Deja Vu 'The Griswold' project is back on.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

While I do prefer the original design, the newer one is OK - if less inspiring. Getting this projected turned into something other than just a garage would be a major accomplishment. It really speaks to the improved housing market downtown if they do move forward.

[401don]

In regards to the ground floor retail.. I have this slight feeling that Roxbury was holding off on leasing the space due to the fact that they needed some space for a motor lobby [[mailboxes and such) and other amenities for these apartments. It seems like it was always the plan to bring the project back based on it being labeled as "Phase 2" on their website all these years.

Wow, that's optimistic. Hold off leasing all those spaces because they might need one or two for a lobby?

[rbdetsport]

I'm just saying.. Those spaces are huge. A lot of money to build-out the space only to tear it down in 4 years..

[royce]

rbdetsport, I don't understand your last post. What being torn down after four years?

[Huggybear]

This is quite a difference from the elegant almost Beaux Arts original design that would have really nicely complemented the Book Cadillac.

Now the remodeled architectural rendering will be a continuation of the parking deck below... but with glass... and no architectural interest....

... unless you're a disciple of Le Corbusier's "less is more" mantra....

Sorry, dude, but it had no architectural interest before. This is being built on a parking deck, and it's likely going to be prefab cement. Putting a mansard roof on it is almost disingenuous.It doesn't look bad in the new picture.

You know what has very little architectural interest? The typical Gropius-tinged box architecture that is on every corner in Royal Oak and about to invade Midtown. "Inspired" by WG is too strong a word. Here is what they are all copying in various ways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagus_Factory

You know, the squat buildings with big windows on the corners? That was a great design in 1916. Mark my words - in 20 years people will see it like they see 1970s-era Southfield architecture today.

They need a Taco Bell on the ground floor. That site was the location of the only one downtown.

HB

[Gistok]

HB.... um are you looking at the same pic as I am... here's the new design...
http://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/...roit/#comments

See the big windows in the corners of the new design.... that look very much like this abomination...
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...nchor_new.html

So I'm agreeing with you that those big windows look ugly... OK??

So now where in the original mansard roof design do you see those big corner windows??
http://198.171.44.249/projectimages/...ld__detail.jpg

Yeah... all of the suburban 1 story buildings with those plain mansard roofs are dated and tacky... I agree...

But the original design has a mansard roof "to scale". When mansard roofs were first put onto buildings in 17th century France... and later there and elsewhere... they had more than just roof... they had bulls eye windows and other window openings. It's what made them "interesting". Yes a 21st century version is pastiche... that's a given... but it's not just a 1 story building with a steep pitched roof and little else.

You went and compared the earlier design with a Gropius Bauhaus type design... when it's actually the updated image that more closely resembles that.

As was mentioned by others on this thread, you won't see that close-up anyway... and from a distance, its that roof slope [[with the interesting windows), the balconies and the setbacks that add architectural interest.

All that the updated version adds is a continuation of the parking levels, but with windows... a plain flat roof, and large glassed corner pavilions that look like the corner of that Lawrence Tech abomination that's planned for Midtown.

[Huggybear]

Gistok, sorry if I wasn't more clear. I did see both designs. My point [[maybe not so well stated) is that the old design is not that much better than the new one and would draw complaints of looking chintzy anyway - not unlike these strip malls that have fake tall front facades. So just skip the heartbreak and make something that is not going to look cheap given the materials used. Who knows why they removed the balconies; they looked pretty tiny anyway.

I don't see the Gropius box in the new design; I see something that looks like a generic 1930s-1940s office building. Or something that suffered a cornicectomy. Practically, though, given the height of this addition and the likely sightlines from the street, it is going to be hard for pedestrians to see the top of this building.

But I think I did get the point across about Southfield 2.0. People are quick to talk about how they restore streetwalls [[c.f. tearing down the Carpenter's Building)* - but every one of them looks the same. The Larry Tech one looks like the proposal for the Carpenter's Building site looks like the one for the Quality Behavioral Health Site looks a lot like like the Ellington.

HB

*The Carpenter's building is endangered because it is too old to be fashionable and too new to be considered historic. Consider that in the 1980s, everyone wanted to tear down everything that was mid-century modern. With the Carpenters' demolition and the likely demo of the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice, Detroit is going to lose a good piece of its 1970s architecture [[a period when not a lot was being developed).

[Gistok]

Thanks HB... I understand now.... From the viewpoint of the rendering I [[personally) did like the old one better. But from the street... people won't be able to tell much of a difference.

I do think that the new one maximizes footprint on each floor, while the old one had somewhat of a setback [[behind the lower parking floors), and included balconies, which I don't believe the new one will have.