Fortune 500 company to move regional HQ to One Woodward building

[Cliffy]

Double in distance is double in gas. Nothing to do with gas prices.

That's because you are an idiot.

Says the guy that couldn't make it in Detroit and had to bail. I work downtown and spend my money downtown. You on the other hand are a quitter. Your opinions on this board about Detroit mean nothing. Just letting you know.

[dtowncitylover]

Your opinions on this board about Detroit mean nothing. Just letting you know.

Neither do yours now that we know you work downtown and therefore, as I understand it, you're just grumpy that you have to.

[erikd]

Regionally, it's zero sum. There's no net economic difference for the region between moving from Southfield to Troy or moving from Southfield to Detroit.

I would tend to agree that a single example of a company moving from Southfield to Detroit, or moving from Southfield to Troy, is essentially a zero-sum situation. However, a mass movement of businesses into the city from the suburbs is not a zero-sum situation if it results in decreased regional sprawl.

For the last 60 years, the pattern of business movement in metro Detroit has been relentless outward migration. Detroit to Southfield, Southfield to Troy, Troy to Auburn Hills, etc. However, this regional movement has not been a zero-sum game. This incessant sprawl has created a situation where we have dramatically increased the amount of infrastructure, without a corresponding increase in jobs, tax base, and economic activity to support all of the outward expansion.

If the movement of businesses back into Detroit becomes big enough to slow down or stop this outward migration it will be a huge benefit to the region.

[Gannon]

Sorry I misquoted. It is 62,000 sq ft. Amended above. The building is only 330K.

Is it 24 or 28 stories?

Each floor is around 10,000 square feet...so they're taking six floors.

Not sure that total is correct.



I'm a bit troubled by the 'naming rights' angle, that better not mean putting horrible LED signage on a historic building. Some people get hysterical over such things...and he'd already bought Quicken signs for the place that I knew would just push a few of 'em over the edge.

[Gistok]

Is it 24 or 28 stories?

Each floor is around 10,000 square feet...so they're taking six floors.

Not sure that total is correct.



I'm a bit troubled by the 'naming rights' angle, that better not mean putting horrible LED signage on a historic building. Some people get hysterical over such things...and he'd already bought Quicken signs for the place that I knew would just push a few of 'em over the edge.

Gannon.... see image...

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/attachm...0&d=1414507167

Also... the top office floor is 26... site of the former Top of the Flame restaurant. With utility floors the building totals 28.

[Gannon]

Thanks, Gistok.

So...that makes 25 floors of office space...at roughly 10k sq-ft. per...not quite that >300,000 figure.

Maybe they count that connection to the Guardian. Who owns the liability for THAT?!

[Gannon]

Confirmed.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...saki/18279051/

There goes the skyline.

Wonder where he's going to use those Quicken signs?!

I'm betting Duggan sold the naming rights for the CAY Administration building...

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

After having so many downtown buildings so underutilized for so long, I actually like to see the names of large, primary tenants lit up on the buildings. It looks like evidence of vibrancy to me.

[animatedmartian]

After having so many downtown buildings so underutilized for so long, I actually like to see the names of large, primary tenants lit up on the buildings. It looks like evidence of vibrancy to me.

Same here. Plus people nowadays are so used to seeing advertisements on everything that a relative small company logo on a building doesn't really that big of a deal. Unless you are a perfectionist like Yamasaki.

[mikeg19]

I don't know how I feel about this. Architecturally significient buildings IMO shoud never have signage attached at the top [[See: Chicago's uproar over the Trump Tower and its new signage). If they make it small and tasteful wth ONLY white lettering that blends with the building, I tmight be able to handle it. If Gilbert's wife gets ahold of the color pallet God help us.

[Eber Brock Ward]

can't say that i have a problem with signage on buildings...

[Spartan]

I don't know how I feel about this. Architecturally significient buildings IMO shoud never have signage attached at the top [[See: Chicago's uproar over the Trump Tower and its new signage). If they make it small and tasteful wth ONLY white lettering that blends with the building, I tmight be able to handle it. If Gilbert's wife gets ahold of the color pallet God help us.

How do you define architecturally significant?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I don't know how I feel about this. Architecturally significient buildings IMO shoud never have signage attached at the top [[See: Chicago's uproar over the Trump Tower and its new signage). If they make it small and tasteful wth ONLY white lettering that blends with the building, I tmight be able to handle it. If Gilbert's wife gets ahold of the color pallet God help us.

I'd have to agree that seeing "Trump" up in lights would be quite disgusting, whatever building it might be on.

[mikeg19]

How do you define architecturally significant?

That's a Hell of a good question Spartan. I guess that's different in everyone's eyes. For some, One Woodward may be architecturally significant while others may see it as nothing more than a tall box.

I guess the point is that architecture is subjective. But I think we all would agree on [[for the most part) the most architecturally significant buildings in downtown. Would we be happy as a community seeing LED banners running across the Penobscot and Guardian? I'd think [[and hope) not. An LED sigh across COBO [[which we will see very soon)? Probably not a big deal to most.

[animatedmartian]

It's a very interesting debate, and now that I think about it, did Comerica ever have a sign up on One Detroit Center? Would One Detroit Center be considered architecturally significant even though it's a relatively new building? Is it the style that makes it significant or the ornateness? Or maybe simply the height of it?

[Jason]

Architectural significance depends on how the building's design relates to and contributed to the progression of architectural history. It may also be from how a particular building relates to an individual architect's career [[which itself depends on whether the architect was important). If it's not a part of any architectural development, a building could still be significant if it's an excellent example of something.

Yamasaki was one of several architects who were pushing modern architecture away from the then-standard "international style", but wasn't embracing other newly developing architecture movements. He incorporated ornamental geometries, and elements from japanese, gothic, and arabic architecture, and more classical approach [[symmetry, colonnades, axises, etc.) to the architecture and the site planning, a more sculptural approach to some forms, and an more individualistic approach to architecture in general. He had commissions from around the world, was well-published, won plenty of awards, etc.

Within his career One Woodward Avenue was one of the more important buildings. It was his first skyscraper [[and the only one in his native detroit) and in it he developed ideas which would be used in future skyscrapers. His reputation was built from his non-skyscraper projects [[his university buildings are more significant than owa), but presumably this skyscraper led to the world trade center commission a few years later, which in turn led to quite a few more skyscraper projects, which his office would spend the next few decades doing.

The building is also an excellent example of that style, successful according to its own goals, and an overall good building in general.


Comerica Tower was designed by Phillip Johnson and John Burgee, who were significant, but is just one of many pomo skyscrapers done by them. If it had been built 20 years earlier it would have contributed to the development of architecture but when it was built it was quite common. It's a perfectly fine building and everything but it's not a particularly noteworthy or excellent example of a pomo skyscraper.

The Ren Cen was done by John Portman who imo is more famous for being a developer than for being an architect. His designs seemed to be driven by what would be appealing to clients and the public rather than designed to be good architecture. But anyway, the building incorporates then-popular ideas about mixed use mega structures and self contained cities. For what it's worth, when Arthur Drexler, who did the famous moma exhibition that brought modernism to the us in the 1930s, did a followup exhibition later on, an illustration of the ren cen was chosen for the cover of the book.

For the Penobscot and Guardian, Wirt Rowland was the head designer of the local firm that did a huge volume of work, and he did a competent job of executing the styles of his time. But he didn't move architecture forward and didn't even really interact with the architecture world outside of Michigan. An important art deco architect would be someone like Raymond Hood. I personally think the Guardian Building, and the Penobscot to a lesser degree, are excellent examples of art deco. But in the art deco books I've seen, a bunch of art deco buildings always make the cut and the Guardian building doesn't. I think it's been underrated but since those books were published I think the guardian building has become more recognized.

If Lafayette Park counts as having skyscrapers then I think it's easily the most architecturally significant. It was done by a supergroup of designers from various fields, their collaboration was unique and special, the size and type of the project was unique for each of them individually, the project was noted and influential to other architects, and it's an excellent example of what it is. imo it's only one of a handful of things that would be of interest to an international architecture tourist.


That's all a bit off topic, but putting a sign on One Woodward Avenue is a bad idea.

[Gannon]

I knew about the RenCen's 'upgrades' long before they were installed, and had great trepidation over the Las Vegasing of the Detroit skyline.

Their logo, however, is tiny...compared with the whole structure...and even though it is made of those obnoxious LEDs, since it is SO far above the street it does not create the same level of driver distraction that those nearer eye-level cause. They program it to show more than one static logo...and nearly monthly have special events which they promote through it, some not even of their own corporate family.

The blue on the elevator shafts grew on me over time, and I now feel that whole deal was an upgrade to the towers. But it took a long time to alter that analysis...

If done properly, I can see a path to compromise...if the signage were not visible from any sight lines from the street level, maintaining the integrity of Yamasaki's simple lines and proportions, it would not be too offensive. That means, if it were only on the lower portion of that cake-top...they would still get the benefits of national exposure with the blimp and helicopter views, and Canada would know we have a bank that cannot tell if they were the 5th or the 3rd...some joint well worthy of keeping track of your money, right?!

[Gannon]

I think that LED sign on the Music Hall is too distracting for driver safety, btw.

[Gistok]

For the Penobscot and Guardian, Wirt Rowland was the head designer of the local firm that did a huge volume of work, and he did a competent job of executing the styles of his time. But he didn't move architecture forward and didn't even really interact with the architecture world outside of Michigan. An important art deco architect would be someone like Raymond Hood. I personally think the Guardian Building, and the Penobscot to a lesser degree, are excellent examples of art deco. But in the art deco books I've seen, a bunch of art deco buildings always make the cut and the Guardian building doesn't. I think it's been underrated but since those books were published I think the guardian building has become more recognized.

Jason, you bring up a good point. But as the owner of a dozen books on Art Deco, I think that some architectural historians were somewhat lazy in doing their homework on great Art Deco. More often than not when discussing world Art Deco, they tend to not get past NYC, Miami, LA and San Francisco... and maybe Chicago, in talking about American Art Deco. Some of the finest Art Deco in the country is in other cities, such as Detroit, Kansas City MO, Fort Worth, Tulsa, etc.

The late Art Deco preservationist Barbara Ann Capitman, the savior of the Miami Beach deco district, went on a nationwide tour for of American Art Deco, and was surprised at the quantity outside of the more famous deco haunts. She mentioned in a book on American Art Deco... "Because Detroit was a booming city in the 1920s, it has some of the finest Art Deco buildings in America."

I think that when it comes to the Streamlined and Moderne phases of Art Deco, it is hard to beat Raymond Hood [[Empire State Building) or William Van Alen [[Chrystler Building). But during the exuberant early Zigzag phase [[which the Depression knocked the wind out of)... the Guardian Building is hard to beat, and certainly its' lobby has more "wow" factor than any of the great towers of NYC.

Although Wirt Rowland did not break any ground in his design for the Guardian Building... most visitors tend not to care!