Riverplace and St. Anthony Main

[Beaker]

Question: Are Riverplace and St. Anthony Main different, or part of the
same development? Back about 1983 I remember going to an indoor
"shopping mall", which I remembered as "St. Anthony Main", with old-warehouse
themed architecture. IIRC it eventually flopped. Around 1992 I went back to
what I thought was the same place and it was mostly converted into offices,
except for things like a leather store that we went to on the ground floor.
Now, many many lifetimes later, I'm trying to puzzle out whether the
attempted "mall" that I remember is Riverplace or St. Anthony Main?

TIA,
bkr

[kevin collins]

Post by Beaker
Question: Are Riverplace and St. Anthony Main different, or part of the
same development? Back about 1983 I remember going to an indoor
"shopping mall", which I remembered as "St. Anthony Main", with old-warehouse
themed architecture. IIRC it eventually flopped. Around 1992 I went back to
what I thought was the same place and it was mostly converted into offices,
except for things like a leather store that we went to on the ground floor.
Now, many many lifetimes later, I'm trying to puzzle out whether the
attempted "mall" that I remember is Riverplace or St. Anthony Main?

That sounds like St.Anthony Main, with the warehouse look and feel.
St.Anthony Main was first,and seemed to flourish in the mid 70's, I used to
eat there quite often, place with a lot of brass and a Victorian feel.
Cecil's?? It might have had a nice Indian restaurant too. I liked St.
Anthony Main, guess I didn't buy enough stuff, though.

Riverplace came later, about the mid 80's is as specific as I can be. I was
only there once but it was all new construction and looked it. I could
never see the reason for Riverplace: what was the point?

[John A. Weeks III]

Riverplace also featured some upscale, hi-rise housing but as I recall
the builders wanted to capitalize on what was hoped would be a
renaissance of city living. We shopped at Riverplace quite a number of
times - at its height you could buy more than run-of-the-mill foods and
cllothing items from several foreign lands. St Anthony Main also
offered much the same - my most favorite Irish Cap came from a St
Anthony Main shop. The downhill of both places offers lessons for
those who study such things as 'alternatives to suburban big box
stores.'

I recall shopping a few times at Riverplace when I first moved
to the twin cities. In the era before Borders and Barnes & Nobel,
that was one of the places that had a good bookstore. As did
Bandana Square.

The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that there
is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the designated
ramps, you have to pay, and you have to walk trough some
unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood area to get to the mall
from the ramps. People will not go places where they cannot
park, have to walk great distances, or feel unsafe in any way.


If it wasn't for daytime business folks, the City Center would
have long since been history. Just the pan-handlers that frequent
that place keeps me from going there.

-john-

[Beaker]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:55:52 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
(snipped)

Post by John A. Weeks III
If it wasn't for daytime business folks, the City Center would
have long since been history. Just the pan-handlers that frequent
that place keeps me from going there.

It's headed that way. I never ran into any panhandlers in there, but
the stores keep closing and closing. A couple have gone to smaller
locations within the Center, but most just go away. I understand
their most recent plan is to consolidate the shops on the two lower
levels and turn the top into offices. I have no idea what they plan
to do about the food court.

Reminds me of the slow death of its sister urban "mall"
in St. Paul's World Trade Center ...

bkr

[Airkings]

x-no-archive: yes

Downtown Minneapolis used to be a lot of fun in the mid-80's. Riverplace and
St. Anthony Main were vibrant and fun places to go to. The decline really
started roughly in the Sayles-Belton years. If it started before her, she
certainly gave it a push. Now with the socialists in charge, its all over.

It's such a shame, really. Minneapolis has been/could be a nice, manageable
walking city. In my experience the downtown has been very inviting, much
more so than many other similar small to midsize cities. This has certainly
changed. Here's a few reasons, off the top of my head:

1) The block E debacle. Years of debate for this? This is Sayles-Belton's
legacy.
2) The Balkanization of entertainment venues. This may relate to block E,
but Hennepin Avenue could have been great. The entertainment venues are now
interspersed with blocks of no-mans land (ie. the old Skyway Theatre block).
Many undesirable people hanging out in large groups will scare people away.
3) There has been some ugly architecture imposed on us. Top three: The
childish and faddish, and just plain damn ugly Michael Graves bridge (3rd
Ave bridge over 94); Any of the new towers with halos, fans, or weird lights
on them; Weisman museum (ok, not downtown). Kudos: St. Thomas buildings, The
new US Bank tower, YMCA block re-do.

--

Dave

Post by Beaker

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:55:52 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
(snipped)

Post by John A. Weeks III
If it wasn't for daytime business folks, the City Center would
have long since been history. Just the pan-handlers that frequent
that place keeps me from going there.

It's headed that way. I never ran into any panhandlers in there, but
the stores keep closing and closing. A couple have gone to smaller
locations within the Center, but most just go away. I understand
their most recent plan is to consolidate the shops on the two lower
levels and turn the top into offices. I have no idea what they plan
to do about the food court.

Reminds me of the slow death of its sister urban "mall"
in St. Paul's World Trade Center ...
bkr

[Beaker]

Post by Airkings
x-no-archive: yes
3) There has been some ugly architecture imposed on us. Top three: The
childish and faddish, and just plain damn ugly Michael Graves bridge (3rd
Ave bridge over 94); Any of the new towers with halos, fans, or weird lights
on them; Weisman museum (ok, not downtown). Kudos: St. Thomas buildings, The
new US Bank tower, YMCA block re-do.

Actually I think the collection of towers in MPLS is possibly the
most attractive anywhere. Beats the pants off the fugly things they
put up in Denver and Boston.

The Weisman is a crime. And then there's that alumni center made to
look like a rock. Fortunately they both face away from the University's
core historical malls.

When I lived in MSP in the 1980's I just kind of took it for granted
that all modern downtowns were dead forbidding 9-5 business districts
like in Mpls and St. Paul. However, I arrived in Denver last year to find
out that they actually have a lively functioning residential city here.
It's a pretty stark contrast to how I remember Mpls. Too bad they can't
seem to make MSP work the same way.

bkr

[Dan Goodman]

Post by Beaker
The Weisman is a crime.

On the contrary -- it's a splendid effort to recycle tin cans.

[Bill Seurer]

Post by Dan Goodman

Post by Beaker
The Weisman is a crime.

On the contrary -- it's a splendid effort to recycle tin cans.

It would be if it were inside an attractive recyling bin. Who was it
here that called it "The Abomination"?

[Cylise]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:19:45 -0500, Bill Seurer

Post by Bill Seurer

Post by Dan Goodman

Post by Beaker
The Weisman is a crime.

On the contrary -- it's a splendid effort to recycle tin cans.

It would be if it were inside an attractive recyling bin. Who was it
here that called it "The Abomination"?

Me,but I may have been quoting someone who was so accurate that it
seemed the only thing to call it.

[S. Smith]

Post by Beaker
When I lived in MSP in the 1980's I just kind of took it for granted
that all modern downtowns were dead forbidding 9-5 business districts
like in Mpls and St. Paul. However, I arrived in Denver last year to find
out that they actually have a lively functioning residential city here.
It's a pretty stark contrast to how I remember Mpls. Too bad they can't
seem to make MSP work the same way.

Actually, downtown Denver is one of the few other large downtown
areas that I enjoy as much as I enjoy downtown Minneapolis. The
city planners did a good job of making downtown Denver a great
mix of business, residential and entertainment. Minneapolis is on the
way there, but we have a long way to go to catch up to Denver.



- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org

[Lutsen Lumberjack]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Beaker]

Post by Lutsen Lumberjack
I was also in Lincoln for a time. As a second city, Lincoln puts
welfare-fed Saint Paul to shame. For one thing, Lincoln is the state
capital and Nebraska State Fair, AS WELL AS the home of the UNIVERSITY
OF NEBRASKA -- countless-national-college-football-champions! They
have a beautiful stadium. It was easy to forget that I was visiting a
state that was "supposed to" be boring and backwards.

Nice to see you are so enthusiastic about my birthplace.
Lincoln can be cute and quaint and all that. However, for
the most part it puts the "S" in "Sleepy". At least it's
quite a bit safer after dark than St. Paul. :)

bkr

[Lutsen Lumberjack]

Post by Beaker
Actually I think the collection of towers in MPLS is possibly the
most attractive anywhere. Beats the pants off the fugly things they
put up in Denver and Boston.

This depends on whether you're viewing it from the outside or from
actually being there. I agree that the view from northbound 35 to
westbound 94 is breathtaking. In fact, that's one of the first things
a lot of visitors say when arriving downtown.

However, when actually walking downtown, places like City Center and
the new Block E building have a reputation for being downright UGLY,
poorly constructed! (Not to mention all the low class hood types
walking around!) I'm also surprised by the lack of greenery and true
downtown parklike setting in downtown Minneapolis. The only place
truly reminiscent of a great downtown in the Twin Cities _from the
inside_ is in St. Paul, around Rice Park and the central library. Of
course, coming to St. Paul on the freeway that wouldn't be evident at
all.

[Airkings]

x-no-archive: yes

My wife and I were recently in St. Paul, and we walked through Rice Park.
Sadly, the park was overrun by bums, so we didn't stay long.

--

Dave

Post by Lutsen Lumberjack

Post by Beaker
Actually I think the collection of towers in MPLS is possibly the
most attractive anywhere. Beats the pants off the fugly things they
put up in Denver and Boston.

This depends on whether you're viewing it from the outside or from
actually being there. I agree that the view from northbound 35 to
westbound 94 is breathtaking. In fact, that's one of the first things
a lot of visitors say when arriving downtown.
However, when actually walking downtown, places like City Center and
the new Block E building have a reputation for being downright UGLY,
poorly constructed! (Not to mention all the low class hood types
walking around!) I'm also surprised by the lack of greenery and true
downtown parklike setting in downtown Minneapolis. The only place
truly reminiscent of a great downtown in the Twin Cities _from the
inside_ is in St. Paul, around Rice Park and the central library. Of
course, coming to St. Paul on the freeway that wouldn't be evident at
all.

[McGeary]

In article <f7A2b.3817$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Airkings <airkingsNO****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Airkings
3) There has been some ugly architecture imposed on us. Top three: The
childish and faddish, and just plain damn ugly Michael Graves bridge (3rd
Ave bridge over 94)

Don't blame Michael Graves for that one. It's a Frank Lloyd Wright
design that dates from 1937. And I agree that it's hideous. Those light
poles -- ugh.

Post by Airkings
Weisman museum (ok, not downtown).

I love this building. It makes me grin every time I see it, especially
when the sun's hitting it just right. It's creative and whimsical and
damned pretty. Thank god for a building that isn't staid, stuffy
limestone or glass-walled.

[Shawn Barnhart]

Post by McGeary
<snip>

Post by Airkings
3) There has been some ugly architecture imposed on us. Top three: The
childish and faddish, and just plain damn ugly Michael Graves bridge (3rd
Ave bridge over 94)

Don't blame Michael Graves for that one. It's a Frank Lloyd Wright
design that dates from 1937. And I agree that it's hideous. Those light
poles -- ugh.

Is it a pure Wright design, or is it one of those designs "adapted" from
some pencil sketch they found laying around Taliiesin? I find the latter
lose something in the translation.

Post by McGeary

Post by Airkings
Weisman museum (ok, not downtown).

I love this building. It makes me grin every time I see it, especially
when the sun's hitting it just right. It's creative and whimsical and
damned pretty. Thank god for a building that isn't staid, stuffy
limestone or glass-walled.

It's a great building and Frank Gehry is one of the genuises of contemporary
architecture. People who condemn it are missing something. Although I'll
admit to missing something in the new Guthrie design by that French guy
who's a cross between Dr. Evil and Nosferatu.

[John A. Weeks III]

In my opinion, buildings need to stand the test of time, and you and I both
know that the aforementioned bridge, Weisman, and the fluffy halo towers
downtown will NOT. The simple and elegant IDS has, and the beautiful Wells
Fargo will stand the test of time.

The IDS Tower almost did not stand the test of time. When AM/EX was
deciding what to do with their space downtown, they discovered that
the IDS Tower was so full of asbestos that is was not economically
feasiable to remodel the building to meet current needs. Given that,
plus the fact that it was not designed to accomodate the electrical
and cooling needs of computers, it had inadequate HV/AC (especially
the cooling), bad air circulation (temperate would vary 20 to 30
degrees when walking around individual floors depending if you were
in the core or near the windows), and no risers to accomodate
computer networking.

AM/EX finally decided that it would be cheaper to build a new
building than re-use the IDS Tower. That held true even after
they decided to buy an existing building and tear it down for
the prime real estate along 3rd Ave. (That was the old Minnegasco
building, a very early curtian wall building that some considered
to be historic.)

The current owners of the IDS Tower (Brookfield Partners, as I
recall) are sinking huge sums of money into that building. Just
like the old Federal Reserve building, both buildings would have
cost less to tear down and start over. It is only the fact that
they are signature structures that they are being given a chance
to survive. But as far as standing up to the test of time, both
buildings are failures -- one is technologically obsolete after
only 20 years, the other had systems failures that rendered it
unusuable after only 25 or so years.

-john-

[Airkings]

x-no-archive: yes

I'm just referring to design.

--

Dave

Post by John A. Weeks III

In my opinion, buildings need to stand the test of time, and you and I both
know that the aforementioned bridge, Weisman, and the fluffy halo towers
downtown will NOT. The simple and elegant IDS has, and the beautiful Wells
Fargo will stand the test of time.

The IDS Tower almost did not stand the test of time. When AM/EX was
deciding what to do with their space downtown, they discovered that
the IDS Tower was so full of asbestos that is was not economically
feasiable to remodel the building to meet current needs. Given that,
plus the fact that it was not designed to accomodate the electrical
and cooling needs of computers, it had inadequate HV/AC (especially
the cooling), bad air circulation (temperate would vary 20 to 30
degrees when walking around individual floors depending if you were
in the core or near the windows), and no risers to accomodate
computer networking.
AM/EX finally decided that it would be cheaper to build a new
building than re-use the IDS Tower. That held true even after
they decided to buy an existing building and tear it down for
the prime real estate along 3rd Ave. (That was the old Minnegasco
building, a very early curtian wall building that some considered
to be historic.)
The current owners of the IDS Tower (Brookfield Partners, as I
recall) are sinking huge sums of money into that building. Just
like the old Federal Reserve building, both buildings would have
cost less to tear down and start over. It is only the fact that
they are signature structures that they are being given a chance
to survive. But as far as standing up to the test of time, both
buildings are failures -- one is technologically obsolete after
only 20 years, the other had systems failures that rendered it
unusuable after only 25 or so years.
-john-
--
====================================================================
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

[Wayne Marsh]

Post by Airkings
Downtown Minneapolis used to be a lot of fun in the mid-80's.

I think the Nicollet Mall part is again. I've gone down there as a
"destination" several times this summer, to stroll and have a drink or
snack, and sit and read or watch the passing parade.

The streetscape is greatly improved just in the past year or two. There are
many new sidewalk cafes, including the excellent Marshall Field's café at
11th and the Mall, and several others, plus Caribou and Dunn Brothers for
coffee and tea.

The street people are definitely there, but well behaved. I've been
panhandled only once this summer. The lads generally congregate in Peavey
Park, where they nap or play chess or chat with each other, and mostly drift
away around 6 p.m. when the shelters reopen for the night.

All in all, it's a pleasant, mellow place, and I've adopted the Mall, the
southern end of it, as my "town square," where I go to hang out when I'm
otherwise idle.

Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
***@mac.com

[S. Smith]

Post by Wayne Marsh

Post by Airkings
Downtown Minneapolis used to be a lot of fun in the mid-80's.

I think the Nicollet Mall part is again. I've gone down there as a
"destination" several times this summer, to stroll and have a drink or
snack, and sit and read or watch the passing parade.
The streetscape is greatly improved just in the past year or two. There are
many new sidewalk cafes, including the excellent Marshall Field's café at
11th and the Mall, and several others, plus Caribou and Dunn Brothers for
coffee and tea.

Yes, I agree. Nicollet Mall has greatly improved over the last several
years, as have other parts of downtown (Hennepin Avenue, First
Avenue, the Mississippi Mile, the Mill District, etc.). This is no
doubt why we have seen such a big influx into the residential
areas downtown. People are starting to realize that Minneapolis
is a great city to live *and* work in. We still have a long way to
go, but the downtown Minneapolis area has done many things
right over the last several years.




- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org

[Barry Zevan the weatherman]

Post by Airkings
Downtown Minneapolis used to be a lot of fun in the mid-80's.

ya! yoo betcha -- like "moby's man..."

[Airkings]

x-no-archive:

--

Dave


"S. Smith" <***@visi.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[snip]

Minneapolis remains one of the cleanest and safest large cities in
the country

It's not large.

It still is. I walk through it almost daily. Do you?

Weekly.

No, it really hasn't. It sounds more like YOU have changed.

We all change, but that includes the city.

You liked block E better before when Moby Dick's bar and the porn
shops were there?

No, but that wasn't my point. I would like to have seen Block E better
utilized. I would even have liked a park, if you could keep the bums moving.

Ugly for sure, but at least it's more interesting than most freeway
bridges.

At least you agree its ugly.

Everything shouldn't be boxy and dull. Variety and diversity is a good
thing. Different people find different styles appealing. Of course, I
wouldn't someone like you to grasp that concept.

Liberals like you have no taste. You and your ilk would pay thousands for an
"artist" to take a crap on a piece of canvas, and call it art.

[Lutsen Lumberjack]

Post by Beaker
Reminds me of the slow death of its sister urban "mall"
in St. Paul's World Trade Center ...

Downtown St. Paul has cockroaches!

[Steve Sundberg]

Post by Lutsen Lumberjack

Post by Beaker
Reminds me of the slow death of its sister urban "mall"
in St. Paul's World Trade Center ...

Downtown St. Paul has cockroaches!

No more so than downtown Mipples. <grin>

[Steve Sundberg]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:55:52 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

[snip]
The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that there
is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the designated
ramps, you have to pay, and you have to walk trough some
unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood area to get to the mall
from the ramps. People will not go places where they cannot
park, have to walk great distances, or feel unsafe in any way.

Odd. There's a parking lot right across the street from St. Anthony
Main. Park there all day for $2. The ramp is also across the street,
and costs 50-cents/hour to park.

No "unsettling neighborhood" to avoid. In fact, that part of
Minneapolis has never had much of an unsavory reputation ... unless
you consider the clientele of the 400 Bar to be unsavory. <grin> I
park at St. Anthony Main every day, then take the bus downtown
(50-cent downtown rate), to avoid paying the much-higher downtown
parking rates.

[S. Smith]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:55:52 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

[snip]
The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that there
is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the designated
ramps, you have to pay, and you have to walk trough some
unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood area to get to the mall
from the ramps. People will not go places where they cannot
park, have to walk great distances, or feel unsafe in any way.

Odd. There's a parking lot right across the street from St. Anthony
Main. Park there all day for $2. The ramp is also across the street,
and costs 50-cents/hour to park.
No "unsettling neighborhood" to avoid. In fact, that part of
Minneapolis has never had much of an unsavory reputation ... unless
you consider the clientele of the 400 Bar to be unsavory. <grin> I
park at St. Anthony Main every day, then take the bus downtown
(50-cent downtown rate), to avoid paying the much-higher downtown
parking rates.

I live in the neighborhood and walk/bike to work downtown. It's
one of the fastest growing areas in the city right now, with a lot of
new home construction and old home renovation going on. It's
quickly becoming a very gentrified area of the inner city. Most of
the new home construction being done is for upper bracket "lofts"
and condos/townhomes.




- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org

[S. Smith]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:55:52 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that there
is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the designated
ramps, you have to pay, and you have to walk trough some
unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood area to get to the mall
from the ramps.

I take it you haven't been there in the last decade or so. It's
mostly upscale townhomes in the area now. Nothing
"unsettling (ie dangerous)" about that area at all these days.
Quite the contrary, actually. And it never really was a very "bad"
area to begin with...unless you are comparing it to someplace
like Edina or North Oaks.




- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org

[Jeremy S. Nichols, PE]

Post by John A. Weeks III
The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that

there

Post by John A. Weeks III
is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the

designated

Post by John A. Weeks III
ramps, you have to pay, and you have to walk trough some
unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood area to get to the

mall

What danger?

[S. Smith]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:28:36 GMT, "Jeremy S. Nichols, PE"

Post by Jeremy S. Nichols, PE

Post by John A. Weeks III
The problem with Riverplace (and St Anthony Main) is that
there is no parking, and if you follow the signs to the
designated ramps, you have to pay, and you have to
walk trough some unsettling (ie dangerous) neighborhood
area to get to the mall

What danger?

Only the one that exists in John's imagination.




- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org

[S. Smith]

Post by Beaker
Question: Are Riverplace and St. Anthony Main different, or part of the
same development?

They are two different buildings and probably have different owners
and management groups.

Post by Beaker
Back about 1983 I remember going to an indoor
"shopping mall", which I remembered as "St. Anthony Main", with old-warehouse
themed architecture. IIRC it eventually flopped.

Riverplace and St. Anthony Main had retail shops, bars and
restaurants. Right now there are still a few in both, but St. Anthony
seems to do better with their movie theater, bars, restaurants
and shops. I live in the St. Anthony neighborhood along the
river, so we go there fairly often to see movies, eat, drink, get
stuff framed at the frame shop, etc.

I have always loved the heritage and history of that 'Mill District'
part of Minneapolis.

Post by Beaker
Around 1992 I went back to
what I thought was the same place and it was mostly converted into offices,
except for things like a leather store that we went to on the ground floor.

That would be Riverplace. It is mainly just office space now for
ad agencies, etc.

Post by Beaker
Now, many many lifetimes later, I'm trying to puzzle out whether the
attempted "mall" that I remember is Riverplace or St. Anthony Main?

Riverplace tried being an upscale downtown shopping mall for
a while, but it just never took off. After the initial novelty of it
wore off, not many people frequented the shops. So, you are
probably remembering the Riverplace part of that complex.

They also attempted a thing called "Mississippi Live" for a while,
where all of Riverplace was an entertainment complex with several
bars, nightclubs, live music places. You could buy a 'pass' that
would get you into all of the clubs and you could just wander from
one to the other. It actually did pretty well, but the neighbors hated
it because parking was a problem, and many of the drunken bar
patrons would park in front of their houses in the residential areas
and make noise, urinate on their lawns, etc. The neighborhood
successfully lobbied the city to pretty much shut down the complex.




- Scott Smith: ***@visi.com
Smith @ Home: http://www.visi.com/~scott.smith
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org