Minneapolis Skyline Future (Madison: construction, living, buses)

[tijlover]

In my years in Minneapolis, I was rather amused at what they considered historic enough, not to tear down, and what I considered Historic that should never have been torn down, like the Antlers Hotel on Hennepin and the Curtis Hotel, but not so much the Leamington. A lot historic buildings were torn down to make way for the Urban Renewal district near the post office. I'm glad now that, from what I've read, the Cedar Riverside towers are considered historic enough not to be demolished.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

As MplsTodd said, the super-luxe, 550-foot high, Eleven has broken ground on West River Parkway (the smallest units will sell for more than $1 million):



And the 519-foot high Gateway is well underway, which will house the US Headquarters of RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) Wealth Management, plus a Four Seasons Hotel topped by luxury condos at the intersection of Nicollet & Washington:



In addition, the 400+foot North Loop Green is proposed next to Target Field:


Alatus is working on a new 348' skyway-connected apartment tower on 12th Street across the street from the Minneapolis Convention Center:




Shorter projects include the new 220 Hennepin apartment building at Hennepin & Washington downtown:



And the somewhat disappointing project by Opus, called 301 Nicollet at Nicollet & 3rd, which is a prime location that calls for a much larger and inventive and iconic building than this:

This is great. Thanks for sharing.

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by tijlover

When Norwest Bank decided to build their new tower, it was designed to go taller than the IDS tower, but the city council, then, didn't want any new tower to be higher than the IDS building. I remember that from living there through the 70's and 80's. I hope that's no longer in effect, so one day, a 1000 footer can rise to the skies in downtown Minneapolis.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Had Norwest built a building taller than the IDS they would have had to pay to relocate all the radio antennas and they didn’t want the additional costs which would have been substantial. Same thing happened when First Bank built their new headquarters a few years later. The city council wasn’t involved and the same obstacle is there today.

There is absolutely no ordinance or policy prohibiting a building taller than the IDS. This is an urban myth that is surprisingly robust, but very wrong. If there is, then provide the link to the city's website that says so. And neither is there any sort of "gentleman's agreement" since that would have to be legally defensible and recorded with the proceedings of the City Council. And these are on public record and are freely available for public searching.

And Norwest wouldn't have "had to pay to relocate" anything because the onus would fall upon the leaseholders of the radio towers on top of the IDS. It was their decision to place the broadcast towers there. And it's their responsibility to move them to a higher location if necessary if conditions change.

Building a skyscraper next to a condo tower does not obligate the skyscraper developer to reimburse the condo owners for a lost view. That's the risk you take as any property owner. You have little control over what gets built in your neighborhood.

Similarly, building an office tower higher than the building that is housing radio antennas does not obligate the developer to reimburse the cost of relocating those broadcast antennas.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

There is absolutely no ordinance or policy prohibiting a building taller than the IDS. This is an urban myth that is surprisingly robust, but very wrong. If there is, then provide the link to the city's website that says so. And neither is there any sort of "gentleman's agreement" since that would have to be legally defensible and recorded with the proceedings of the City Council. And these are on public record and are freely available for public searching.

And Norwest wouldn't have "had to pay to relocate" anything because the onus would fall upon the leaseholders of the radio towers on top of the IDS. It was their decision to place the broadcast towers there. And it's their responsibility to move them to a higher location if necessary if conditions change.

Building a skyscraper next to a condo tower does not obligate the skyscraper developer to reimburse the condo owners for a lost view. That's the risk you take as any property owner. You have little control over what gets built in your neighborhood.

Similarly, building an office tower higher than the building that is housing radio antennas does not obligate the developer to reimburse the cost of relocating those broadcast antennas.

I never suggested there was a city policy not a “gentlemen’s agreement.” The cost of accommodating the radio and tv antennaes was a practical consideration that limited the height of both buildings. It may have been the cost of accommodating the radio antennae rather than the actual cost of relocation.

That cost, along with a perceived slackening in the demand for retail office space, led the new management at Norwest to pursue a new design from the one that would have had the Norwest Center taller than the IDS Center. I was an employee at Norwest at the time and was tangentially involved in the process.

For what other reason would both buildings have been constructed mere feet shorter than the IDS?

IDS 775’6”
First Bank/ Capella 775’
Norwest/ Wells Fargo 774’

[Astron1000]

^Because there is a financial "sweet spot" in all high rise construction. There really are tiers of building heights that make sense in every major city. It has to do with zoning and IBC rules.

For example, if Norwest had been 100 feet higher, a whole new set of rules kicks in. You'll have to have another set of elevator banks, possibly another set of stairwells, which reduces the leasable square footage per floor, which pressures the footprint to widen to accommodate more leasable square footage per floor, which increases the foundation costs, which might infringe upon setback rules and could therefore make the project financially infeasible. Not to mention the marketability of adding another 100,000 square feet to the Class A market.

And yes, you are absolutely right about Norwest's original proposal, which would have been about 950' tall. But the market softened around the mid-80's after the initial Reagan boom, and Norwest asked Cesar Pelli to offer a new design for the building. It penciled in at just about the height of the IDS.

I'm sure you already know this, but for those who aren't privy to the high stakes of high-rise architecture, it is not just about design. It's about hard numbers that make a project work out financially. You just can't add height for the sake of height. There are dozens of intertwined variables that determine the final height of a building. IDS, City Center, Norwest and Capella were built in an era that made a 52-58-story tower financially feasible for this market.

You can see these forces at work in Denver, Columbus, Dallas, Houston, San Diego, etc. Each of these cities have several buildings in similar tiers that reflect the market forces prevalent at the time of their construction.


P.S. Fun Fact: IDS (Investors Diversified Services) is now known as Ameriprise, and is among the world's 25 largest asset managers. It is still headquartered in downtown Minneapolis.

[Glenfield]

^A “financial sweet spot” might put the three buildings within a few stories (52-58 you say) of each other, but wouldn’t explain why they were both shorter but within 18”. The reason was to capture the prestige of a landmark building yet still remain below the radio towers atop the IDS.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

There is absolutely no ordinance or policy prohibiting a building taller than the IDS. This is an urban myth that is surprisingly robust, but very wrong. If there is, then provide the link to the city's website that says so. And neither is there any sort of "gentleman's agreement" since that would have to be legally defensible and recorded with the proceedings of the City Council. And these are on public record and are freely available for public searching.

And Norwest wouldn't have "had to pay to relocate" anything because the onus would fall upon the leaseholders of the radio towers on top of the IDS. It was their decision to place the broadcast towers there. And it's their responsibility to move them to a higher location if necessary if conditions change.

Building a skyscraper next to a condo tower does not obligate the skyscraper developer to reimburse the condo owners for a lost view. That's the risk you take as any property owner. You have little control over what gets built in your neighborhood.

Similarly, building an office tower higher than the building that is housing radio antennas does not obligate the developer to reimburse the cost of relocating those broadcast antennas.

Thank you for this. Common sense prevails.

[knke0204]

If a building is built taller than where radio towers are currently located, then... uh... why aren't the owners of said towers responsible for moving them? Honest question

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by knke0204

If a building is built taller than where radio towers are currently located, then... uh... why aren't the owners of said towers responsible for moving them? Honest question

It may not have been the cost of actually relocating them but the additional cost of building the structure so it strong enough to accommodate them. I don’t recall anymore what the specific cost was, but I do remember that there was a cost involved and, along with a slackening in demand, it was enough to deter the new management at Norwest from proceeding with their original plan to build the city’s tallest building. A few years later, First Bank made the same decision.

Surely you don’t think it’s chance that led to the Norwest Center reaching 99.8% of the height of the IDS Center and First Bank teaching 99.9%?

[spectre000]

If you’re willing pay, the Star Tribune Archive is a great source on these past skyscraper proposals. Lots of fun reading on the Norwest building, IDS 2, etc. I’m sure the public libraries have all the articles for free on film.

I’m not sure if it’s still in effect today, but around the time of these big tower proposals, anything over 875 feet tall needed FAA approval. One of the proposed designs for IDS 2 was 1,025 feet tall. That would’ve been something.