 
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3534
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |    |
quote:I never trotted out DC as a mecca....
Bullshit. Example one: On the thread about homeless folk you clearly stated that Detroit's attmepts to provide at least temporary shelter during the Superbowl were terrible and that DC NEVER engages in any sort of activity to hide or dissuade homeless folks, which was rebutted by those of that have seen police abuse to homeless people in DC.
Example Two: You opine that Detroit fucked up the stadium deals and DC are much better. Close examination shows DC (and American taxpayers) are getting shafted and the Detroit deal was actually pretty good when considered against tother recent stadium deals.
The list goes on and on, so spare us all the history revision.
No one here is afraid of difficult questions. Unfortunately you do not answer difficult questions, not on this thread and not on others.
There are several diffcult questions that have been raised on this thread that you have not addressed, but criticized others for their attmepts.
How does one (re)develop an urban streetwall pattern on Woodward of substantive height on a lot that is 220' deep when there is insufficient market to support that much square footage?
If a solid streetwall is not possible on the site, how does one accomdate and create public space that is inviting and attractive?
When does the City take a good design like KDGs that may not meet the personal aesthetic values of an architect in DC and when do they hold out for something more? When does design perfection become the enemy of the very good economic case?
None of these questions have been answered by DaninDC, but yet we are to take his pronouncments and criticism simply because he is a design professional.
quote:The truth is, Detroit remains a fascinating laboratory, and deserves more than blind adherence and casual acceptance of the status quo.
The truth is Detroit is a living, breathing vibrant city, not a playground for architects who want to test out their ego driven design ideas. We are not a bunch of mice in a maze for you others to play with. If you are truly interested in helping Detroit, you are violating the first rule of being a good architect, which is LISTENING to the client and working to solve their problems using reasonable tools. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:51 pm: | |
Skulker, I'm going to bounce around a bit, so bear with me.
One, you have once again re-interpreted what I have said regarding the homeless. I never claimed that DC treated its homeless well, or that the cops never used excessive force. I did state that the District doesn't herd the homeless away for fear that out-of-towners might get a bad impression of the city, which is completely different than what you wrote above.
Second, the DC ballpark deal is not finalized, and will probably head to binding arbitration, which is why I haven't commented on it yet. The federal government is kicking in $20 million for an expansion of the Navy Yard Metro station. Half of the funding from the District ($14 million per year) will come from a utilities tax, largely affecting the federal government. I hardly consider this "getting shafted" especially considering the same federal government is exempt from property taxes, and Congress has repeatedly refused to allow DC to levy a commuter tax. Never mind that we pay $2000 a day for Dick Cheney's daily motorcade to work. Even still, zero funds are expected to come from the District's General Fund, which is still better than the deal Archer negotiated for Comerica Park.
Now, to the question on this thread. Is there any particular reason why the entire site must be reserved for one major tenant, a la Compuware? I know the real estate market is probably too soft to build a spec building in the hopes that dozens of small tenants will fill it. Is there any reason the City can't develop two projects on this site, one at a time if necessary, and create further density? I think a full build-out to Woodward is almost necessary to better define the street wall, especially so close to Campus Martius.
In order to achieve buildout on a 220' deep site, you could either take up less of the frontage along Woodward, or you could build courtyards/lightwells in the interior. You could also build something a little bit shorter, but within scale of the street (after all, the library on the backside probably shouldn't have a tower looming directly over it). This should not impact the capability to host ground-floor retail. Public space isn't required for this project--there is an outstanding public space (on public land) one block away. I don't agree with the suburban mantra that all open space is automatically good. Too much open space leaves the other open spaces poorly defined.
How's that? |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 401
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 172.156.182.138
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:20 pm: | |
Danin has posted excellent design related questions in this thread. I don't agree with a couple of his points but I don't think that he is disqualified from commenting and critiquing merely because he resides somewhere else. |
1953
Member
Username: 1953
Post Number: 681
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 209.104.146.146
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:40 pm: | |
Briefly..
-Taller is better because its more impressive
-We have too many open spaces as it is (so we don't need a plaza)
-Futuristic designs are ugly |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3535
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:57 pm: | |
I'll let the issues of the homeless go as there appears to be selective memory. I will note that you conveniently ommitted the municipal bonds over 40 years that will pay for the stadium IIRC. Tax payers get shafted when the land is not sold at market value to private developers but is instead given away a below market value.
quote:Is there any particular reason why the entire site must be reserved for one major tenant, a la Compuware?
None what so ever, I am not sure that has been impled. The idea floated by KDG and others is to build multiple buildings to get around this problem. I am not sure how you would build multiple buildings and have a unified streetwall without creating some pretty harsh business interruptions for the tenants in the first constructed building. One way around that is to build multiple towers on a base building of a few stories heighth that is a continuous streetwall.
What do you fill that base building with? Retail? Not likely in the next 10 years downtown. You also then have business interruption issues for retail tenants when subsequent towers are built.
The challnge is also creating useful access to the garage that does not eat up tons of parking space. There is one main elevator penetration to the garage. Building out 3 or 4 adjacent / abutting buildings over time creates real design issues on creating equal access to the garage component. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 5:17 pm: | |
I was thinking more like 2 buildings, each of which takes of roughly half the footprint of the garage (give or take). Put some lightwells in the middle, place retail at street level. Heck, here's even an idea: Recently, the owner of several buildings in Crystal City (Arlington), Virginia decided to build a small "extension" out to the street in order to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Granted, the office tower architecture is crap, but the new retail construction is at least somewhat mitigating. I think this is akin to Skulker's "pedestal" idea.
I don't have any project photos available, but look around the website a bit.
http://www.crystalcity.com |
Michigansheik
Member
Username: Michigansheik
Post Number: 85
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.255.34.220
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:36 am: | |
mine's bigger than yours! |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 184
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.4.97.70
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:06 am: | |
I like the design. And I'm the type of average joe that would actually be living/shoping/working there, not a bunch of arrogant pricks.
PS. That crystal city deal looks boring as hell. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:53 am: | |
Yeah, Crystal City is not incredibly exciting. It was worse before, if you can believe that. The area was developed in the 1960s as a giant suburban office park (it sits just north of National Airport, and just south of the Pentagon). Really, it's just a bunch of schlocky office, apartment, and hotel towers. There are underground corridors that connect most of the buildings, with shops and restaurants along the way, which is primarily why it never evolved into an "organic" neighborhood.
To the owner's credit, they have been doing a lot more to make the area more pedestrian-friendly by building the retail out to the street, relandscaping, and adding benches to the streetscape. I guess they figured that since traffic outside the Beltway is horrendous, and they enjoy a good location as well as subway and commuter train stations, they might as well position themselves to make the location more convenient. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3541
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:18 pm: | |
BTW DaninDC:
Just so we are clear about public space usage on the KDG proposal, the images highlighted below rather crudley by me indicate where more than 30,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space would have been contained. The client was looking at national retailers such as Urban Outfitters or Banana Republic. Note that nearly half the retail space under the residential tower (on the left hand side of the image) is two stories with internal circulation in a mall like fashion.
 |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3542
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:24 pm: | |
Note how on this image the blue box highlights the connection through to Farmer with even the People Mover rendered so one can see how the connection through to the urban space on Library / Famer is maintained  |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 70.227.217.52
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:34 pm: | |
With all of the support poles sticking out of the ground, I can not see how all of these buildings in their configurations in the rendering will fit on the Hudson's site. Clearly, some poles will have to be cut down.
Also, is the Hudson's site that big that all of these buildings will fit and have some width to them. I can see some pretty thin buidings if you try to fit all of them on this site.
(Message edited by royce on February 15, 2006) |
Andrew69
Member
Username: Andrew69
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 198.111.39.17
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 1:08 am: | |
Considering that the rendering is to scale, four buildings should be able to fit and be as deep as they appear on the rendering. Besides, residential towers can't be too deep and still allow enough light into each of the units.
Hmm...I didn't notice the plaza opened all the way to farmer before. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3545
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.168.34
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
quote:With all of the support poles sticking out of the ground, I can not see how all of these buildings in their configurations in the rendering will fit on the Hudson's site. Clearly, some poles will have to be cut down.
Thank your Doctor Science.
quote:Also, is the Hudson's site that big that all of these buildings will fit and have some width to them. I can see some pretty thin buidings if you try to fit all of them on this site.
The buildings shown totaled right around 1 MM square feet from what I heard of it, so think 4 Redico sized buildings. The Hudsons building was 2.2 MM square feet. |
Panson
Member
Username: Panson
Post Number: 785
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.45.19.20
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 1:24 pm: | |
Support Pole Design was one of my favorite classes in architecture school. |
Kraemerdesigngroup
Member
Username: Kraemerdesigngroup
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 63.242.134.66
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:43 am: | |
Skulker - you are generally correct about the retail frontage (highlighted by the yellow). However, you omited highlighting the little building on Woodward - this was intended to be a Newstand like coffee shop that would spillout onto the little plaza. Also, maybe a minor point, but important to KDG, is that the two story retail was meant to be large stores with entraces from theoutside, not real internal mall like layouts. This is except for the samll office tower, in which we invisioned a two story lobby with a small amount of retain mezzanine space. Teh total retail just under 50,000 sf.
I am glad you noticed the clear coneection to Farmer. BK
 |
Gambling_man
Member
Username: Gambling_man
Post Number: 648
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 199.178.193.5
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:48 pm: | |
Looks like a perfect spot for the new Cheescake Factory! |
Gambling_man
Member
Username: Gambling_man
Post Number: 649
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 199.178.193.5
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:54 pm: | |
All kidding aside, I think the design is great. I'm not sure I understand the thought of the city or DEGC that this space be more for office space rather than residential......I would think the Monroe Block would be much better for office/hotel space. Something was said earlier in the post that this was an empowerment zone......the state and city could get another empowerment zone anywhere they want downtown right now. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3560
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 1:41 pm: | |
Its a state Renaissance Zone which is very different from a federal Empowerment Zone (the EZ has expired BTW). Furthermore, the state RZ program expired (or at least the ability to add or modify existing RZs) more than 2 years ago meaning it would take an act of the State Congress to get another Renaissance Zone anywhere in the state.
The Hudsons site was rebuilt with the deck and foundation capacity in place because of ths exposed hole left by the demolition of the building. Leaving the hole empty or back filling and then re-excavating were not plausible actions. Nor was it fiscally prudent to build an additional undeground garage at Monroe.
To paraphrase CAY, building homes for folks without jobs is a bad idea. The idea is to have BOTH Hudsons and Monroe as job centers. Hudsons for a a variety of logisitical and financial reasons on top of those already outlined in this post is simply market ready faster than Monroe. |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 118
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 148.61.248.170
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 6:26 pm: | |
Kraemer design group (I'm not sure what to call you, lol), is there a rendering in perspective from the street level? I'm interested to see how it would look from the ground, where most people would be seeing it from. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 6:31 pm: | |
quote:Leaving the hole empty or back filling and then re-excavating were not plausible actions.
This made me wonder why the hole of the Statler was filled in. |
Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn
Post Number: 676
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 64.139.64.80
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 6:34 pm: | |
I say NIX the news stand. NO MORE 1 story, stand alone (read au-bon-pain) structures! |
Sumotect
Member
Username: Sumotect
Post Number: 168
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 64.243.32.9
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 7:27 pm: | |
I think it is a very nice design and would support its construction. It is a very strong URBAN solution with the plaza and first floor being very supportive of street activity. People who may have expected something along the form of the old Hudson’s have to realize that a building of that bulk may have worked as a department store but is very difficult to rework into almost anything else. The solution here is to divide up the block into smaller “street-like alleys” that could be very nice, providing they have the frontage activity that would keep the streets activated and the same goes for the existing streets at the perimeter of the site. I don’t think we want an inward facing development that might diminish the existing streetscape.
The newspaper stand is a particularly good idea that I think would be great in this information age, but if anything, it needs to be stronger, possibly more sculptural and high tech. I could see electronic signs and jumbotrons piping in CNN to downtown, ala Nasdaq.
I think the buildings themselves ought to be more like the base. By extending the base treatment vertically and squaring the corners the composition would appear more tailored to the site. The buildings would loose their “almost anywhere” suburban quality. I don’t think the offset vaulted tops add much to the skyline and frankly they look arbitrary, and oh so “nineties”, good luck keeping them after the bean counting shitheads get through with the project.
It is great seeing KDG doing some brand new buildings, after all the remodeling work that they started with. Great work ethic and great service they provide to their clients. They are one of Detroit’s up and comers and I am sure they will be important participants in Cities rebirth. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 70.236.187.104
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:47 pm: | |
The fact is the underground parking deck was a necessary evil to fill up the four levels of basements on the Hudson's site. The problem now is, "How do you incorporate multiple buildings on a base that's intended for one building?" Also, the future building on this site has to conform with the configuration currently there. Probably explains why there are not a lot of takers.
How many elevator shafts are on this site? Is it possible to add more? The one time I used the parking structure I simply walked up the exit ramp upon leaving and returning to my car. Workers at these multiple buildings can't realistically walk up these ramps. So, how will they successfully navigate the parking deck? |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 3728
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:53 am: | |
What Detroit needs is 100 story glass covered skyscraper. |
Doctors
Member
Username: Doctors
Post Number: 693
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.124.248
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:42 am: | |
Why stop there?
Frank Llyod Wright's; Mile High Skyscraper
http://www.delmars.com/wright/ flw7a.htm |
Rbdetsport
Member
Username: Rbdetsport
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 68.60.133.115
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 12:20 pm: | |
Detroit needs a 100-story skyscraper in the middle of the skyline not away from the skyline like the RenCen. |
Rust
Member
Username: Rust
Post Number: 103
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 64.118.136.130
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 12:28 pm: | |
In the future a tall skyscraper makes sense. Today though and for the forseable future it does not. Detroit is best served by urban designs in the mid-range 4-20 stories. Adding a skyscraper of any size to downtown now would only empty out the existing (historic) buildings and create the need for immense parking structures and parking lots. Which are the bane of downtown. |
Sumotect
Member
Username: Sumotect
Post Number: 169
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 64.243.32.9
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 12:47 pm: | |
Buildings that big just don't make sense for anything other than spectacle and the desire to have a really "Big One". The only people who could see the value in it would be Omni Consumer Products, some pacific rim country, or maybe Enzyte.
Enzyte towers, anyone? |
Rbdetsport
Member
Username: Rbdetsport
Post Number: 66
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 68.60.133.115
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 3:27 pm: | |
I know as good as anyone else that you would be so excited over a proposal like that. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 3:56 pm: | |
Royce, to answer your questions:
The columns and foundations of the garage don't know how many buildings are above grade. The mat foundation was most likely designed for the maximum axial load of each column (conservative, but necessary considering the nature of the new construction above-grade is speculative). Therefore, you could load each column to its maximum capacity, no matter what the arrangement of the buildings. Loads are loads.
Unless the garage slabs are post-tensioned, it shouldn't be any problem at all to add additional elevators. I do that sort of thing all the time. The locations of the new garage elevators, though, would be predicated somewhat on the locations of the new cores in the new above-grade buildings. Obviously, this cannot be determined until a design is actually completed. |
Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas
Post Number: 50
Registered: 09-2004
Posted From: 192.135.141.99
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:15 pm: | |
Maybe I'll be the first to build a 100 story building in downtown Detroit ! Give me about four more years and its done ! GUARANTEED !!!! |
Marcnbyr
Member
Username: Marcnbyr
Post Number: 629
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.43.13.13
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:21 pm: | |
Does any one else think that the "Mile High" skyscraper looks almost identical to the proposed "Freedom Tower" that will replace the Trade Center in New York? |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3219
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 9:41 pm: | |
I don't think so, at all. Mile High looks much more akin to the new world's tallest going up in Dubai. |
Detroit313
Member
Username: Detroit313
Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 12.45.2.92
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 8:00 pm: | |
Want DETROIT needs is to first get the BOOK CADDY up and rolling. As long as KK can bring more SB'S and FF'S we can fill up the new hotel rooms that KDG is proposing. The City is looking good. Pretty soon DETROIT will be saying traffic is so bad we need alt driving days or something. Watch out LA! THE BIG MOTOR IS STARTING IS COMING FOR ITS TITLE!! AGAIN |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.