Hudson Site Proposal Interior
740 FOOT TOWER PROPSED FOR HUDSON SITE »


10 FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 99
  1. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast View Post
    While I like the base portion, I find the tower to be ungainly and contrived just in order to be taller than the RenCen. "Mine is bigger than yours."
    Stop projecting 😉

  2. #27

    Default

    While this is interesting, people must curb their excitement a bit. If the State House does not approve the tax incentives that Gilbert has asked for this development will not proceed exactly as outlined today.

    The House has previously voted down tax breaks for Gilbert for this project. From today's Detroit News article: "Gilbert has repeatedly said tax breaks are needed to pay for the massive project. Those potential tax incentives are again before the Michigan Legislature. The package of bills was approved by the state Senate on Wednesday. The bills now go to the state House of Representatives. Last year, similar legislation died in the House."

    I also must wonder if the same folks who were wailing and gnashing their teeth over the tax incentives that helped fund the new stadiums will wail as loudly over tax breaks for this project.
    Last edited by SyGolden48236; February-23-17 at 07:08 AM.

  3. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zads07 View Post
    I see similarity between the tower and the Washington Monument. Anyone else see it?

    The link provided above has some incredible information and the renderings are very high quality. Excited to see this come to fruition.
    I see Isamu Noguchi's Hart Plaza Pylon

    Name:  Hart Plaza Pylon.jpg
Views: 998
Size:  38.5 KB

  4. #29

    Default


  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SyGolden48236 View Post
    While this is interesting, people must curb their excitement a bit. If the State House does not approve the tax incentives that Gilbert has asked for this development will not proceed exactly as outlined today.

    The House has previously voted down tax breaks for Gilbert for this project. From today's Detroit News article: "Gilbert has repeatedly said tax breaks are needed to pay for the massive project. Those potential tax incentives are again before the Michigan Legislature. The package of bills was approved by the state Senate on Wednesday. The bills now go to the state House of Representatives. Last year, similar legislation died in the House."

    I also must wonder if the same folks who were wailing and gnashing their teeth over the tax incentives that helped fun the new stadiums will wail as loudly over tax breaks for this project.
    It didn't die in the house, it died in the lame duck session.

  6. #31

    Default

    Sy, I think this was precisely to get people excited. With the tax incentive legislation being considered right not, DG's team released the renderings and info to show off what they're going to do if they get their tax break. They are betting (I think correctly) that the excitement factor will help move it along in Lansing.

  7. #32

    Default

    One of the renderings on the website shows people buying fruits and vegetables. Think this might bring some form of an actual grocery store to downtown?

  8. #33

    Default

    This building is awesome but tax dollars don't need to pay for it. Unless there is some community gain. Government could collect some of the rental profits.

    I'd love to see this go up but are the dollars and sense behind it?

  9. #34

    Default

    Well, it is an interesting design... and it does respect the streetwall, which I was hoping for... even though it does so in an odd way. A new 734ft. tower.

    Now for a reality check.... those of you who were hoping that it wasn't going to be too tall will get your wish. In fact it will be 213 feet shorter than Cleveland's tallest... 947 ft. tall Key Tower.

    Most buildings are measured from their main entrance to the top of the building... which yes... the Renaissance Center is 727 ft. tall. However, from the lower entrance on the Wintergarten side the Renaissance Center is 748ft. tall. And all folk on the Canadian side, or on the river.... the Renaissance will definitely appear taller than this building, which is some distance from the water. So when we have skyline views, this slim tower will do nothing to impact the domination of the RenCen on the skyline... because 8 feet is hardly anything.

    It may say it's taller in a book or a website.... but when someone says that... some will just give that a wink and a nod....
    Last edited by Gistok; February-22-17 at 09:38 PM.

  10. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SyGolden48236 View Post
    I also must wonder if the same folks who were wailing and gnashing their teeth over the tax incentives that helped fun the new stadiums will wail as loudly over tax breaks for this project.
    Well, there are a couple differences. This is TIF, meaning the developer is taking some of the new tax returns generated by the project. In other words, and I'm open to being corrected, it's not possible for the project to reduce public tax receipts relative to today.

    Further, I personally would much rather see us subsidizing urban buildings with people living in them than stadiums. Every person renting here will generate trips to CVS, lunches and dinners, purchases at retailers, rides on transit, and just add to the general presence of people downtown that makes the entire area more attractive to other new businesses and residents. You also add a building to a currently empty block, rather than blowing up existing building to build something that is empty the vast majority of the year and with massive parking requirements that results in further dead garages, lots, etc. Every dollar spent on this project is getting a much bigger return than the dollars spent on the stadiums.

    Overall, yeah, I wish Gilbert could just build this without any incentives and allow the entire increase in tax revenue to go the city and state. My estimation of him isn't quite as high as previously. But if the city/state gives him half of the marginal increase in tax receipts for 20 years (while still keeping the other half)... I can live with it for a project like this.

  11. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ekleezy View Post
    One of the renderings on the website shows people buying fruits and vegetables. Think this might bring some form of an actual grocery store to downtown?
    In the diagram that area is "food and drink". The rendering has signage in it saying "Detroit Market" behind the produce stands.

    The renderings might still be conceptual to some degree. There are produce stands but you can see an entrance to the street and there's no checkout counters. But they also don't look like independent farmers market vendors. But it's hard to read too much into renderings like this. The produce is stock photography inserted into the 3d rendering so it's going to be generic, and if it's a grocery store then the grocery store would be responsible for its own design and buildout, so they wouldn't be able to do a rendering of what it'd look like because they wouldn't know.

    When I was looking through the renderings and looking at the program diagram my impression was that it would be a glorified food court. Basement food courts are common in downtowns and they attract a lot of people. Or it might be a food court plus a convenience store and other food related businesses (which I think would be great). Based on what we have seen so far I don't think it's going to be a meijer or a farmers market, although it's possible.


    I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Uniqlo were already lined up to some degree. Apple is Apple and Uniqlo would be a great fit.
    Last edited by Jason; February-22-17 at 10:46 PM.

  12. #37

    Default

    It's definitely going to be interesting seeing this tower from Gratiot especially. It will really stand out from that vantage point.

  13. #38

    Default

    I like the design, the look, and the elements it brings to that location. I was *a little* baffled by the "concert hall" or theater space in the project, however. Not opposed to it at all. It just seems like we already have quite a few places to see & hear a show downtown. I wonder if they already have a tenant or operator in mind to run the space. Another performance venue will bring more people downtown, so I am pleased.

    One element that I both wasn't expecting and didn't emerge (although I wish it had) would be a real movie theater. Downtown Detroit doesn't really have a place to catch a movie. With all these people both currently and expected to live downtown, to say nothing of the large and increasing numbers of visitors, I would think a cinema could do well downtown. Lots of restaurants in Detroit now. "Dinner & a movie" is a real thing, just not here. I hope that one of the many downtown developments underway or proposed includes a movie theater. I actually think Detroit could support 2: a mainstream megaplex somewhere right downtown, and Landmark Cinemas-style theater with 5 or 6 screens showing art house, revival, and foreign films. I'm just dreaming, of course.

  14. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeLemur View Post
    This building is awesome but tax dollars don't need to pay for it. Unless there is some community gain. Government could collect some of the rental profits.

    I'd love to see this go up but are the dollars and sense behind it?
    When I discuss these kind of big projects in Detroit, including maybe the fail jail site I keep thinking of revenues to the city, e.g., property taxes.

    We can talk about downtown, neighborhoods, population growth, job growth, etc. but at some time the city needs MONEY (revenue) to do what needs to be done throughout the city. Won't residents living in all of these nice new residential units pay, what 2.4% city of Detroit income tax? Curious how much the city will get in commercial property taxes on these two projects which would cost say 2B to build?

    If the neighborhoods, schools, public safety, parks and rec, etc. are going to get better it will cost money and a financially stable city is vital.
    Last edited by emu steve; February-23-17 at 06:28 AM.

  15. #40

    Default

    Hate it. Here's why. First, there's a section near Woodward and Gratiot that appears to have no windows for 5-6 floors. Second, above that section there are metal panels that appear to block most of the streetview of those in the offices that will line Woodward. Third, there's a section in the middle where, looking out towards Woodward, all you can see is what's in front of you; no 180 degree view of Woodward. Fourth, on the inside there appears to be stairs or seats much like those in Hart Plaza's amphitheater. If they extend two or three floors, they will block a lot of the atrium from the north side (Grand River side) of the building. Fifth, the indentations on the Grand River and Woodward sides look like giant slides a skateboarder would love coming down. The problem is that they obstruct views (the 180 degree view obstruction mentioned earlier). Sixth and finally, the residential tower should be along Woodward not in the back. Much of the view of those apartments facing north is going to be of the roof of the lower structure, not the street scenes of Woodward. Well, that's my two cents.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast View Post
    While I like the base portion, I find the tower to be ungainly and contrived just in order to be taller than the RenCen. "Mine is bigger than yours."
    Yeah. Not sure why the excess height is needed in that area. I don't like it.

  17. #42

    Default

    Very beautiful and taller than the Ren Cen. Gilberttown Detroit first Glass covered very tall skyscraper since 1977. Way to Go Gilbert! He's thinking BIG BIG BIG!!!

    Now that's a OCP Building.
    Last edited by Danny; February-23-17 at 09:16 AM.

  18. #43

    Default

    The new base is big improvement over the old concept, while it carries over many of the old design elements it interacts with the street way better








  19. #44

    Default

    Man, I think folks who own businesses around it got to be happy.

    The neighborhood is getting a lot better...

  20. #45

    Default

    I'm generally a traditionalist when it comes to architecture, but, since I don't imagine anyone is going to build a 1920's deco tower here, as I would if I had the money and power, I'll endorse this generally agreeable plan.

    1953

  21. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1953 View Post
    I'm generally a traditionalist when it comes to architecture, but, since I don't imagine anyone is going to build a 1920's deco tower here, as I would if I had the money and power, I'll endorse this generally agreeable plan.

    1953
    In complete agreement with this statement. I hope it happens, and I like the tower height.

  22. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by royce View Post
    Hate it. Here's why. First, there's a section near Woodward and Gratiot that appears to have no windows for 5-6 floors.
    This is a "convertible hall". I don't know exactly what that means but it sounds like a big room that could be used for public speakers or banquets or film screenings or conference center purposes. It's not something that should have windows. While I don't care about sculptural stuff, putting the blank facade there gives them a surface to sculpt for the main entrance.

    Second, above that section there are metal panels that appear to block most of the streetview of those in the offices that will line Woodward.
    I was skeptical of the metal screens as well, but they're covering up the conference center and cultural space, which are not uses that tend to have a lot of windows. And either way if there are going to be floor to ceiling windows on those tall floors you'd have to do something to control the sunlight. I think they did the screens like that for the wow factor which I disagree with, but "screens" is an acceptable solution to me.

    Third, there's a section in the middle where, looking out towards Woodward, all you can see is what's in front of you; no 180 degree view of Woodward.
    The way the gaps are handled is one of my main criticisms of the building. I think that the offices are articulated into sub-buildings is beneficial, but the vertically slanted walls are detrimental. And the side walls would have been better with windows than being solid. They turned what would have been a really enjoyable corner area plus diagonal views from deeper in the office area, into the kind of place where Milton from Office Space gets relocated to. imo an office building should be judged by how good of an office building it is (this is what genuine design is really about) and some of the choices have aesthetic benefits at the expense of being a good office building.

    But I disagree about the views from the gaps themselves, or about views in general. You're never going to get 180 degree views from flat broad facades, even if you stick your face up against the glass.

    Fourth, on the inside there appears to be stairs or seats much like those in Hart Plaza's amphitheater. If they extend two or three floors, they will block a lot of the atrium from the north side (Grand River side) of the building.
    This part of the rendering confuses me and when I try to compare the different renderings they seem inconsistent. In the Woodward rendering you can see through the Apple store to Farmer street, but in the interior rendering that's where the stairs are. Actually this entire rendering is hard to understand. It would have been easier to understand the building if they had put up some floor plans or a flythrough video or something. I think the stairs just go to the second level of retail. But it looks like they're just stairs. They're slathered with people because in architecture land stairs magically become casual meeting spaces, even when the design of the stairs don't actually encourage that use.

    Fifth, the indentations on the Grand River and Woodward sides look like giant slides a skateboarder would love coming down.
    I actually thought about this too. But more seriously they might be a problem for snow. I don't know what buildings like this usually do about that.

    The problem is that they obstruct views (the 180 degree view obstruction mentioned earlier). Sixth and finally, the residential tower should be along Woodward not in the back. Much of the view of those apartments facing north is going to be of the roof of the lower structure, not the street scenes of Woodward. Well, that's my two cents.
    The apartments are too high and the angle is too steep for them to actually look down at Woodward no matter where the tower is. They'll have good views of Comerica Park and Grand Circus Park, but the people will look like ants. The higher floors will have a view of Campus Martius. Only the lower units would actually be able to see the roof and the roof isn't bad looking anyway.

    I think such a tall building would be undesirable directly on Woodward, and putting it on the other side would also stagger it's alignment compared to the surrounding towers. I also think they'd rather have public uses emphasized on the Woodward side, while residential makes more sense tucked away a little more privately.



    From an architectural perspective I'm not particularly excited about it, but that was inevitable (I have my own ideas about things). But I'm glad that it's not bad. I mean, think of all of the proposals for the Statler and Monroe blocks. Or One Kennedy Square. Or practically anything else built in the city in the last 15+ years.
    Last edited by Jason; February-23-17 at 04:19 PM.

  23. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calltoaction View Post
    It's the perfect height, not too tall to overpower the skyline but tall enough to make it's mark.
    I guess it is different opinions that make the world go round, but I say the tower is overwhelming, better left for Chicago or NY but not in the Woodwad area.

  24. #49

    Default

    I was looking at the Hudson website again, and it looks like they put up a new rendering with a different top of the building. And I think it looks shorter?Name:  Capture.JPG
Views: 430
Size:  108.3 KB

  25. #50

    Default

    That is a good catch. I had the other image saved to do a comparison and although it may look short the perspective appears to be shifted slightly. I'm not sure I really like the new top, but I do like the idea of giving it some sort of crown.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.