This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
List here lost properties that have been confirmed from a published source. These should be reported to the Minnesota Historical Society for delisting.
Can't find in aerial or street view imagery. -
McGhiever (
talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Definitely demolished (many years ago, according to an owner of the nearby restaurant) except for an outlying shed, which I photographed.
Jonathunder (
talk) 15:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Reported by new local editor; empty lot in satellite photos. -
McGhiever (
talk) 22:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That would explain why we couldn't find it last August when I got most of the other sites in Bovey.
Jonathunder (
talk) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Dropped by site on April 15, 2013, became suspicious is either gone or is actually next door. Cross-checking at SHPO on April 16, 2013; the c. 1860 house is not anywhere in the area it's supposed to be. Safe to presume demolished. --
Bobak (
talk) 16:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Dropped by site on April 15, 2013, thought I may have found it and took some photos of a very unique structure. Cross-checking at SHPO on April 16, 2013; the fairly typical period house is not at the site (waterfront condos are) and it is safe to presume demolished. --
Bobak (
talk) 17:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Most contributing properties appear to have been razed and replaced with modern structures in current Google satellite view. -
McGhiever (
talk) 02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Couldn't find it driving past the site in September 2015. Google Maps now appears to show two circular outlines of where it was.
Jonathunder (
talk) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Location seems accurate per description in nomination form. Nothing visible in satellite imagery, plus
this upload to Panoramio from a searcher in 2011.
Coordinates unverified
Besides the three sections above, these are the only properties whose coordinates I am less than 99% sure of. In 2012 and 2013 I fine-tuned the coordinates for every MN NRHP listing to be spot-on. These remaining properties are probably correct but have resisted confirmation through aerial or street view imagery. -
McGhiever (
talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)reply
District No. 13 School—Moved to grounds of Big Stone County Historical Museum (per site visit Sep 2013; haven't found a citable source). -
McGhiever (
talk) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Shady Lane Stock Farm—Barn, silo, & granary demolished per aerial photography, only farmhouse still standing. -
McGhiever (
talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Confirmed what happened to it: In 1984 it was moved to Lake Washington County Park for use as a pedestrian bridge. The move was never "pre-approved" for the move as per NRHP procedures (documentation, approval by State Review Board, approval by the Keeper), and it was apparently automatically removed by the Register--though SHPO continues to show it as listed, at the old location; and the state bridge plan shows it as listed, at the new location. According to a January 11, 2011 by Dennis Gimmestead (Cultural Resources Unit, Office of Environmental Services, MNDot) it needs a new nomination to re-list. --
Bobak (
talk) 17:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Add to this section any properties that are difficult or impossible for regular contributors to photograph clearly. This will help other photographers know which sites are largely hopeless, while pinpointing which properties to request an image donation for from institutions like the Minnesota Historical Society.
These properties were delisted due to loss from demolition, fire, etc. They remain in need of a photograph, which could be solicited from a historical society or other institutional donation.
These properties were delisted because they were moved or altered, compromising their historical integrity. They may still be standing but their current locations are unknown. It may be useful to add their current coordinates and possibly a current photograph.
Some properties, particularly archaeological sites, are listed by the NRHP as "Address restricted" to protect them from looting or vandalism. There is a placeholder image used for these in county lists, but it may be possible to acquire specific images for some of these listings (for example, from a historical society or the Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, artifacts from the site now in a museum, or a historical marker). Moreover some sites are more publicly accessible than the NRHP listing suggests (marked with interpretive signage in a park, for example) and could be given coordinates and a site photo.
"Two separate linear mound groups which lie almost parallel to each other. Located in a wildlife sanctuary on the south end of Cross Lake. N.E. 1/4 of Sec. 32-137-27."[6] However, possibly 46°38′47.93″N94°7′57.7″W / 46.6466472°N 94.132694°W / 46.6466472; -94.132694 based on configuration of roads in map on pg. 62 of [www.osa.admin.state.mn.us/documents/LiDARreportEdited.pdf Archaeological Prospection for Precontact Burial Mounds Using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) in Scott and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota], which doesn't look like a wildlife sanctuary. -
McGhiever (
talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I know the exact location of this site, I called the owner of the property for permission to go check it out, but he never called back. Alas it's not visible from the public areas. What's left is a short earthen mound. --
Bobak (
talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)reply
"About four miles north of Little Falls."[10] Note this is a Native American site and not the replica log cabin and historic marker in the same vicinity.
"The only structure remaining... is the stone ruins of the former powder magazine. Basement foundations of a number of structures are indicated by deep depressions in the ground sprouting small trees. Camp Ripley marked the site with a flagstaff and a large sign... smaller signs indicate the locations of prominent buildings... Individual visits to the fort site are not allowed, but with advance notice, the camp will give an escorted tour to groups of at least ten... [Alternatively] you can see the site from the other side of the Mississippi... On the north end of the village [of Fort Ripley] is a turnoff to an attractive polished black granite marker with the history of Fort Ripley. You can drive or walk the short distance south of the marker to the turnaround. Across the river and south at the clearing is the site of old Fort Ripley." –Jeff Barnes, Forts of the Northern Plains (2008)
"On the western bank of the Mississippi about four miles south of Little Falls."[10] Underwater from a 1925 dam, but a 1919
D.A.R. monument was moved to higher ground, per nomination form.
^Dudzik, Mark J. "Annual Report, Fiscal Years 2004/05" (Document). Office of the State Archaeologist. {{
cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (
help)
I shifted the
Willard Bunnell House link from
Winona to
Homer, because the house is actually in Homer, which borders Winona. I am gathering solid material now toward creating the Bunnell House article very soon.
Hurrmic (
talk) 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Draft tally table of MN RHPs by county
Drafting at
National Register of Historic Places listings in Minnesota\temp...if this turns out okay i would like to insert it into this list-article, as has been done for some other state RHP lists. This main list-article is a bit large, currently. If the remaining 20 or so small counties were table-ized, it would be too large. Is it okay if i move out to separate pages, some of the remaining larger counties?
doncram (
talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I moved out the remaining counties that had 20 or more listings. A couple with 19 already were split out. Still too big. Need to split out all others with more than 15 listings, and then perhaps those having exactly 15 listings, i think.
doncram (
talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Multiple Property Submissions etc.
I added section to list all Multiple Property Submission, MRA, and TR studies for NRHP eligibility for the state. Thanks Elkman for providing generator to make that list easily! Does this add to the list-article sufficiently to develop it? I personally think each of the MRA documents should justify an article....
doncram (
talk) 05:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Many of Minnesota's listings on the NRHP are described in the following Multiple Property Submissions, Multiple Resource Area, or Thematic Resources studies. Briefly i thot these were all wikipedia notable, but probably they are not all notable that way. Removed them from the main article. For each there is a NRHP document available on-line. These can be used, at least, to develop articles on the NRHPs. Anyhow, the list of MPSs etc, is:
Doncram added statement on where to find the entries for Minneapolis and Saint Paul. This should help many readers, especially those who don't know the state's largest city is in
Hennepin County and the Capitol is in
Ramsey. Another editor has removed it on the grounds of inconsistency. I think the benefit to the reader of being able to quickly find the
Twin Cities in the long list outweighs inconsistency, particularly since so many listings are there.
Jonathunder (
talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)reply
This seems more than reasonable to me and, fwiw, there's precedent for this type of thing in the
New Jersey and
Delaware lists (there may be others, but those are two of which I'm aware). --
sanfranman59 (
talk) 01:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Splitting out counties with 10 and 9 sites
Due to the slow page-loading for this list, built up by more photos being added all the time, i think it's necessary now to split out more of the counties. That is, to create separate articles for Aitkin 10, Dodge 10, Lac Qui Parle 10, Mower 10, Nobles 10, Waseca 10, Big Stone 9, and Isanti 9 counties. Hope that is okay. --
doncram (
talk) 19:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Counties Lacking Historic Places listed
Are they counties without any places listed not yet researched, or do they just not have any historic places in them?
Sarah.Angela97 (
talk) 22:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Each of Minnesota's 87 counties has at least two sites on the register, all of which are shown in the county lists, though not all of them have articles.
Jonathunder (
talk) 23:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Proposed removals
These properties were proposed to be removed from the National Register by the State Historic Preservation Review Board when they met in August 2018:
Albertville Roller Mill, Albertville, Wright County
Cloverton School, New Dorsey Township, Pine County
Columbian Hotel, Ortonville, Big Stone County
Delhi Coronet Band Hall, Delhi, Redwood County
Hebeisenb House, Hamburg, Carver County
These are listed on the agenda for the November meeting:
Commercial Hotel, Wabasso, Redwood County
Itasca Lumber Company Superintendent’s Residence, Deer River, Itasca County
Hi
User:Jonathunder, others, does anyone have means to identify works by architect
Lorenzo M. Boardman in the Minneapolis area? He apparently worked in the area for 30 years.
An editor is keen to know. I tried browsing in the sources in historic district articles in Minneapolis, but many of those sources are not available online. --
Doncram (
talk) 21:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll check some print sources. -
McGhiever (
talk) 22:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Who does NRHS research?
Is this the kind of research that determines every site in the National Register? I came across
this assessment (p. 309) by accident. I've never heard of Mead & Hunt before (they have
40 US locations and wrote other works cited in Wikipedia) but am taken aback by their sources and conclusion. I guess they talked to or read Patty Dean (MNHS) and Chris Osgood, and they cite Wikipedia at least twice. That's an unacceptable gut punch of a record. Why didn't Mead & Hunt ask Martin Keller? Andrea Swensson? Jon Bream? Chris Riemenschneider? Sorry but I had assumed that the register used reliable sourcing that is better than Wikipedia's sources.
There is a dearth of scholarly research on the popular music scene in Minneapolis, and in the United
States in general. Without the perspective gained from this research, it is not possible to establish the
significance of First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry.
Recommendation: First Avenue and the 7th St. Entry is recommended as not eligible for listing in the National Register.
This looks like the results of a study for potentially historic properties that would be impacted as a result of construction for the Southwest Corridor transit extension. I get the feeling they weren't exactly looking to add a lot of properties to the National Register, but rather they wanted to cover all the bases for the draft environmental impact statement. I'd be willing to bet that if First Avenue wanted to put their building on the National Register, they could make the case that it's significant either for its architecture or for its role in the Minneapolis music scene. I get the feeling that these days, a lot of National Register nominations are about getting tax credits or financial assistance for historic preservation. I just wrote about the
Amhoist Tower, which was built in 1984 and recently added to the National Register, even though Larry Millett didn't even write about it in the AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. I'd love to see the IDS Tower listed on the National Register, since it's arguably more famous. --
Elkman(Elkspeak) 03:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Another question,
Elkman. Do you happen to know if the Strutwear Building across from U.S. Bank Stadium is the same building in which Seymour Cray began work on the CDC 6600? Before he moved camp to Chippewa Falls. 501 Park Avenue where Control Data started seems to sit underneath a Minnesota Vikings longhouse. I agree the IDS Tower should be listed and really this Control Data history should be too. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 18:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The Strutwear building might be associated with Seymour Cray and with the CDC 6600, but sources disagree. I'm looking at a December 22, 1981 article in the Minneapolis Star (from newspapers.com), and it says that he designed the CDC 6600 in a lab that Control Data built for him in 1962 in Chippewa Falls. But, a
November 12, 1961 article says that engineers were working on the CDC 6600 in the Strutwear Building. The
National Register nomination for the Strutwear Building doesn't say anything about Control Data, only saying that Strutwear ended operations in the building in 1958. So, I'm taking the guess that even if part of the design of the CDC 6600 was done in the Strutwear building, the building's notability for the National Register doesn't cover that. --
Elkman(Elkspeak) 19:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for that nomination form. I walk past Hess & Roise when I'm in Minneapolis and next time might knock. A search for Strutwear finds
Robert M. Price wrote that as "
a matter of historical record", the CDC 6600 was "well underway" before the move to Chippewa Falls (p. 36). Mr. Price worked for the company in 1961 and later was CEO. I understand that the Strutwear strike was an important event but gee whiz. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Elkman, today I tried to reach Hess Roise about Seymour Cray and the CDC 6600 at Strutwear. They seemed to take the message. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply