Requiem for Detroit's Fugliest Building

[Bearinabox]

Basically, the public prefers faux historic architecture and McMansions. Architects like modern architecture. Hobbyists who know more about architecture like modern architecture more.

Though I'm not saying that modern architecture is automatically good architecture.

I don't care what anybody else prefers. For me, the cutoff is around 1942. 90% of buildings built before that are at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing, and 90% of buildings built after that look like absolute shit. Now tell me I'm ignorant because I'm not a "hobbyist," whatever that means.

[Lorax]

Love this thread- brings out the varied tempers and opinions we so love here! Thanks Lowell.

The long list of fugly can be debated forever. However, the poster who suggested the Book Tower was somehow fugly in it's awkwardness is probably alone in this.

What is REALLY fug ugly are the thousands of lousy facade "improvements" which I think would make a super photo thread.

Starting with the lower floor screw up of the Lafayette Building. And:

The butchering of the facade of the Whitney Building in the 50's

The really lousy Opera House addition facing GCP, which looks like the loading dock of a suburban Target. [[not a reflection on the super restoration job of the theatre itself)

The butchering of Cobo Hall's original modernist facade for the granite squares which look like a bad 80's kitchen countertop.

The complete facade stripping of the Stroh building next to the Kales Building.

And of course, the poor Boulevard Building at Grand Blvd. & Woodward, which looks to have some interior features original, but outside looks like a suburban medical clinic.

[gravitymachine]

say it with me folks. fucking ugly

[oneway]

Do parking garages count?

[Bearinabox]

The WSU student center has got to be in the top ten.

[Lorax]

The WSU student center has got to be in the top ten.

Yep, I forgot about that one. I went to WSU and really thought that building was FUG - UGLY.

Speaking of Wayne, the parking deck on the edge of the Fisher, and the upside-down pyramid looking beige building are top in the fugliness department.

[R8RBOB]

The City-County Building. The building itself, not counting the slab behind the Spirit o' Detroit blocking the view of what must be the worst looking city hall of any major city in the world.

I have to agree about the City-County Building. Detroit's "City Hall" is so unattractive, tourists would ignore it as just another building. When they torn down the old city hall, they could have designed one based on the city hall in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Both are iconic for their cities.

[Jason]

I have to agree about the City-County Building. Detroit's "City Hall" is so unattractive, tourists would ignore it as just another building. When they torn down the old city hall, they could have designed one based on the city hall in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Both are iconic for their cities.

I think those ones are exceptions though. The vast majority of city/county/state buildings, while individually generally well done, are all very similar. The Spirit of Detroit is way more iconic than most capital buildings. Dodge Fountain is way more iconic than most baroque fountains.

Detroit needed a new city hall, and I'm glad they built it, but I don't think they should have demolished the old one. Imagine how much nicer Campus Martius would be if there was the old city hall building instead of 1 Kennedy Square. I don't know what would have occupied it, maybe a museum, or a city department or something, but it would have been nice.


Our current city hall isn't the most amazing building on the planet, but I like it in general. It represents a very strong, progressive, proud, and optimistic time. We look back and see them as destroying the past, but they saw it as building a better future. For those who have seen Detroit's Olympic bid video, that's the spirit that the new city hall was built in. So I appreciate the city hall for that.

[Bearinabox]

For those who have seen Detroit's Olympic bid video, that's the spirit that the new city hall was built in. So I appreciate the city hall for that.

I have seen that video, and I find it rather baffling. The portions of the city they choose to highlight are the ones that are the least interesting. Urban vitality, life, and humanity are completely deemphasized in favor of monumental, sprawling, low-density "campuses" and unattractive high-rises surrounded by "plazas." It's not about the people who live here, it's about how impressive our skyline looks when you're flying over it in an airplane. So yeah, that's the spirit the new city hall was built in, and that's precisely what is wrong with it. Taken on its own, it's impressive, if not exactly beautiful, but its only purpose as an integrated part of the city is to make the sidewalk shadier.

[Lorax]

I agree with both Jason and Bearinabox for similar reasons.

The City-County building as I will refer to it [[can't wrap my mind around Soulman Young being honored by anything but a prison named after him) was built with this idea of a jet-aged future full of optimism.

Even Marshall Frederick's Spirit of Detroit sculpture is big and bold for the times in which it was built, and for today as well. It still ranks as the largest cast bronze statue built on earth since the renaissance. Imagine casting such a large piece in a mold, finishing and transporting it. It wouldn't be done today due to cost alone. Bold measures for a bold city with a bold future.

I see the other side of the equation as well- the period in which the CCB was built valued it's present/future over the past to such a degree, you see the demolition of the old city hall, the modernizations of the Book Cadillac, the facade removals on lower Woodward Avenue, etc.

It was all about putting a fresh face on what was perceived as an old, dirty industrial city, architecture be damned. This is uniquely American, though is a trait we needed to outgrow if we were to progress as a society.

Perservation of the built environment should be first and foremost. Great or even moderate architecture shouldn't be vicitm to the fluctuations in economies, taste or perceived use restrictions.

If Europe felt that way, with two millenia of history behind them, they would have nothing left beyond the last century or so.

The final determining factor should be what is to replace a historic structure? If it's anything short of a major improvement, a new structure by a noted architect, a better use of the property, a better connection to the people who will use or work within that structure, then more options are on the table. An empty lot, or a substandard building don't pass muster.

Continuity with the past, connected to the present and relevant for the future is how we need to think. Demolishing Hudson's in my view was the worst mistake Detroit made in the last few decades when it came to preservation. What building had more of a connection to more people's collective memory in the 20th century? I can't think of one. The MCD is in this same league, and to demolish it would be an equally stupid error.

[Huggybear]

Well, let's put it this way - the building on Milwaukee is no Urago!

...and for the purposes of this forum, I would argue that we expand our sense of awareness to value quality "urban" architecture, of various styles, including structurally sound, multistory poured concrete buildings built to the street...

huggy, i'd never stop a man from fixing a bike...

[KarmicCurse]

"One of the issues of modernist-no-longer-modern architecture is that it served as a convenient cover for going cheap on the aesthetics of buildings"

Thank you! Well stated counterpoint to all the you-don't-get-Modernism arguments. I wish more people, especially architects, would point that out. The public and even unwilling professionals quickly realized how Modernism failed [[mostly) particularly in urban settings, but by then developers had realized how cheap it was to build a concrete and glass box.

[R8RBOB]

I see the other side of the equation as well- the period in which the CCB was built valued it's present/future over the past to such a degree, you see the demolition of the old city hall, the modernizations of the Book Cadillac, the facade removals on lower Woodward Avenue, etc.

It was all about putting a fresh face on what was perceived as an old, dirty industrial city, architecture be damned. This is uniquely American, though is a trait we needed to outgrow if we were to progress as a society.

Perservation of the built environment should be first and foremost. Great or even moderate architecture shouldn't be vicitm to the fluctuations in economies, taste or perceived use restrictions.

If Europe felt that way, with two millenia of history behind them, they would have nothing left beyond the last century or so.

One of the things that's impressive about Chicago is the way they mix the old with the new. Sure Chicago loves to built skyscrapers but mix in the new glass and steel is history. Old Chicago that still exist to this day. That said, Detroit could never be like Chicago because most of the businesses didn't flee Chicago for the suburbs. Detroit can not preserve their history because many of the businesses that left allow their buildings to decay and rot. If I am business A and I wanted to move to Detroit, no way I am going to move to a shell that has sat empty for years. I want a new building with the bells and whistles.

[Lorax]

"One of the issues of modernist-no-longer-modern architecture is that it served as a convenient cover for going cheap on the aesthetics of buildings"

Thank you! Well stated counterpoint to all the you-don't-get-Modernism arguments. I wish more people, especially architects, would point that out. The public and even unwilling professionals quickly realized how Modernism failed [[mostly) particularly in urban settings, but by then developers had realized how cheap it was to build a concrete and glass box.

If that were the case, then why has every building built since the advent of modernism look so modern? I don't recall any buildings that look like the Guardian, or for that matter, like the Whitney mansion being built since the second world war.

Unless of course you're a fan of historicist McMansions and suburban office parks with faux stone tacked-on ornamentation.

Your argument is full of holes, and is apparently so due to your disregard for modern design.

I beg to differ that the quality of modern design is somehow "cheap" in comparison to what was built decades earlier.

When the Book Cadillac was built, common beige brick was used for the body of the structure when stone could have been. Plaster ceilings at the DIA and the BC were ordered through the Voight Company of Philadelphia's plaster ornamentation catalogue at great savings as opposed to having to design and cast something new.

Modern buildings such as the Seagram's in NY, the Inland Steel Building in Chicago, the Reynolds Metals Building in Southfield [[now Bally's) were built using techniques never before used- i.e. glass manufactured in sizes, tolerances, thicknesses and tints as never before.

Polished stainless steel was never used in mass for decorative purposes, or green tinted glass such as in the Inland Steel Building.

Southfield's Reynolds Metals Building utilizes gold anonized aluminum decorative sunscreening, on a scale never before used.

Detroit has several important examples of modernist buildings which were either first, or early in their use of new techniques and materials. The Michcon [[One Woodward) building uses precast concrete panels to great effect, and was a precursor to the World Trade Center's same use of the product years later.

Chicago's Reliance Building [[1890) was revolutionary in it's use of I-beam construction and massive use of glass, in fact more glass than wall, and was considered ugly and strange in it's day, rather than innovative and forward thinking, which it is now.

I remember when the Dodge Fountain by Isamu Noguchi was considered such a blight on the landscape, you could hardly find a supporter of it anywhere. Now students of sculpture come to Detroit to see and sketch it.

Same can be said for the Spirit of Detroit sculpture by Marshall Fredericks- it was lampooned for years, and today is considered the city's symbol, but the artist's masterpiece, and rightly so.

So, when corporations and civic organizations start building buildings like they did a century ago, then we'll have something to talk about.

Are there cheap modern buildings? Absolutely. Many are cheap, ugly, and inefficient. However, many are terrific, well-designed, well-built, and a pleasure to look at. There is a difference if you take the time to really look at it.

By the same token, there are plenty of old buildings which are a carbunkle on the landscape. Most of the tiny wood framed bungalows on Detroit's east side are not only crampt, and ugly, but poorly built as well. They'd be considered the ugly-stepsisters to Chicago's brick and bay-windowed bungalows which are treasured in most parts of that city.

Your argument seems to wholesale discount all modernist buildings as some sort of collective excuse to cheapen the costs of construction. What you're focusing on is the frosting, and not the cake.

[KarmicCurse]

Actually, I did not discount all Modernism, I said it mostly failed. You just pointed out some landmark buildings which used quality finishes and unique construction.

My complaint is that the aesthetic also allowed for cheaper and more boring buildings to flourish after the initial innovative period. I'm thinking of something like 1001 Woodward. I also think the World Trade Center, tragic end notwithstanding, was one of the most ugly and anti-urban projects ever realized.

I certainly hope people do not continue to build in faux historic styles, but the public did prefer it back then. The only thing prohibiting them was indeed cost, crafstmanship, and materials. I do believe architecture should forge ahead, but not into blandness. There are only so many variations on a glass box theme one could impose on a city before all buildings begin to look alike

I happen to greatly admire Hart Plaza and it's fountain. A great example of a purely sculptural, yet still functional, Modernist urban project. I don't even mind all the concrete since it makes sense when the place is full.

I am not an architect, but I do have a degree in architecture. So I've been exposed to many buildings and types.

This reminds me a of a great cartoon I saw in the New Yorker. Just one panel. Two women are looking at a row of identical glass box buildings. One says to the other "they say the third one down was designed by a great architect".

[detourdetroit]

while i am not an architect, i studied architectural history and have worked in related fields. for many years, i was a big time hater on the modern movement and what i thought it did to world, especially cities. through encouragement and education i've come to appreciate and even love modern architecture. i've evolved my earlier creed to something more along the lines of deeply respecting the best of modern architecture and a deeply disdaining those who used it to rationalize the cheapening, deadening and banalizing of our built environment.

quothe the detour "it is very hard to design and build a great modern building... but most people can't distinguish between the great modern buildings and the great amount of modern buildings that mar our landscape..."

[KarmicCurse]

An instructor once summed up that point nicely by saying "simple is so hard to do". In context he meant simple as in unadorned, not as in easy.

[Gistok]

There some nice modern architecture in Detroit, and some not so nice.

I like 1 Woodward Avenue, 211 W. Fort, and the more modern Comerica and 150 West Jefferson Towers.

I don't care for the Chase Tower [[although it was built of quality materials) and especially detest 1300 E. Lafayette [[apartment building).

One of the most beautiful modern buildings in Detroit is the William Clay Ford Sr. Sports Medicine Center in New Center.

One of my favorite quotes about modern architecture is from Englands Prince Charles... who detests much of the public housing projects that went up throughout England in the 1950's and 1960's. His comments about modern architecture of that era....

"The fashionable architectural theories of the 50s and 60s, so slavishly followed by those who wanted to be considered 'with it', have spawned deformed monsters which have come to haunt our towns and cities. As a result of 30 years of experimenting with revolutionary building materials and novel ideas, burning all the rule books and purveying the theory that man is a machine, we have ended up with Frankenstein monsters, devoid of character, alien and largely unloved, except by the professors who have been concocting these horrors in their laboratories... while the rest of us are constantly obliged to endure the results of their experiments..."

[Lorax]

I agree that simple design can be complicated in it's rendering and execution, your professor had it right. But like any virtuoso, a great architect has the job to make the difficult look easy. Only then is it really an accomplishment.

I do have to disagree with KarmicCurse regarding the 1001 Woodward Building- although I wish the old Majestic [[Mabley) building was left in it's place, the 1001 is a super building in massing, scale, beveled granite window piers, and especially the lightness of the main banking chamber. The profusion of Calacatta marble in the giant flooring squares, as well as the banking tables sprouting from the floor like mushrooms are a design which will never happen again, and indeed this building needs preservation both inside and out.

[reddog289]

After getting my pictures back of the AutoRama. Semi-Modern mixed with Retro, Mixed with water issues, Mixed with bickering, Mixed with?. The Cobo Center gets my vote.

[Joseph C. Krause]

http://www.jmnxc.com

[reddog289]

JC, I liked that video, Nothing like trains and a wrecking ball.