Masterblaster Member Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 15 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 155.79.138.253
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:35 pm: | |
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/b u/?id=118492 The above is a link to a website that states that the FBI announced late last month that this building would be demolished. Does anybody know anything about this? I believe this is the building that is across the Lodge Freeway from the MGM Casino and parking structure. It's hideous. |
Itsjeff
Member Username: Itsjeff
Post Number: 6797 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:36 pm: | |
Uh, Macho, you're needed. |
Psip
Member Username: Psip
Post Number: 1169 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.60.45.70
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:38 pm: | |
No, nothing, first I have heard. https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/80772.html?1156906556 |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 75 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 66.195.132.2
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:41 pm: | |
We talked about this just about a week ago. The FBI is going to expand its opperations in southeastern Michigan. It's moving its offices from the suburbs back to downtown. These buildings will be demolished to make way for a new FBI building and campus. Possibly a 20 or 25 story building. The idea is funny because of all the surface that surround the buildings. Why spend the money to demolish them? |
Restoretheroar Member Username: Restoretheroar
Post Number: 707 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 199.67.138.83
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 5:57 pm: | |
There's Milwaukee again with his finger on the pulse. |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 2951 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.183.32.11
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 7:48 pm: | |
When is the buiding hug going to take place? Save the... what's its name? |
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 218 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 164.76.189.121
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 9:25 pm: | |
That's cool I guess. Hopefully it's not fugly. The property is something like 2,500 square meters (91,440 square meters is what emporis said the new building was, after convertin from feet). So by my bad math, if the property was filled out, it would be 37 stories. That doesn't include the parking garage it said would be on the site. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4367 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 9:27 pm: | |
Why are you converting it from feet? 37 stories? That doesn't sound right. |
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 220 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 164.76.189.121
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 9:32 pm: | |
Because I used google maps to find out the size of the property, and the meters scale is bigger, making it easier to measure the property. I did it pretty rough though. It doesn't sound right, but I did the conversions right (I used a conversion calculator). I think my property size is the thing that might be off. |
Andyguard73 Member Username: Andyguard73
Post Number: 113 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 141.209.33.164
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
Jason, I think when you did your conversions, you just did feet to meters, not square feet to meters square. I think that 300,000 square feet would actually be more like 27,871 square meters, so probably more like an 11 or 12 story building (assuming full build out, parking not included.) |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4368 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 10:35 pm: | |
Yeah, when you take into account the parking garage and annex as half of the area of the site, you may be able to get this up to 24 stories or so, but that seems much more unlikely. I'll give this thing 20 stories at most, and I suspect it will be a fat building more like a Compuware than a more slender tower considering the size of the site. We'll just have to wait and see. |
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 221 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 164.76.189.121
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 10:45 pm: | |
Andy, I think that's what I did wrong. In that case I think each floor should have 20 foot ceilings, except for grand lobby that should be 100 feet tall. |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 78 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.95.238.192
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 10:45 pm: | |
I don't know how tall it's going to be, but I can promise all of you that it will be an ugly fortress type building. Don't get your hopes up for a nice, open, glass, modern building. |
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger
Post Number: 61 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 68.42.78.175
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 11:00 pm: | |
Maybe they’ll build the bulk of it underground, with only a small portion showing above, (like an ice burg) for security reasons. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4369 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 11:10 pm: | |
lol! |
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 350 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.213.70
| Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 11:45 pm: | |
For the design of the new "campus" buildings, think Big Box Retail with a high security fence. Cause that's what you're gonna get. It's gonna Suuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccck!!!!!! Guaranteed. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 2766 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.244
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 12:03 am: | |
I'd be surprised if it was more than 5 stories tall.... we'll have to wait and see. It'll probably be something like Brewery Park. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4963 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 8:22 am: | |
Another skyscaper bites the dust. |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 512 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:31 am: | |
I wonder what type of ground floor retail will be available at the FBI building? At least it is not a CIA building.... |
Itsjeff
Member Username: Itsjeff
Post Number: 6808 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:33 am: | |
Can we go back to discussing the stench in midtown? We've already had THIS conversation. A week ago. Nothing more to add, here. Move along... |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 611 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 35.12.20.64
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:39 am: | |
I wonder if the old building will be imploded, or demolished conventionally? |
Itsjeff
Member Username: Itsjeff
Post Number: 6810 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:48 am: | |
Maybe it will be bored to death... |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4372 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 6:54 pm: | |
They will almost definitely conventionally dismantle it, especially with it being right on the freeway. (Message edited by lmichigan on September 08, 2006) |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 86 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.95.236.19
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 7:09 pm: | |
Why demolish the buildings? There's plenty of surface lot land around the buildings. I'm not saying it would be a great architectual loss for Detroit, but why demolish a pretty tall building downtown? |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4373 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 7:22 pm: | |
I wish we could ask Detroit's Planning Department and the FBI the same thing. God knows at least one of them is probably already reading this board since their name has been mentioned multiple times in these times. |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 88 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.95.236.19
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 7:26 pm: | |
I think it will cost the FBI or some agency a bunch of money to tear down these buildings. It's pointless to tear them down. There are businesses moving back to downtown Detroit and eventually somebody will fill the vacant offices. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4376 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:09 pm: | |
They've obviously studied this and have decided that bringing them down and rebuilding costs less than renovation and a costly expansion of the current complex. I'd hardly call it 'pointless' even if I don't personally like the decision. |
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 753 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.246.10.173
| Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:50 pm: | |
If the building does not meet the technical, security, or ergonomic needs... it does not matter how big or tall the current building is.. which in turn would cause them to leave Detroit AGAIN... man eff the bulding because its in good condition.. YAY for more construction and jobs in the city after they tear it down. I could see if everyone was bitching about the Penscot or Broderick... but damn. Choose your battles |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4378 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 2:41 am: | |
No, people are angry at the wasteful pattern of development in Detroit, and it has nothing to do with architectural significance. What makes this all the more ironic is that there are literally 3 full blocks of surface lots around the tower, as well as two half-lots directly to the north and south. |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 256 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 70.236.178.191
| Posted on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 8:20 am: | |
The State of Michigan complex is a substandard building with substandard architecture (um... government building) that was ugly and out of place when it was built. Spend all the money you want, and the best it will ever be is half-vacant Class B space. High rises, especially poorly built ones like that, have high maintenance costs. And business moving downtown? Not in time for this one. And I don't see them moving to the west side of the Lodge. Tearing it down is no great loss. We have similar and contemporaneous architecture in Edison Plaza and 1001 Woodward. And Frank Murphy is a good enough example of brutalism that we don't need the low-rise portion. The Michigan Plaza parking lot is already an eyesore. Letting the FBI have it and effectively take ownership of it is not all bad. So what if a one-story building is built over that surface area. We're not hurting for land in that area. |
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 755 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.246.10.173
| Posted on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 11:16 am: | |
^^^ I feel you. People on here act like it won't be worthwhile development unless it is a skyscraper. Like I said on the other thread about the same topic. The people who have a problem with the choice the state/FBI is making should put some of their own money up and help them develop elsewhere. |
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 149 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 1:39 pm: | |
Surprised I missed this thread! My mom worked at that building starting in 1972; she worked for the state, Dept of Civil rights unit. She said it was FTD HQ’s before the state bought it in 1972. She retired in 02. Her new office was at the ole GM HQ's. I thought it was odd that the state would abandon a newer building for an older one. But mom explained the move was widely applauded as there was so much more going on in the new center area as opposed to Howard St. I remember spending some time there. When ever there was a problem with the baby sitter, I'd have to go to work with mom. I recall her boss and co-workers were very aggreeable and never gave her a hard time for it. Actually, I rember one time going to work with her when I was about 7; Her boss and I got into a rubber band war. As a grown up I’ve never had a boss that cool! The top floor was an observation area and featured an archetectual model of the plaza towers. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4477 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 11:59 pm: | |
BTW, here is a photo of the building on Flickr: 1. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zo om.gne?id=44748004&size=l I never realized how visible it was from the river. |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 156 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 3:58 pm: | |
The 11 story building is very ugly, but I don't hate the 21 story. It's fate has already been decided, but I wanted to explain why I didn't want to see it be demolished. I wouldn't call the building an eyesore and I know I would much rather have the 21 story building rather than another surface lot downtown. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4487 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 6:58 pm: | |
It's not going to be another surface lot. It's going to be the FBI's new headquarters. |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 157 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 7:25 pm: | |
I understand that the FBI is building a new building. If you see some pictures of the building or do google earth of it, you can see the area is covered in surface lots. I just don't see why not to build on the surface lot. |
Flybydon Member Username: Flybydon
Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 7:30 pm: | |
|
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 161 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 8:36 pm: | |
That surface lot to the right at one time was a parking structure. |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 168 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 10:17 pm: | |
Cool picture Flybydon |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 262 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 2:45 am: | |
quote:I understand that the FBI is building a new building. If you see some pictures of the building or do google earth of it, you can see the area is covered in surface lots. I just don't see why not to build on the surface lot.
Because high-rise buildings cost a lot of money to maintain, even where there are no tenants. Because it was poorly constructed in the first place. Because there is no demand for that property. Because the future cost of mothballing and un-mothballing it will likely exceed any future ROI. Because there are no historic tax credits to redevelop. Because vacant buildings are liability generators. And most of all, because a paying tenant wants the land for something else. And how about aesthetics? None. And it's out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. Just imagine another Michigan Central Depot, this time hulking over Corktown. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4502 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 2:51 am: | |
The federal government is notorious for overspending. Cost isn't much of an option. Sounds like they just want a new building to me. Hey, at least Detroit is consistent. The city is equal opportunity when it comes to demolition whether it be the Madison Lenox or Hudson Department Store, or the Executive Plaza. lol I swear if they could bring down the Penobscot for 'progress', they would. Compuware better watch its back. In Detroit time, it only has a few years left before it becomes undesirable and then abandoned entirely. |
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian
Post Number: 163 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 5:23 pm: | |
Not to mention expensive to heat / cool, single pane windows. Hot in the summer cold in the winter. My parents worked there, dad said you could tell "it was build in the days of cheap energy" |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4507 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 7:22 pm: | |
I got an original project brochure of the place put out by Bethlehem Steel (the steel supplier for that project) with some facts as I wanted to get some information this building before they brought it down. If anyone is interested you can email me at lmontg at comcast.net. What I found really interested was that they were able to put up the steel frame of the building in just 15 weeks. |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 651 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 8:16 pm: | |
Huggybear, I concur with all your arguments save one: that being "out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood" is a negative factor. There are plenty of reasons why the Executive Plaza is crummy, but being out of scale isn't one. "Being out of scale" can be a valid argument in some situations, such as if a tiny house had a factory built three feet from it. On the other hand, the Lee Plaza is out of scale with its neighborhood, but I don't recall people complaining about that. Various sizes of buildings next to each other can often add interest to a neighborhood. An example is that old red brick building on the south side of the Maccabees; it's twice as interesting because of its vastly smaller size pitted against the Maccabees. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4508 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 9:31 pm: | |
I personally don't think architectural value should ever cost a building points as a reason to bring it down. By that I mean that some buildings are more architecturally significant than others, but it should never be a negative. I'm having a hard time explaining this. Every piece of architecture has value, whether it is the Madison Lenox or Executive Plaza, and the points should always be for preservation instead of a reason to demolish. Hope that made sense. For instance, the Executive Plaza (originally the Detroit Trade Center) is one of the few high-rise examples of the International Style in Detroit. That should count for something if only a little. The only things that should cost against it are how much it would cost to renovate it, or how hard it would be to lease or sell it. Buildings should never be brought down because of someone's personal opinion on their apperance, whether it is my own or not. I hope this makes sense. |
Psip
Member Username: Psip
Post Number: 1216 Registered: 04-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 10:20 pm: | |
Posted for Lmichigan:
|
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 652 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
Thanks for posting that info, Psip! It would be fine with me if the concrete part was torn down and the taller tower was left, but I know that won't happen. Lmichigan--Don't you think that some buildings are OK tearing down because someone thinks they don't have any aesthetic value? (the innumerable, interchangeable strip malls, for example). Some stuff simply is crap when it's built, remains crap, and stays that way as long as it's standing. I thought about it from both perspectives, and the 21-story part of the Executive Plaza has redeeming qualities which puts it above those merely cookie-cutter, throwaway buildigns. |
Swiburn Member Username: Swiburn
Post Number: 23 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 9:49 am: | |
Burnsie, any building is up for destruction if it isn't in a state sanctioned "historical district." And being in a historical district isn't sacred either, as cities have been known to illegally tear down these buildings in the middle of the night. |
3dim Member Username: 3dim
Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 10:20 am: | |
I kinda dig the tower part as well, thought that's not to say its terribly unique or worth saving |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 176 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 1:20 pm: | |
I like the 21 story part they can tear down the concrete part. I think my opposition to tearing it down is less because of it's architecture and more because how wasteful it would be. The building is barely 30 years old and it's already slated for demolition. |
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj
Post Number: 121 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 4:50 pm: | |
My erection time is longer. |
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 12:34 am: | |
Why demolish the buildings? Because it'd be another abandoned building otherwise. We have enough of those. Plus, it has no real history and doesn't add anything to the architectural landscape. Besides, who doesn't love seeing symbols of the federal government come tumbling down in a gigantic cloud of dust? |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4519 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 1:45 am: | |
Yeah, you know, to be replaced by and FBI headquarters, you know, another GOVERNMENT office building. lol It adds a lot to the landscape, and it wouldn't be a hard sale in a better office market. I'd much rather an abandoned building with the possible potential of being renovated than a surface lot. The question is "why not bring it down?" it's "why bring it down when it doesn't have to be?" Detroit's been stuck on "why not?" for way too long. (Message edited by lmichigan on September 30, 2006) |
Gumby Member Username: Gumby
Post Number: 1433 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 10:29 am: | |
It isn't going to be a surface lot though. It is being brought down so a useful building can be put up in its place. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4521 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 6:56 pm: | |
I realize that, but I was talking more in general. As you know, I'd just got through explaining that to Milwaukee, but found out we were on the same page in talking more generally about preservation. |