Broderick Tower Official Thread

**esp1986** · January-18-11, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by stinkytofu

I'm really pumped about this. Heck, I'm just excited to see when it's all lit up at night during construction. I also work right next to the old Freep building and will provide updates as they [[hopefully) start moving along with that building soon.

Unfortunately, I think the Freep Building is a ways off... granted, they just got a MEGA credit, but I think it is only one piece in the financing puzzle... hopefully it doesn't take as long to put it all together as the Broderick, but it may end up being a year or two. The same group owns the David Stott Building in Capitol Park.

I am really excited to see constuction lights at night in that building. When I saw the construction lights on at night for the first time in the Book-Cadillac it gave me the chills. Downtown and Midtown are picking up some serious momentum, here's to hoping it continues!

**French777** · January-18-11, 02:58 PM

I saw both a trash shute and a dumpster in front of the Broderick Tower today. I took pictures, yet I forgot my usb cord at home. I will post them on Friday. Also, I did see construction workers on the upper levels of the building today too. Good News!

**begingri** · January-18-11, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by kryptonite

Absolutely. Why would the renovation of an attractive long-abandoned major structure NOT generate a lot of interest? Also, the Whitney Bldg will be watched closely when the work begins there no doubt. And if the work happening at the United Artists complex was public, that would be watched. It is anyway, but the mystery behind it makes it even more appealing to many to follow the happenings there.

I greatly admire the Broderick building, and have worried for almost 30 years that it would eventually be demolished [[how, I don't know). This is excellent news, I plan to follow it closely and do drive-bys when I'm downtown or walk-bys if I'm on foot in the area.

Any updates on the Broderick work will be greatly appreciated.

Drive-bys? The last thing Detroit needs is more of those to continue to dent its reputation.

**staticstate** · January-19-11, 03:39 PM

I think the renovation of one of these awesome buildings would make a great show on the history channel - you'd think someone on the development team would at least be in there with a video recorder documenting it.

**Gistok** · January-19-11, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by staticstate

I think the renovation of one of these awesome buildings would make a great show on the history channel - you'd think someone on the development team would at least be in there with a video recorder documenting it.

LOL... as long as it's not Vanilla Ice and his renovation team.....

Maybe they could get Ghost Hunters in there also... to see if there's any wayward DDS ghosts... ;-)

P.S.... why don't the list of Emoticon's [[Smilies) always show when doing a REPLY or REPLY WITH QUOTE??

**p1acebo** · January-19-11, 04:37 PM

They don't want you to smile :P

**Gistok** · January-20-11, 02:34 AM

With the recent announcements of a refurbishing of the David Whitney Building, which will include restoration to the earlier facade..... it would be nice if one day the Broderick Tower regains some of its' classic top as well.

BuildingsOfDetroit has some nice images of the Eaton/Broderick Tower in its' earlier days before it lost the fancy top!

The nicest daytime image showing the fancy details of the top is the websites lower left image, when it's maximized to its' largest size image...

http://buildingsofdetroit.com/conten...wer-old-photos

**Planner3357** · January-20-11, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

.... it would be nice if one day the Broderick Tower regains some of its' classic top as well.

BuildingsOfDetroit has some nice images of the Eaton/Broderick Tower in its' earlier days before it lost the fancy top!

The nicest daytime image showing the fancy details of the top is the websites lower left image, when it's maximized to its' largest size image...

http://buildingsofdetroit.com/conten...wer-old-photos

I agree, the brick top just doesn't do the rest of the building justice. I have no idea why they could have thought that was a good idea.

NorthEndere · January-21-11, 03:49 AM

Because, they didn't want the cornice of the building on it way down, economicaly, falling on the sidewalk killing people, that's why.

**Planner3357** · January-21-11, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by NorthEnder

Because, they didn't want the cornice of the building on it way down, economicaly, falling on the sidewalk killing people, that's why.

Now THAT would have been a grisly scene!

**Gistok** · January-21-11, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by NorthEnder

Because, they didn't want the cornice of the building on it way down, economicaly, falling on the sidewalk killing people, that's why.

Actually because an 82 year old woman was killed [[in the early 1950s) when a piece of a cornice came down and killed her... the city government in their infinite wisdom, decided that all Detroit historical buildings needed to have all of their cornices removed... and many of the citys great theatres also had their tall vertical marquees [[blade signs) removed as well.

The 10 story vertical marquee of the Michigan Theatre [[the tallest American theatre sign ever) had its sign declared a nuisance, and was removed as well.

When one looks at all the great cathedrals of Europe, and sees all the gargoyle drain spouts, finials, spires, and all the overhanging brik-a-brak... it makes you wonder why they've been allowed to keep all their "overhangs" intact. Maybe the came up with a better solution [[proper maintenance) than the "Detroit way" of overkill [[no pun intended).

As we can see with the Clifford side of the United Artists Building back in the 1980s... the 50s cornice removal policy saved us all from the horrors of falling masonry.... NOT.

One woman was killed [[sadly)... but the citys answer was to remove part of the architectural heritage of much of the citys major buildings.

**WPitonya** · January-21-11, 03:14 PM

That is why NYC enacted Local Law 10/80 & 11/98, which states that any building over 6 stories in NYC must be observed by an engineer or architect every 5 years and a report filed with the city [[this is what I do for a living). This holds building owners accountable for performing maintenance and preserves the architectural features by ensuring preventative maintenance. The law started in 1980 when a chunk of cornice fell and killed a Columbia student.

**esp1986** · January-21-11, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by WPitonya

That is why NYC enacted Local Law 10/80 & 11/98, which states that any building over 6 stories in NYC must be observed by an engineer or architect every 5 years and a report filed with the city [[this is what I do for a living). This holds building owners accountable for performing maintenance and preserves the architectural features by ensuring preventative maintenance. The law started in 1980 when a chunk of cornice fell and killed a Columbia student.

Well, the cornices are no longer a problem... the United Artists Theatre has has bricks falling away from the middle of the facade for three decades now... maybe it's time to declare a brick facade removal policy...

**WPitonya** · January-21-11, 03:31 PM

Yes esp, this law observes all facades of the building and is intended to ensure pedestrian safety. This would clearly include bricks peeling away from the facade. Can't you report this condition to the Detroit DOB so the owner gets fined or corrects the problem?

**Gistok** · January-21-11, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by WPitonya

Yes esp, this law observes all facades of the building and is intended to ensure pedestrian safety. This would clearly include bricks peeling away from the facade. Can't you report this condition to the Detroit DOB so the owner gets fined or corrects the problem?

Um... that is no longer an issue. The building is secured with a perimeter fence, and is undergoing renovations, starting with the inside first.

**esp1986** · January-21-11, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by WPitonya

Yes esp, this law observes all facades of the building and is intended to ensure pedestrian safety. This would clearly include bricks peeling away from the facade. Can't you report this condition to the Detroit DOB so the owner gets fined or corrects the problem?

I don't know how familiar you are with Detroit, but anything is seldom done... with this building, Mike Ilitch, would likely pay the fine on a recurring basis before he would ever invest the money to bring it up to code.

**Gistok** · January-21-11, 04:20 PM

WPitonya....

You can check it out on the loooong thread about that building...
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...rtists-Theatre

It's 10 pages of posts... you might want to start at the back and work your way forward... and unless you have a keen interest in movie palace history... you might want to skip over many of my long posts about the theatre portion of the building and movie palace history... ;-)

But to make a long story short... the building owner is still buying up the neighborhood to put in a new hockey arena... and his work on this building so far has mainly been confined to the interior... so as to not let everyone know it's being restored and thus further jack up the price of neighboring parcels of land [[it's the worst kept secret in downtown).

**Wesley Mouch** · January-24-11, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by WPitonya

That is why NYC enacted Local Law 10/80 & 11/98, which states that any building over 6 stories in NYC must be observed by an engineer or architect every 5 years and a report filed with the city [[this is what I do for a living). This holds building owners accountable for performing maintenance and preserves the architectural features by ensuring preventative maintenance. The law started in 1980 when a chunk of cornice fell and killed a Columbia student.

Detroit has essentially the same law. It was also driven by a death caused somewhere just off Woodward where I believe an elderly woman was struck. It was in the 1950's here.

**French777** · January-24-11, 05:18 PM

I walked by today. The trash shut has been further built up the backside of the Broderick Tower. They were discarding materials from the upper floors when I was walking by.

**mcsdetroitfriend** · January-27-11, 12:11 AM

Name: Broderick.jpg
Views: 2320
Size: 34.7 KB

Heres your yellow chute and banner. Windows have been removed and given the plastic bag treatment

**rbdetsport** · January-27-11, 11:13 AM

Thanks for the pic. For those of us who don't live in the Metro Detroit area right now, it is much appreciated. Every picture I see gets me more and more excited to see this building brought back from the dead.

**mallory** · January-27-11, 11:26 AM

^^^ Ditto! Being born and raised in Detroit and now transplanted, I'm always proud to say that Detroit is my hometown, and look forward to seeing the BT and others get restored. All those years of walking by the dead Book Cadillac, believing that it would never rise again, I was beyond blown awway when it reopened, and I look forward to the Brod and its rebirth as well.

**rustdetroit** · January-27-11, 01:19 PM

I echo that mallory and rbdetsport as I was "Blown Away" to Texas, I very much miss being able to keep track of the developments first hand. Please all local boardmembers post as many pictures and as often as possible as there are many of us out there missing the D.

**esp1986** · January-30-11, 03:29 PM

Trash Chute is all the way up the south side of the building, it is up to about the 32nd or 33rd story.

**royce** · January-30-11, 04:43 PM

How accurate are floor plans regarding square footage? When I look at the floor plans for the Broderick Tower and then I look at the building from the outside, I can't see, for example, how one of the apartments on Woodward can can have over 1000 square feet when its sharing that same side with another large apartment.

There are eight windows that face Woodward and each apartment on that side gets four windows each. However, from simply observing from the street, it doesn't like it is possible to have that much square footage for one apartment in that location. Are my calculations that far off simply because I'm not close to the building or do floor plans tend to exaggerate the actual square footage of an apartment?