are a close match of what I can tell, but the number of highrises and skyscrapers are inverted, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger as far as skyscrapers and obviously taller overall. Detroit does lack somewhat on skyscrapers outside of downtown, but it still has about 10 in the adjoining areas of downtown, which gives it right at 60 overall. Minneapolis does really well on skyscrapers outside the cbd for its size due to economics, but the overall number gathered from a much more spread out area than Detroits areas tells a different story. There is about 56 skyscrapers all together in Minneapolis, which means that even in a flat number Detroit still has more. Plus the adjoining areas to downtown Detroit have as far as I know at least another 40 highrises. None of what I'm saying is 100% correct I'm sure, but I grew up in Detroit and as a person interested in architecture I can tell you that I'm close, and I'm sure I've even missed or forgotten a few buildings. I've done my homework to some degree, and I know that Minneapolis does not have a larger downtown skyline than Detroit despite the 3 buildings that is slightly higher than the Ren. Cen., unless you call every community even remotely close to the cbd downtown. I think What helps Minneapolisis skyline is that it is layed out a little more even, while Detroits is slightly disjointed due to the Ren. Cen. If the 7 buildings of the Ren. Cen. and even the 3 riverfront towers was divided up and placed evenly throughout the rest of the skyline, you would see an obvious difference.
Detroit might not be as economicaly stable as Minneapolis, but isn't that another subject, and obvious ? Which leads me to wonder what you are trying to argue about ? I suspect that since Detroits decline, other cities have been kicking it while its been down and competing  to have bragging rights to who is the second city in the region. By focusing mostly on Detroits  pitfalls while focusing on another cities boom helps to put a slight spin on the subject, and wala ! we can now now brag about being the biggest and best in the region outside of the Windy City, am I close ? Since Chicago is so far ahead on everything, noone can do anything but give props to it.

Edited by Exodus, 16 January 2006 - 04:32 AM.

[Exodus]

hudkina, on Jan 14 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

Interesting, especially when you consider the Renaissance Center has nearly 6 million square feet of office space alone.
Great so what are the boundaries of each of these "downtowns"?  I'd like to see where Detroit ranks when you include the office space in Midtown and New Center, which size-wise is more comparable to what the definition of "downtown" Minneapolis is.  I'm sure Cadillac Place, the Fisher Building, and several of the other larger office buildings along the Northern Woodward corridor bring up the numbers quite a bit.  I know that Cadillac Place alone has over 1 million square feet of space.

Detroit was set up in compact sections and layout similar to NYC. It starts with the sq. mile area off the river which is downtown and of course has the downtown skyline. Then it moves north to the two mile stretch of the "midtwown" area, which has the university, medical, and cultural districts. Then moves farther north to the Newcenter "uptown" area, wich is a smaller second corporate hub. The cities planners carefully laid out a uniformed and organized layout for the central city. Since Detroit(including Highland Park & Hamtramck)had 2.2 million at one time crammed into 140 sq. miles, there wasn't room for sprawl and random development. Detroit is built like a traditional city should be built, and when you compare the lay out of Manhattens downtown, midtown, and uptown sections(albeit a bigger area) to Detroits, you will see what I mean. Detroit also has close to a sq. mile area called Lafayette Park just to the east, and a three mile stretch that hugs between the river and Jefferson Ave. that include Rivertown & Rivereast(Goldcoast).
So the Central city of Detroit has it's fair share of dense urban areas outside of downtown. All to often cities will call anything remotely urban and in the central part of the city "downtown" as to bump it's "downtown" size and height on a skyscrapers list, or they confuse downtown with the general central area of the city. At least Atlanta has the sense to know what is downtown, midtown and so forth, and its a newer developed southern city. So Detroit has it right, and a downtown or cbd is usually around a sq. mile or so, anything else is just an adjoining central city district to downtown. There needs to be a class on this, it  can be called Downtown 101

Edited by Exodus, 16 January 2006 - 04:14 AM.

[AvianKeahi]

Disclaimer - This is simply in response to this thread's sub-issue of downtown size.

Exodus,
If you wish to include multiple clusters of development as part of a generalized, multi-nodal "downtown," you may certainly do so.  Then you must also accord the same to every other city in America.  Minneapolis could claim the University area, Cedar-Riverside, the East Bank and the North Warehouse District as well.  But for this comparison I won't.  I have never even remotely considered buildings that are not part of the square mile of downtown core.

If you wish to count skyscrapers and highrises, that's fair game too.  Minneapolis has 28 existing skyscrapers higher than 100 meters - 4 of these are over 200 meters.  An additional one is under construction, 2 are in pre-sales (residential) and 2 more are proposed.  These towers are all within the square mile of downtown.

Detroit has 27 skyscrapers over 100 meters - one of which is over 200 meters, and it is shorter than the three tallest Minneapolis towers.  No additional towers are currently under construction in Detroit, and you would have to tell me if any more are proposed (there may be, but I haven't heard of any).

Minneapolis has 83 towers in the 50-100 meter range, 73 of which are in the downtown core.  Six others are in the 4 districts mentioned above.

Detroit has 69 towers in this height range.  I don't know how many of these are not in the downtown area, so you can tell us which ones.

Again, please listen.  I am not dissing Detroit.  I think it's a great city.  I have no issues with people's subjective perceptions of it and I reiterate that I worked there for two years.  My argument simply relates to people's take-it-for-granted attitude that Detroit has the second-largest downtown in the Midwest.  There are many factors that can determine this, but based on height, massing and square footage - reasonably objective factors - Detroit does not have the second largest downtown.  If you wish to dispute the figures, go ahead.  But then supply reasonable counter-facts.

A true comparison must also take into account the area we're talking about regarding each city, as you have said.  May I propose aerial map comparisons?  Graphics are often easier to understand than descriptions.

BTW, Downtown 101? I did take a class on it.  More than one. My Master's degree is in Architecture with an Undergraduate in Urban Design.

Edited by AvianKeahi, 16 January 2006 - 10:37 AM.

[Exodus]

AvianKeahi, on Jan 16 2006, 10:26 AM, said:

Disclaimer - This is simply in response to this thread's sub-issue of downtown size.

Exodus,
If you wish to include multiple clusters of development as part of a generalized, multi-nodal "downtown," you may certainly do so.  Then you must also accord the same to every other city in America.  Minneapolis could claim the University area, Cedar-Riverside, the East Bank and the North Warehouse District as well.  But for this comparison I won't.  I have never even remotely considered buildings that are not part of the square mile of downtown core.

If you wish to count skyscrapers and highrises, that's fair game too.  Minneapolis has 28 existing skyscrapers higher than 100 meters - 4 of these are over 200 meters.  An additional one is under construction, 2 are in pre-sales (residential) and 2 more are proposed.  These towers are all within the square mile of downtown.

Detroit has 27 skyscrapers over 100 meters - one of which is over 200 meters, and it is shorter than the three tallest Minneapolis towers.  No additional towers are currently under construction in Detroit, and you would have to tell me if any more are proposed (there may be, but I haven't heard of any).

Minneapolis has 83 towers in the 50-100 meter range, 73 of which are in the downtown core.  Six others are in the 4 districts mentioned above.

Detroit has 69 towers in this height range.  I don't know how many of these are not in the downtown area, so you can tell us which ones.

Again, please listen.  I am not dissing Detroit.  I think it's a great city.  I have no issues with people's subjective perceptions of it and I reiterate that I worked there for two years.  My argument simply relates to people's take-it-for-granted attitude that Detroit has the second-largest downtown in the Midwest.  There are many factors that can determine this, but based on height, massing and square footage - reasonably objective factors - Detroit does not have the second largest downtown.  If you wish to dispute the figures, go ahead.  But then supply reasonable counter-facts.

A true comparison must also take into account the area we're talking about regarding each city, as you have said.  May I propose aerial map comparisons?  Graphics are often easier to understand than descriptions.

BTW, Downtown 101? I did take a class on it.  More than one. My Master's degree is in Architecture with an Undergraduate in Urban Design.

You misunderstood what I said, I said that all to often people call the general central areas downtown, and I don't. I said downtown should be considered the main cbd. The reason I mentioned the adjoining areas to Minneapolisis downtown is to show that what many think is part of the downtown skyline, is not, and there for breaking it down to how many skyscrapers are actually in the cbd. I just mentioned Detroits adjoining downtown areas to show that if Minneapolis wants to count all of it's areas, that Detroit still has a few more on a total scale. The bottem line is that Detroit has more buildings in the 20 storie range or higher in its downtown than Minneapolis, about 50 to 37 as far as I know, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger and taller on an over all scale. Again, counted office space can be any type  of building, and skyscrapers can be residential and hotel. The main reason I mentioned highrises is to show how both skylines are close to being inverted, Minneapolis has about as many highrises as Detroit has skyscrapers and Detroit has about as many skyscrapers as Minneapolis has highrises. And once again, none of this is a science, because all to often resources contradict thereselves and each other at times, but the numbers is basicaly correct. I don't count proposed or even approved buildings, just the ones already built or under construction. If you want to include those, Detroit has two Casino hotels under construction and one approved, four condos proposed(2 highrise & 1 skyscraper size), and another 25 storie building proposed.
This is not a subjective view, but just real physical numbers on how many skyscrapers each cities downtowns have, which is what makes a skyline.

Edited by Exodus, 16 January 2006 - 05:05 PM.

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 16 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

You misunderstood what I said, I said that all to often people call the general central areas downtown, and I don't. I said downtown should be considered the main cbd. The reason I mentioned the adjoining areas to Minneapolisis downtown is to show that what many think is part of the downtown skyline, is not, and there for breaking it down to how many skyscrapers are actually in the cbd. I just mentioned Detroits adjoining downtown areas to show that if Minneapolis wants to count all of it's areas, that Detroit still has a few more on a total scale. The bottem line is that Detroit has more buildings in the 20 storie range or higher in its downtown than Minneapolis, about 50 to 37 as far as I know, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger and taller on an over all scale. Again, counted office space can be any type  of building, and skyscrapers can be residential and hotel. The main reason I mentioned highrises is to show how both skylines are close to being inverted, Minneapolis has about as many highrises as Detroit has skyscrapers and Detroit has about as many skyscrapers as Minneapolis has highrises. And once again, none of this is a science, because all to often resources contradict thereselves and each other at times, but the numbers is basicaly correct. I don't count proposed or even approved buildings, just the ones already built or under construction. If you want to include those, Detroit has two Casino hotels under construction and one approved, four condos proposed(2 highrise & 1 skyscraper size), and another 25 storie building proposed.
This is not a subjective view, but just real physical numbers on how many skyscrapers each cities downtowns have, which is what makes a skyline.

No, I don't think I misunderstand.  You do not seem to understand the basic layout of Minneapolis.  It is unfair of you to claim that I am co-opting non-downtown areas as part of downtown Minneapolis.  Minneapolis does not have any ancillary urbanized (with high-rises) areas other than Cedar-Riverside and the East Bank.  And, as I have said, I am not counting those areas.  (And I legitimately could, since the East Bank is only 1000 feet from the West Bank of downtown.)

Minneapolis' CBD extends, containing all of the buildings I mentioned above, as a continuous built-up area, about 1.5 miles north-south and roughly 1 mile east-west.

Regarding the "inversion" you talk about, I really don't think you can back that up.  Minneapolis has just as many buildings - and actually a few more - than Detroit does in the 50-100 meter range.  However, I thank you for clarifying the current construction status of downtown Detroit's buildings.  I was unaware of the casinos.

The animated picture below is worth a thousand words.  It only covers the top 15 buildings, but I can extend the animation to 100 buildings if that's what it takes. I don't really mean to be a dick about this - I'm actually very happy to reasonably debate people and will gladly aknowledge when I am wrong.  I just want people to understand that the knee-jerk reaction that "Detroit has the tallest/biggest/most massive Midwest downtown outside of Chicago" just doesn't wash.  It doesn't mean that Detroit won't eventually get an 80-story tower or anything like that.  It's just happens that here, today,  Minneapolis has a larger/taller/more massive downtown, and it's the second largest in the Midwest.  And this animation goes a long way in explaining why Minneapolis has over 10 million more square feet of office space than Detroit. (Note to those who are unfamiliar with Detroit:  Buildings 4-7 are the four identical satellite towers of the Renaissance Center.)

Click on the link if it doesn't show up in your browser:

Edited by AvianKeahi, 16 January 2006 - 08:17 PM.

[Exodus]

According to what I found out, downtown Minneapolis has about 25 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 43 at least 50 meters. Downtown Detroit has at about 26 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 40  buildings at least 50 meters. A second source gives downtown Detroit about the same number of 100 meter buildings, but list 54 at least 50 meters. Earlier I listed 49 highrises and 37 skyscrapers for downtown Minneapolis which = 86, so the 25 100 meters + the 43 50 meters = 78, which is about right give or take. Also earlier I listed  about 36 highrises and about 50 skyscrapers for downtown Detroit which = 86, so the 26 100 meters + 54 50 meters = 80, which again is about right give or take. The whole number of 50 meter + buildings in Minneapolis is about 88 actually, while Detroit has around 100 give or take. Again, Detroit  has 26 out of 27 100 meter buildings downtown, while Minneapolis has 26 out of its total 100 meter buildings  downtown. Again, Downtown Detroit has more buildings also that are in the 20 storie and or 250 ft. range or taller than downtown Minneapolis, about 13 more as a matter of fact. I could spend a lot of time trying to get every name and every little fact about every building in Detroit, but I'm not trying to spend that much time on this or make it into an exact science. According to what I know along with what resources there are on the web, what I say is true though not 100 % perfect on the figures, after all a lot of figures have been contradicted over the years. I could tell you to check out certain sites that I've mentioned before, but even these sites aren't 100 % correct, but I'm sure it does give the basic figures to go by. And yes, Minneapolis does have different sections that are included on the over all list of skyscrapers, the areas include University, Calhoun Isles, Powderhorn, LongFellow, Northest, and Phillips. When you research these individual areas and subract from the actual cbd skyline, you will pretty much get the numbers I have. And yes, I am including east and west downtown together, so don't go through the trouble because I've already done that. Despite three buildings being slightly higher than the ren. Cen., downtown Detroit has more buildings considered skyscrapers than downtown Minneapolis does, which gives it a bigger downtown skyline over all. And that is a cool graph you have, but once Minneapolis gets past the first three that are slightly higher than the Marriot Ren. Cen., the comparisons become a lot more even. When downtown Minneapolis were to run out of what is considered skyscrapers,  downtown Detroit would keep going for at least another dozen. So yes, Detroit still does have the largest midwestern  downtown skyline outside of Chicago.

Edited by Exodus, 16 January 2006 - 08:50 PM.

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 16 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

According to what I found out, downtown Minneapolis has about 25 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 43 at least 50 meters.

Minneapolis has 111 buildings higher than 50 meters.  About 80 of those are in the downtown area

28 are higher than 100 meters, not 25.  (One of those is currently under construction, so you could argue that only 27 are over 100 meters.) Data is here: http://www.skyscrape...ies/?cityID=255

[Exodus]

AvianKeahi, on Jan 16 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

Minneapolis has 111 buildings higher than 50 meters.  About 80 of those are in the downtown area

28 are higher than 100 meters, not 25.  (One of those is currently under construction, so you could argue that only 27 are over 100 meters.) Data is here: http://www.skyscrape...ies/?cityID=255

First of all, I said that dt Minneapolis has about 78 buildings at least 50 meters give or take, which you are just repeating what I've said. Second of all, minus the three 100 meter buildings that aren't in the cbd, and you get about the same figure for dt Minneapolis that I quoted. So this is pretty much a repeat of my post. And yes, I count construction

[Snowguy716]

Well, Minneapolis is a clear second in the poll...

Which city is better known:  Detroit.  Why?  Well, when I think of Detroit, I think of murder.  But I also think of cars.

Minneapolis has the better known skyline.. but there are lots of people in this country and world who don't know where Minneapolis is.

It was recently written by Bill Bryson:  "Perth is a lot like Minneapolis, just a nice, modern, and clean city."

We must also look at where these cities are going.  Minneapolis is experiencing quite a spectacular boom downtown and the metro area is growing rapidly.  Detroit's metro area is not growing that fast and Detroit proper is losing residents at an amazing rate (it's now around 900,000 compared with 1.8 million the 50s).  

But I know no one is going to change their minds.. and if you're from Minneapolis, you're oging to think Minneapolis is better, and if you're from Detroit, you're gonna think Detroit is better..

[Exodus]

Snowguy716, on Jan 16 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

Well, Minneapolis is a clear second in the poll...

Which city is better known:  Detroit.  Why?  Well, when I think of Detroit, I think of murder.  But I also think of cars.

Minneapolis has the better known skyline.. but there are lots of people in this country and world who don't know where Minneapolis is.

It was recently written by Bill Bryson:  "Perth is a lot like Minneapolis, just a nice, modern, and clean city."

We must also look at where these cities are going.  Minneapolis is experiencing quite a spectacular boom downtown and the metro area is growing rapidly.  Detroit's metro area is not growing that fast and Detroit proper is losing residents at an amazing rate (it's now around 900,000 compared with 1.8 million the 50s).  

But I know no one is going to change their minds.. and if you're from Minneapolis, you're oging to think Minneapolis is better, and if you're from Detroit, you're gonna think Detroit is better..

Actually Detroit is coming along slowly, but it is still kinda crappy. Detroit is just obviously bigger. Add Detroits size, setup, and architecture with Minneapolisis economy and quality of life, and you would have one hell of a city. Which is basically describing Detroit 50 years ago.

[Exodus]

Just one question, shouldn't the Bank One Plaza count as two buildings ?

Edited by Exodus, 17 January 2006 - 01:47 PM.

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 17 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

Just one question, shouldn't the Bank One Plaza count as two buildings ?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.  Bank One is 62 meters high.  What other tower are you proposing?

[Exodus]

AvianKeahi, on Jan 23 2006, 07:12 PM, said:

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.  Bank One is 62 meters high.  What other tower are you proposing?

Bank one in Minneapolis has two towers, so obviously it should count as two towers.So shouldn't it have that extra tower counted on its skyscrapers list ? Just my opinion.

Edited by Exodus, 26 January 2006 - 06:04 AM.

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 26 2006, 06:02 AM, said:

Bank one in Minneapolis has two towers, so obviously it should count as two towers.So shouldn't it have that extra tower counted on its skyscrapers list ? Just my opinion.

Oh, sorry.  I thought you meant Bank One Tower in Detroit.  The two-tower complex in Minneapolis is US Bank
Plaza.  It used to be called Pillsbury Center and was Pillsbury's HQ until it got bought out by General Mills.  Yes, it is two separate towers connected by an atrium.  I didn't count it separately because I was lazy.

[hudkina]

speaking of two-tower complexes.  Why isn't Detroit's Municipal Center split into two towers?  Sure they're attached, but I think that they're so different that they could easily count as separate buildings.  After all the five towers of the Ren Cen technically all have the same base.

[AvianKeahi]

Exodus, on Jan 16 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

.. Detroit is just obviously bigger...

Oh dear...Sorry to beat a dead horse, but here's the top 25 then...

(BTW, it's freakin' cold out tonight so I could spend time in front of the TV, race to the nearest bar or do something like this.  I hope we all realize that we're skyscraper nerds. )



Hey, wait a minute!  Racing to the nearest bar doesn't sound half-bad!

Edited by AvianKeahi, 17 February 2006 - 09:58 PM.

[AvianKeahi]

And BTW, I want to say again that I have a lot of respect for Detroit and its downtown.  It's a great city.  I'm not trying to be one of those weird freaks from KC or STL who can't get enough of bashing each other's cities.  I'm just trying to respectfully point out that we often have misconceptions about size (get your mind out of the gutter   ), and that some assumptions about Midwestern downtowns need to be altered.

We should all take field trips to other Midwestern cities and list every great thing we can find.

[bobjgumby]

AvianKeahi, on Mar 8 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

And BTW, I want to say again that I have a lot of respect for Detroit and its downtown.  It's a great city.  I'm not trying to be one of those weird freaks from KC or STL who can't get enough of bashing each other's cities.  I'm just trying to respectfully point out that we often have misconceptions about size (get your mind out of the gutter   ), and that some assumptions about Midwestern downtowns need to be altered.

We should all take field trips to other Midwestern cities and list every great thing we can find.

Why is everyone so fixated on the size.  Looking at your comparisons more of the buildings in MSP are newer mostly glass buildings compared to Detroit's older more opulent towers.  I'll take Detroits Cathedrals of Finance over new crap anyday.  Detroit has it's share of modern crap but outside of New York and Chicago no one can match the quality.

[AvianKeahi]

bobjgumby, on Mar 15 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

Why is everyone so fixated on the size.  Looking at your comparisons more of the buildings in MSP are newer mostly glass buildings compared to Detroit's older more opulent towers.  I'll take Detroits Cathedrals of Finance over new crap anyday.  Detroit has it's share of modern crap but outside of New York and Chicago no one can match the quality.

^Because the issue we've been repeatedly addressing in this sub-section is simply downtown size.  If you want to address aesthetics, that's a whole different issue.

You might want to claim that Detroit has "better" older buildings.  I probably wouldn't disagree with you.  There are a lot of beautiful older buildings in Detroit. However, if you automatically think that "old" = "beautiful" then I have a problem with that.

There are a of crappy older buildings, just as there are a lot of crappy newer buildings.  However Minneapolis' and St. Paul's most important "modern" buildings have been designed by some of the world's leading architects today.  Cesar Pelli, Phillip Johnson, Jean Nouvel, Herzog & DeMeuron, Frank Gehry, Michael Graves, Kenzo Tange and I.M. Pei to name but a few.  Many of these structures are just as architecturally significant - if not more so - than anything built in Detroit in the last 100 years.

One other point: If you want to disparage "glass towers" then you should come down hard on the Renaissance Center as well. (And I have to admit that I do.  I've been in several of Portman's buildings and I think he is a one-trick pony.  The RenCen is an urban design disaster)

If you think "old" equals "quality" then you need to re-examine your assumptions about design.

Edited by AvianKeahi, 18 March 2006 - 10:47 PM.