Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Michigan Central « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Cosine
Member
Username: Cosine

Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 10:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone know what was going on at the MCS today? I had lunch at Slow's and saw what looked like a film crew at the MCS...lots of trucks and lights and people.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tetsua
Member
Username: Tetsua

Post Number: 784
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 10:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/84179.html?1159922642
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 185
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 10:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cosine, they're filming some Ninja Turtles or a Transvestizoids movie there. Just some piece of crap super hero movie.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72

Post Number: 323
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 2:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Milwaukee, you have no right to be rude to someone from the D. We will NOT tolerate an outsider to treat us this way.

Only native Detroiter's can speak such fillth to one another. You have not earned such a right!

Detroitej72...Native Detroiter
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 54
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LOL, but transvestoids is funny.

(Message edited by mayor_sekou on October 04, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Trefoil
Member
Username: Trefoil

Post Number: 170
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 4:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was just thinking of the MCS not long ago while visiting The Village at Grand Traverse Commons in Traverse City. It just goes to show you that no matter how large the building, there is always a use. I know TC and Detroit are drastically different but one can still dream.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 2561
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 8:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's over, and sadly, no Scarlett J. on site this time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 382
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not a major point, but the initials MCS are incorrect - the name of the Station is Michigan Central Depot.

A similar misnomer is Grand Central Station in New York City. While in common usage today, that was the name of a previous station on the same 42nd & Lexington Avenue site, and is still the name of the U.S. Post Office address within the station.

But, the proper name is Grand Central Terminal. Both the Michigan Central Depot and Grand Central Terminal opened in 1913 and were designed by the same architectural consortium of two different partnerships - Reed & Steam of St. Paul, Minnesota and Warren & Wetmore of New York City.

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 1287
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Barnesfoto I too was upset by that fact.

I had a rather ingenious plan involving a sandwhich to woe her during the shooting of the Island. Unfortunately it did not go as planned.
I was hoping to perfect it.

DAMN YOU MICHAEL BAY......DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 662
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Whereas "GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL" was emblazoned in big stone letters on the New York building when it was built, the only names actually appearing on the Detroit edifice were applied in later years with various removable signs-- and I've never seen any evidence that "Michigan Central Depot" was one of them.

Most railroad workers called it "MC Depot," but that alone doesn't make it "official," given the lack of exterior signage, and the railroads' own printed material usually if not always giving the building other names.

An Aug. 1978 Trains article mentions that "...the Michigan Central Station (or just 'MC Depot' to many railroaders), never received an official name or any exterior identification."

The Mar. 1, 1943 NYC list of "Officers and Representatives, Stations and Other Facilities" refers to the Detroit building both as the "Passenger Station" (p. 110), and as "Michigan Central Terminal" (p. 18).

It is again referred to as "Michigan Central Terminal" in the section NYC provided on p. 103 of the Oct. 1965 Official Guide.

And of course, by Jun. 1969 the Official Guide refers to it on p. 51 as "Penn Central Station." Amtrak also calls it that in one of its Oct. 26, 1975 timetables.

In later years, "Amtrak Station" was an equally "official" name for it.

Part of the reason for no offical name is that it functioned both as a station (with the thru service from Chicago to New York) and as a terminal (with most trains terminating or originating in Detroit).
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 663
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 11:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I forgot to mention that various pieces of company literature also called it "New York Central Station."
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 191
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitej72, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just joking around with him
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 383
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 3:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Trust me, it was officially and still should be referred to as Michigan Central Depot.

The fact it is referred to on occassion even in company literature as "station" doesn't change its official name, but rather shows the fact that even employees can be unaware of the correct name.

Bob Cosgrove
former Trustee
New York Central System Historical Society
and current Glancy Trains Curator, Detroit Historical Museum
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 665
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 7:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob, I'm well aware of your credentials. I'd be happy to reconsider the issue if you could cite something significant which states that "Michigan Central Depot" is the official name.

I know most people would call this a trivial issue and it probably is, but we railfans never shy from taking stands on the nitty-gritty...
Top of pageBottom of page

Ventura67
Member
Username: Ventura67

Post Number: 61
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 10:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree, the Michigan Central never had an official name, so anything goes. By now it has been referred to as the Michigan Central Station in so much modern-day writing and discussion it is the name she is stuck with, and will die with! Even if the name is incorrect when the building functioned, it is the permanent name of her ruins.

By the way, I will be giving my slide show tour of the MCS twice in November. It has been very well recieved and I will keep you all informed.

(Message edited by ventura67 on October 04, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 77
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hate to interupt the discussion of the railroad building's proper name (I'm a railfan too, so I understand how one can get engaged in something like that) but I have a side question.

I've been reading a book about New York's late and lamented Pennsylvania station. One of the options that was considered before they finally tore it down was to demolish the Seventh Avenue side, but keep the grand waiting room and concourse intact. Obviously, that didn't happen, and so we have the current Penn Station to contend with.

How would Detroiters feel about a proposal that demolished the high rise part of the MCS/MCD but restored the public areas?

Obviously, this is a purely academic question. I'm just curious as to what people would think of the trade-off. I'm for total preservation/restoration whenever possible, but am open to other ideas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1549
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 11:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"How would Detroiters feel about a proposal that demolished the high rise part of the MCS/MCD but restored the public areas?"


When you say "Detroiters," are you referring to the fifteen or so who actually want to preserve it or the 99.99% who haven't even seen it during the past twenty years?
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 2568
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 11:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

making stuff up again? haven't been out of the basement in that long?
why not try writing detective novels!
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 384
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 12:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While I don't think Penn Station was the work of Art that Grand Central Terminal is, it's destruction probably saved GCT. But Penn Station didn't have to go, since there were other places to put Madison Square Garden even in property expensive New York City.

Among the many New Yorkers who rose in defense of saving GCT was Jackie Kennedy, the president's widow. While many deserve the credit for saving the station, her national prominence was an important factor in the station's salvation.

I've always thought Michigan Central Depot's office tower lacked any real artistic value. But the beaux-arts waiting room designed by Vanderbilt relative Whitney Warren is well worth saving.

It would seem that the MCD office tower could have been made into a casino hotel and the space below it as well as the waiting room into gaming areas. But, casino operators are dedicated to have buldings specifically designed to their operations.

No less a Detroit booster than Richard P. Kughn looked at the Depot about 15 years ago and in the end turned it down as being too expensive to restore for commercial use. Mayor Kwame Kilpatick's idea of making it into Police Headquarters always seemed a strange location choice to me due to the distance from the courts and municipal offices.

That location was necessary since the station is on the approaches to the Detroit River Tunnel, the railroad tunnel to Windsor. The previous stations since the 1840's were on Third Street at the River on the western end of Joe Louis Arena and were close to downtown.

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 221
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 12:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why demolish the tower? It's the easiest and most pratical thing to renovate.

What would you renovate the rest of the building into?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 78
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 1:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As I said in my original post, it's purely academic. I've never been to Detroit, that's why I never take a position on local issues other then specific projects that have already been financed (i.e. the Book Cadillac) but I do root for your town, if that's worth anything :-)

I'm just wondering, as a totally detached observer, and only because the Penn Station book got me wondering, would you rather see a rotting and ultimately demolished MCS/MSD, or one that was renovated, preserving the "pretty" parts?

Granted, I'm assuming the tower is superfilous real estate (The tower, from what I gather, was never fully utilized, even in the railroad's heyday)

I'm not wanting to get anyone worked up. Just curious as to what is the lesser of two evils. In my mind, I can argue both sides.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1550
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 2:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"That location was necessary since the station is on the approaches to the Detroit River Tunnel, the railroad tunnel to Windsor. The previous stations since the 1840's were on Third Street at the River on the western end of Joe Louis Arena and were close to downtown."


Actually, it was not really "necessary" for its location there. However, a train to/from Windsor had to employ a nuisance back-up manuever in the moat when using MC's passenger depot at 3rd and Jeferson. The older depot burned in 1912, a few months before the MCT was completed. If it hadn't burned, would the MC have still used that depot in addition to the MCT--perhaps, as a shuttle connecting the two?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 60
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 3:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Id keep the tower portion merely for sentimental reasons its been part of the city's skyline for nearly 100 years and tearing it down essentially for nothing just wouldnt sit well with me and the citys preservationists. Its however unfortunate that there is no real practical way to redevelop the site unless rail becomes popular around here again.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4535
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 4:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually, if rail does become popular, again, we'll most likely see a station downtown or in New Center, so it's not rail popularity that has anything to do with the renovation of this structure. The station was out of the way even when it was built in the day of popular rail. It wouldn't make any since turning it back into a rail station when the days of popular rail are long gone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcwalbucksnfitch
Member
Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch

Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 5:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Longtime Lurker, First time poster...

Actually, Rail popularity will essentially have nothing to do with the revival of the station. The likelihood of that even happening is very low, considering the fast paced world we live in. The train sheds are gone, and the facility doesn't have the feasibility of a 21st century transportation center.

The MCS/MCD..whatever you want to call it, is probably the toughest potential project in the city. The building itself is a monster, and it is in a bad area (for potential uses, anyway)...not to mention the condition of the interior is in horrible disrepair. Baring on the success of the Tiger Stadium Project, whether or not that happens, the station could get a breath of new life. I've tossed around the idea of possible projects, but given the lack of efficientcy of the floor plan, the only possible prospects are small scale commercial office, small to medium scale residential, or hospitality...none of which presently have a substantial market in that part of the city.

The ground floor public areas are huge expansive spaces, designated for specific uses such as waiting areas, a concourse, retail arcades, etc...which it will never become again. It would be practical to divide these areas, but the prospect of doing that would completely contradict the purpose of restoring it. Hypothetically if these spaces were restored entirely for the use of lobby/open space, the cost of lighting and heating it would be enormous, and unreasonable for what it was worth.

Another concept, perhaps the most practical I had come up with, would be to turn it into a mixed use, high-end address complex. The ground floor public spaces would be expanded outward and turned into a large retail facility, with a department store anchor, and 60-90 various size specialty retailers, clothing stores, restaraunts, and entertainment venues. Perhaps a parnership be formed among several large investment firms dedicated completely to the project. The area around would also be revitalized, utilizing Roosevelt Park as popular recreation and gathering space particularly for, but not limited to this area of the city. In addition to auto traffic, the center would be accessed via a highspeed express rail system originating downtown, perhaps with a connection to the people mover. (Because we all know that mass regional transit won't materialize any time soon) Additional parking space would also be added for the commuters of the suburbs and other regional areas. The tower portion of the building would be an upscale loft development (comparable to the Westin BookCadillac Residences), marketed based on offering uncomparable views of the river, the bridge, and Windsor. If residences rendered unfeasible, then the tower could be potentially utilized as a company headquarters.

The viability of a large retail center observes the fact that other large [malls] have similar interior characteristics, large and open spaces, often giving off a granduer. The uniqueness about the MCS is the historical, almost nostalgic factor that would be instilled in shoppers, all while taking in the modern experience of brand new shopping center offering the latest cutting edge fashions and entertainment/dining experience.

Another advantage of the high volume facility is that it's located on a major thoroughfare of Detroit, bringing in consumers from not only the freeways but any of the major spokes, including a direct path to Dearborn and the western burbs.

On any level, the MCS is one of my top interests in the city; perhaps what hurled me into the world of architecture. The majesty and history of the building is only what meets the eye. I have hope for it, and I hope to see it being put into service again at any capacity.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 670
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The likelihood of that even happening is very low, considering the fast paced world we live in."

What you do mean by that statement? Are you referring to the station's comeback chances as low, or as rail revival's chances low? If the former, your statement makes no sense at all. If the latter, the last time I checked, the fastest you can legally travel on land in the U.S. is 150 MPH, on a short stretch of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor-- not in any automobile.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gargoyle
Member
Username: Gargoyle

Post Number: 28
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 6:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Anybody seen what Cincinnati did with their old terminal? Its a really nice museum. Too bad we can't get the public interest or funding for such a project here. Besides, it looks like Maroun intends to sit on it until it collapses.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcwalbucksnfitch
Member
Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch

Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 6:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, I mean that the likelihood of the popularity of trains becoming an A list transportation option is low. Take the Detroit-Chicago route for instance. Departing at the right time of day, you can be from Detroit to Chicago in 4 1/2 to 5 hours. The minimum duration of a train is 5 1/2 hours, and the fare (depending) is well over the price of gas to get there. Besides, didn't you get the memo? Us Detroiters like our cars.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 66
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 9:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We do indeed like our cars, the idea of the shopping complex at MCD is intriguing and who knows even possible but how long will it take downtown to gather enough momentum to create that much demand for retail? How much longer can the staion sit abandoned before it becomes unsalvagable? We also have to remeber it is owned by Matty Maroun and I heard somewhere it would cost something upwards of 100 million to revitalize the station, two huge deterants to any form of feasible redevelopment. I do believe that as the corktown area revitalizes slowly but surely the Station will have to be dealt with one way or another and currently it doesnt look good for our dear old station, but hey lets remain optimistic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 79
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 2:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am a big train advocate, so I suppose my comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but why would anyone in their right mind want to take a car to Chicago (or any other major city with excellent transit)?

Unless you're staying at some dump out in the boonies, you have to garage the car-that's another $20-30 a day right there. You can leave it on the street, but in some cities (Vancouver, BC, for instance) you are running a real risk that your windows are going to get busted in.

When I go on a city vacation, the last thing I want is to worry about some dumb car.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcwalbucksnfitch
Member
Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch

Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 2:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're absolutely right there, but I was trying to counter the train popularity (passenger heavy rail) argument. Personally when I go to Chicago I've driven and paid the $18/24 hour garage fee, usually just outside the loop. I personally prefer driving because I can control all of my transportation to/from factors...mostly time. Once I get there though I certainly take advantage of the CTA.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 82
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Saturday, October 07, 2006 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're a much better person than me - honestly, I get so impatient driving on the interstate anymore that I really try to avoid it. And airports/flying is just too depressing.

At least, if you're stuck on the train, you can go get a drink.

I fear I'm becoming a grumpy old man. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcwalbucksnfitch
Member
Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch

Post Number: 8
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 9:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like driving alot - Like I said, It's sort of a time control issue. I make the 24 hour trip to southern Florida twice a year in one stretch. I also just drove to Grand Rapids and back this weekend.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 676
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hear ya, Mcwalbucksnfitch. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool railfan and like traveling to Chicago on Amtrak. But there's no way I'm going to travel a combination of bus and Amtrak (coach seat) from East Lansing to Wilmington, DE again. I'd much rather drive and maybe spend a night in a motel than endure that 18+ hour ordeal, which includes trying to sleep in an upright coach seat or lounge car. It would be different if I felt like ponying up for a $$$ sleeping compartment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcwalbucksnfitch
Member
Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch

Post Number: 10
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 12:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Or round tripping it in a total of 8-9 Hours with $50 in gas. Especially with other passengers to contribute. What an idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hudsonut1
Member
Username: Hudsonut1

Post Number: 7
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While not the last word on anything, the book "Detroit's Michigan Central Station" by Kavanaugh, Arcadia Publishing, has drawings that are undated but show it to be Michigan Central Station.
The book "Passenger Terminals and Trains",Droege a Kalmbach 1969 reprint of a 1916 book, states "station" throughout the book in,text plans and photo captions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 696
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hudsonut1, thanks for backing me up. Another source which does not state "depot" is the issue of Railway Age which was published shortly after the station opened.

Bob Cosgrove says we should trust him that it's officially Michigan Central Depot, but he hasn't provided any evidence for his position. I'm still interested in seeing it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 860
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Going back to the '40s, everyone I knew called it the Michigan Central Depot. That may not have been its baptismal name, but that's what it was called by Detroiters.

So there. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2947
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK all you rail buffs, I've heard 2 tidbits about Michigan Central... one was that no space above the 5th floor was ever occupied, the other was that no space above the 9th floor was ever occupied.... Anyone know the story on that one?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 273
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 8:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why are you folks arguing about whether it is a station or depot? this is only a matter of symantics.
Top of pageBottom of page

Messykitty
Member
Username: Messykitty

Post Number: 173
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 9:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Because it matters. It really, really matters. You say MCS and I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 386
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 9:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The whole building was occupied since it opened in December 1913 until the 1970's. This story about the upper floors not being occupied is because one floor has not partitions and you can see right through the building to the windows on the other side.

If you search on the Internet you'll find the vast majority of web sites refer to it as Michigan Central Depot. The 1926 New York Central Railroad Annual Report on page 412 refers to it only as "Terminal Building," which it is not, because its a pass-through station or depot.

A map in that Annual Report shows it a "M.C.R.R Station" but that doesn't mean anything, since its a generic reference.

Bob Cosgrove
Glancy Trains Curator,
Detroit Historical Museum
Top of pageBottom of page

Drm
Member
Username: Drm

Post Number: 1066
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

At least, if you're stuck on the train, you can go get a drink.


Are alcoholic beverages available on the train between Detroit and Chicago? The website only refers to a "snack car", whatever that is. Of course, they serve drinks on the Acela, but we're not lucky enough to have that here.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72

Post Number: 365
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 12:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For what it's worth, I always knew of it as "The Michigan Centeral Depot".


Detroitej72

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.