Roxbury Group Re-Starts Book Caddy Garage Plans, Only Uglier

**animatedmartian** · January-26-15, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Why would the design need to change asthitically just because of apartments vs condos? Yea, I get that the interior would be different, but why completely changes the exterior appearance?

It's cheaper. Aesthetics cost money.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-26-15, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

It's cheaper. Aesthetics cost money.

One can argue that UGLY costs even more. This new rendering is, to put it kindly, a piece of shit. The addition is completely unsympathetic to anything at all. I can't believe that it took a trained architect to drop a shipping container onto Detroit.

**ABetterDetroit** · January-26-15, 02:23 PM

It a apears to be a incomplete rendition, floor to ceiling glass doesn't exactly make me think shipping container.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-26-15, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

It a apears to be a incomplete rendition, floor to ceiling glass doesn't exactly make me think shipping container.

I'm not even looking at the cladding. The massing is incomprehensible. This is what you get when every architect on earth starts "designing" everything in Revit.

**animatedmartian** · January-26-15, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

One can argue that UGLY costs even more. This new rendering is, to put it kindly, a piece of shit. The addition is completely unsympathetic to anything at all. I can't believe that it took a trained architect to drop a shipping container onto Detroit.

No you can't. Glass is cheaper than masonry.

Either way, the point is that the design is a reflection of economic conditions.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-26-15, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

No you can't. Glass is cheaper than masonry.

Either way, the point is that the design is a reflection of economic conditions.

That doesn't mean it has to be a giant stinking turd. I've seen $100,000 houses that look better than that multi-million-dollar piece of crap.

But I bet you all of the units have granite countertops, cherry cabinets, and high-end stainless steel appliances! Because, you know, "cheaper" or something.

**animatedmartian** · January-26-15, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That doesn't mean it has to be a giant stinking turd. I've seen $100,000 houses that look better than that multi-million-dollar piece of crap.

But I bet you all of the units have granite countertops, cherry cabinets, and high-end stainless steel appliances! Because, you know, "cheaper" or something.

Houses =/= high rise condo. Apples and oranges.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-26-15, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Houses =/= high rise condo. Apples and oranges.

You're absolutely right. This tractor-trailer of a building topper was designed by a team of professional architects who got paid perfectly good money to dream up this chunk of shit. I've seen more artistic expression an in Erector set.

**detroitsgwenivere** · January-26-15, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You're absolutely right. This tractor-trailer of a building topper was designed by a team of professional architects who got paid perfectly good money to dream up this chunk of shit. I've seen more artistic expression an in Erector set.

Bwahahahahahah cough cough

**animatedmartian** · January-26-15, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You're absolutely right. This tractor-trailer of a building topper was designed by a team of professional architects who got paid perfectly good money to dream up this chunk of shit. I've seen more artistic expression an in Erector set.

No one's going to lose sleep over what you may or may not consider ugly.

**ABetterDetroit** · January-26-15, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

No one's going to lose sleep over what you may or may not consider ugly.

Are you sure on that? I thought all the most respected architects in the world use the word "ghetto" in their Twitter/ Instagram name. How else would we know they aren't the very best?

**animatedmartian** · January-26-15, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

Are you sure on that? I thought all the most respected architects in the world use the word "ghetto" in their Twitter/ Instagram name. How else would we know they aren't the very best?

Well, he's not the one being paid "good money" to design this particular building so obviously we just have to rely on his word.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-27-15, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Well, he's not the one being paid "good money" to design this particular building so obviously we just have to rely on his word.

If you want your city to look like a half-rate Houston, that's your prerogative. I think Detroit can do--and should expect--better.

It's just a shame that personal attacks are an inadequate substitute for architectural critique. So maybe you'd like to tell us all what's so terrific and amazing about a building addition that looks like a tractor trailer fell out of the sky?

**Hermod** · January-27-15, 08:25 AM

DetroitYes:

1. Complain about lack of building/renovation in the city.

2. Spend "other peoples money" on what "should be built".

3. When someone actually is going to spend money to build/renovate something in the city, complain about the architecture or what is going to be in the building.

4. Rinse/repeat.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-27-15, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

DetroitYes:

1. Complain about lack of building/renovation in the city.

2. Spend "other peoples money" on what "should be built".

3. When someone actually is going to spend money to build/renovate something in the city, complain about the architecture or what is going to be in the building.

4. Rinse/repeat.

So Detroit should just be happy with whatever crumbs the wealthy decide to throw--no matter how terrible. Is that what you're saying? Is that how you perceive Detroit--as a helpless beggar with no sense of standards or decency?

**ABetterDetroit** · January-27-15, 10:18 AM

A sincere apology to ghettopalmetto for being personal in my criticism of your criticism. You are entitled to your opinion of architecture. It was just in the spirt of humor not meant to be personal. Not a excuse, but it probably would'nt have happened if you hadn't expressed the exact same view so many times in the same thread. When things get repetitive is when my bad sense of humor kicks in. Again I opologize.

I only hope that in the future there are a whole lot of new buildings in Detroit that have a wide range of opinions in the aesthetics of the architecture. It would be impossible to please everyone all the time, variety is a good thing in my opinion.

**rb336** · January-27-15, 12:46 PM

They are taking advantage of the views with the floor-to-ceiling glass. The people who will actually live there care far more about what it looks like out of their windows than how it looks from the outside

**Detroit500** · February-07-15, 09:00 PM

Depending on what the final design looks like, I"m not opposed with the clashing. In most other cities, something like that would be appreciated.

**3WC** · February-08-15, 05:27 PM

I think that the current Roxbury design looks great. Those that dislike it and refer to it as a shipping container probably feel that way because of the cantilevered extension of the new addition, which clearly distinguishes the new construction from the parking structure. That was probably done for economic reasons, to provide additional square footage. Smart. Makes the new construction possible, financially.

This forum permits people to express their personal preferences and enables them to criticize architects, even though they know nothing of the intricacies of the architectural process or the financial burdens which impact every real estate project.

Somebody in a previous post took a shot at Houston. While Detroit is enjoying a rebirth [[downtown and midtown), because of a very few risk takers and visionairies, it has a long, long way to go to rate up there with Houston.

**Dexlin** · February-08-15, 08:53 PM

You either work for Roxbury or the architect who did the design, though, I'm not even sure Roxbury would say this is a "great" design. It is what it is, and it does what it does [[maximizes the space), and that's about it. I don't hate it; in fact, it's all right for what it is. But, to call the design "great" is absolutely ridiculous.

**wolverine** · February-08-15, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

It's cheaper. Aesthetics cost money.

I don't think it's always best to associate cost with good design. It's entirely to do with architectural execution. You can still do a cheap building that looks good. I'm not convinced that the original design was more costly because the "details" were large modular precast panels. After all, they built a parking garage of all things to match. That faux historic design previously proposed could have been done just as affordably. It's just that developers probably feel the modern design will be more marketable to younger renters rather than more well established folks looking to buy.

Had the original parking garage [[which is a clunky beast in my opinion) been designed in the proposed modern design language, I doubt there would be much negative reaction to the rooftop addition.

**Detroit500** · February-08-15, 10:03 PM

I am actually surprised they do not have these available for purchase. The Book Cadillac a year later is almost entirely sold out [[according to the website anyways) with only the three bedrooms available. Granted, some of those may be rental properties that they may choose to sell at a future date, but compared to how long it took them to sell these, it is wonderful what change the past year has made.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-09-15, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

It's just that developers probably feel the modern design will be more marketable to younger renters rather than more well established folks looking to buy.

I've seen [[far more attractive) buildings over 100-years-old undergo renovation and have a waitlist of renters months before the doors even opened. So I'm thinking it's not some made-up "preference" for modernism at work here. I suspect the architect, the owner, or some combination thereof, is just being lazy. Welcome to the Revit generation.

**bailey** · February-09-15, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I've seen [[far more attractive) buildings over 100-years-old undergo renovation and have a waitlist of renters months before the doors even opened. So I'm thinking it's not some made-up "preference" for modernism at work here. I suspect the architect, the owner, or some combination thereof, is just being lazy. Welcome to the Revit generation.

I don't think it's laziness. It's simply that "design" costs money and that is money Roxbury doesn't want to spend.

Really though, if you're going to be living on top of a fortress looking parking deck, is the design of the residential part slapped on top of it going to be that important to you?

**ghettopalmetto** · February-09-15, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I don't think it's laziness. It's simply that "design" costs money and that is money Roxbury doesn't want to spend.

Really though, if you're going to be living on top of a fortress looking parking deck, is the design of the residential part slapped on top of it going to be that important to you?

Well this crappy "shipping container" design costs money too. I don't know of any architect who works for free. Interestingly enough, the real design costs are in the detailing--of windows, facades, walls, doors, interiors, which have to be done anyway. Application of any semblance of artistic sensibility to the massing and exterior facade detailing comes at a minimal cost compared to what the project will cost to construct. But I bet you every apartment will have expensive granite countertops and cherry cabinets!

The design isn't for the people who live in the building--it's for everyone who can see it. This screams "We are a city of low standards, and we really don't give a shit what kind of places we build."

This building looks like an afterthought of a storage facility, not a place where humans live. Would you buy a house that looked like this?