City Club Apartment Construction in Detroit
UPBEAT DETROIT PICTURES - WHY NOT? »

FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 131
  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayp213 View Post
    yeah I agree, those buildings pretty much suck ass. Could totally see them on big beaver in troy. But glad that they're there nonetheless than...oh, say, an empty lot used for parking. Parking a damn car seems like the only thing we know how to do around here lol
    ah, Troy. the mecca of banal architecture

  2. #102

    Default

    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.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    There is a whole collectivce of these folks...Hadid, Gehry, Koolhaas, Philip Johnson, Michael Graves, I.M. Pei, SHoP...who practice this same type of repetitive self-indulgent cartoon architecture. Much like the world of professional sports franchises, desperate mayors (and universities) chase down these Brand Name architects in order to boost their civic reputations. It's a giant hoodwink that all kicked into high gear when tourists flocked to Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao. Suddenly, everywhere on earth just needed to have a "statement piece" to show how creative and clever their town was. Forget the Golden Ratio was ever discovered, so we can now have some innovative crap.

    Gehry admits that he's more interested in sculpture than the function of the building (Read about his debacle at MIT). Koolhaas has stated that he intends his designs to disorient people. As if that's somehow a desirable trait. It's like these folks earn a degree of smugness when they sell their poorly thought-out ideas to the public...as if they're all smarter than the rest of us.

    Some of the comments above are amusing: Letting natural light into the space? Yeah, because Louis Kahn never figured that one out. Mixed-use? Yeah, no one ever thought to put multiple functions in the same building. And better still--let's "wrap" (code for "hide") an important civic building behind three museums. What a way to serve the public, right?

    I might be a cranky traditionalist, but in the realm of modern architecture, the Emperor truly has no clothes. I'd love to see more work by Detroit's community of hard-working architects, who are professionally committed to functional buildings, than to see a piece of rehashed sculptural claptrap by some holier-than-thou Name architect..
    Have any good examples of recent traditionalist "commercial/office" designs?

  4. #104

    Default

    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?"

  5. #105

    Default

    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.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 9.09.50 AM.jpg
Views: 1334
Size:  29.6 KB

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southen View Post
    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.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 9.09.50 AM.jpg
Views: 1334
Size:  29.6 KB
    I think it's a waterfall plot graph from a speaker test....

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gistok View Post
    Two words come to mind.... Centre Pompidou... when Paris had a site surrounded by historic midrise buildings (such as the Hudson site)... this is what they put up there...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Cent...w=1280&bih=923

    This building was part of my art major studies.

  8. #108

    Default

    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?

  9. #109

    Default

    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.

  10. #110

    Default

    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.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    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).
    Last edited by bailey; March-09-15 at 10:15 AM.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bailey View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Shai_Hulud; March-09-15 at 12:13 PM.

  13. #113

    Default

    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".

  14. #114

    Default

    This new building makes me want to sneeze.



  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Király View Post
    This new building makes me want to sneeze.


    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.....

  16. #116

    Default

    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.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveWire View Post
    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.
    Yes, I agree, it's a big waste of valuable space, and an eyesore, to boot.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowell View Post
    I like it too and I like it for where it is. I'm happy it is not tall. It will be a nice surprise that will elevate the buildings around it and make them look better. They will reflect on its surface and sunlight while continue to shine on them.

    It will be so much better than that behemoth Hudson's that darkened and isolated everything around it. And let's not forget that the hodgepodge of additions that became Hudson's was not exactly a crime against architecture when it vanished in a cloud. It's significance was memories not looks. I date the turn around point for downtown from the day.
    I like the 2nd to last sentence:

    bet a lot of engagement rings, etc. bought there.

  19. #119

    Default

    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....
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  20. #120

    Default

    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.

    Name:  design-hudsons.jpg
Views: 642
Size:  19.8 KB

    (I don't know how to show the picture, short of having to click on the link)
    Last edited by 1953; March-17-15 at 12:32 PM.

  21. #121

    Default

    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!

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpartanDawg View Post
    UPDATE: OFFICIAL RENDERING RELEASED FROM BEDROCK. STILL NOT FINAL DESIGN

    Attachment 26096


    http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2015/03/04/gilbert-detroit-hudsons/24411227/


    http://www.freep.com/story/news/colu...ding/24407951/

    two articles on the topic


    Attachment 26080



    Like the the use of the classic AMC Javelin in the rendering.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Low View Post
    Like the the use of the classic AMC Javelin in the rendering.
    it's an AMX version

  24. #124

  25. #125

    Default

    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."

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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.