Comments on: Building of the Year

By: champs

champs — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:08:21 +0000

Minneapolis has gone through a string of controversial developments recently — so of course architecture is going to catch our eye.

By: dotbol

dotbol — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:15:23 +0000

I love the bigelow; HGA & soranno continue to do quality work time after time. When did people start caring about architecture? Are my AIA dues finally paying off?

By: champs

champs — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:50:55 +0000

To make a very long story short, I was going on a bike ride in that general direction today, and planned to swing by there, to see what it looked like in the daytime. Plans changed, I got in a hurry to meet my fiancee for lunch in Columbia Heights. Cutting through New Brighton (and passing on a break at Barley John’s), lo and behold… it was right along the way.

No pun intended, but to answer the question of what it looks like in the daytime, it may be a stretch to say the chapel is inspirational, but it does look rather sharp in a very timeless sort of way. It’s connection to everything else on the grounds… not so much. I think the building is quite fitting for the United Theological Seminary for the United Church of Christ. Just like the UCC, or “Unitarians Considering Christ” as my Lutheran seminarian friend puts it, the chapel is very forward-thinking and contemporary — you WANT to forget about their warts.

By: Not2Sure

Not2Sure — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:11:51 +0000

previously linked on mnspeak with flickr pictures here.

By: kwatt

kwatt — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:41:26 +0000

whether you think it's ugly or not, it's not a faux-sandstone monstrosity like the new library and airport light rail station, an angry/happy face like the walker, or a tired blue rerun like that thing by the river.

He's got a great point.

By: tmayhem

tmayhem — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:29:48 +0000

"religious compound"

aka

branch davidion part II: New Brighton

By: champs

champs — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:56:59 +0000

The Bigelow Chapel is on a much smaller scale, and will always stand alone, but it’s fine for the Guthrie to have a limited viewing angle — much of its blah will eventually be screened by urban development around it. I’m still waiting to see the Walker’s “good” angle.

By: theblvd

theblvd — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:25:21 +0000

whether you think it’s ugly or not, it’s not a faux-sandstone monstrosity like the new library and airport light rail station, an angry/happy face like the walker, or a tired blue rerun like that thing by the river.

By: arc-a-teck

arc-a-teck — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 05:37:27 +0000

Stunning. Thanks for the link–I’ll make a point to go check it out.

By: Lileks

Lileks — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:36:37 +0000

That’s gorgeous. It’s either a church or a powerplant, but it’s gorgeous – at least if it’s lit from within at twilight. If you want hideous, check the next “Best Building” in that sequence – a public space with a roof that still manages to be useless in a rain storm.

The church also accomplishes something the Guthrie and Walker lack: it’s coherent from any angle.