39 replies to this topic

[nickmgray]

I live 2 blocks away and go to the coffe shop thats there.  I have not head from anyone that they don't like the project.  The owner of the coffee show actually loves the project since the business would pick up a lot.

I also though I heard they were going to do construction in phases, building the two lower towers around the mansion first and upon completion, start construction on the others.   I could be mistaken though.

[MrSmith]

nickmgray, on Sep 7 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

I live 2 blocks away and go to the coffe shop thats there.  I have not head from anyone that they don't like the project.  The owner of the coffee show actually loves the project since the business would pick up a lot.

I also though I heard they were going to do construction in phases, building the two lower towers around the mansion first and upon completion, start construction on the others.   I could be mistaken though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course the owner of the coffee shop loves the building.  In fact she got them to save her building  Why wouldn't she love it?  All she cares about is more business.

The people who like the development best are the people who live close enough to benefit from the development, but far enough away to not be affected by the negative aspects.

I've heard people in Grant Park brownstones are really angry because Elliot Park association requested the grant park brownstones be built in order to allow enough setback for the Grant Park tower.  It was a way to make the tall tower blend with the neighborhood and not loom over the street.

However, the Elliot Park neighborhood is not requiring any setback on this new tower.  In fact the tallest portion of the building has no setback at all from the sidewalk and rises 31 stories on portland --while being surrounded by 4 story buildings and while having the 4 story brownstowns accross the street.  

Why did Elliot park require brownstones as a setback for Grant Park but then requires no setback on the taller, more massive development accross the street? This building is going to loom over the street and the brownstones in a way that is rarely seen.  Almost all towers are set back 20-30 ft from the street after the first few floors --but not this building!

This complex will be built in phases --because it is so massive.  To put it in perspective-- next time you walk by grank park imagine if they built two more towers right up to the street instead of the brownstones. That is basically what this project is doing.  Retail is great and condos are great, but the scale of this project dwarfs both skyscape and Grant Park --even when combined, but it is built on less space.

Edited by MrSmith, 08 September 2005 - 03:36 PM.

[nickmgray]

I had not thought of the fact that the building does go all the way to the sidewalk.  I remember this being a major issue when they first opprived grand park condos.  But you have to keep in mind that Skyscape is the first to break this rule and not 1010 Park.  True they have 4 storey brownstones on the sides, but the main highrise is not set back from Portland.  I think that these two projects are similar in the fact the the thin side of the building is facing Portland and compared to Grand Park, the tallest town on 1010Park is about half the width, making it a lot less obstructive.



Also, when the developers are willing to throw in retail and public access space between their buildings, it gives the neighborhood board more incentive to approve a project.  We have to be thankful that Grank Park ever got built though.  Without that project breaking the rules (I think the neighborhood master plan called for max height of eight stories) non of these other projects would have ever gotten aproval.  I remember when North Central University proposed the construction of Phillipps Hall. Their original plan as to be 10 stories, but the neighborhood would not aprove the building to be 4 floors in the end.  Things have really changed in the past 6 years.

Edited by nickmgray, 09 September 2005 - 06:43 AM.

[MrSmith]

But the two projects really are not similar...

Yes Skyscape goes all the way to the street in one small portion (along portland).
Notice, that the portion to the street that rises straight up is actually very narrow.



The image of 1010 in the above posting is misleading because it is showing only the 10th street side.  Notice, however,  that the building comes to the street on the 10th street side (right side of pic) --that is actually the narrowest part of the building.  The building actually curves around the Balmoral and growns to 31 stories as it wraps around to the street again at portland.  On the Portland Side it is going to take up 2/3 of the block!

What would make the project so much better would be for the tower to be set back about 20 feet after the fourth floor on both 10th and portland.

Just imagine walking by Skyscape and then imagine continuing down Portland past 1010 --the difference is going to be amazing -- the 1010 -20/31 story complex is so huge in mass and so completely flush to the street that it is actually going to feel uncomfortable to walk by.

[nickmgray]

I see your popint here, but I thought that the 1010 Park project was 4 buildings, making the one on 10th seperate from the on on Portland.  Also, were theyt not going to keep all the buildings on the block and build between them? Looking something like this?


This is my rendering from what I've seen in pictures and read about.  

The fact that it will be 30 stories tall will not make me uncomfortable to walk by it.  The IDS, Wells Fargo Tower and 225 South 6th are 50+ stories and to be honest, you don't even notice it when you're walking by thos ones.

[MrSmith]

They are keeping all the buildings on the block and building between them.  However, the buidling at 10th is connected to the building on portland.  It is connected for 20 stories and then the portland building continues for an additional 10 stories -- It literally wrapes around the Balmoral building.

As for the other tall buildings you mention as being built to the street --there are some key differences.

1.  In the Central business district, the sidewalks are much much wider.  The IDS, for example is built much farther back from the curb than what the 1010 building will be.  The 1010 building will be only six feet from curb to building.  The IDS is something like 18 feet. This is one reason why setbacks on regular streets are important.

2.  In addition to being built farther from the street, most of the IDS near the street is not actually full height.  Are you aware the Gap portion is only 2 stories?  Then it has a recessed entrance (again built back from the street).  Even the corners of the building are built farther from the street.  In fact, the only portion of the IDS that rises to full height along nicollett is a portion no bigger than the size of 2 cars.  Likewise, if you pay attention to to other buildings along nicollet Mall, you'll notice that almost all of the tall buildings have a shorter section built  closest to the street.

3. Even in the cases where  tall building do go directly to the street, they are generally built next to a midlevel buildings.  In the case of 1010 Grant, the surrounding buildings are all 4 stories or less --which only makes the size of the new building forbidding.

If you still think this is all crap --just walk down Niccollet mall and see how pleasnt the street feels --walk all the way to city center and look down the street.  Then compare it to the street where Lyons Pub and Murray's is.  This street has the tall potion on city center built to the street with no setbacks.  The difference is amazing!  Likewise compare the Nicollet Mall side of the IDS to the Back side...an amazing diference.

If Elliot Park were the central business district it would be fine to have towering towers right to the street on occassion.  But, when you are attempting to create a community where people want to live, dine and shop in, things like setback, scale, traffic etc. and design become even more crucial.  

No one is saying don't build the buildings...I think the idea is that the developers should be forced to build buildings that protect maximize benefits to the neighborhood and not just to their wallets.

[nickmgray]

Is there any new news on 1010 Park?  I've been looking, but new info seems to be illusive. SOmeone mentioned that they want to get approval before the end of the year.  Anything?

[nickmgray]

Thought I'd share this with you!

[nickmgray]

My attempt at photoshop and google earth

[fehler]

Love the picture.

Edited by fehler, 09 November 2005 - 09:15 AM.

[MinnesotaPulse]

http://www.downtownj...news/news07.txt

[MrSmith]

The more i learn about this project, the more i hate it.  Not only does it have almost no setback for the tower on two sides, but now it includes two dead-end alleys on each side on the Portland tower.  Are they trying to encourage crime??  In addition, the residential units don't start until the 7th floor --meaning that at night the courtyard and street will be even more crime because there will be no activity and no people around.  This project needs to be rethought --from the ground up!

This project looks cool from the sky, but the design needs major work!!  Even the Nicollet in the heart of downtown has larger setbacks and surrounds its parking by retail, office and housing.

[sushisimo]

I think the project is as ugly as sin, from the air, ground, alley, sidewalk, wherever. The incentive to live there is to be on the inside so you don't have to look at it.

[MrSmith]

sushisimo, on Nov 29 2005, 09:03 AM, said:

I think the project is as ugly as sin, from the air, ground, alley, sidewalk, wherever. The incentive to live there is to be on the inside so you don't have to look at it.

PLEASE LET LISA GOODMAN KNOW HOW YOU FEEL -- ASAP --Even if you are not in her ward.
http://www.ci.minnea...orm-goodman.asp

Again, it is not the height or appearance that is the major problem but the scale, mass, orientation, shadowing, streetscape and all the other details that make it unworkable.  I worry that too many people are only concerned with getting development and not enough about how the development works.

[sushisimo]

Thanks for the link!

[Minneapolitan]

Bapster @ Minnescraper.com posted these new renderings of the proposed 1010 Park project. Notice Grant Park to the right and Skyscape in the foreground. The Elliot Park neighborhood will really have some great density in a couple years.



Site Plan

Edited by Minneapolitan, 12 December 2006 - 10:31 AM.

[Minneapolitan]

I'm really excited about this project because of the school, daycare, office and retail space. All this will create a lot of activity and help make Elliot Park (my hood) one of downtown's most dynamic neighborhoods.

[Snowguy716]

That looks like a major improvement over the old plans.  It seems there is much more streetfront activity and it's not just shoddily thrown together.  It'll be exciting and it will definitely change the skyline view from 35W

[Minneapolitan]

Here's another rendering Bapster posted from the developer's packet.

[City_of_Lakes]

What a great addition to Minneapolis!  Really enjoy the new plan, as Minneapolitan and Snowguy716 pointed out.  By the way, thanks for posting the renderings Minneapolitan.

This is what a "real" city should be like, with little towns within the big city.  Neighborhoods are becoming more and more a focal point as they once were.  That helps rebuild and strengthen communities, creating more opportunity for a walkable envirionment, which in turn promotes safety on the streets and reminds us the importance of getting to know our neighbors rather than holing ourselves up in homes completely detached from the outside world.