I can appreciate the "function over form" rationale.
Here in the SF Bay Area, we're still waiting for the eastern section of the Bay Bridge to be replaced with a earthquake resistant structure. The current one failed in the 1989 quake. The design of the replacement has been a bone of contention, with the Oakland side having felt slighted by the plain "skyway" approach first proposed by the state. So they shelved that plan, which was already designed, and had a competition and a selection of a new design. The new design will be distinctive, that's sure, with a gigantic self-stayed single tower suspension. Only one problem: it's never been tried on something of this scale. The other problem: due to all the delays the cost skyrocketed, and the Governor Arnold decided to shut down the giant tower design and go back to the rejected skyway design. This of course raised a ruckus locally, and the governor backed down when agencies "found" the funds to go on with the bling bridge.
Somewhere along the way it was revealed that the contractor doing the foundation work for the new section was using substandard concrete and the welds were not properly inspected. More delays and cost as the welds had to be reinspected and the concrete problem pondered.
So it's been nearly 20 years since the old Bay Bridge collapsed, and we still don't have a modern replacement. In retrospec we should have just accepted the skyway and been done with it at least a decade ago.
So I don't blame Minneapolis for going with quick and functional. The only difference is that they patched up and reinforced the old Bay Bridge so it's been used since the '89 quake, but it is not expected to survive the next Big One.