Music Hall expansion plan clears Historic District Commission

https://s3-rd-prod.crainsdetroit.com...2023.11.17.jpg
The final design, reviewed by the HDC at its Wednesday meeting, includes updates for the building's roof and the decorative screen that will encircle the building. Music Hall President Vince Paul said the project is expected to go before City Council early next year, but it must first secure approval from the city Economic Development Corp. to issue $80 million in tax-exempt 501[[c)3 bonds for the $122 million expansion.The Economic Development Corp. meeting scheduled for Tuesday was canceled, Paul said. The group's next meeting is set for Jan. 9, according to its website.

Quote:

---

The 100,000-square-foot, multi-story expansion is slated for construction on the parking lot at the corner of Madison and Randolph streets in downtown Detroit, next to Music Hall.
As planned, it will include a new, contemporary concert venue with capacity for 1,900 people, recording studios, offices for agents and other music industry professionals and a music academy operated by the nonprofit.

---

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/arts-c...-commission-ok

Aside from the fact that there's no need for another 2,000 seat venue, does this not overlap somewhat with the Max M. Fisher Center?

Not a fan of the design at all... very plain, and yet it appears to overpower the existing historic Music Hall.

For $122 million they could have restored the late 2000 seat United Artists Theatre, and have a venue with breathtaking opulence, and acoustic perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Not a fan of the design at all... very plain, and yet it appears to overpower the existing historic Music Hall.

For $122 million they could have restored the late 2000 seat United Artists Theatre, and have a venue with breathtaking opulence, and acoustic perfection.

---

Right. The fit just isn’t there.

There is something vaguely and not quite japanesque about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

Right. The fit just isn’t there.

There is something vaguely and not quite japanesque about it.

---

vaguely japanesque; vaguely Frank Lloyd Wright-ish....emphasis on the ish. How many of those "screens" are being pulled off historic beauties after ill-conceived wreckovations of the 50s-80s? Sad that they couldn't come up with something that fits in with the surroundings better.

Everyone complains that everything looks alike. Then when something is different, we hear that it doesn’t fit.

I like this design.

^ The "fit in" comment also applies to the fact that the side of this structure will be facing historic Harmonie Park. :)

I like the screen. This rendering doesn't do it any favors but this is simply to show the mass of the building. The more photorealistic renderings from before show the intent of the design. I think Detroit needs as much architectural diversity as possible and I think just looking at Hudson's you can see the impact that such structures can make, while also allowing you to appreciate the historic buildings we have. These buildings can play off of each other.

I am not really a fan of the roof at a distance but it appears as thought the slope is such that when close it will really minimize how much of that you end up seeing. The programming of this building is going to be great though. It will act as a visitors center in many ways which is something we oddly don't have at all downtown.

I'm personally not a huge fan of the design.

I like screens in general and I think the screen is a good solution for the problem, but I think the designs they've had have had this kind of tacky midcentury variety show set design vibe. There are so many just incredibly beautiful screens on buildings around the world nowadays. I think something very simple and conservative like this [[https://www.archdaily.com/926222/unc...medium=gallery) would look great but there are a lot of more extreme and geometric ones that would look great too. I think even what they have would be perfectly fine if it weren't for all the "bits" put onto it.

The "hat" is just very weird formally, and it also blocks the view of the Music Hall sign. I'm guessing this is some misguided attempt at being contextual, since there are some nearby buildings with sloped roofs.

But for the actual context of the site... the site terminates the beaux arts axis created by Madison. imo, the corner should be chamfered such that that part of the facade is orthogonal to Madison Avenue. And then maybe some kind of vertical element on the center of the axis. Chamfering the corner would also make a small plaza outside the building, space to more comfortably hold the number of people coming and going from events.

Along the same lines, yes there is an alley and so the buildings are not connected on the ground floor, which isn't ideal. But why not extend the screen over the alley, so that the new and old facade form one continuous facade? Or maybe the sunscreen would be set back a bit so that it hit the old building at the boundary between the fancy facade and the alley facade? And why not have the height of the screen match the height of the old facade? Additions to buildings definitely don't need to emulate the old building, but the two parts should still form some kind of cohesive whole.

Excellent points as always, Jason.

I approve your ideas on height alignment and chamfering.

What's going on with this? I haven't heard any news since that meeting in January. Anyone got an update or timeline?

I haven't... but then they are a non-profit group. I wonder if donors are balking at the price tag.

$120 million for a 2000 seat venue on such a small footprint seems like quite a hefty price. For that price they could have restored the [now raze] United Artists 2000 seat movie palace... or conributed most of the funds needed to restore the 4050 seat former Michigan Theatre, which suprisingly, still has half of the theatre extant.

This design does not fit into the surrounding historic district at all. It will degrade the quality of the district and detract from its appeal. The Music Hall should do better.

1953

Looks like the Music Hall expansion is a go... $125 million...

https://www.freep.com/story/entertai...lenwV5kQ-e4h1W

That's a lot of money at risk. I hope they "grow the business".

"$80M in bonds to be covered by future concert revenue."

Man I know concerts cost an arm & a leg now a days but that is a LOT of concert revenue to bring in and pay those off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeg19

"$80M in bonds to be covered by future concert revenue."

Man I know concerts cost an arm & a leg now a days but that is a LOT of concert revenue to bring in and pay those off.

---

Yes... my exact thoughts!! The Detroit Opera House conversion of the former Capitol Theatre cost $42 million back in 1991-98... and that was a much larger venue. They replaced 90% of the ornate plaster plus added a new and expanded stage house for opera productions. So I was shocked at the sticker price of this Music Hall expansion for another 2000 seat theatre.

So spending this much money and building an addition from scratch... I hope they have enough concert product available to guarantee that they will be able to repay the bonds for a 2000 seat auditorium, as well as the existing 1800 seat historic Music Hall.

As a long time guide on the annual Preservation Detroit theatre tours, I have seen the venues in Detroit get more into being used as wedding venues, because there has been a marked decrease in the number of shows touring. Just look at the Gem Theatre... the days of "All Night Strut" and other long running shows are long gone, and today that venue is mainly used as a wedding venue. Even the Fox, Fillmore and Opera House host many weddings and business gatherings... more so than 20 years ago.

Thank goodness no one in the Detroit Metro area has ever hired Frank Gehry to design a building. Many of the readers of this Forum would commit mass, ritualistic suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GPCharles

Thank goodness no one in the Detroit Metro area has ever hired Frank Gehry to design a building. Many of the readers of this Forum would commit mass, ritualistic suicide.

---

You probably have been left spellbound by all those crushed cans looking buildings. Have you checked out any of the lawsuits and building problems his "innovative designs" have produced? Innovative often lead to maintenance nightmares, and cost overruns.

LA's Disney Concert Hall by Gehry went from $50 million to $274 million. Not only that, but the reflective glare cause the temps to rise to 138 degrees at nearby buildings.

And then there is the problems they had with an Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where his building caused a lawsuit due to...

"MIT’s lawsuit cited design and construction failures in the building. These included masonry cracking and poor drainage in the amphitheater; “mold growth at various locations on the brick exterior vertical elevations”; “persistent leaks” throughout the building; and sliding ice and snow."

Yup... lets build a Gehry design... and see how quickly it would burn thru $120 million before cost overruns kick in. :eek:

Sometimes there is an added cost to building an icon that is an economic driver for a community... and I have never heard of a basic af building ever having maintenance issues :p

I think modern buildings can enhance what we already have and treasure. Keep in mind that it was the same audacity that created the Fisher and Guardian Building that is pushing more interesting design today. Some of it lands, some doesn't, but I find the most interesting cities are ones that have a mix of it all.

I am no fan of Frank Gehry and am well aware of the problems with his buildings. There is "out there" and then there is "Frank Gehry out there."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeg19

"$80M in bonds to be covered by future concert revenue."

Man I know concerts cost an arm & a leg now a days but that is a LOT of concert revenue to bring in and pay those off.

---

You would be surprised ticket sales are a $4.6 billion a year,after expenses the talent gets roughly 48%,the promoter gets 5% of venue sales.

The venue gets money from ticket sales,VIP box rental,concession and merchandise.

If you go back - 2015 the top 5 concerts generated $350 million and when you look at the casinos who book top acts for a three year run the venue itself is making $150 - $200 million.

So spending $120 million to build is really nothing,even more so it’s based on it cost X amount in monthly payments for that verses the potential revenue the use of it will generate over and above.

Last concert I went to during the pandemic was The Rolling Stones and the ticket was $800 to stand,people were paying over $1500,the stadium capacity was 62,000,the entire football field was packed standing room only and the bleachers were probably 60% full,so that 1 concert probably generated more revenue then the entire football season.

But this is 2000 seat so to generate for that it is going to have to be big names and top talent,if they can pull it off,it will say a lot of positive for the region.

The problem with the wedding venues etc thing,which many people found out that bought the massive historical country estates in the UK and Chateaus for pennies on the dollar and restored them,they may have saved them but it became a saturation point where everybody is doing it.

Just like here where a lot of things that gained popularity during the pandemic that offered an escape are now falling by the wayside because everybody started doing it.

Concert and entertainment venues will always be there because they offer an escape even if it is only for a couple of hours.

Anything arts and entertainment in a given region is a positive influence.

Funny when talking about famous architecture... no modern building has paid for itself in tourism as much as the Sydney Opera House.

But even though it is a tourist attraction extraordinaire... it has been a nightmare from the very beginning... and is known as the world's biggest planning disaster. It cost 14 times its' original estimate, and has terrible acoustics... with $200 million spent to try to correct it. And about another $300 million was spent on repairs that included new roof tiles. What makes it even more crazy is the fact that it is not equipped to handle grand opera!! :eek:

And yet it has generated billions towards Australian tourism. Oh the irony! :o