Old Hudson's Site

[agrahlma]

I just noticed this conceptual design for the old Hudson's site on the Kraemer Design Group website. Is this old news? Did I miss something? Is this just another pie in the sky idea? Seems to good to be true.










http://www.thekraemeredge.com/index....woodward_block

[gumby]

Yeah it is old news. It was just a concept they drew up for a potential customer. It has beens discussed here a couple of times now. I have no clue how to find it in the archives though.

[agrahlma]

--- thanks ---

[Gistok]

Agrahima [[welcome to the forum by the way...).... some of us criticized the design when it came out about 3 years ago. It did not respect the "street wall" effect that the rest of lower Woodward has... and therefore got some criticism. All up and down lower Woodward [[below Grand Circus Park) all buildings abutted up against Woodward, and it made for a pleasing design. However, the buildings on this block were set back from Woodward, with some "plaza" type frontage on Woodward.

Some here would argue that it's better than nothing... others would disagree... you be the judge...

[BrushStart]

I think most plazas are worthless, but this one doesn't seem too bad. However, I really don't like the architecture. I'd much rather have something traditional that blends in with the surrounding buildings than a building that will look like modern retro garbage in 10-20 years.

[rbdetsport]

Dan Gilbert just needs to develop a smaller version of the Eaton Centre [[Toronto)!

[stasu1213]

Had the plaza area faced Library street or the street behind the site and the back part faced Woodward with a welcoming design to the rear I might had went along with it.

[wolverine]

I do like the thought of a multi-building complex in the future though. It helps break up the scale. Even though Hudsons occupied the whole block, it was technically a bunch of connected buildings, which helped give some architectural variation.

I think most plazas are worthless, but this one doesn't seem too bad. However, I really don't like the architecture. I'd much rather have something traditional that blends in with the surrounding buildings than a building that will look like modern retro garbage in 10-20 years.

Architectural design trends have already changed. This concept came out mid-2000's, and the design gestures, language, and styles are very common to the last decade.

I'd be careful on suggesting something traditional looking. Unless you are hiring RAM Stern to do the work, you'll end up with something looking like a Disney Movie set. We keep botching faux traditionalism up MISERABLY here in Chicago, and the smaller projects in Detroit aren't much of an improvement either.

My recommendation for the design is something similar to alot of infill in DC. There's something about it where it's still contemporary, but blends seamlessly with the urban fabric.

[BrushStart]

What about Comerica Tower? In my opinion it is postmodern Gothic, but blends in very well for being built in 1993.

[wolverine]

^ But it's not "traditional" as you suggested earlier.

However, I think we both have the same product in mind for what we want. I can agree the last thing we want is some crappy glass box that will look dated after awhile.