Does Minneapolis Need a New Tallest Building? (St. Paul, Jackson: loan, neighborhood)

[Bslette]

We don't need a new tallest one. We need to fill in our empty spaces and make downtown more dense. Some 100-600 footers would be nice. I almost wish people would start reviving the old style of building, with all of the buildings side by side. 20's Revival.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

The problem is, the city turned so many great old buildings into parking lots. As a result, there's tons of room for infill in the city. Once those lots get built up, there's nowhere to go but up. In the meantime, we just have to hope that what does get built is done so as to be an asset that will help fuel future growth.

I'm tired of this argument --- "Minneapolis destroyed so many old historic buildings"

Prior to WWII and immediately after, there were no minimum housing standards in urban areas, major cities, especially regarding high-rises. Most of these buildings were constructed around the turn of the century with inadequate standards that is now REQUIRED. Simple buildings standards like plumbing and electricity were exempt from most of these buildings, but furthermore, even things like trash removal, light switch/door knob heights, emergency exits, fire/sprinkler systems, ADA requirements... There are even building standards that require X amount of natural lighting for every X amount of sq. feet. There are minumum standards that make up an offical bedroom/kitchen... All of this stuff needed to be considered in the 1950's,60's, and 70s when much of these buildings were destroyed. Many times, property owners, and developers were looking at a higher bill for restoration than to just raze it and build a lot where they could make money. Plus, prior to WWII and the interstate system, those living in the inner city wouldn't own vehicles (or afford to, or no need for one), often taking streetcars, trains or subways into downtown. The 1950s added the Interstate Highway System bringing swarms of people and their cars into downtown.... Buy my oh my where are these people going to park? Hmm.. spend a million $ refixing a 60 year old crumbling building? or raze it, lay down some asphalt and make money off parking fees? DUH~!

I studied this a lot during my Urban Planning studies, but the whole "gentifrication" argument gets old. Yes, sure some great buildings got destroyed when they probably shouldn't have, but many were due to no other choice, they just had to.

It's trickled into small towns today. I was recently on a community visit for a SWOT analysis in a community west of the Twin Cities, home to about 8,000, with a nice little dowtown. However someone pointed out an old, crumbling, abandond building. They guy showing us around beamed and explained "It's the state theater they wanted to destroy, it went out of business in the early 90s. So the city bought it, but has no money to restore it, we're waiting to secure enough grant money and fundraisers to restore it and then we'll have movies playing there"

It was a cute story, but really? You're going to sit on this eyesore downtown so it can be restored? And once you restore it, you want to have movies play there? Movies did play there!! Until the 1990s. Then big, fancy, nice, comfy theater on the other side of town was built... and that's where people go now. They don't want to go to the dark, 100 yr old theater downtown that's dead as a graveyard after 4 pm every day.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by knke0204

I'm tired of this argument --- "Minneapolis destroyed so many old historic buildings"

Prior to WWII and immediately after, there were no minimum housing standards in urban areas, major cities, especially regarding high-rises. Most of these buildings were constructed around the turn of the century with inadequate standards that is now REQUIRED. Simple buildings standards like plumbing and electricity were exempt from most of these buildings, but furthermore, even things like trash removal, light switch/door knob heights, emergency exits, fire/sprinkler systems, ADA requirements... There are even building standards that require X amount of natural lighting for every X amount of sq. feet. There are minumum standards that make up an offical bedroom/kitchen... All of this stuff needed to be considered in the 1950's,60's, and 70s when much of these buildings were destroyed. Many times, property owners, and developers were looking at a higher bill for restoration than to just raze it and build a lot where they could make money. Plus, prior to WWII and the interstate system, those living in the inner city wouldn't own vehicles (or afford to, or no need for one), often taking streetcars, trains or subways into downtown. The 1950s added the Interstate Highway System bringing swarms of people and their cars into downtown.... Buy my oh my where are these people going to park? Hmm.. spend a million $ refixing a 60 year old crumbling building? or raze it, lay down some asphalt and make money off parking fees? DUH~!

I studied this a lot during my Urban Planning studies, but the whole "gentifrication" argument gets old. Yes, sure some great buildings got destroyed when they probably shouldn't have, but many were due to no other choice, they just had to.

It's trickled into small towns today. I was recently on a community visit for a SWOT analysis in a community west of the Twin Cities, home to about 8,000, with a nice little dowtown. However someone pointed out an old, crumbling, abandond building. They guy showing us around beamed and explained "It's the state theater they wanted to destroy, it went out of business in the early 90s. So the city bought it, but has no money to restore it, we're waiting to secure enough grant money and fundraisers to restore it and then we'll have movies playing there"

It was a cute story, but really? You're going to sit on this eyesore downtown so it can be restored? And once you restore it, you want to have movies play there? Movies did play there!! Until the 1990s. Then big, fancy, nice, comfy theater on the other side of town was built... and that's where people go now. They don't want to go to the dark, 100 yr old theater downtown that's dead as a graveyard after 4 pm every day.

This is an AWESOME post! Incredibly informative. Thanks!

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

This is an AWESOME post! Incredibly informative. Thanks!

Thanks.

It should be noted that Philadelphia and Oklahoma City have built new tallests recently and I'm sure they have had their share of vacant lot issues. I have been to both downtowns, and Philadelphia had it's share of open spaces, but mainly south and not to the degree of Mpls. In fact, Philly is very dense and it's crazy to see a high rise next to a colonial building.

In OKC, there is a lot of open space, so it was weird to see a large high rise being built across the street of a vacant lot.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by JTJ1977

For a medium sized city of roughly 400,000 people, I found Minneapolis' downtown to be quite impressive during a visit in 2006, and I have seen a great many skylines. The buildings have a wonderful bluish tint to them when the sun's shining brightly (or maybe it's the Mississippi River causing the bluishness). I don't live there (yet), so that's really all that I can say at the moment.

That population number can be deceiving when compared to other cities because Minneapolis is "landlocked" at 58.4 sq mi on all sides by other cities/suburbs that it can't annex. Minneapolis would match some "bigger" cities on population if the city limits were extended similar to distances.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by moving123456

That population number can be deceiving when compared to other cities because Minneapolis is "landlocked" at 58.4 sq mi on all sides by other cities/suburbs that it can't annex. Minneapolis would match some "bigger" cities on population if the city limits were extended similar to distances.

Minneapolis used to have more people living inside the city limits.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Minneapolis used to have more people living inside the city limits.

521,718 during the 1950 census looks like it was about the peak, more people could definitely fit in the current city limits.

I have just sometimes seen or heard people refer to somewhere like Charlotte, NC as a "bigger" city because the city population is 751,087, but the city limits cover 297.7 sq mi.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by moving123456

521,718 during the 1950 census looks like it was about the peak, more people could definitely fit in the current city limits.

I have just sometimes seen or heard people refer to somewhere like Charlotte, NC as a "bigger" city because the city population is 751,087, but the city limits cover 297.7 sq mi.

Charlotte had an advantage of annexation. Mpls didn't. In many ways it isn't far.

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by Bslette

We don't need a new tallest one. We need to fill in our empty spaces and make downtown more dense. Some 100-600 footers would be nice. I almost wish people would start reviving the old style of building, with all of the buildings side by side. 20's Revival.

I was joking about the mile high tower but it would be cool to have a new tall building, the 3 we mpls already has are pretty much the same height.


idk about you but i can see a nice large gap perfect for a skyscraper right in the middle.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

I don't know if Minneapolis can make a mark on a global scale unless its population is at least one million. But, yeah, I think a new tallest building would be cool. But like others have said, it probably doesn't NEED one.

Atlanta has, at least a little, and the City of Atlanta is only 432,000 or so as of 2012. The reason the metro here is over 5 million is the fact that people keep on moving into the suburbs here. The city itself isn't that large.