Views from atop the Guardian Building

**Reality_Check** · May-03-09, 01:48 PM

DetNews architecture blogger Michael Hodges is justly proud of 10 images he posted after wangling rooftop access on a sunny day. As he tells Facebook friends::

Michael has rocking pictures of downtown Detroit on his architecture blog that he took last week from the roof of our 40-story art deco masterpiece, the Guardian Building. Check them out, but keep an eye on the vertigo.

It's true. I almost felt dizzy -- and definitely dazzled:

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/a...blog/index.php

**izzyindetroit** · May-03-09, 02:23 PM

"But returning to the Fisher Building momentarily -- has anyone else ever wondered why, if they're going to light the roof, they light it up in a cheesy gold color? Hellooooooo -- the roof is a gorgeous green. A.B. wants to slap somebody silly and yell, "Just flood it with pure white, dimwit!". Were they to do that -- it's probably just a matter of removing colored lens gels -- the Fisher Buildiing would be as breathtaking at night as New York's Woolworth Building, whose illuminated emerald top is one of its chief glories, and one of the most beautiful sights in that crowded nighttime skyline."

Isn't the reason for the yellow color because the original roof was gold, later replaced during WWII with copper?

**detroitbob** · May-03-09, 02:33 PM

the original roof was gold glazed tile, hence the pr line used by WJR and the Fisher Theater, "golden hours under the golden tower". The story I've always heard was it was painted black during WW2 and when restored, the Fisher brothers economized with green glazed tile instead of gold glazing. Any one ever seen any pix of the building in the war years to verify if it was indeed 'blacked out'?

**Reality_Check** · May-03-09, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by detroitcity

The writer is obviously a dimwit. Besides writing the article like a 12 year old would, he lacks information . . .

Bad weekend, DetroitCity? Or just reflexively lifting your leg to drip on whatever you sniff out?

Regret you feel Mike Hodges lacks your encyclopedic familiarity with Detroit landmarks or your sophisticated way with words. Hope you got something worthwhile from the images.

That'd be more than I got from your comment.

**Gistok** · May-03-09, 04:44 PM

Sorry, but I have to agree with Detroitcity on this one... if the writer/blogger calls others out on being a "dimwit"... and it turns out that he himself is wrong... then if you can't take the criticism, you have no business in dishing it out...

Yes the "golden tower of the Fisher Building" has been that buildings moniker for nearly 80 years, even after the WWII blackout, and recladding in verdigris tone tiles [[although I don't recall if they were originally copper colored reclad tiles that aged?).

Reporters/bloggers need to bother with the "messy task of verification"....

**dcmorrison12** · May-03-09, 07:15 PM

ok... I feel as if I am swimming in a sea if morons right now. First of all, can we ALL realize right now, that this IS A BLOG!. Blogs do not require, nor should you expect, formal and well organized thoughts. They are meant to be something like a journal/diary. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the top of the Fischer building is copper - now, going back to elementary school, you all should know that copper is gold, but turns green with the wear and tear of the weather! So, stop with the Green glazed tile or solid Gold roof and crap like that!

**dcmorrison12** · May-03-09, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by detroitcity

Big deal.

" But returning to the Fisher Building momentarily -- has anyone else ever wondered why, if they're going to light the roof, they light it up in a cheesy gold color? Hellooooooo -- the roof is a gorgeous green. A.B. wants to slap somebody silly and yell, "Just flood it with pure white, dimwit!"."

The writer is obviously a dimwit. Besides writing the article like a 12 year old would, he lacks information in the subject he is writing about. I think it's common knowledge the tower used to be GOLD and the owners are trying to light the tower as if i still were.

Clearly you did not do your fare share of the research, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE, he touched on this concept in his blog.

Bearinabox · May-03-09, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by dcmorrison12

ok... I feel as if I am swimming in a sea if morons right now. First of all, can we ALL realize right now, that this IS A BLOG!. Blogs do not require, nor should you expect, formal and well organized thoughts. They are meant to be something like a journal/diary. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the top of the Fischer building is copper - now, going back to elementary school, you all should know that copper is gold, but turns green with the wear and tear of the weather! So, stop with the Green glazed tile or solid Gold roof and crap like that!

Maybe you should check your facts before you go around insulting people for no reason. Just a bit of friendly advice.

Originally the tower was gilded with gold, but during World War II the gold was peeled off over concern it could be a beacon to enemy bombers. It was replaced by green terra cotta, but when the gold lights are turned on as the sun hits the horizon, the effect is the same as a golden beacon.

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=32

**izzyindetroit** · May-03-09, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by dcmorrison12

you all should know that copper is gold

wow... just wow... we got King Midas posting on DetroitYes

**Gistok** · May-03-09, 09:07 PM

Besides "not getting" the reason for the illumination color... the blogger isn't aware of the proper height of the structure either... the Guardian Building is "officially" 40 stories and 490 feet tall... officially that is....

To the base of the flagpole on the north tower it is approximately 515 ft. tall... quite a bit more than the 400 ft. mentioned in the blog title.... a mention of "500 ft." would likely have been more appropriate.

MIRepublic · May-03-09, 10:44 PM

Actually, Gistok, I did extensive research on all of the heights of the many roofs of the Guardian through correspondance with the facilities engineer/manager. The roof from which these photos were taken was the roof above the 36 floor, which is almost 397 feet above grade, so the 400-foot number is correct at least from where he took the photos from. He really was just about 400-feet up.

**Gistok** · May-04-09, 11:03 AM

Well some of your calculations may have been off....

Check out these lists of tallest buildings in Detroit....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ngs_in_Detroit

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/s...t=2&ht=2&sro=1

If those photos were taken from 397 ft., that means that its another 100 ft. to the top of the tower, which in those photos is not likely, especially since the blogger mentions [[in the 1st photo) that the tower and "haystack base of the flag pole" is another 30ft. or so above the 40th story observation deck.

Plus look how high up the photos are in relation to the Book, Stott, and especially Cadillac Tower.... you can see all of the roof top of the Cadillac Tower... and photo of the Stott/Book Tower shows that you can see the distant horizon "above" the level of the Stott Tower, something that would not be possible if the photo were taken of a 436 ft. building from the 397 ft. level of the Guardian Building.

One thing that I've learned about some downtown buildings is that the building owners/operators are often not the most knowledgeable people in regards to the statistics/history of their own buildings. [[Some have admitted as much...)

**Gistok** · May-04-09, 03:02 PM

Also, it gets very tricky sometimes when discussing building heights. Although the Penobscot Building has been mentioned for decades in Almanac's as being 557 ft. tall, in both the Emporis and Wikpedia it mentions 565 ft. tall. And building heights often exclude mechanical parts of the building top. The true height of the Penobscot building is 625 ft., including the girderworks and red ball on top.

The RenCen hotel tower is even more tricky... from the front door to the top of the 73rd floor it is 727 ft. [[I've also seen 721 ft. mentioned). However the height of the hotel from the Wintergarten entrance is 748 ft. to the top of the hotel.

And even then, that only goes to the 73rd floor, the top functioning floor. There is a 74th floor [[indented windowless floor at the top of the tower), but it is mechanical, and is not counted in determining building height.

It makes me wonder if the 619 ft. height of the Comerica Tower includes only the occupied floors, or includes the peak of the sloped Gothic pinnacles on top.

Building heights... not an exact science....

MIRepublic · May-04-09, 10:04 PM

Gistok, just so you know, I'm the researcher that found most of the heights that are on Emporis, and that's where wiki got their heights from. Again, I got the heights directly from the the building managers from elevations/prints for the Guardian, Penobscot, Comerica, and RenCen, specifically. Mechanical penthouses and elevator shafts are included in total structural height on Emporis, and when there are two different elevations, the height is taken from the lowest entrance/side, with a note given for the higher entrance/side. I really don't know what else to tell you than that the for-pay Emporis site shows more detailed heights, which, as an editor I have access to.

The Guardian main roof lies at 397 feet, the south tower roof lies at 423'-10" and the north tower roof at 482". There is a mechanical penthouse level on the north roof that officially raises the height to 495'-6".

The 565 feet for the Penobscot is measured to the roof of the penthouse, and more specifically, to the penthouse roof parapet wall.

The Marriott RenCen measures exactly 727 feet to the mechanical penthouse roof as measured from the back wintergarden entrance.. It measures 747 feet from it below grade basement, but buildings are never officiall measured from the below-grade levels.

The Comerica's Tower 619 feet measurement is measured to the structural top, which are the decorative spires. The actual roof lays at 606'-6".

I've spent a ridiculous amount of free time researching Michigan high-rise stats. I've found that most have been listed higher than they really are.

**Gistok** · May-05-09, 01:21 AM

MIRepublic,

I have no qualms or differences about the height of the Guardian or any other building downtown.

Where we differ is on where the ArchBloggers photos were taken.

You mention the main building roofline is a 397 ft. [[36th floor). I have no qualms with that, nor do I disagree that some photos were likely taken from that height.

But in the first paragraph of his Blog article, he mentions that he is at the 40th floor, or near the top of the building.

His photograph of the Penobscot Building is partly blocked by the Guardian Buildings north tower... so I agree that he his at the 36th floor for that picture.

But then take a look at his view of the Buhl Building rooftop, from what appears a dizzying height. That photo was taken from very near the top of the building [[40th story penthouse?). If you look at the bottom of that pic, you will see a railing and some protruding terra cotta decorative work sticking out at different lengths.

If you look at the first attached photo, you will see a close up of the middle of the Guardian Building north tower, with that very railing an protruding terra cotta work... at approximately the 38th floor.

Also, because the 36th story rooftop has the north tower rising nearly 90 feet above the roofline [[see 2nd pic attached)... one could not take a picture of the David Stott Building [[located directly north on Griswold) unless a) you took a photo from inside the building looking north, or b) you were outside at some point near the top of the north tower... likely at the 40th floor as the blogger mentions.

My point all along is that not all of those pics were taken at 397 ft. up [[the level that the entire Guardian Building rises to)... but at the higher 40th floor [[480-490 ft.) which is nearly 100 ft. higher than the height the blogger mentions.

MIRepublic · May-05-09, 02:34 AM

Ok, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's a big deal, at all. He said he was at 400 feet, and he was for at least some of the pictures. I mean, is he supposed to say how high he was for each picture? It's a whole ado about nothing, really. The way you are talking about it, you'd think he was a bold-faced liar or idiot.

**Gistok** · May-05-09, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by MIRepublic

Ok, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's a big deal, at all. He said he was at 400 feet, and he was for at least some of the pictures. I mean, is he supposed to say how high he was for each picture? It's a whole ado about nothing, really. The way you are talking about it, you'd think he was a bold-faced liar or idiot.

No, I didn't call him any names... it's just that 40 stories does not equal 397 ft. [[or the 400ft that he mentioned). Some folks were talking about the inaccuracies of his blog, and I just added my additional 2 cents.

After studying the photos, it appears that only the first 2 large photos were taken from the 397 ft. height. Then the rest were either taken at circa 460ft. [[the level with the metal railing) or 490ft. level [[the building top). The image looking down onto the roof of the Buhl Building was taken from the 490 ft. level [[top). The photo of the entire Penobscot was taken from the circa 460 ft. level [[it shows in plain view the metal railing that is at that level). The rest of the photos were taken at either 460ft. or 490 ft. And in discovering this fact, it certainly helps explain why he only mentioned 400ft.... otherwise it's too much detailed info....

And one other thing... the 747/748 ft. height of the RenCen hotel tower... from old Guiness Book of World Records it states that the height was 748 ft. from the side entrance [[not the Wintergarten side). That must have meant the Beaubien St. side, since that is the lowest "exposed" side of the Ren Cen. Since the Ren Cen was built on a sloped site to begin with, they used the lowest side for determining the building height.... although in actuality they should have used the "front door" side in determining the building height. Bragging rights I guess...

MIRepublic · May-05-09, 08:54 PM

Again, that 747 height for the RenCen is taken from a basement level that is completely below grade unlike the wintergarden level which has an entire side of the complex above a ground level. The truck entrance is, indeed, on the Beaubien side, but it's a ramp that leads down into the basement which is where that number comes from. The lowest above-ground entrance is the Wintergarden side at 727 feet.

**Reality_Check** · May-06-09, 07:41 AM

Returning to the design, rather than the height, I link to Michael Hodges' 80th birthday appreciation [[the building's, not his) in The News today:
http://detnews.com/article/20090506/...rates-80-years

It's exotic, playful, majestic and utterly over-the-top. Call it the architectural equivalent of Aretha's hat.

. . . with photo gallery by Brandy Baker of this 'supermodel.'