Hudson's Site Building Thread

[southen]

Also of interest, look at One Campus Martius behind the left tree. There seems to be some gaps between levels, which would be an odd choice... I won't take too much concern with it, as I think the Hudson tower was what they put thought into for the rendering.

Those gaps are in line with the other renderings released for the building. I believe they are just open air spaces with the offices being set back slightly. It actually fits with all of the balconies and open spaces that the Hudson's site will have.

[Detroit Stylin]

Just saw this gem on reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/com...s_site_render/

[Scottathew]

Here's another picture from today around 12:30pm. I decided to get an up-close view for a better perspective.

[Dexlin]

Arg! That wooden post is obstructing some serious work going on there we hadn't seen from your last update.

[Danny]

Welcome to Delta City.

[iheartthed]

I don't understand why it's important to build so high, but then I don't understand the need to wear a ridiculously long tie either. And adding a mast and trying to say it should count is like... oh never mind.

I'd rather they focus on making the building beautiful, and economically viable. And that it contributes toward a beautiful city that is economically healthy.

Stretching a building so tall almost always comes at the expense of the design, the Chrysler building notwithstanding. As to its impact on the developer's bottom line I can't predict. That seems dependent on so many additional factors.

Besides, I'm more interested in its future effect on the city.

I'm excited for the new businesses, jobs, and high-quality residences the new tower will create. It will be incomparably better than a parking lot, of course. And the designs we've seen are so much better than the bunkered dystopia that is the RenCen. It will be much better integrated into the city.

I hope this is a strong catalyst for further development. Probably it will be. But should it be even taller? Is my worry misplaced: by building so high, in an ideal location, with major subsidies, will it capture so much of the high end residential market that it will discourage other developers from targeting it, especially without so many financial advantages?

If the additional floors are for a hotel, fine. Otherwise, I'd rather see a second new building, or a renovation, than for this to grow into a supertall.

In other words, I'd rather be able to brag about a thriving city.

Bragging rights. And tall buildings get cited in the media. If adding an antenna puts Cleveland back in its place, then do it. Detroit, being the second largest region in the midwest, should be the city with the tallest buildings outside of Chicago... not Cleveland or Indianapolis.

[Worldsgreatest]

Nobody cares about this other than a small niche of skyscraper nerds, I don't want a tacky spire just to stick it to Cleveland, that reeks of insecurity, Cleveland isn't even a thought in Detroit's mind.

[iheartthed]

Nobody cares about this other than a small niche of skyscraper nerds, I don't want a tacky spire just to stick it to Cleveland, that reeks of insecurity, Cleveland isn't even a thought in Detroit's mind.

It's not insecurity, it's marketing.

[Dexlin]

This design does not need a spire, and won't get a spire. Grow up, folks.

[Scottathew]

Arg! That wooden post is obstructing some serious work going on there we hadn't seen from your last update.

We'll need to fix that. Here you go!



Closer up:

[EGrant]

A big ol pile of dirt!

[Dexlin]

We'll need to fix that. Here you go!

These are caissons for foundation work aren't they?!

[casscorridor]

They change the design every few months, yet it's under construction? idgi

[DetroitSoldier]

I agree that a spire is not necessary with the current design of the building.

However, I am amazed at just how spirited the debate on the issue has become. It's like men always must have a reason to debate size.

[Scottathew]

These are caissons for foundation work aren't they?!

Looks to be! I can tell you that there's a HUGE auger that was actively being spun in the large hole, and there is a second spot where they chipping away and making another "square" much like the one they made earlier and are now auger-ing.

[MrChrome]

We'll need to fix that. Here you go!

Thank you again for posting these. We don't have the ability to look into the hole like you do

[Danny]

It's been 20 years after the J.L.Hudson Flagship Dept. Store was demolished.

1998- 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

J.L. FLAGSHIP DEPARTMENT STORE R.I.P.

1911 TO 1998

[stasu1213]

Bragging rights. And tall buildings get cited in the media. If adding an antenna puts Cleveland back in its place, then do it. Detroit, being the second largest region in the midwest, should be the city with the tallest buildings outside of Chicago... not Cleveland or Indianapolis.

Does Detroit really need a tall building being that we always had more land mass for buildings to stretch outward not upward

[iheartthed]

Does Detroit really need a tall building being that we always had more land mass for buildings to stretch outward not upward

No, Detroit does not need a tall building. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a tall building.

An example of tall building marketing: 1 World Trade Center. Without the spire, it would not be the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Did New York really need to have the tallest building in the western hemisphere? The city has a ton of tall, iconic buildings, and it had done okay in the 40 years since Sears/Willis Tower took the title.

But 1 WTC presented a once in a generation opportunity to reclaim the bragging rights of having the tallest building with the spire, so they did it. And now, whenever the conversation about the tallest building in the U.S., they are talking about New York again, and not Chicago.

[Scottathew]

Does Detroit really need a tall building being that we always had more land mass for buildings to stretch outward not upward

The demand for housing downtown is higher than the supply. Yes, there are a lot of opportunities to build, but if a building was going in this location in the CBD, I'd want it to be tall.

[Atticus]

No, Detroit does not need a tall building. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a tall building.

An example of tall building marketing: 1 World Trade Center. Without the spire, it would not be the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Did New York really need to have the tallest building in the western hemisphere? The city has a ton of tall, iconic buildings, and it had done okay in the 40 years since Sears/Willis Tower took the title.

But 1 WTC presented a once in a generation opportunity to reclaim the bragging rights of having the tallest building with the spire, so they did it. And now, whenever the conversation about the tallest building in the U.S., they are talking about New York again, and not Chicago.

Exactly. And if you are already going 912 feet anyway.... if you factor in the relatively minimal amount of additional height that a spire provides, it is the difference between being saying the Detroit skyline is in the top 5 to 7 tallest in the USA... to remaining in the top 15. Quite the jump.

Is it a pissing contest? Absolutely. But you know what, a lot of things in life are pissing contests. And quite frankly, winning the pissing contest is great national marketing of the downtown rebirth, and could bring additional investment to the city.

[NSortzi]

I find it funny that when City Club Apartments was announced at only 8 floors at the Statler site everyone lost their minds because it was too short for the site, and now everyone’s losing their minds because the Hudson’s site is planned too tall.

[Dexlin]

Aside from literally one or two cranks, where have you seen people complaining about this in any serious number for it being "too tall?" The main criticism seems to be the kind of immature concern that it needs a silly spire to make it taller.

[stasu1213]

No, Detroit does not need a tall building. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a tall building.

An example of tall building marketing: 1 World Trade Center. Without the spire, it would not be the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Did New York really need to have the tallest building in the western hemisphere? The city has a ton of tall, iconic buildings, and it had done okay in the 40 years since Sears/Willis Tower took the title.

But 1 WTC presented a once in a generation opportunity to reclaim the bragging rights of having the tallest building with the spire, so they did it. And now, whenever the conversation about the tallest building in the U.S., they are talking about New York again, and not Chicago.

I am excited of the building being over 900 feet tall. I guess when the RenCen was designed the idea was to make four separate towers at around 30 stories tall surrounding a 730 feet tower. I think that each surrounding tower is around 500 feet tall so one stacked on top of the other would make it a 1000 feet or so. As long as there fire department will be retooled to handle a crises on the top floors of this new tower if one arises. I guess that one would be able to see the Sears Towers in Chicago from the top floor's observation deck on a very clear day or at least to be able to see all the way to Pontiac. lol

[Detroit Stylin]

I am excited of the building being over 900 feet tall. I guess when the RenCen was designed the idea was to make four separate towers at around 30 stories tall surrounding a 730 feet tower. I think that each surrounding tower is around 500 feet tall so one stacked on top of the other would make it a 1000 feet or so. As long as there fire department will be retooled to handle a crises on the top floors of this new tower if one arises. I guess that one would be able to see the Sears Towers in Chicago from the top floor's observation deck on a very clear day or at least to be able to see all the way to Pontiac. lol

You can see Pontiac from the upper floors of the Book Tower