Some questions about Hudson's

Hey, I've been here for a while, but haven't posted much. But I wanted to ask a few questions.

• What was Hudson's square footage? Comparing what I could find for Macy's and Hudson's, I'm getting that Hudson's was larger
• What was the situation of the store after it had closed?
• I remember reading some detailed mixed-use plans for the building. What became of those? Were there any others?
• What would have happened if the store had not been demolished? Was it remaining standing even plausible? I've heard Compuware would not have come downtown in that case.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hudson%27s+building+detroit+wiki

I don't have the statistics handy, but when my father worked at Hudson's, he always said that Macy's had a bit more square footage devoted to public selling space, but that the Hudson's building was larger, owing to the many floors devoted to corporate headquarters and accounting, and warehousing. That made it both the largest and tallest building ever devoted to retailing [[unless you count some of the new monster enclosed malls as single buildings). The selling space in Hudson's was just a bit over 1 million square feet.

The Wikipedia article has some detail mistakes. The different parts of the building mostly topped out at between 12 and 20 floors above ground, with no usable space above the 24th floor of the tower. Selling space was on 12 above-ground floors, 2 basements, the mezzanine, plus the 13th-floor restaurant.

"Selling is the biggest job we do!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

I don't have the statistics handy, but when my father worked at Hudson's, he always said that Macy's had a bit more square footage devoted to public selling space, but that the Hudson's building was larger, owing to the many floors devoted to corporate headquarters and accounting, and warehousing. That made it both the largest and tallest building ever devoted to retailing [[unless you count some of the new monster enclosed malls as single buildings). The selling space in Hudson's was just a bit over 1 million square feet.

The Wikipedia article has some detail mistakes. The different parts of the building mostly topped out at between 12 and 20 floors above ground, with no usable space above the 24th floor of the tower. Selling space was on 12 above-ground floors, 2 basements, the mezzanine, plus the 13th-floor restaurant.

"Selling is the biggest job we do!"

---

Thanks! I never knew so much space was dedicated to the headquarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitman32

...

• I remember reading some detailed mixed-use plans for the building. What became of those? Were there any others?
• What would have happened if the store had not been demolished? Was it remaining standing even plausible? I've heard Compuware would not have come downtown in that case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnsie

Detroit Edison, Michigan Bell and Blue Cross signed commitments to lease space in Hudson's in the mid-'80s, but Reagan killed the Urban Development Action Grant program, and that was the end of that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnsie

Perhaps Hudson's demolition was inevitable, but it didn't help that Dayton Hudson irresponsibly sold the building in Dec. 1989 to a half-baked "developer" that had no track record. Up to that point the building was still in good, secured condition, but immediately after the sale it was stripped and vandalized.

---

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1238133229

Compuware demanded that it be torn down because it had not been taken care of and from what they could see plans to reuse it weren't materializing. There were other plans and interested developers in "the building" but no interested parties in the lot at the time of demolition. The same holds true today. I imagine if the Campus Martius Park had been put up sooner it might have attracted a developer like Merchants Row or Book Cadillac. I’m not sure the retail market is quite ripe enough for a large department store but it would have done well as residential building with a grocery store on the ground.

Can someone please cite a source stating Compuware's position?

I have heard the total opposite. I heard that Pete Karmanos was interested in putting the headquarters in the Hudson's building, but the city told him it was not feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro Times

"Advocates of the Hudson’s demolition repeatedly cite Compuware as support for their cause; but for the Hudson’s demo, they argue, Compuware would never have gone up."

---

http://www.metrotimes.com/arts/story.asp?id=4614

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

http://www.metrotimes.com/arts/story.asp?id=4614

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro Times [[2003)

Mum’s the word … apparently, that is the mantra of the forces currently involved in the much-ballyhooed yet at-times snakebitten Merchant’s Row project in downtown Detroit. The blockbuster development seeks to fuse six adjacent and abandoned buildings on the west side of Woodward, across the street from the old Hudson’s building, into a $35 million, 168-unit loft development and automated 264-space, European-style high-tech parking garage.

---

Amazing. That's what, more than 1.5 parking spaces per loft? Just amazing. That's some downtown. Here's looking forward to the day they turn half that garage into mini storage for lack of tenants renting multiple parking spaces.
Then again, maybe those are bike spaces, being that it's a European-style garage. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

Amazing. That's what, more than 1.5 parking spaces per loft? Just amazing. That's some downtown. Here's looking forward to the day they turn half that garage into mini storage for lack of tenants renting multiple parking spaces.
Then again, maybe those are bike spaces, being that it's a European-style garage. :rolleyes:

---

The extra spaces was for Avis, which had a location there, in the short term at least. Beyond that, Merchant's Row was supposed to switch to condos twelve years from completion. I can see why they'd think Metro Detroit condo buyers would want extra parking, judging by what the popular developments were at that point in history.

I can't see Merchant's Row being a desirable condo development in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

but it would have done well as residential building with a grocery store on the ground.

---

It would have not done well as a residential building. It was far too deep. Costs making structural adjustments to hollow out portions of the building would have well exceeded any return you'd get. Additionally new stairwells would have had to been created and many portions higher up would be unusable had the building gone residential. Imagine maintaining those useless spaces. Imagine the maintenance fees residents would pay on that place!

The building could only function as a commercial structure. It certainly could perform well as an office building once you remove all the non-structural partitions. Column spacing would have been a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

It would have not done well as a residential building. It was far too deep. Costs making structural adjustments to hollow out portions of the building would have well exceeded any return you'd get. Additionally new stairwells would have had to been created and many portions higher up would be unusable had the building gone residential. Imagine maintaining those useless spaces. Imagine the maintenance fees residents would pay on that place!

The building could only function as a commercial structure. It certainly could perform well as an office building once you remove all the non-structural partitions. Column spacing would have been a non-issue.

---

Care to eloborate on why you would need to hollow out portions of the building?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1238133229

I’m not sure the retail market is quite ripe enough for a large department store but it would have done well as residential building with a grocery store on the ground.

---

I wonder would it have been feasible to convert the upper levels into residences and split the lower level into a retail center [[trying not to call it a mall), similar to the Time Warner Center in NYC.

They recently converted an old church turned nightclub [[the Limelight) into an upscale mall here in Manhattan [[http://www.inc.com/news/articles/201...rketplace.html). I wish Detroit could be as forward thinking about reuse of its old structures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wonder would it have been feasible to convert the upper levels into residences and split the lower level into a retail center [[trying not to call it a mall), similar to the Time Warner Center in NYC.

---

Windows vs square footage would be tough to get over with this building. A 750 square foot loft would be oddly shaped so that it would be 50 feet deep and 15 feet wide, allowing for non-corner aptartments to have only a couple of windows on one end. It would be like living in a cave.

At one time I was an architecture student in college. I once tried my darnedest to figure this one out, found old drawings made several visits, but it would have ended up with 85 percent unsellable apartments. Your best option for conversion would be open floor plan offices, but even in the 1980s Detroit had no need for more office space [[the Rencen had pretty much pulled a lot of people out of existing buildings and the Madden and Comerica were in planning stages).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Windows vs square footage would be tough to get over with this building. A 750 square foot loft would be oddly shaped so that it would be 50 feet deep and 15 feet wide, allowing for non-corner aptartments to have only a couple of windows on one end. It would be like living in a cave.

At one time I was an architecture student in college. I once tried my darnedest to figure this one out, found old drawings made several visits, but it would have ended up with 85 percent unsellable apartments. Your best option for conversion would be open floor plan offices, but even in the 1980s Detroit had no need for more office space [[the Rencen had pretty much pulled a lot of people out of existing buildings and the Madden and Comerica were in planning stages).

---

What about a partial demolition of the strucutre? Sort of like what they proposed with the train station? Demolish a portion of the tower, rebuild it for residences and keep the lower levels of the original structure for retail. If I recall correctly, the tower was built in phases, so this could have been done, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What about a partial demolition of the strucutre? Sort of like what they proposed with the train station? Demolish a portion of the tower, rebuild it for residences and keep the lower levels of the original structure for retail. If I recall correctly, the tower was built in phases, so this could have been done, no?

---

Absolutely, however there would be quite a bit of damage done to the old exterior which could increase the cost of the project substantially. You would also need to look at how to design the new side in a complementary fashion [[i.e. no boring cheese grater or glass box side). I would assume that the SW corner and perhaps most of the woodward side would be the one to take down several floors. These were some of the last parts of the building to get built. N Woodward and along Library were the oldest part of the structure. I would leave a few floors at the bottom for retail though. This would also help keep some assemblance of a historic facade along the main drag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

http://www.metrotimes.com/arts/story.asp?id=4614

---

Try quoting the whole passage so people can see what bullshit it is.

"Compuware headquarters has replaced the Hudson’s building. Advocates of the Hudson’s demolition repeatedly cite Compuware as support for their cause; but for the Hudson’s demo, they argue, Compuware would never have gone up."

And for anyone unaware, such as those who think the above paragraph sounds correct... Compuware is NOT on the site of the Hudson's building.

So a large office building with retail space does not equal a large office building with retail space?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

Care to eloborate on why you would need to hollow out portions of the building?

---

Typically, residential buildings work best in narrow buildings because of code restrictions.

1. By code, all bedrooms must have 1 window UNLESS you consider it a loft where all space partitions do not reach the ceiling.

2. So you could make it a loft and still follow code, but then there's egress. Since every unit must have a window you are setting up a linear double loaded corridor condition for the building wide floorplan, assuming you don't hollow out voids within the building. Because your loft setup requires narrow and deep configurations, you'd need a ton of stairwells to meet life safety travel distances. And even with the double loaded corridor option, what will we do with all that empty wasted space in the center? You aren't going to build a loft that occupies a half city block deep with windows on only one end!

The next two come down to people's preferences of space.
3. By choosing the loft option, you have a lot of dark spaces and likely no bedrooms with windows. I would not want that, and most people don't. Lofts that occupy deep and narrow spaces tend to sell or rent for less because they are dark. Selling for less would not be good considering our renovation costs would be very high.

4. Your next option is to hollow out voids in the center of the building so that units can be placed in the interior of the building and still have access to daylight and fresh air. The double loaded corridor is no longer linear, but a circuit within the building. Your units are now shallower and you can probably consider them standard residential construction instead of a loft. You've resolved the stairwell issue with at least having a few less for fire egress. Unfortunately you've created apartments or condos with unpleasant views. Essentially they face a light court and look into other people's apartments. You could probably sell quite a few of them, but at a low cost.....again, how will you pay for an expensive renovation.


Hope that explanation provides some insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

You aren't going to build a loft that occupies a half city block deep with windows on only one end!

---

Long and narrow with windows on one end is the most prevalent loft design in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russix

Long and narrow with windows on one end is the most prevalent loft design in the world.

---

Cool.

Still a bad idea, prohibited by code, and a money pit. It would have been an office building