Taller Buildings - When and where will we see them?

[A2Mike]

That fire escape is a deal killer for prospective tenants - I once looked out from the 27th floor hall - and it is scary! And you are right, it doesn't need any trendy makeovers like Paul Rudolph did to the top of his own NY house.

[Jayp213]

I agree- I'm dying for something skyline-changing to be built already but I also feel that if we occupy some of the already run down structures and fix those up, then we can see something that will change the skyline. If we build out vs up initially, that will make a demand for more transportation systems on different streets besides the m1 only being on woodward. My best guess is that after they bulldoze the current red wings arena, the replacement will be pretty tall... Well, SHOULD be. I'm not saying world trade center height but something that will make us all relatively happy. What happened to that building proposal on the parking lot before you get to Cobo that was super tall? It had a cut-out near the middle of the building with greenery. It was supposed to have a hockey town in there as well?

[southen]

that wasnt a proposal. it was a rendering the owner of the lot put together to help sell the land. "look, you could put THIS here!" kinda thing

[Jayp213]

that wasnt a proposal. it was a rendering the owner of the lot put together to help sell the land. "look, you could put THIS here!" kinda thing

ahh! ok, makes sense...

[Mind field]

There was an article in Crains this week about how the office market was overbuilt as far back as the 80s and it never reached full [[or nearly full) occupancy metro wide. The reason given was GM's purchase of EDS and the perceived need for millions of square feet of additional office space.

So barring a large corporation wanting a trophy tower for it's headquarters, i really don't see Detroit constructing a skyline altering tower for many decades. I think the best the city might see is a condo/apartment tower maybe in the 20-25 story range tops. And with the Book and Stott towers eventually [[hopefully) being rehabbed into residential, i think anything more than a midrise will be uneconomical.

[dove-7]

To me, I have more of an issue with the aesthetics than I do about building up. Regarding new tall buildings. To me it doesn't make any sense until they have enough tenants to justify this. This isn't Chicago, NYC or my now home town, San Francisco, where supply and demand, demands build tall. Detroit right now is going through some changes. I say, occupy the older buildings that need to be renovated and updated to compete with the later technology.

The design to me looks like something that architect, Frank Ghery would design. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Walt Disney Concert Hall and like.


Some of his designs are beautiful, while others, I'm like, what this guy smoking? It's subjective. But I think that this design is over the top. I'm all for designs that stand out vs plain ole vanilla design. But it has to compliment the rest of the skyline. So while I am for tall. Tall in this particular case isn't necessary yet. You need the tenants first.

[iheartthed]

One thing to remember about tall buildings is that they often come about through ego, not economics.

We should probably define "tall buildings" before saying things like this.

Maybe the "tallest" ones are a function of ego. But a 1,000 foot building in New York City would absolutely be a function of economics, while a 2,000 foot building in NYC would be ego [[no building of that size exists in the US). The nearly 1,800 foot One WTC was a function of ego. The 1,200 foot Bank of America tower in New York was a function of economics [[maybe with a little ego). A 1,200 foot building in Detroit would be massive in scale compared to the rest of downtown Detroit and blatant ego. The Marriott Tower at the Ren Cen is only 750 feet.

For pure aesthetics I would rather see several 20-25 story buildings in Detroit than a single 80 story tower.

Imagine how much fuller the Detroit skyline would look if the twenty-five 10+ story towers built in Southfield [[yes, 25!) between 1970 and 1990 had been built in downtown Detroit instead?

[Meddle]

Taller is just a weiner measuring contest.

Totally unnecessary.

[Meddle]

For pure aesthetics I would rather see several 20-25 story buildings in Detroit than a single 80 story tower.

I'd rather not see anything over 10 anywhere.

[A2Mike]

Attachment 26113Attachment 26114 To see what a super tall building does at ground level, look at the base of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, which is neither pedestrian friendly nor compatible with any street grid- exactly what Detroit doesn't need. The whole building is shown imposed upon the lower Manhattan skyline, where it looks admittedly imposing, but would take up a huge chunk of the available land.

[ABetterDetroit]

Attachment 26113Attachment 26114 To see what a super tall building does at ground level, look at the base of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, which is neither pedestrian friendly nor compatible with any street grid- exactly what Detroit doesn't need. The whole building is shown imposed upon the lower Manhattan skyline, where it looks admittedly imposing, but would take up a huge chunk of the available land.

Right, the tallest building in the world. I don't think we have to worry about how that would work in the D.

[Hypestyles]

I'd like to see more full, active, occupied tall buildings within the city limits. Is the train station the tallest derelict property?

If Detroit had more resort/tourist attractions, there could be some more incentive for building new skyscrapers.

what role can Detroit's new director of Land Development play in this process?

[animatedmartian]

I'd like to see more full, active, occupied tall buildings within the city limits. Is the train station the tallest derelict property?

The current title is held by the Book Tower. After that, it's Executive Plaza and then MCS. Everything else that's vacant is under 15 floors or roughly shorter than Compuware.

[casscorridor]

Detroit doesn't need any more skyscrapers. A few here or there, along the river especially, could be nice, from a skyline standpoint. But what Detroit needs its blocks of 4-7 story structures that really increase density through a larger area. The American model of cities with super tall downtown and low rise neighborhoods is dead. We need to build up cities with dense neighborhoods and multiple centers, connected by efficient rapid transit.

[LiveWire]

But one of the things that makes a downtown impressive is the tall buildings.

[emu steve]

Detroit doesn't need any more skyscrapers. A few here or there, along the river especially, could be nice, from a skyline standpoint. But what Detroit needs its blocks of 4-7 story structures that really increase density through a larger area. The American model of cities with super tall downtown and low rise neighborhoods is dead. We need to build up cities with dense neighborhoods and multiple centers, connected by efficient rapid transit.

I'm with you on this. The biggest visual problem Detroit has is unoccupied buildings and vacant land just sitting there.

D.C. because of the height limits can't go very high [[think 12 or 13 stories) so they must continue to eat up more and more land as demand increases. That would work for DET.

In a sense they build 'horizontally' not vertically. I think that works very well in D.C. The density in downtown D.C. is amazing. Almost all parking is below ground. Vacant parcels are hard to find.

We have to remember this isn't ego or arch school but basically about a market trying to balance supply and demand of say things like office space.

One huge skyscraper would flood the market with office space the market can't absorb.

[A2Mike]

I'm with you on this. The biggest visual problem Detroit has is unoccupied buildings and vacant land just sitting there.

D.C. because of the height limits can't go very high [[think 12 or 13 stories) so they must continue to eat up more and more land as demand increases. That would work for DET.

In a sense they build 'horizontally' not vertically. I think that works very well in D.C. The density in downtown D.C. is amazing. Almost all parking is below ground. Vacant parcels are hard to find.

We have to remember this isn't ego or arch school but basically about a market trying to balance supply and demand of say things like office space.

One huge skyscraper would flood the market with office space the market can't absorb.

I left Detroit just after the Renaissance Center opened and missed much of the discussion thereafter, but I do remember the predictions from many at the time that it would drain the existing buildings of their tenants, and they seem to have come true. It would be interesting to speculate how downtown might have fared without it, seeing it as an ego driven project by Henry Ford ll unrelated to economic demand. Ford is said to have begged his brother not to move the Lions from Detroit, but eight game days a year would not have offset the larger problem of daily downtown office occupancy.

[LiveWire]

I agree Detroit doesn't need anther behemoth like the RenCen and don't forget that's actually a few tall buildings packed together.
But I also wouldn't want it to be made up of a bunch of short buildings either.

[dangelo]

I would love to see a nicely designed tall building on the riverfront. There are many open parcels of land to choose from. It looks so bare right now.

[Newdetroit]

Look at Vienna and Paris. I think they look a lot nicer than Chicago. But to each his/her own. Detroit is not in a position to build tall skyscrapers. However, it could easily build 6 to 9 story buildings. I would love to see Detroit developers build buildings with an old European architecture. http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp...10/Vienna3.jpg

[Spartan]

The current title is held by the Book Tower. After that, it's Executive Plaza and then MCS. Everything else that's vacant is under 15 floors or roughly shorter than Compuware.

It's not totally vacant, but Stott Tower is pretty much there [[especially with the recent flooding).

As far as tall buildings go, I agree with those saying we should build out, not up. There is way too much empty space in the city to really be worth putting anything over 10-15 stories in. The only exception I can really see is hotels, as I think economy of scale applies more to those. I think that the "skyline-changing" buildings we see in the near future will be ones around the edges of downtown, [[etc, JLA site or area between Fox and MGM) but because they're more visible from outside, not because they're tall. If we do see anything more in the middle of the city, I would guess the most likely sites are Cadillac Square/Campus Martius or Brush/Lafayette.

[Wesley Mouch]

But one of the things that makes a downtown impressive is the tall buildings.

Paris is stunningly impressive from the steps of Sacre Coeur. Downtown Detroit is impressive now because it has so many 'golden era' skyscrapers, and not a sea of modern buildings that get dirty so quickly and really can't be cleaned.

No more skyscrapers. casscorridor has it right. Many more low-to-mid rise buildings over a larger area, and of course filling in where we've destroyed them.

[mikeg19]

No more skyscrapers. casscorridor has it right. Many more low-to-mid rise buildings over a larger area, and of course filling in where we've destroyed them.

IDK about "no more skyscrapers" ever. I'd think at some point there would be the need [[or want) to erect more. But I'd think for the foreseeable future, midrises are the bread and butter, as we are seeing with almost all of the apartment and loft developments in the city. I'd think we are going to be looking at a lot of 5-15 floor buildings being put up, with the occasional 15-30 in there. There are only a few sites that are truely destined for a larger tower [[JLA, East riverfront to name a few) but otherwise I could see most of our city looking like Midtown Manhatten.

[Bham1982]

IThere are only a few sites that are truely destined for a larger tower [[JLA, East riverfront to name a few) but otherwise I could see most of our city looking like Midtown Manhatten.

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

[canuck]

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

Sounds funny now, but try to think back to a time when cities like Detroit didnT have the car culture, the infrastructure to build out like today. Folks in the nineteenth century were spread out because they lived mostly on farms and small towns. The sprawly cities we know now are a weird construct of the automotive age, and we will see the changes toward other forms of city making from mid to high density in the future. Detroit's Midtown and Downtown are not immune to change.