  Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 347 Registered: 01-2006 |
I know it's been discussed here, but what is the final word with the future of this location? Is anyone being held accountable for the fact that it's now several months past the date that was set for an announcement to be made? I want to see some damn answers. Located at the geographic center of downtown, this location has the potential to dramatically define the Woodward corridor between the two parks. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 321 Registered: 03-2006 |
probably related to the holding out of Quicken/Rock HQ announcement | ||
Genesyxx Member Username: Genesyxx Post Number: 635 Registered: 02-2004 |
I'm done griping about the slow process until spring hits. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2006 |
Detroitstar, what, in your opinion, do you think should happen to the site? | ||
Oliverdouglas Member Username: Oliverdouglas Post Number: 61 Registered: 02-2006 |
As I understand it, this location will stay where it is. | ||
Matt Member Username: Matt Post Number: 1141 Registered: 10-2003 |
There was supposed to be an announcement from Redico on June 30th about the plans of the Hudson block, but as far as I'm aware, that came and went with no word. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1974 Registered: 06-2004 |
Kudos, Mr. Douglas. Kudos. By the way, how's Mr. Haney? Never could trust that guy. Maybe he's behind this. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 624 Registered: 11-2004 |
Redico just had development rights until june 30th, they never said they would make an announcement. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4842 Registered: 10-2003 |
If they didn't have the development rights, still, you better believed the city would have put out another RFP and there is no way they could have hidden that. The departments and city council have said nothing nor has REDICO, and it would be a safe assumption they still have the rights to this one. I wonder what would happen if someone brought this up to the local media... | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2006 |
With the scale of the buildings fronting the site being of medium height and smaller footprints (except for compuware), I think that the massing of the block needs to be somewhat broken up like those fronting Woodward across from the block. Ideally I would like to even see an alley way running parallel to Woodward through the site, Not just another full-block development. Another thing that a possible developer would ideally take in to consideration would be that there is a ONE floor library fronting the back side of the site. Therefore, in my opinion, a building on that site the size of the former Hudson's building would be too large.  The corners of the site (marked with my fancy red coloring) could be a bit taller, but should be complimentary to those street intersections. The blue would be building heights appropriate for the Woodward street width. Finally, the yellow would be some height respectable towards the library, but could be technically taller than those in the blue as the library in street section is almost negligible. | ||
Southen Member Username: Southen Post Number: 39 Registered: 08-2006 |
I really liked the concept that the Kramer Design Group came up with. Several modern buildings across the site in a mixed-use development. It wasnt overwhelming and I thought addressed the issues of its surroundings quite well. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2006 |
Happen to have an image of their design? I wasn't really thinking modern, not because I don't like it. That would be a really feasible site for a truly modern project of steel and glass and what not with those steel connections currently extruding themselves from the concrete pallet. I guess my main point was that I thought the Hudson's was a bit massive for the site, that it should probably be more broken up. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 323 Registered: 03-2006 |
they're website is flash so you'd have to go it for yourself unless someone (maybe I will soon) wants to take a screen capture of it http://thekraemeredge.com its under "the woodward block" under Our Work -> Consulting -> The Woodward Block | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2006 |
thanks. there design seems to me to be ok. Certainly no one would argue if a development such as that were going in to that site. The worst about there design in my opinion is that nothing about the project says 'DETROIT.' it looks to me like that project could essentially be anywhere. I think that the massing however is near perfect, perhaps a bit tall. I like the open court in the middle; that is a great idea, otherwise there might be too much building fronting Woodward at the height of 17 floors. Finally, as far as materials go, I think that we might be somewhat past the days of when an all glass/curving facades reflecting the city back on itself was a good idea. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 324 Registered: 03-2006 |
by the way...the book tower is now on Kraemer's "on the boards" section...looks like those NY developers are doing something after all | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 682 Registered: 10-2003 |
I would think the city would want the development agreement with Redico to peter out, thus getting rid of a middle man in a possible Rock Financial deal. I remember that being the case with the original development group that held rights for the whole Campus Martius redevelopment plan. As soon as they were out of the picture, the city could start cutting deals without another party trying to squeeze more margin out of the deal. The Hudsons block doesn't have to be very tall as most of the buildings on that side of Woodward are relatively short. I would suggest an arcade cutting through the site to get a visual of the Library from Woodward. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 625 Registered: 11-2004 |
I don't think it's safe to assume anything at this point, we don't know the where city stands with Quicken. Maybe they weren't interested in the site and the city let the rights lapse. If they were interested, the city is going to be tight with info while negotiating. Remember that outside an initial blurb there was no announcement for One Kennedy Square until a month before it broke ground. what exactly makes a project say Detroit? You could say that about just any building in the city, looks like it could be anywhere. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 108 Registered: 10-2006 |
True. I would say that many of the buildings in downtown Detroit are 'neutral' in having Detroit style architecture. I guess what I meant more was not that 'it doesn't say Detroit,' but that it looks to me like the project says Miami South Beach or some Indonesian/new Chinese/ Arabian desert city. You couldn't say that that proposed project was in Detroit without that context in the photo. It seems like for that large of a project and that important of a site, it would give some nod to Detroit in some way. On those images I was searching for it and just couldn't find it I guess. "what exactly makes a project say Detroit?" Perhaps taking an automotive concept car designer and having him/her work on the exterior facade of an architecture project. Then the project might look like it has Detroit influences, for example. | ||
Southen Member Username: Southen Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2006 |
I dont think we should turn down architectural diversity because something doesnt say "Detroit". And its tough to build a building to say something about its city. Over time buildings become a part of what makes up Detroit. The Ren Cen stood out like a sore thumb upon completion but now we say that that is "Detroit". Yamasaki's One Woodward when built differed greatly with its Art Deco neighbors but now we consider that building to be very "Detroit". I think it takes time moreso then an intentional design. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 110 Registered: 10-2006 |
But it would never say 'Detroit' if it already says something else that isn't Detroit. Just my opinion. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4845 Registered: 10-2003 |
BTW, I wouldn't much mind dividing up the block and such, but let us not forget what stood there before, and that was a solid streetwall for the entire block. Hudson was completely out of scale, visually, but it worked because it was totally open to the street, which shouldn't be a surprised as it was a department store. Now, if building a solid wall fronting Woodward is a mistake, then you must also agree Hudson was a mistake. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 790 Registered: 11-2003 |
Lmichigan, I'm also scratching my head as to why so many people on this forum pre-emptively call for smallish or medium sized buildings. Actually, I always thought that the buildings across the street from Hudson's were out of scale, not the other way around  True, big buildings may suck tenants out of other buildings, but if Detroit is to be big-time again downtown, it can't be squeamish to entertain big buildings if someone has the money and will to build one! It's funny how Chicago and NYC residents don't generally complain that their downtown buildings are too massive. And Charlottepaul-- The downtown library did just fine for decades with Hudson's next to it. As I've said repeatedly, CONTRAST is part of what makes downtowns great. The contrast between the massive bulk of Hudson's and the small library across the street was fascinating, unplanned, and distinctive. You can't get that by trying to find a muddled, "blended in" middle ground for building looks and size. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 499 Registered: 04-2006 |
CharlottePaul: The Downtown Branch has more than one floor. Each floor has very tall ceilings. You should go inside and read something! The giant I beams are there to hold much larger buildings than just a few stories. It would be ashame if we could not get at least five stories there to solidify the curtain along Woodward. I do believe that Detroit would be better off going for several smaller businesses for this space. Lets just face it, the days of 2 million square foot department stores are over. Chasing a company like Quicken/Rock is kind of a pipe dream, everyone is chasing them. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on December 07, 2006) | ||
Southen Member Username: Southen Post Number: 42 Registered: 08-2006 |
CharlottePaul: What exactly does the Kramer design say then? Because I see a modern collection of buildings. Does that mean we cant have anything modern because other cities are building modern structures that may share similarities? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4847 Registered: 10-2003 |
Burnsie, what gets me is that when the original 8-story Hudson Company Department Store was built at Farmer and Gratiot, some complained about it totally destroying the scale of the area and dwarfing the library. To complain about anything dwarfing the library, now, is pretty ridiculous. | ||
Mcwalbucksnfitch Member Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2006 |
Lets build a Macys there! | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3212 Registered: 08-2004 |
I would prefer the KDG design were flipped around, with the 2 buildings fronting Woodward. I just don't like the idea of another plaza on Woodward. One of the things that makes Woodward so interesting is the canyon effect with storefronts right along the avenue. Between Hart Plaza and GCP, I think that Campus Martius is plaza enough for downtown. But that's just me. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4848 Registered: 10-2003 |
Uh oh. We're going to go over this, again? | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3214 Registered: 08-2004 |
No, before it was I wanted a building taking up the whole block... now this is a compromise... | ||
Naturalsister Member Username: Naturalsister Post Number: 862 Registered: 11-2004 |
Burnsie said, "And Charlottepaul-- The downtown library did just fine for decades with Hudson's next to it. As I've said repeatedly, CONTRAST is part of what makes downtowns great. The contrast between the massive bulk of Hudson's and the small library across the street was fascinating, unplanned, and distinctive. You can't get that by trying to find a muddled, "blended in" middle ground for building looks and size." I concur, and have you (CharlottePaul) been to the main library in Manhattan? These type of height variations make for a quite eclectic and delightful mix. later - naturalsister | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 112 Registered: 10-2006 |
When I specified that I didn't want a full block building I was thinking along the lines that there isn't a need for a compuware size building on that block. All the other comments I agree with... And I am still not totally convinced on KDG's proposal for that site. I think it is ok, not bad, just not awesome... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1979 Registered: 10-2003 |
The existing column stubs protruding through the grade-level parking garage slab, are capable of supporting loads from a 14-story office building (or something thereabout). If you want to spend the money to reinforce the columns and foundations in order to build something larger, knock yourself out. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4853 Registered: 10-2003 |
Huh? A 14-story building can't be large? I wasn't talking about height, rather filling in the entire street frontage along Woodward with a solid wall. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 153 Registered: 11-2004 |
The KDG drawings, which I believe were part of one of the rejected proposals:   (Message edited by dnvn522 on December 08, 2006) | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 349 Registered: 01-2006 |
I have always liked the KDG concept. It's modern, broken up and (assuming) mixed use. Detroit lacks the smaller plazas and open spaces that attract foot traffic in other cities. A place to say "meet me in front of..." that has benches and trees just doesnt exist downtown. Woodward is empty of people at street level during the day right now. A concept of this scale and diversity would ensure people walking, spending $$ and gathering in this area on a daily basis. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 325 Registered: 03-2006 |
Dnvn522 are you sure it was rejected? for all we know they could be working with Redico on a similar project barring a Quicken move there. its really all hush hush, and as far as I know it seems to be all up in the air | ||
Motownman Member Username: Motownman Post Number: 48 Registered: 09-2006 |
That is a really nice design. it would go good with compuware and 1001 woodward. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3219 Registered: 08-2004 |
The designs are pretty good... but what is with those sloped roof overhangs? Is that the current craze in architecture? I noticed that originally the Compuware HQ was gonna have one of those "carport" overhangs, but fortunately it was eliminated. Even the GM/UAW complex has one of those curvy overhangs. I thought architects were trying to be innovative? If everyone does it, it doesn't make it innovative, now does it? (Ducking for cover... ) | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1157 Registered: 12-2005 |
Do they have some practical (aerodynamic) purpose? They look like airfoils. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 628 Registered: 11-2004 |
Yes, it was rejected. Someone from KDG posted on forum that the developer behind it was not selected. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 326 Registered: 03-2006 |
shit that sucks...I hope it is something similar | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 792 Registered: 11-2003 |
Detroitstar wrote, "Detroit lacks the smaller plazas and open spaces that attract foot traffic in other cities. A place to say "meet me in front of..." that has benches and trees just doesnt exist downtown." For small places with benches and trees (or easy potential for them), there's Campus Martius, Grand Circus Park, Capitol Park, Times Square, Harmonie Park, Cadillac Square, and others. | ||
Archy Member Username: Archy Post Number: 30 Registered: 07-2004 |
The project wasn't "rejected." Actually the City (DEGC) loved it when it was presented. But the mayor's office awarded the site to the current developer due to the high prospects they had at the time (ie quicken/rock). Its a long shot but if Redico doesn't find a use for the site that the city agrees with they will have to give it up and maybe this project could see the light of day. Like I said, a long shot. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4857 Registered: 10-2003 |
But, how much longer does REDICO have? BTW, let's say that downtown does need more plazas. They certainly don't need to be across on of the most solid blocks along Woodward. The street wall needs to be maintained. There are plenty of other corridors that would benefit from pocket parks/plazas. It's my opinion that this particular block is not one of them. Coming into or leaving Campus Martius should be solid street walls for at least two blocks in either direction as it's supposed to be the heart of downtown with the park being the "opening" into it. Parks/plazas off the core would detract from that. The only way I could see a plaza being beneficial is if there is some way to do it like a Compuware plaza where the mass of the building is only partially broken by the plaza. (Message edited by lmichigan on December 08, 2006) | ||
Dan Member Username: Dan Post Number: 1327 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree Lmich, when Hudson’s was there, that stretch was a very impressive urban canyon. I hope it is duplicated. | ||
3420 Member Username: 3420 Post Number: 87 Registered: 10-2003 |
I hope it does too Dan. I never got to enjoy Hudson's because I was born the year it was demolished. But my family members told me it was a very nice place too shop. My aunts told me they use to take piano lessons in the Hudson's. Does anyone else know of or have taken lessons there? Hope the city keeps the Hudson block for retail. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 96 Registered: 07-2006 |
3420, do you mean you were born the year it closed? it was demolished in 1998! | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 372 Registered: 08-2006 |
rebuild Hudson's exactly. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 188 Registered: 11-2005 |
3420, I hope you're not 8. HAHA! | ||
Broken_main Member Username: Broken_main Post Number: 1180 Registered: 06-2005 |
Nice one Rbdetsport!!! | ||
3420 Member Username: 3420 Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2003 |
I meant to say the year it was closed. Didn't notice the error until now. Thanks | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 63 Registered: 07-2006 |
Anyone know of any websites with some pictures from the inside of Hudson's? My brother was looking for some and couldn't find any. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4863 Registered: 10-2003 |
BTW, for anyone wanting to read exactly what the News said concerning this site, last year, here is the news blurb: Thursday, November 3, 2005 "DETROIT -- City officials selected Southfield-based Redico to convert the vacant Hudson's site on Woodward into a mixed-use project offering offices, residences, shops and a possible hotel. The 2.1-acre parcel, which offers a 1,100-space, underground parking garage, has been vacant since the late 1990s Redico has until June 30, 2006 to complete a development agreement." http://www.detnews.com/2005/bu siness/0511/03/C02-370817.htm | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 333 Registered: 03-2006 |
that whole timetable and plans and what not were probably jacked or at least put on hold once musings of Quicken/Rock started to arise...chances are we'll hear something eventually (w/in the next yearish). The city wont leave it too long, once One Kennedy and Cadillac are built out Hudsons should have the undivided attention of Cmart advocates, as the park district is supposed to be incremental design or something like that (ie, one parcel at a time)...probably so that later projects can build off the momentum of the district as it progresses | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 660 Registered: 10-2003 |
I would think if they had a development agreement, that they (Redico) wouldn't want to keep it confidential. Maybe the holdup has to do with the fiasco that is One Kennedy Square. I also wonder if the company (whose name escapes me at the moment) that is moving 200 employees into One Kennedy is subletting space from Visteon or moving into other space. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4864 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ernst and Young is currently moving into One Kennedy Square, but they were the secondary tenant and it has nothing to do with Visteon. Supposedly, from my limited email contact with Redico, Visteon has subleased some of their space to another company that is to be moved in total in the summer of next year, but they didn't list who it was. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 661 Registered: 10-2003 |
^I was talking about Walbridge Aldinger, I was just too lazy to look it up before I posted. They are moving into 51,000 square feet, I wonder if this was the company that Redico could not mention. And getting info from Redico is like pulling teeth, they are very reluctant to share any info about their involvement in downtown real estate. Anyways, filling this short, ten story building seems to be a big problem, but since Redico is so secretive, they could have it 100% leased now, even without Visteon, for all I know. It is so unfortunate that the downtown office market is so stagnant and cut-throat competetive. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4865 Registered: 10-2003 |
Remember, though, the One Kennedy Square is significantly different in use from a Hudson Block development. The Hudson Block development has always been planned as solidly mixed use, so the success or failure of One Kennedy Square doesn't really mean as much as one may think for the future of the Hudson Block. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 662 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah, I'm aware it's mixed use, but we don't know how much of what is going where, could the office component comprise 50, 60, 70% of the Hudson Block? Unlikely, given the current state of the downtown office market. The downtown hotel market will be FLOODED with excess inventory in a short while, so that leaves residential and retail. We know the retail component will be a very small part of the development, the only saving grace for the Hudsons block is residential. Unless Quicken announces a new headquarters to be constructed on the Hudson's block, I see it sitting empty for quite a while. | ||
Mcwalbucksnfitch Member Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch Post Number: 17 Registered: 10-2006 |
Cman, websites on Hudson's with good info are hard to come by. However, there is a book in the Images of America series called "Hudson's: Detroit's legendary department store" with a good spread of valuable information and interesting pictures...inside and out. Includes the history and some technical information/statistics. You can find it at any area bookstore, and if not, amazon.com. Interestingly enough, I have been working on a conceptual project for an architecture course concurrently based on the theory that a large block of well-reknowned retail would bring essential foot traffic, tourism and development into downtown. The building footprint envelopes the whole 220x440 block and strikingly resembles Hudson's, save the glass atrium on the Woodward elevation. It would become the dual flagship headquarters (along with State Street) for the regional North Division of Macy's. Features of the property would include an integrated people mover station, an underground extension of the garage for exclusive use by Macy's customers and employees, state of the art fiber optic networking infrastructure, a brick facade styled to match the neighborhood with dramatic setbacks, and 25 floors of retail, dining, and entertainment. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 68 Registered: 07-2006 |
Mcwalbucksnfitch, Thanks for the information. I will have to check out the Images of America book that you mentioned. Your conceptual project seems really interesting. If there was a way for you to share it with me or with everyone in general, I would be interested to take a look. I am interested someday in going back to school possibly for urban studies/planning, so this is all very interesting to me. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2246 Registered: 02-2005 |
The Quicken waiting game is really bothering me. Regarding the Hudson Block, the more residential the space-use leans, the quicker something will get built; it will take much longer for the market to support something with mostly office space. The longer we wait on the Hudson's and Monroe block developments, the better chance of getting something high-density, I think. I would like to see both blocks occupied by something taller than Compuware. | ||
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2006 |
man, this site has been sitting there so long....just a concrete eyesore if you ask me. I always thought it would be fun to have a mini-farmer's market/flea market there on sundays. Get people selling stuff....and I don't mean like an open air drug market or anything like that. Just generate some foot traffic and street scenery on an otherwise dead space. Of course, now that its winter, that plan is pretty much shot to hell. I realize many people think we should be putting a Macy's or Nordstrom etc...there. To that I say, let's be realistic, at least in the short term. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 352 Registered: 01-2006 |
It was interesting watching a concert take place there during SBXL week. I heard one couple from out of town say "I wonder if they held off on construction just so they could have a concert here this week." It took everything in me not to walk over and explain that the giant hole was once a proud building, and the best we can do 8 years later is an underground parking garage. Was the Hudsons building in bad enough shape to warrant it's demolition? Dont get me wrong, it was necessary for redevelopment of the site because the building was obviously too big for a renovation, but did it have to come down at that time? I would rather have an empty hundsons building than a whole with I beams coming out of it. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 336 Registered: 03-2006 |
idk about that...it was an awesome building, but im not sure if id prefer an eyesore to the current site awaiting development they ddi build that underground garage too | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2249 Registered: 02-2005 |
I would prefer an abandoned Hudson's to what we have now. 15 stories of bricks does a lot more for your urban fabric than a concrete plain. Even if there was no adaptive re-use, we could have waited to tear it down until there was a proposal. Something tells me that, if it was still there, we'd be a lot closer to redevelopment, considering the trend of rehabs underway i.e. Book Cadillac and Broderick. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 190 Registered: 11-2005 |
Yes maybe Mackinaw, but if this building hadn't come down, we may have not been seeing a BC or Broderick renovation because developers would be more focused on the Hudson's. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 353 Registered: 01-2006 |
Rdetsport, probably more like seeing another eyesore would deter development. The BC and Broderick are viable as residential space...the Husdons building was viable for one use only: massive reatail/warehouse. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4866 Registered: 10-2003 |
The idea that the Hudson should have been left up just to save the street wall is pretty short-sighted and illogical. As has been said it was just too big for a renovation even now, and perhaps for many years down the road, not to mention that the thing was just so big that residential space really wouldn't have made much since. They'd have had to tear a huge hold right in the middle just to push a lightcourt through that would have made it viable for residential options. The usage, as Detroitstar pointed out, for this structure would have been severely limited. That's one building, as much as I hated to see it go, that I see where the negatives outweighed the positives for potential redevelopment. | ||
3420 Member Username: 3420 Post Number: 91 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroitstar and Lmichigan are on point with this. I remember when they tore it down and wondered was it in that bad of a shape for it to come down. I remember when I would walk around downtown, I could smell the decay of the building(s)in the area. I have heard the stories and even seen many pictures of Hudsons, but was tearing it down really the best option? I don't think it was in rough shape for it to come down. Archer wanted downtown Detroit to move forward and saw it as an eyesore as Kilpatrick saw the Statler and Madison Lennox as eyesores that needed to go for more development to spur downtown. I think Hudsons would have been developed eventually and could have been Detroit's mall with multi-level shopping with numerous retailers leasing space. But the building was indeed beautiful in architecture and in presence on Woodward. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4867 Registered: 10-2003 |
How could we be on point, and then you try to refute everything we just said? The physical state of the building was pretty irrelevant. The fact was that the building was 2.1 million square feet of most empty retail space, a project that the city couldn't have taken on then, now, or in the forseeable future. Let's not forget there is no other US city besides New York, the largest most vibrant city in this country, that had a retail store this big, and as far as Detroit fell, there was just no justification to hope against hope that there was any way of finding enough tenants for a building of this size. Hudson's was beyond hope. | ||
3420 Member Username: 3420 Post Number: 92 Registered: 10-2003 |
Wasn't trying to refute anything. Just giving my insight on what would have been a nice touch if it would have stayed. I haven't read or seen any reports of it being structually sound, what condition it was in before implosion or was in d renovation. All I can go by is what I saw with my own eyes. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4868 Registered: 10-2003 |
The building wasn't removed because it wasn't structural sound. The building was in relatively good shape, and structurally sound. Again, it was taken down because its size prevented it from being a viable project then, now, or many years down the road. The Hudson was actually 2,200,000 million square feet, for comparison that is like taking one a bit over 3 Book Cadillac (714,000 square feet) sized projects at once, or a little over 4 Statler sized projects, at once. I can't for the life of me think of any other vacant structure in a downtown anywhere near that size in this country, and this is in downtown Detroit, no less. This would have been a hard refurbishment to pull off in even the largest and most vibrant of cities. (Message edited by lmichigan on December 11, 2006) | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1203 Registered: 12-2004 |
Those could have been some big sized condos! | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2005 |
Could they have kept the original building and tore down the additions just for historical sake and then eventually renovate it? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4869 Registered: 10-2003 |
The original building was razed back in the 20's, I think (the one fronting Farmer and Gratiot), and all of the others from 1911 on were eventually joined together as one, cohesive structure. I don't believe, they could have taken it apart without destroying the whole thing. (Message edited by lmichigan on December 11, 2006) | ||
Southen Member Username: Southen Post Number: 44 Registered: 08-2006 |
That would just be pouring more money into a structure that would be tough to deal with anyway. That doesnt make sense at all. | ||
Mcwalbucksnfitch Member Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch Post Number: 19 Registered: 10-2006 |
Cman - Regarding more information... Email me at mcwalbucksnfitch (at) comcast (dot) net If theres more interest out there - I'll post some of the renderings and elevations when I finish the project | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 99 Registered: 07-2006 |
Rbdetsport, i doubt they could have saved any of it in the manner you suggest, at least in any economically feasible way. If the additions had just been just 'out', rather than up, it may have been possible, but the vertical additions created columns that were so huge they couldn't even use shaped charges on them without modifications to the columns. i'm no expert on the hudsons buildint or demolitions by any means, but it sounds like it was no small task to take down the building as it was. if what lmichigan said is true (which i don't doubt), the horizontal additions probably would have been equally difficult to demolish without harming the rest of the structure. an interesting read (to me, at least) on the demolition, including a better description of the columns i mentioned: http://www.controlled-demoliti on.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7& reqItemId=20030225133807 i do think it was a huge loss to the city of detroit when it was destroyed, and i wish something could have been done to save it. hopefully something better will come along, then it won't seem like such a waste. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4874 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't think we should be hoping for something better, but something acceptable and sufficient. It's going to be nearly impossible to replace the effect of what was the second largest department store in the country, at the time, near one of the most congested (with pedestrians) meeting places in the world (Cmart). Those days are gone for most all cities in this country. Hopefully, what will replace it will be something suitable for the growing downtown of today. We're definitely not going to see a single structure with a million + square feet of retail on the site, anymore, and that much's for sure. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 101 Registered: 07-2006 |
lmichigan, just to clarify, 'something suitable for the growing downtown of today' is exactly what i call 'better'. Neither a huge vacant building, regardless of sentimental value, nor an underground parking garage with some steel posts sticking out of it is a good fit for downtown at this point. By better, i mean something that is used, something that draws people to detroit, (whether as a work place, or retail, dining, entertainment, etc... better yet, all of the above and more), something that helps show that detroit is not the decaying city that so many (wrongly) think it is. THAT would be better. I'm not asking for a bigger - or even equal sized - building, and certainly not a modern reincarnation of what it once was. As you said, those times are long gone. However, this block is certainly a key to the future of downtown, and i'd like to see it developed as such. |
