Taller Buildings - When and where will we see them?

[ABetterDetroit]

If you want to go high and sell views with new construction there is one formula that has worked all around the country and it is condominiums. The inventory of high end condos in Detroit is dwindling and with the current economic expansion in the downtown area they could be coming sooner rather than later.

[stasu1213]

Build out not up. Detroit has a lot of space

[dove-7]

To me, I have more of an issue with the aesthetics than I do about building up. Regarding new tall buildings. To me it doesn't make any sense until they have enough tenants to justify this. This isn't Chicago, NYC or my now home town, San Francisco, where supply and demand, demands build tall. Detroit right now is going through some changes. I say, occupy the older buildings that need to be renovated and updated to compete with the later technology.

The design to me looks like something that architect, Frank Ghery would design. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Walt Disney Concert Hall and like.


Some of his designs are beautiful, while others, I'm like, what this guy smoking? It's subjective. But I think that this design is over the top. I'm all for designs that stand out vs plain ole vanilla design. But it has to compliment the rest of the skyline. So while I am for tall. Tall in this particular case isn't necessary yet. You need the tenants first.

[rex]

Build out not up. Detroit has a lot of space

This again and again. We dont need taller buildings as long as we have space to grow in the downtown thru midtown areas. You build up when there is no longer space to build out. This is assuming Detroit is able to even fill the downtown and midtown areas in the next 20-30 years. Population in the city is still declining as far as Ive been able to gather. Gilbert and Co. are moving jobs downtown and some people have moved down there to be closer to work but this is a local phenomenon. Young professionals from elsewhere in the nation aren't moving in droves to be part of Detroit's renaissance

[animatedmartian]

This again and again. We dont need taller buildings as long as we have space to grow in the downtown thru midtown areas. You build up when there is no longer space to build out.

Absolute no city in the world grows like that. Building up reduces the distance needed to travel to get to another area or to put it in other terms, reduces sprawl.

A lot of people point out European cities as a model, but they grew outward because literally it was impossible to build over several floors up until about 3 century ago [[most European cities have been around for many more centuries than that). Obviously, there were no elevators which limits how many floors people are willing to climb among other things. But once high rise building became feasible, European cities all over started building them. Why? Because it's the smartest and most efficient way to build a city.

I'm not saying every new development in Detroit needs to be a high rise, but neither should they be limited to some arbitrary height which has no significance here. You might as well call LBP and tell him Detroit residents are ready for some sprawl because that'll sure fill up vacant land fast.

[A2Mike]

That fire escape is a deal killer for prospective tenants - I once looked out from the 27th floor hall - and it is scary! And you are right, it doesn't need any trendy makeovers like Paul Rudolph did to the top of his own NY house.

[Jayp213]

I agree- I'm dying for something skyline-changing to be built already but I also feel that if we occupy some of the already run down structures and fix those up, then we can see something that will change the skyline. If we build out vs up initially, that will make a demand for more transportation systems on different streets besides the m1 only being on woodward. My best guess is that after they bulldoze the current red wings arena, the replacement will be pretty tall... Well, SHOULD be. I'm not saying world trade center height but something that will make us all relatively happy. What happened to that building proposal on the parking lot before you get to Cobo that was super tall? It had a cut-out near the middle of the building with greenery. It was supposed to have a hockey town in there as well?

[southen]

that wasnt a proposal. it was a rendering the owner of the lot put together to help sell the land. "look, you could put THIS here!" kinda thing

[Jayp213]

that wasnt a proposal. it was a rendering the owner of the lot put together to help sell the land. "look, you could put THIS here!" kinda thing

ahh! ok, makes sense...

[Mind field]

There was an article in Crains this week about how the office market was overbuilt as far back as the 80s and it never reached full [[or nearly full) occupancy metro wide. The reason given was GM's purchase of EDS and the perceived need for millions of square feet of additional office space.

So barring a large corporation wanting a trophy tower for it's headquarters, i really don't see Detroit constructing a skyline altering tower for many decades. I think the best the city might see is a condo/apartment tower maybe in the 20-25 story range tops. And with the Book and Stott towers eventually [[hopefully) being rehabbed into residential, i think anything more than a midrise will be uneconomical.

[Meddle]

Taller is just a weiner measuring contest.

Totally unnecessary.

[A2Mike]

Attachment 26113Attachment 26114 To see what a super tall building does at ground level, look at the base of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, which is neither pedestrian friendly nor compatible with any street grid- exactly what Detroit doesn't need. The whole building is shown imposed upon the lower Manhattan skyline, where it looks admittedly imposing, but would take up a huge chunk of the available land.

[ABetterDetroit]

Attachment 26113Attachment 26114 To see what a super tall building does at ground level, look at the base of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, which is neither pedestrian friendly nor compatible with any street grid- exactly what Detroit doesn't need. The whole building is shown imposed upon the lower Manhattan skyline, where it looks admittedly imposing, but would take up a huge chunk of the available land.

Right, the tallest building in the world. I don't think we have to worry about how that would work in the D.

[Hypestyles]

I'd like to see more full, active, occupied tall buildings within the city limits. Is the train station the tallest derelict property?

If Detroit had more resort/tourist attractions, there could be some more incentive for building new skyscrapers.

what role can Detroit's new director of Land Development play in this process?

[animatedmartian]

I'd like to see more full, active, occupied tall buildings within the city limits. Is the train station the tallest derelict property?

The current title is held by the Book Tower. After that, it's Executive Plaza and then MCS. Everything else that's vacant is under 15 floors or roughly shorter than Compuware.

[casscorridor]

Detroit doesn't need any more skyscrapers. A few here or there, along the river especially, could be nice, from a skyline standpoint. But what Detroit needs its blocks of 4-7 story structures that really increase density through a larger area. The American model of cities with super tall downtown and low rise neighborhoods is dead. We need to build up cities with dense neighborhoods and multiple centers, connected by efficient rapid transit.

[emu steve]

Detroit doesn't need any more skyscrapers. A few here or there, along the river especially, could be nice, from a skyline standpoint. But what Detroit needs its blocks of 4-7 story structures that really increase density through a larger area. The American model of cities with super tall downtown and low rise neighborhoods is dead. We need to build up cities with dense neighborhoods and multiple centers, connected by efficient rapid transit.

I'm with you on this. The biggest visual problem Detroit has is unoccupied buildings and vacant land just sitting there.

D.C. because of the height limits can't go very high [[think 12 or 13 stories) so they must continue to eat up more and more land as demand increases. That would work for DET.

In a sense they build 'horizontally' not vertically. I think that works very well in D.C. The density in downtown D.C. is amazing. Almost all parking is below ground. Vacant parcels are hard to find.

We have to remember this isn't ego or arch school but basically about a market trying to balance supply and demand of say things like office space.

One huge skyscraper would flood the market with office space the market can't absorb.

[A2Mike]

I'm with you on this. The biggest visual problem Detroit has is unoccupied buildings and vacant land just sitting there.

D.C. because of the height limits can't go very high [[think 12 or 13 stories) so they must continue to eat up more and more land as demand increases. That would work for DET.

In a sense they build 'horizontally' not vertically. I think that works very well in D.C. The density in downtown D.C. is amazing. Almost all parking is below ground. Vacant parcels are hard to find.

We have to remember this isn't ego or arch school but basically about a market trying to balance supply and demand of say things like office space.

One huge skyscraper would flood the market with office space the market can't absorb.

I left Detroit just after the Renaissance Center opened and missed much of the discussion thereafter, but I do remember the predictions from many at the time that it would drain the existing buildings of their tenants, and they seem to have come true. It would be interesting to speculate how downtown might have fared without it, seeing it as an ego driven project by Henry Ford ll unrelated to economic demand. Ford is said to have begged his brother not to move the Lions from Detroit, but eight game days a year would not have offset the larger problem of daily downtown office occupancy.

[Spartan]

The current title is held by the Book Tower. After that, it's Executive Plaza and then MCS. Everything else that's vacant is under 15 floors or roughly shorter than Compuware.

It's not totally vacant, but Stott Tower is pretty much there [[especially with the recent flooding).

As far as tall buildings go, I agree with those saying we should build out, not up. There is way too much empty space in the city to really be worth putting anything over 10-15 stories in. The only exception I can really see is hotels, as I think economy of scale applies more to those. I think that the "skyline-changing" buildings we see in the near future will be ones around the edges of downtown, [[etc, JLA site or area between Fox and MGM) but because they're more visible from outside, not because they're tall. If we do see anything more in the middle of the city, I would guess the most likely sites are Cadillac Square/Campus Martius or Brush/Lafayette.

[LiveWire]

But one of the things that makes a downtown impressive is the tall buildings.

[Wesley Mouch]

But one of the things that makes a downtown impressive is the tall buildings.

Paris is stunningly impressive from the steps of Sacre Coeur. Downtown Detroit is impressive now because it has so many 'golden era' skyscrapers, and not a sea of modern buildings that get dirty so quickly and really can't be cleaned.

No more skyscrapers. casscorridor has it right. Many more low-to-mid rise buildings over a larger area, and of course filling in where we've destroyed them.

[mikeg19]

No more skyscrapers. casscorridor has it right. Many more low-to-mid rise buildings over a larger area, and of course filling in where we've destroyed them.

IDK about "no more skyscrapers" ever. I'd think at some point there would be the need [[or want) to erect more. But I'd think for the foreseeable future, midrises are the bread and butter, as we are seeing with almost all of the apartment and loft developments in the city. I'd think we are going to be looking at a lot of 5-15 floor buildings being put up, with the occasional 15-30 in there. There are only a few sites that are truely destined for a larger tower [[JLA, East riverfront to name a few) but otherwise I could see most of our city looking like Midtown Manhatten.

[Bham1982]

IThere are only a few sites that are truely destined for a larger tower [[JLA, East riverfront to name a few) but otherwise I could see most of our city looking like Midtown Manhatten.

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

[canuck]

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

Sounds funny now, but try to think back to a time when cities like Detroit didnT have the car culture, the infrastructure to build out like today. Folks in the nineteenth century were spread out because they lived mostly on farms and small towns. The sprawly cities we know now are a weird construct of the automotive age, and we will see the changes toward other forms of city making from mid to high density in the future. Detroit's Midtown and Downtown are not immune to change.

[mikeg19]

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

I'm just stating that 90-95% of new construction in Detroit would most likely look like midtown Manhatten - 5-10 story buildings. How's that not reasonable or indicitive of market demand?