Hudson's Site Building Thread

**Metro25** · January-30-20, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by EGrant

Sure, the design of the Village Green building is uninspired and suburban

It's not suburban, it has ground floor retail and underground parking.

**EGrant** · January-30-20, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Metro25

It's not suburban, it has ground floor retail and underground parking.

Fair, maybe I should have said "aesthetics" instead of design.

**Dmberko11** · January-30-20, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by EGrant

Nine 10-story buildings would probably have a greater impact on the density, walkability and urban fabric of Detroit than one massive 80-90 story building. Not as sexy, but in a downtown with countless empty lots and parking lots, those buildings would end up being more of a net benefit than bragging the rights for the tallest building in Michigan would earn.

Sure, the design of the Village Green building is uninspired and suburban, but it will bring new residents and retail to an area that was empty or the set of a bad Transformers movie for a long time. Not giddy about the design, but I am hopeful for the potential transformation of Washington Street as that building is completed and the Book renovation is done.

Extreme example, but the appeal of Paris is not La Defense's skyscrapers, but rather the 6-story Haussmann buildings that brought density and walkable districts that still remain in the face of today's unfriendly glass towers in other cities.

Detroit will never be a Paris lol but I get your point. Detroit will find density when its economy improves and jobs draws people to live downtown and they’re forced to go vertical. That’s what’s happening where I live in Austin. 16 or so buildings 500 feet or taller in all phases of construction and or planning at the moment. For a city with a much smaller metro than Detroit too. It’s the jobs.

**Gistok** · January-30-20, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Metro25

It's not suburban, it has ground floor retail and underground parking.

What makes you think first floor retail cannot be suburban? This is Macomb Twp., about 1/2 mile north of M-59... first floor retail... AND wood built construction... only difference is no underground parking... which is even a rarity in Detroit. Other burbs have 1st floor retail with residential [[or parking) above.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6321...4!8i8192?hl=en

**Gistok** · January-30-20, 10:16 PM

I guess having a skyline like 2nd tier cities such as Cleveland, Nashville or Charlotte is not so bad.... maybe...

**DetroitSoldier** · January-30-20, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

So you would like to see downtown as a continuation of midtown?

Y'all must be giddy over the 6 story wooden "stick built" Village Green apartments on the entire Statler block...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3flv5nWZgII

Champs Elysees, Paris, Mid-rise
Vaclavsky Nam, Prague, Mid-rise
La Rambla, Barcelona, Mid-rise
Ginza, Tokyo, primarily Mid-rise
Corso Venezia, Milan, Mid-rise
Maximilianstrasse, Munich, Mid-ride
Most of Washington, DC, Low to mid-rise

This list is just off the top of my head, but some of the greatest streets in the greatest cities in the world have major density and quality buildings without going beyond mid-rise height. I have been to every one of the places listed above, and lived near three of them. It is their density and approachable scale that is their appeal.

I would certainly love to see Detroit's skyline grow. But I would prefer that we fill the underdeveloped land before we go vertical. The whole reason we went vertical in the first place back in the 20's was because we had reached critical mass in the core of the city.

Imagine taking a 600 foot tower and laying it out horizontal. In Detroit 600 feet of street frontage at 60 to 80 feet high would be far more impactful than 600 vertical feet with only 60-80 feet of street frontage.

I'm going to bow out of this debate for now. I do hope Gilbert's Hudson Site and other developments are successful. All I am saying is let's stop fretting about size [[I'm a man, I get the obsession) and focus more on the impact this will have on the people that will utilize the services of the new buildings and others that live and work downtown.

**401don** · January-31-20, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

What makes you think first floor retail cannot be suburban? This is Macomb Twp., about 1/2 mile north of M-59... first floor retail... AND wood built construction... only difference is no underground parking... which is even a rarity in Detroit. Other burbs have 1st floor retail with residential [[or parking) above.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6321...4!8i8192?hl=en

Suburban retail is becoming empty storefronts but then Detroit has always been ahead of its time.

**bartocktoo** · January-31-20, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

What makes you think first floor retail cannot be suburban? This is Macomb Twp., about 1/2 mile north of M-59... first floor retail... AND wood built construction... only difference is no underground parking... which is even a rarity in Detroit. Other burbs have 1st floor retail with residential [[or parking) above.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6321...4!8i8192?hl=en

It's actually Shelby Township and the retail they built there sat empty for years before finally picking up a little a few years ago. These were also built I believe by the same people building all the monstrosities out that way, and also live out that way in sort of a vanity-project to have a [[stated) "European-style" of retail/and residential. Like that entire half-mile north of M-59 between Hayes and Schoenner [[sp?), it is contrived. I wouldn't say what's on Washington Boulevard is contrived. Could it be bigger, and have a better look to it? Yes. But it is substantially taller than what's on North Lakeside, and it's better than an empty lot, just like Hudson's block will be better with a 40-50-60 whatever story building than the nothing we've been looking at for what seems like forever. I'd rather see infill. The taller buildings will follow. And what they do at the Hudson's site still sounds like it will be tall. But that's just my opinion.

**iheartthed** · January-31-20, 11:41 AM

Count me in as a Detroit height skeptic. Supertalls hardly make sense anywhere, and especially not in cities with so much area devoted to surface parking lots. Focus on improving the public spaces and creating more, and also fill up the under-utilized land. Update the policies to get rid of the surface parking lots.

**bust** · January-31-20, 11:55 AM

I have been since the beginning a height skeptic. People who want a super-tall don't live or work in one or near one.

Form should follow function.

What happens on the sidewalk has a much bigger impact on the city than anything that occurs on the high floors.

The list of vibrant cities with no supertalls goes on and on...

May we wish for the best, most beautiful addition to our city, that maximizes its contribution to our local economy. Not a vanity project that makes no economic sense.

**NSortzi** · January-31-20, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

What makes you think first floor retail cannot be suburban? This is Macomb Twp., about 1/2 mile north of M-59... first floor retail... AND wood built construction... only difference is no underground parking... which is even a rarity in Detroit. Other burbs have 1st floor retail with residential [[or parking) above.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6321...4!8i8192?hl=en

This is definitely a rarity in the suburbs. I can think of a few other examples but this style development is still few and far between. The suburbs are predominantly strip malls.

**Luke09** · January-31-20, 08:57 PM

Well said bust, iheartthed and DetroitSoldier

**Gistok** · January-31-20, 09:21 PM

At one time Detroit was known as the "Paris of the Midwest"... but as far as maintaining a lowrise buildings look... that train has left the station... in 1929... and beyond. On the otherhand we do have Midtown...

**Gistok** · January-31-20, 09:34 PM

About 7 years ago, I put together this Photoshopped image of new [[old style) buildings going up around Manhattan that I thought would look cool assembled on the Hudson block... but no one liked the concept back then...

**southen** · February-01-20, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

About 7 years ago, I put together this Photoshopped image of new [[old style) buildings going up around Manhattan that I thought would look cool assembled on the Hudson block... but no one liked the concept back then...

Still don't

**Gistok** · February-01-20, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by southen

Still don't

You don't like Pastiche? It was more of a "street wall" thingy... I knew that folks wanted something modern... although that wavy initial Gilbert design was.... well awful. Maybe they should have made the entire Hudson's block a large rectangle and save a tall tower for the Monroe block... but with the caissons in... it's too late for that.

**313WX** · February-01-20, 10:03 AM

Is there a reason why the thread title hasn't been corrected?

**Lowell** · February-01-20, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Is there a reason why the thread title hasn't been corrected?

Fixed. The fantasy was fun while it lasted. However, I am wondering if they could still change their minds, in that the underground work that is nearing completion was built with the higher height in mind?

**313WX** · February-01-20, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Fixed. The fantasy was fun while it lasted. However, I am wondering if they could still change their minds, in that the underground work that is nearing completion was built with the higher height in mind?

Anything's possible.

That being said, on a positive note, Hudson's was only 410 feet tall and was the 2nd most iconic building [[of its class) in the world at the time. So it's true height isn't everything.

However, Gilbert still shouldn't be excused for his obvious bait & switch.

**401don** · February-01-20, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Fixed. The fantasy was fun while it lasted. However, I am wondering if they could still change their minds, in that the underground work that is nearing completion was built with the higher height in mind?

Was it though?

**stinkytofu** · February-01-20, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Anything's possible.

That being said, on a positive note, Hudson's was only 410 feet tall and was the 2nd most iconic building [[of its class) in the world at the time. So it's true height isn't everything.

However, Gilbert still shouldn't be excused for his obvious bait & switch.

It was not an obvious bait and switch, but OK.

**LongGone06** · February-01-20, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

At one time Detroit was known as the "Paris of the Midwest"... but as far as maintaining a lowrise buildings look... that train has left the station... in 1929... and beyond. On the otherhand we do have Midtown...

The picture posted with the above quote by Gistok actually provides an interesting perspective. At 675 ft., the Hudson's site tower would be roughly 60 ft. taller than the Ally Detroit Center. When one looks at this picture, it's easy to imagine the Hudson's tower making a considerable statement in the skyline.

**313WX** · February-01-20, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by stinkytofu

It was not an obvious bait and switch...

Fine.

It was a bait and switch in hindsight.

**Dmberko11** · February-01-20, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Fine.

It was a bait and switch in hindsight.

Lol maybe but all will be forgiven if he’s able to pull off the Monroe blocks after the U-M innovation center gets underway. I’m excited for Hudson’s regardless. It’ll still be plenty tall and make a huge difference in the skyline. Frankai videos on YouTube had a video showing what the tower could look like at 674 ft. from different perspectives

**Gistok** · February-02-20, 01:47 AM

Cities such as Washington DC and Paris really do look nice with lowrise buildings. So do cities with skyscrapers, such as NYC, Chicago, LA and Seattle.

Among European cities, historic Frankfurt lost its' medieval soul after the bombings of WWII, so its' skyline is not that bad... its location on the river Main [[pronounce "mine") gives it the nickname 'Main-hattan'.

One city that IMHO does not look that great with a mix of tall and midrise is London. Before the 20th century London was a city of Sir Christopher Wren belltowers, so many tall churches, that it looked charming. Today you can hardly see St. Paul's Cathedral that once loomed over the city skyline. London should have done what Paris did after it made the mistake of building 688 ft. tall Tour Montparnasse... it banished midrise buildings to the outer parts of the historic city, and the highrises to La Defense... a downtown outside the city limits on an axis with the Louvre, Champs Elysees and Arc d'Triomphe. Paris thus kept its historic charm, even though there are low rise modern buildings within the historic center. [[Note: I realize that the German Luftwaffe cleared out parts of London, while leaving Paris intact. Maybe the problem is not that the buildings in historic London are tall, but so much of the highrises lack architectural appeal.)

Back in 1983 I was in New Jersey for a 3 month related work assignment. I drove to Philadelphia for a day trip, and I remember how depressing the skyline looked from a distance. At that time the "gentleman's agreement" that nothing in the city would be taller than the 500+ ft. City Hall tower made for a city of bulky 450-490 ft. office towers. It just didn't have a nice look like DC and Paris looked. Here is a Youtube video that shows how the Philadelphia skyline looked before 1985, when 850+ ft. towers started popping up in Philly. An interesting view of a city without really tall buildings for quite some time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

P.S. I'm not trying to make the point that Detroit needs more super highrises... its' downtown looks attractive from many angles the way it is... but a mix wouldn't be out of place.