Since at least the Middle Ages, one function of rich patrons has been to pay for lessons learnt as to which inspired architectural ideas do not work. There is something reassuring in the Fed taking its place in that long procession; and it is dowmright heartening that they are not trying to bury the evidence that they made a big mistake.
Another fact: we Minneapolitans had our downtown library in there for a while while it's building was being renovated.
I must admit, I always thought the suspension-bridge-looking deal was just for show. I had no idea it was actually an integral part of the architecture, and caused leakage.
Not sure of the timing of the decision of whether to build new or renovate, but the old building was also a security risk for crazies such as Timothy McVeigh (1995). You don't want an entire building built like a bridge with the ability to drive a truck into one crucial place and take the whole building down.
So their building is like their economic research --
at first it looks intriguing but over time it has proven to be completely unrealistic and/or have no basis in reality.
The suspension part contained offices. Checks and cash were handled underground. If they pushed the right button, a big concrete door sank into the ground, allowing you to drive down a ramp to a small parking area. Reallty thick green glass windows looked down on you, and every window had a little metal gun port below it. It was a cool place to deliver a pizza.
I'm sure it was possible to break in by force, but it would have cost more than the value of the takings. A sensible system of financial regulation would apply that sense of proportionality. For instance, a serious allegation from a trustworthy source that Madoff was dirty should have provoked scrutiny in proportion to the sums involved. Just guessing, but I suspect we'll learn that there were guidelines to how many hours could be spent looking into such tips, and that the size of the firm didn't matter. Someone looked at Madoff's documents, saw no problems, then marked the case as "looks OK." After lunch, they investigated Heritage Hedge of Hoople, ND.
Bambi's right, the important stuff was in the many underground levels and was very well isolated. I was a research assistant in that building for several years, and it was a bit spooky parking underground, first driving and then walking past all the heavy, very visible security (although I could still reach down and grab a handful of shredded money from the bales that always seemed to be lying around down there). The office tower could perhaps have been taken down by a Timothy McVeigh type, but the money and computer records were very secure.
It was an interesting building to work in, because of the suspension bridge design. We could feel when there were fireworks displays in the area, because of the vibrations. It was nice that the halls were along the edge and the outer walls were tinted glass, with lots of natural light. The article is correct, though, that this left practically everyone with interior cubicles and it was an odd shape, very long and thin. Overall, I liked it better than their current building. It had character.
I had the good fortune of having a Mpls Fed fellow as a professor at Carlson when I was getting my MBA (well, it was a mixed blessing, as the class was on financial valuation and I recall endless bond laddering calculations). As a parting gift to the class, he took us on a tour of the "new" Minneapolis Fed building. This was approximately 10 years ago, so my recollection is a bit hazy, but there were two places in the building that made the deepest impression on me.
First was the vault, which is a large room surrounded by a hallway all the way around. In addition to a large vault door into the room, there are also small holes in walls at about the 4 foot mark (I think that's how high they were -- again, it was 10 years ago). We were allowed to peer through these small holes to see a huge pallet in the center that was densely packed with paper money. More than a billion dollars in cash, they told us. Then they explained the holes in the walls -- in case of a breach of the vault, security guards were to insert the barrels of their weapons and discharge until empty. The thick walls would cause ammunition to ricochet, so it almost didn't matter where you fired -- if you fired enough rounds, there really wouldn't be a place in the vault that you wouldn't get hit.
The second remarkable room was the medium-speed check processing room. We were allowed to stand in the doorway and watch as the checks whizzed past us in a forced-air fueled maze. It looked like an F1 race in miniature, with checks going sideways along the track, except that the speed wasn't miniature -- they really were traveling at 200 mph. You couldn't see individual checks go past at that speed, just ghost images of checks. We weren't allowed to see the high-speed check processing room, as it was a clean room so dirty humans weren't allowed in there.
There is also a huge, beautiful work of art in the lobby, and there really is a bank window there (Who would use it? What banker walks into the Fed and goes to the window to borrow?). Also, there's a shooting range for the security in the building that all Fed employees (or maybe all of a certain level) can use. My professor, who was not in any way physically imposing (perhaps 5'10", maybe 160 lbs. dripping wet) claimed he was a great shot thanks to hours of practice at the Fed's range.
All in all, the Fed tour was the highlight of taking that class.
Since at least the Middle Ages, one function of rich patrons has been to pay for lessons learnt as to which inspired architectural ideas do not work. There is something reassuring in the Fed taking its place in that long procession; and it is dowmright heartening that they are not trying to bury the evidence that they made a big mistake.
Another fact: we Minneapolitans had our downtown library in there for a while while it's building was being renovated.
I must admit, I always thought the suspension-bridge-looking deal was just for show. I had no idea it was actually an integral part of the architecture, and caused leakage.
Not sure of the timing of the decision of whether to build new or renovate, but the old building was also a security risk for crazies such as Timothy McVeigh (1995). You don't want an entire building built like a bridge with the ability to drive a truck into one crucial place and take the whole building down.
So, were the designers of the building, TALL or what?
So their building is like their economic research --
at first it looks intriguing but over time it has proven to be completely unrealistic and/or have no basis in reality.
The suspension part contained offices. Checks and cash were handled underground. If they pushed the right button, a big concrete door sank into the ground, allowing you to drive down a ramp to a small parking area. Reallty thick green glass windows looked down on you, and every window had a little metal gun port below it. It was a cool place to deliver a pizza.
I'm sure it was possible to break in by force, but it would have cost more than the value of the takings. A sensible system of financial regulation would apply that sense of proportionality. For instance, a serious allegation from a trustworthy source that Madoff was dirty should have provoked scrutiny in proportion to the sums involved. Just guessing, but I suspect we'll learn that there were guidelines to how many hours could be spent looking into such tips, and that the size of the firm didn't matter. Someone looked at Madoff's documents, saw no problems, then marked the case as "looks OK." After lunch, they investigated Heritage Hedge of Hoople, ND.
Bambi's right, the important stuff was in the many underground levels and was very well isolated. I was a research assistant in that building for several years, and it was a bit spooky parking underground, first driving and then walking past all the heavy, very visible security (although I could still reach down and grab a handful of shredded money from the bales that always seemed to be lying around down there). The office tower could perhaps have been taken down by a Timothy McVeigh type, but the money and computer records were very secure.
It was an interesting building to work in, because of the suspension bridge design. We could feel when there were fireworks displays in the area, because of the vibrations. It was nice that the halls were along the edge and the outer walls were tinted glass, with lots of natural light. The article is correct, though, that this left practically everyone with interior cubicles and it was an odd shape, very long and thin. Overall, I liked it better than their current building. It had character.
I had the good fortune of having a Mpls Fed fellow as a professor at Carlson when I was getting my MBA (well, it was a mixed blessing, as the class was on financial valuation and I recall endless bond laddering calculations). As a parting gift to the class, he took us on a tour of the "new" Minneapolis Fed building. This was approximately 10 years ago, so my recollection is a bit hazy, but there were two places in the building that made the deepest impression on me.
First was the vault, which is a large room surrounded by a hallway all the way around. In addition to a large vault door into the room, there are also small holes in walls at about the 4 foot mark (I think that's how high they were -- again, it was 10 years ago). We were allowed to peer through these small holes to see a huge pallet in the center that was densely packed with paper money. More than a billion dollars in cash, they told us. Then they explained the holes in the walls -- in case of a breach of the vault, security guards were to insert the barrels of their weapons and discharge until empty. The thick walls would cause ammunition to ricochet, so it almost didn't matter where you fired -- if you fired enough rounds, there really wouldn't be a place in the vault that you wouldn't get hit.
The second remarkable room was the medium-speed check processing room. We were allowed to stand in the doorway and watch as the checks whizzed past us in a forced-air fueled maze. It looked like an F1 race in miniature, with checks going sideways along the track, except that the speed wasn't miniature -- they really were traveling at 200 mph. You couldn't see individual checks go past at that speed, just ghost images of checks. We weren't allowed to see the high-speed check processing room, as it was a clean room so dirty humans weren't allowed in there.
There is also a huge, beautiful work of art in the lobby, and there really is a bank window there (Who would use it? What banker walks into the Fed and goes to the window to borrow?). Also, there's a shooting range for the security in the building that all Fed employees (or maybe all of a certain level) can use. My professor, who was not in any way physically imposing (perhaps 5'10", maybe 160 lbs. dripping wet) claimed he was a great shot thanks to hours of practice at the Fed's range.
All in all, the Fed tour was the highlight of taking that class.