New Build - Capitol Park

[Infrastructure]

Another interesting and exciting development for Capitol Park.

http://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/...-Capitol-Park/

We're one building away from a completed street wall around the park!

[mwilbert]

Another interesting and exciting development for Capitol Park.

http://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/...-Capitol-Park/

We're one building away from a completed street wall around the park!

No mention of the financing, but this bodes well for the new, more populated downtown. Capitol Park is a long way from where it was 10 years ago.

[Eber Brock Ward]

love that it's karp who has shown that he will actually move on stuff, and who is eminently familiar with capitol park.

means, to me at least, that it's much more likely to happen than were anyone else to do it, save for gilbert.

[southen]

Love to see that they aren't just filling things in with faux historic buildings. I am even more excited now to see what they do with their properties on Washington Boulevard!

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Love to see that they aren't just filling things in with faux historic buildings. I am even more excited now to see what they do with their properties on Washington Boulevard!

It will be interesting to see what the reaction is to this design. Folks will not be able to say its run of the mill.

[southen]

It will be interesting to see what the reaction is to this design. Folks will not be able to say its run of the mill.

Im sure the crowd who wants nothing but 1920's-esque buildings to be built are going to hate it, but my favorite cities are those that have a healthy mix of old and modern. Buildings like this won't take away from what we have, it will only enhance it in my view. As long as we don't start tearing down great pre-depression stuff for the ultra modern I am okay with it!

[mwilbert]

You can make a replica of anything, but it isn't really feasible to make a good facsimile of a 1920's building now. I'd rather have a good 21st century building than an obviously fake 1920's building.

[Gistok]

It will be interesting to see what the reaction is to this design. Folks will not be able to say its run of the mill.

I just look at it as one would The Qube and how it enhanced Woodward Ave. when it was built.

[southen]

I just look at it as one would The Qube and how it enhanced Woodward Ave. when it was built.

The Qube isn't the best example of design from that period, but a few blocks north and south are One Woodward and 1001 Woodward which are both mid-century designs that add to the architectural heritage of Detroit. Each era has good and bad examples.

[jw101]

No finance information... a little sketchy. However, they clearly have a proven track record. Fingers crossed this time!

[Danny]

That building is ugly! What those developers trying to do? Make a building that looks like Guggenheim with the Jetsons!

[Jason]

Buildings like this often inspire a modern vs historical discussion, but imo these are the worst types of buildings to make comparisons with.

I'd like to know, but I find it really hard to imagine an architectural theory which justifies the angles as good design, rather than for aesthetics and shock value. I think most people would agree that shock value is not a good architectural principle.

Aesthetics on the other hand undermine the modern vs historical arguments. If the main goal [[other than providing for the program in some basic way) is to be sexy, then any alternative design that is equally sexy is equally valid. In other words if the goal is to just look good then it's completely meaningless whether it's a good looking art deco building or neoclassical building or modern building. As long as it looks good. And then you have to get into the question of what it means to "look good" and whose opinions of "looking good" you choose to accept or reject.


My preferred way of judging a building [[especially facades in renderings) is to look at two parts of the building that are treated differently and ask why they are different.

In this case, what's the difference between the ground floor and the second floor? Well the ground floor is a commercial space which directly interfaces with the public while the second floor are private apartments, and it looks like the building reflects that.

But what's the difference between the second floor and the eleventh floor? It's higher up, but the actual condition doesn't change much because the Book Cadillac addition is short anyway. As far as I can tell the floor plans are about the same. Does rotating the facade have a desirable effect on the shape of the windows for each unit? Well if those are the best windows for the situation, then why don't you use the same angled windows for ALL of the units? What benefit does hanging the upper floors out into the park have? There are balconies in the front presumably as a response to the good view, but why are there also balconies with big glass windows on the back where it's 20 feet from the neighboring tower?

Or if the angled part is supposed to be a profound artistic gesture then what does it actually mean? Without an actual meaning it's either willy nilly aestheticization or a gimmick.

imo when subjected to critical thought most of these types of buildings turn out to be just as intellectually shallow as the buildings they're supposedly better than, they're just more pretentious.

[Atticus]

Buildings like this often inspire a modern vs historical discussion, but imo these are the worst types of buildings to make comparisons with.

I'd like to know, but I find it really hard to imagine an architectural theory which justifies the angles as good design, rather than for aesthetics and shock value. I think most people would agree that shock value is not a good architectural principle.

Aesthetics on the other hand undermine the modern vs historical arguments. If the main goal [[other than providing for the program in some basic way) is to be sexy, then any alternative design that is equally sexy is equally valid. In other words if the goal is to just look good then it's completely meaningless whether it's a good looking art deco building or neoclassical building or modern building. As long as it looks good. And then you have to get into the question of what it means to "look good" and whose opinions of "looking good" you choose to accept or reject.


My preferred way of judging a building [[especially facades in renderings) is to look at two parts of the building that are treated differently and ask why they are different.

In this case, what's the difference between the ground floor and the second floor? Well the ground floor is a commercial space which directly interfaces with the public while the second floor are private apartments, and it looks like the building reflects that.

But what's the difference between the second floor and the eleventh floor? It's higher up, but the actual condition doesn't change much because the Book Cadillac addition is short anyway. As far as I can tell the floor plans are about the same. Does rotating the facade have a desirable effect on the shape of the windows for each unit? Well if those are the best windows for the situation, then why don't you use the same angled windows for ALL of the units? What benefit does hanging the upper floors out into the park have? There are balconies in the front presumably as a response to the good view, but why are there also balconies with big glass windows on the back where it's 20 feet from the neighboring tower?

Or if the angled part is supposed to be a profound artistic gesture then what does it actually mean? Without an actual meaning it's either willy nilly aestheticization or a gimmick.

imo when subjected to critical thought most of these types of buildings turn out to be just as intellectually shallow as the buildings they're supposedly better than, they're just more pretentious.

There are plenty of "cutting edge modern" buildings that were built in the 60s and 70s that look stupid today. There are some that are still good. Will this be one that still looks good 40 years from now, or will it be one of those "what were they thinking designs?"

I am just happy there are no "mail slots", because man won't those look cool in 30-40 years?....

[Gistok]

Thanks for the commentary Jason.... I had to blow up the image to really figure out what was going on here.... so it looks like part of 2 sides of the building have been sliced thru and are leaning over. Even windows span more than one floor.... [[whatever happened to form follows function?).

Even the balconies look like they are buckling diagonally.

[SpartanDawg]

i feel like that's just an error in the renderings... that just doesn't look right

[casscorridor]

i feel like that's just an error in the renderings... that just doesn't look right

No, it's called deconstructivism and has been popular in architecture for decades. It's just not something Detroit has really ever seen. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I personally love the design of these buildings, and they make a great contrast to the early 20th century structures surrounding them. I'm excited to see some interesting architecture come to Detroit finally!

[hybridy]

I just want to acknowledge that it's so refreshing that we as a community are having a thoughtful and engaged discussion about ground up architecture in the city. In the past 13 years I have been active in the city or following from afar. We haven't had this many city proper projects for some time. I am involved on a few city projects and city planning, the mayor's office, city council, and the community at large have never been more engaged and invigorated by the decision-making process. This is our duty and civic right to bring the conversation forward. I welcome it with open arms. Congratulations!

[Gistok]

Hybridy...

I have a feeling that this building will quickly get a not so flattering nickname... "Earthquake Building", because it has an uncanny resemblence to a post tremor damaged structure.

What interests me is how having windows running diagonally so that an apartment will have rooms where the outside window wall will look very lopsided. Many of the windows will bisect floors. I wonder how that will affect marketing the units? Perhaps as an entire building from the outside it may look interesting... but will it have the same appeal in smaller room size doses on the inside?

And for people with Vertigo... I bet balconies that give the illusion of sloping downwards to the edge will not be a good selling point. Being on a balcony that appears to have structural failure would even be unsettling for folk without Vertigo. This would definitely not be a place for people who have children.... it would very possibly freak them out!

It's details like those that may be cutting edge for architecture fans, but maybe not as much for residents.

[SpartanDawg]

another perspective

[EGrant]

Another rendering.

Via: http://archpaper.com/2016/01/zago-architecture/

[mikeg19]

My brain is just not processing this building from these renderings. I think I like it, but a 3D model might lend some more perspective. All in all, 2 more new buildings in Capitol Park is a good thing. It's amazing to see the complete 180 that area has done in the past couple years. It would seem that we are finally at the tipping point where new construction is making sense economically and demand wise. If the economy doesn't crash in the next few years, I think we are going to see a lot of cranes in the sky downtown.

[gumby]

It would seem that we are finally at the tipping point where new construction is making sense economically and demand wise.

It looks like that building is at a tipping point. lol.

Am I the only one who hates the fact that these renderings show the Malcomson building pre renovation?

[hybridy]

Thanks for the commentary Jason.... I had to blow up the image to really figure out what was going on here.... so it looks like part of 2 sides of the building have been sliced thru and are leaning over. Even windows span more than one floor.... [[whatever happened to form follows function?).

Even the balconies look like they are buckling diagonally.

i doubt this is the case, but if units run the entire depth of the structure it appears they could have multiple levels with balconies on either end creating an excellent opportunity for cross ventilation which is rarely available with apartments

[1953]

I am as pro-old building as they come, but I think these will make nice additions to the district.

1953

[ImAlmostCool]

Capitol park is setting up to be the neatest area of downtown. A little enclave essentially completely filled in, with apartments, retail, a hotel, a skyscraper, public space.

Rosa Parks Transit Center has it's issues, but thankfully it's not in Capitol Park.