ah, Troy. the mecca of banal architecture
Printable View
Let's talk about pure aesthetics. The Hudson's building may have dominated a [[arguably once smaller) skyline, but it didn't invade the street scape
In fact, it blended I to the Woodward streetwall in such a way that if one were to simply stroll and shop, there was just one contiguous promenade of store entrances from one block to the next. While Hudson's certain ly dominated the circumstance of its' existence [[retail), it is memorable for what went on inside and for the importance it had in the lives of Detroiters. Not because it was the largest object on Woodward. Let's build new traditions, not monoliths just for the sake of it.
I'm more curious about what is going to be inside of the building than the exterior... Its a big footprint to have to fill.
As far as people wanting a skyscraper to rival Ren Cen... I keep going back to the fundamental question of "what is inside said skyscraper?"
im not sure if anyone caught this, but in one of the renderings in the freep's article had a little extra white thing in the bottom corner. i couldnt quite figure out what it was until i looked a bit closer. it is the massing of the building but it is rendered with a tower next to it. im guessing what weve been seeing is far from the final product and that they will be working in some sort of residential to the design.
it sort of reminds me of the guggenheim in nyc with it's addition. a very straight forward tower which places the focus on the rest of the building.
maybe im totally off though and it's nothing.
Attachment 26112
I am asking you if you are suggesting that those buildings designed to fall in it's own fooprints if in case that something catastrophic was to happen to them?
I'll chime in. Yeah, it does look like a Gehry reject. It would be fine if it was around Brown University or MIT, but old French cities like Detroit, Syracuse, and New Orleans don't need the classical phased-out and rebooted [[c'mon folks! let's be honest here, how many slick reboots in every bit of our culture lately fail, look like sad crud, or at the very best pale compare to the original? We've had too many of them, and I sincerely believe folks are sick of this cheapening, standardizing, and corrupting of genuine craftsmanship and culture!) treatment here.
In my travels, the number one complaint I got from folks in Cambridge or Madison was by locals who truly despised the treatments done to local landmarks, and they did so in a most vociferous manner. The adding of a new to old worked for the library in Rochester, NY, but not in Cambridge. One of the big jokes in Boston was to take the tail-side of a penny, turn it upside down, and say "Look! the New Boston City Hall!" Boy, did folks hate [[and continue to hate) how the Overture Center for the Arts in Madison had new grafted onto the old. Then again, many folks still loudly criticize how the Monona Terrace was put together as a big waste of money. Woodward has that rare appeal of retaining some old qualities that need to be preserved and revitalized with out the chincy, modern makeover.
I went onto a rant [[who me?) on one thread [[I think it was about Cider Mills or something-see where bad blood sugar gets you!) about how when I was young I used to like artificial, fluorescent, clean, Bauhausian, Calvin Kleinish, sterile crud growing up in the '80s. Then, I wised up, and learned mostly crypto-facists who hate and want to distance themselves from their own organic and animal-like nature-or worse, from things from the past-really get all jazzed up and aroused by this banal sh*t! Folks don't go to Florence or Venice to see some gaudy glass and steel edifice that's been psycho-de-fraculated. They want history!
Heck! I can even respect the old concrete work that went into '70s style works [[U-Mass, the RenCen, old malls, and office buildings in Southfield). At least, there's a hint of organic to that stuff.
Just from a lamen's perspective on this, I call this design "sculptural." I guess it's an urban building simply because it fills a rectilinear block and is surrounded by existing structures. But it doesn't play by the traditional rules of urban architecture. It doesn't relate to any proportion or material of surrounding structures. It's completely divorced from the surrounding expression of fenestration and floor heights. Most buildings play by the rules...typically because of cost, it's more economical to build a box with standardized facade components, whatever they may be. It's not so much "new" vs "old" style but how the massing and geometry sits within the downtown.
Can't say I care for it so far. If this was in a transitional area like near the stadiums or on the riverfront I might be alright with it. Kind of like how a museum sits in a park.
I long for the old days when Detroit had dense, regular blocks of tall and narrow buildings. Hudsons was big, but it picked up on the facade rhythm and form of surrounding buildings.
I'm surprised to be honest. The design isn't something I would have expected from SHoP. I'd expected something a bit more contextual considering the client. They've done well with glass, steel, and brick and imagined something that would blend with the materials and scale of surrounding buildings, but would be playful with the massing, but not a total departure.
The issue is the client wants a significant, iconic and instantly recognizable building that will be recognized as "detroit" in the way a Sydney opera house type building is instantly recognizable and tied to that city.
The goal is not in looking to "blend" or pick up any rhythms and forms. Which, personally, I think is going to unleash an eyesore on that block....but I'm not the billionaire and I'm not as much concerned about the look to my eye, but the capacity to replace a crappy parking deck and a girder farm with vibrancy and life [[and tax paying businesses and citizens).
Someone already stated that goal would be fine IF the building were on the river or some where isolated where it 's without context.
Plopping it down in the middle of the most important thoroughfare, one of the few places where the streetwall is largely intact, the architecture is consistent, is a complete disaster.
Maybe this is a "New Coke"/"Old Coke" [[remember sales for classic coke skyrocketed once it was re-issued after folks chewed bitterly on the new one for a while) thing.
Here's how it goes: Set a plan [[Plan A). Then, present folks with the worse case scenario no one will abide by [[Plan B). Once consternation has reached a pique/peak, say "Well-we did have this--[[Plan A)", and everyone will say "Okay, as long as it isn't that first thing you showed us [[Plan B)." All shadow of doubt will be quelled, and all will be on board.
Classic "Good cop/Bad cop" stuff.
-and so far, this is more like "Good cop [[yet to be seen)"/"Fugly cop".
This new building makes me want to sneeze.
http://www.crowncoffee.net/assets/im...ssue-21400.jpg
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/attachm...2&d=1425746354
I think you nailed it! Obviously, someone didn't look too far away from their work area to come up with that design. I'm surprised they didn't design it to look like a pig made out of an eraser with push pins in it.
One of my favorite National Lampoon magazine bits was something to the effect of "How kids see the world", and it showed how everyday objects like pens get depicted into a large cut-away technical schematic of some spacecraft. One only need to see Rich Hall's "Pitkinville Reports" or "Bachelor Living" skits on the old Friday's episodes to see he also didn't look too far past things lying around the house [[he was always good for that coffee table book type humor-but still a real good comedic genius, nonetheless). All this may work well for comedy, but architecture, on the other hand.....
Ha Ha, it does look like a box of Kleenex in that photo.
I just wish they would do something that doesn't look so out of place.
Also, it doesn't look like it's maximizing that space. What is up with the whole side swooping down like a giant ramp? Don't bother answering my question. I don't care. Just yuk.
I tend to disagree about Hudson's... I like the hodgepodge of styles that the building was... it tended to match [[but on a grander scale) the hodgepodge of architecture that surrounded it on all sides.
Also, had the building been turned around 180 degrees, the dignified unified facade may have been nicer aesthetically.... but almost overpowering....
Here is the type of traditionalist design I want for the Hudson's site [[pardon the Microsoft Paint). It meets all of the criteria for Gilbert's design competition. Its something like a 15 story tower in the center, flanked by two shorter wings of 8-10 stories. There would be ground floor retail wrapped around the base of the building, except for an office lobby entrance in the center. You could drop a fountain or signature artwork in the main courtyard, which would lend itself for people gathering. The street wall would be fairly in tact, but for the courtyard break, which would be wrapped in street wall itself. You could either do it up in a black and white motif, or go all out and use the Fisher Building colors.
Attachment 26228
[[I don't know how to show the picture, short of having to click on the link)
Just an observation: The views for this thread went from about 8,000 on Sunday to 42,000 Monday evening. Gilbert must've had ALL his employees work overtime Monday to click on his thread to get the views up so high. [[laughing)
What an egomaniac!
New Hudson's information
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...tial/70446162/
By Dec. 31, Gilbert's Rosko Development, an affiliate of his Bedrock Real Estate Services, will submit to the DDA a final development and financing plan for the site. Construction should begin by April 1, 2016, and see "substantial completion" by April 1, 2018."