Update on Hudsons. Possible renderings?

[SpartanDawg]

UPDATE: OFFICIAL RENDERING RELEASED FROM BEDROCK. STILL NOT FINAL DESIGN




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





"Matt Cullen, president and CEO of Gilbert's Rock Ventures, confirmed the images shown in an architecture lecture last month byGilbert's architects reflect some concepts they like but not a final design."


John Gallagher seems to really be excited for what's coming.

"If built anything like the early concept shown by Pasquarelli, the finished building would rank high in terms of architectural significance. The final project could rival or exceed anything built in Detroit at least since the Renaissance Center in the 1970s. Think Empire State Building, the Guggenheim Museum, Sydney Opera House, World Trade Center."


"Just how ambitious those plans are can be glimpsed in what an early design for the site shows — a cutting edge glass-and-ceramic design, including a facade that could open in the summer, and a combination of retail, residential and other uses."


"But Cullen said that the design has changed in significant ways since Pasquarelli gave his lecture. For example, he said the current thinking no longer includes a trio of museums that Pasquarelli discussed. Also, Cullen said that residential has been added and that issues such as how the building's retail storefronts would interact with Woodward Avenue still need to be hammered out."


so this isn't quite how it will look. but i think we're getting an idea of the design they're thinking along the lines of... gotta say I would be disappointed if it was anything less than 12-15 stories tall.. even with an iconic and radical design, i would like to see some height to the building as well

here are some quotes from the second article:

"Plans could be finalized by Christmas for a 21st-Century, iconic structure that will rise from the ruins of the 20th-Century landmark."That is my hope," Cullen said. "Over the course of this year, we should be able to really understand what works there. We're working really hard on it. We will know within that time."
It won't be history repeating itself. It will be Detroit reinventing itself in yet another way.
"

"Cullen said Gilbert and his team have been presented with hundreds of plans and have not decided on a final vision. But he said the idea of what they want is close — seen in a model the New York-based SHoP architectural firm's team presented publicly in February."

[mikeg19]

I'm all for innovation and a new architecturally significant building in downtown, as I'm sure many of us are. But all glass? I was really, really hoping we wouldn't be seeing an all glass structure, and designs can change, but from what it looks like, that's the way we are heading. Maybe I'll eat my words when this thing is finally truely revealed, but I feel like it's gonna stick out amongst the current architecture on Woodward like a giant sore thumb.

[Scottathew]

It doesn't look very tall, although it's probably in line with what is economically feasible.

[bailey]

I'm all for innovation and a new architecturally significant building in downtown, as I'm sure many of us are. But all glass? I was really, really hoping we wouldn't be seeing an all glass structure, and designs can change, but from what it looks like, that's the way we are heading. Maybe I'll eat my words when this thing is finally truely revealed, but I feel like it's gonna stick out amongst the current architecture on Woodward like a giant sore thumb.

I've seen more than what has been released, much of this is still conceptual, and I know that "everyone is a critic", but really...it's just kind of a mess. I think the best of intentions to make something significant are going way overboard into form and "important" architecture over function and neighborhood cohesion. [[of course as noted, there is still no final design, no budget and not timeline...so nothing is set in stone)

and no... it's not [[at least the plan now) going to be tall. Which i don't think it needs to be there. Much more in line with surrounding buildings.

[Gistok]

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

[Scottathew]

Two words come to mind.... Centre Pompidou... when Paris had a site surrounded by historic lowrise buildings [[such as the Hudson site)... this is what they put up there...

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

Now the Hudson design might be out of place, but it's nothing like that down-right ugly, vomit inducing building in Paris!

[401don]

Once again a Gilbert announcement just last week of the next few months becomes "could make so final choices by the end of the year."

[southen]

i love the idea of building something iconic and out of the box. the buildings we cherish so much were innovative for their times. we need innovative buildings again.

it is hard to judge something completely based on early renderings but the massing of the design shown is something i was hoping they would avoid. i really liked the winning contest submissions use of the site and i was hoping that something similar would be done with shop's design.

as for pompidou in paris i have seen it in person and it is actually rather impressive. it is a great contrast to the existing architecture and the public space created is always packed.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ooooooh, twisted-up glass box! How innovative!

What a piece of uncreative crap.

[southen]

the more i think about it the more it reminds me of the seattle central library in scale and how it might interact with the rest of the city.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seat...A&ved=0CEgQsAQ

[ghettopalmetto]

the more i think about it the more it reminds me of the seattle central library in scale and how it might interact with the rest of the city.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seat...A&ved=0CEgQsAQ

And by "interact", do you mean something that says, "Eff you, I'm a glass fortress!"?

[southen]

well in that particular instance it is a library... i meant more along the lines of how it might interact with its neighboring structures and the feel one might have seeing it in the context of other buildings. gilbert would certainly make it interact more with the street and make it a hub of activity versus something which is supposed to be somewhat closed off from the outside. have you seen it or been inside of it?

[ghettopalmetto]

well in that particular instance it is a library...

Had me fooled. Looks more like something that landed from outer space. There's not a single damn human element to that building.

i meant more along the lines of how it might interact with its neighboring structures and the feel one might have seeing it in the context of other buildings. gilbert would certainly make it interact more with the street and make it a hub of activity versus something which is supposed to be somewhat closed off from the outside. have you seen it or been inside of it?

Not even Dan Gilbert can overcome architectural arrogance.

Architects need to remember that they design buildings for people--the users of the building. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing so many projects gunning for the "postcard shot", with worldwide acclaim and recognition, when the building fails on so many non-postcard levels. It's a very self-conscious, pretentious approach that completely disrespects the users of the building and the context in which it lives.

[southen]

there is no point in discussing it with you. you've made it clear your distaste for anything modern. i could tell you about my experience with the library in seattle but it would essentially fall on deaf ears.

[401don]

A glass building as a stand alone on CMart would be fine but in the middle of a block of early 20th century storefronts not so much. Picture the Ernst & Young building on the Hudsons Site x 10.

[ghettopalmetto]

there is no point in discussing it with you. you've made it clear your distaste for anything modern. i could tell you about my experience with the library in seattle but it would essentially fall on deaf ears.

Which part is "modern"? The structural steel clad in glass, which dates from the 1970s? Or the approach that every building must look like an avant-garde sculpture? The former is cold and impersonal. The latter, impractical.

But yes, I would be interested to read about your experiences with the library in Seattle. If you ask me, though, there's no dignity to it at all. There is nothing about it that says "library". In fact, it reminds me of "the gherkin" in London, which is in the financial district. Am I entering a dignified institution of learning with noble purpose, or am I entering the offices of investment bankers? The architect of the Seattle library leaves that important question unresolved.

[1953]

If you are going to give me modernist garbage, can't you give me the Disney Concert Hall, not the Broad Museum?

[animatedmartian]

A glass building as a stand alone on CMart would be fine but in the middle of a block of early 20th century storefronts not so much. Picture the Ernst & Young building on the Hudsons Site x 10.

Or you could just go one block over and look at the streetwall on Griswold.

http://goo.gl/maps/WnjcJ

I think this fear of having a building not blend in is highly exaggerated when there's no one dominant form of architecture that exists downtown. Which is how it should be.

[animatedmartian]

Architects need to remember that they design buildings for people--the users of the building. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing so many projects gunning for the "postcard shot", with worldwide acclaim and recognition, when the building fails on so many non-postcard levels. It's a very self-conscious, pretentious approach that completely disrespects the users of the building and the context in which it lives.

So pretty much every high rise built within Detroit within the last 100 years falls into this category. The 'users' of the buildings build in the earlier 20th century were called 'clients' and they often were wealthy businessmen who had an image to project. Your argument against Dan Gilbert's building can basically be applied to any well-known landmark in Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

So pretty much every high rise built within Detroit within the last 100 years falls into this category. The 'users' of the buildings build in the earlier 20th century were called 'clients' and they often were wealthy businessmen who had an image to project. Your argument against Dan Gilbert's building can basically be applied to any well-known landmark in Detroit.

Examples, please.

You know that more people than just the owner use a building. In fact, it's more likely that the owner spends very little time in the building. So I question whether or not you're just taking creative license with reality.

I could tell you that the Book-Cadillac, to cite one example, provided its users with an air of elegance and dignity, that its guests were in fact worthy of such a high-class space. And yes, so many decades later, it still looks elegant on the exterior too. If Dan Gilbert wants to hire an architect who lacks artistic talent, that's his prerogative. Just don't call it "groundbreaking" or "world-class".

[southen]

I could tell you that the Book-Cadillac, to cite one example, provided its users with an air of elegance and dignity, that its guests were in fact worthy of such a high-class space. And yes, so many decades later, it still looks elegant on the exterior too. If Dan Gilbert wants to hire an architect who lacks artistic talent, that's his prerogative. Just don't call it "groundbreaking" or "world-class".

which is your opinion. others are entitled to theirs as well as art and architecture are subjective.

if you have time and want a take on the seattle central library, which also shows some of the interior, watch the first ten minutes of this.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_pri...ry?language=en

it is from the architect of the project and is a nice counter to basically everything you said regarding the building.

[southen]

Architects need to remember that they design buildings for people--the users of the building. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing so many projects gunning for the "postcard shot", with worldwide acclaim and recognition, when the building fails on so many non-postcard levels. It's a very self-conscious, pretentious approach that completely disrespects the users of the building and the context in which it lives.

you do realize that postcards were made of the renderings of many of detroit's landmarks right? before the building was even completed in some instances... arrogance, acclaim and recognition have not changed in this regard. this is more about your personal taste than anything.

[Shai_Hulud]

A melted, glass box, how ground breaking.

How many years do we have left before deconstructivist archictecture is out of fashion?

[ghettopalmetto]

You're smart enough to know that there is a difference between making a drawing or rendering of a building on account of its beauty...

...and of designing a building for the sole purpose of looking good in a CVB marketing brochure.

I subscribe to the mantra of form-follows-function. Modernist claptrap has no regard for the form of the building--spaces are generally ill-defined, lines between interior and exterior are blurred, artistic embellisment is nonexistent, cladding is cold and impersonal--there's no rational reasoning or thought process behind any of it. It's a completely arbitrary mess, with the architect designing elements not out of necessity, but just because he can. Then the consulting architect will have to deal with the reality of this la-la-land spectacle, and struggle to fit things like bathrooms, elevators, and shear walls into the irregular form. In my opinion, this is a byproduct of the lowered expectations we've achieved in our EIFS-clad strip mall and beige-vinyl subdivision world. We're like small children in the presence of shiny objects.

And yes, where in the hell does one buy replacement windows for such a thing?

[dtowncitylover]

I actually kind of like it. Screw me, right?

Anyways, as the article states the rendering in the article is not the final product at all so I don't know why we're getting our panties in a bunch about it.