Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Old Building on Woodward and Adams « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Stromberg2
Member
Username: Stromberg2

Post Number: 50
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 6:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hope i'm not being dumb here, but was wondering what the building in photo is across from Fyfe Bldg?
Woodward and Adams


Stromberg2
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitpharmstudent
Member
Username: Detroitpharmstudent

Post Number: 9
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's the old (non-renovated) grand park centre right? i dont think its a different building; its just been renovated. if thats the building you're referring to. i could be wrong though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stromberg2
Member
Username: Stromberg2

Post Number: 51
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, Dps, It just looked like it would be across the Fyfe, but I guess not.

Stromberg2
Top of pageBottom of page

Greatlakes
Member
Username: Greatlakes

Post Number: 65
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 8:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Renovated, mutilated, whatever you'd like to call it...same with the David Whitney sadly...

Before
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3

After
Top of pageBottom of page

Boshna
Member
Username: Boshna

Post Number: 192
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 8:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What goes on in the Grand Park Centre these days?
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1207
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stroh's used to have its headquarters there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5775
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are we talking about the tall building to the left of the Fyfe Building? That was the former Stroh HQ, and was later the Michigan Mutual Building.

Ironically, I have a picture of part of that building with the corner pavilions showing as having "wedding cake" pinnacle tops. This picture shows it remodeled without the pinnacles, but not yet restored to the modern top that it has today. The top of this building no longer has any classic embellishments at all now. So this building has undergone 2 renovations of the top.

Very interesting...
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 354
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also very sad. If still in its original form I think this building would be talked about in the same breath as the Book Tower and some of our other great pre-depression skyscrapers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 1031
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 2:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can you post that pic, Gistok?
Top of pageBottom of page

Greatlakes
Member
Username: Greatlakes

Post Number: 66
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Clearer view of pre-modernized Grand Park Centre

One more shot of the David Whitney with the Broderick Tower, which had its cornices removed as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice

Post Number: 222
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 8:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's a really good picture like the first one. The top of the grand park centre looks totally different.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/i m/?id=201892
Top of pageBottom of page

Stromberg2
Member
Username: Stromberg2

Post Number: 52
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks alot everybody, boy, they really ruined a beautiful building, a real travesty, it really looks like two totally different buildings. That's why I asked.

Stromberg2
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4311
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I learn something everyday on this forum; this one, unfortunately, is sickening. OMG, what a tragedy - destroying that beautiful top for such the faceless modern abortion.

Michigan Mutual Building Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 1457
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When did they commit this crime?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gumby
Member
Username: Gumby

Post Number: 1646
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

it looks as if they added a couple of stories
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5777
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My bad, that's the top I remember from another pic of the building. The details weren't seen as clearly in the 1st photo... so there was only a "before" and "after" look to that building, not 2 rehabs.

It is a travesty. Not sure of when they butchered the 3 buildings... Michigan Mutual, Broderick, Whitney. But at some time in the mid 20th century.

Notice in Greatlakes first picture of the north wall of West Adams Ave... it still shows the now razed 7 story Hurley Hospital between the Kales and Fine Arts Building, which today the only gap in that block facing Adams (a parking lot).
Top of pageBottom of page

Rob_in_warren
Member
Username: Rob_in_warren

Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They took a wrecking ball to every detail the building had. Full lobotomy.

In what condition was the exterior before the remodeling? Looks like a lot of metal was on top of that building...
Top of pageBottom of page

Supergay
Member
Username: Supergay

Post Number: 115
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good Lord people, get a fucking grip. The building was renovated and is in use instead of sitting empty and rotting. It may have lost some nice architectural details at the top but it is by no means an "abortion" (which, technically, would imply something conceived but never actualized).

And really the only talking about the Book Tower I hear is "mostly empty" and "without electricity" and "lawsuit," none of which seem to be plaguing this building.

I mean, maybe this is just another one of those "look here what they done durn did to our building" threads and I should just let you vent. But talk about making lemons out of lemonade ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Stinger4me
Member
Username: Stinger4me

Post Number: 119
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 2:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok; Do you know when it changed from the Stroh building to Michigan Mutual Bldg.? We referred to it as the Mutual Building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10833
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Good Lord people, get a fucking grip. The building was renovated and is in use instead of sitting empty and rotting. It may have lost some nice architectural details at the top but it is by no means an "abortion" (which, technically, would imply something conceived but never actualized).

And really the only talking about the Book Tower I hear is "mostly empty" and "without electricity" and "lawsuit," none of which seem to be plaguing this building.

I mean, maybe this is just another one of those "look here what they done durn did to our building" threads and I should just let you vent. But talk about making lemons out of lemonade ...



Giving SG a standing ovation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5779
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^Why?

Because in his hissy fit he mentioned ONE nearly empty building (Book Tower) that didn't have a remodeling?

Last I checked the Broderick, Whitney and United Artists Buildings all had a butcher job done to their exteriors as well... and they're now completely empty!

I suppose the retrofit of the Michigan Theatre to a parking structure was OK as well?

To disfigure a building that goes against the original architect's "spirit" of how it was designed to look, and "modernize" it "so that you won't have to look at all that old stuff anymore"... was a 1930's-50's mentality that so muddled up many original works of architecture so as to render them as near abominations.

Anyone who didn't know otherwise would tend to look at the top of the Broderick Tower and wonder why they never finished it.

Anyone who doesn't know that the exterior of the David Whitney had all of its' fancy ornamentation removed gets a real shock when seeing its ornate (untouched) interior.

Anyone who sees the ugly gray slab slate exteriors to the lower floors of the Lafayette Building must wonders why the top 12 floors of the C. Howard Crane's classically styled building are so beautiful, while the lower floors are so hideous.

Need I go on?

Granted that some "modernization" of buildings, such as the Winter Garden at RenCen are in the spirit of the original design. But the modernizing many of these older buildings was done purely for the sake of modernizing, and NOT done for the sake of esthetics.

Lowell is correct...
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2889
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry, I like the new version of the building better. I'm glad somebody removed all that useless, frivolous decorative crap. Just being old doesn't make it good.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 3227
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, yes it does.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10837
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok - I think that yo umissed SG's point entirely.
Top of pageBottom of page

Downtown_dave
Member
Username: Downtown_dave

Post Number: 219
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just part of the era where cornices were removed (by city ordinance) after one fell off a building.

Butchery? Perhaps, but life went on for this particular building, as Supergay has correctly (and humorously) noted. We can only hope for the same for the other "violated" buildings.

Hey - there's a book idea for our area photographers: "The Violated Buildings of Detroit" ... (with apologies to W. Hawkins Ferry)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mdoyle
Member
Username: Mdoyle

Post Number: 249
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I dont think anyone is saying the buildings would have been better torn down but they are butchered beyond original recognition. I dont see why we cant complain about them being more aesthetically pleasing before the modernizations. I fully appreciate that they still stand but it doesnt mean I have to settle for less. Thats how we get into most of the predicaments in this damn city... Yeah we got rid of bulk pickup but you should be happy you have any trash collection at all. These are extreme examples but in both cases you cant be pissed if someone refuses to lower their expectations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dkhbike
Member
Username: Dkhbike

Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 4:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow. The Whitney exterior has been totally butchered. Now it has all the warmth and ambience of a mall parking lot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1208
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 5:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Supergay, it might seem like an over-reaction. But one of the founding reasons for this forum was a love of classic architecture.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1209
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 5:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's interesting that Hudson's never had its large and ornate cornice removed, despite Mayor Miriani's edict for buildings to get rid of the "gingerbread." But Hudson's huge clout with the political establishment might have helped them avoid butchering their building.

The only alterations of note (aside from expansions) to Hudson's that I can think of was the removal of the iron grillwork along the bottoms of the 2nd story windows.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4312
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 8:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The building was renovated and is in use instead of sitting empty and rotting." There is the totally unfounded assumption in that statement that the modernization/uglification of that lovely structure is the reason that the building is in use.

As Gistok points out, that conclusion falls apart on any number of similarly hacked up and now abandoned buildings. Add the State of Michigan Building at E. Grand Blvd. and Woodward to that list of art crimes.

Fortunately the ongoing sentiment is running counter to such tasteless destruction. Otherwise we would have ended up with a downtown of uninspired drab soviet-style architecture ala Trolley Plaza.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stromberg2
Member
Username: Stromberg2

Post Number: 54
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^And that says it all, folks!!

Stromberg2
Top of pageBottom of page

Supergay
Member
Username: Supergay

Post Number: 116
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is anyone going to argue that this is a completely repugnant building now? I mean, THAT is what offends me. It's actually still very attractive. It doesn't look like it did, but it doesn't look like Compuware HQ either. You all should be thanking your lucky stars that this building is still in use.

Get over the fantasy, folks. The world wasn't a better place because buildings had cornices. Those details were lovely, and it's a shame they were so capriciously removed from the architectural landscape. But those buildings are still great parts of the city, and perhaps someday some of them may have those details restored, as the Fox Theater building did (despite this website's loathing of the owner).

And Lowell, you are a bigger drama queen than I am. "Art crimes." Give me a break.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mike
Member
Username: Mike

Post Number: 1110
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

nice to see another pharmacist (or soon to be) on the board.

welcome pharmstudent.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miesfan
Member
Username: Miesfan

Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why is the architectural intent for the facade sacrosanct but not the architectural intent of the interior of a building?

I don't hear anyone complaining that John Ferchill stripped the Book-Cadillac's interior to the raw floor-plates. The renovated Book-Cadillac completely will have new and modern interior space/floor plan. For the users of that building, it will be a radically different space than it was prior to the 1983 closing. Yet I don't hear any gnashing of teeth over the "art crime" of destroying the original architectural intent of the Book-Cadillac interior. For the record, I hope I wouldn't hear anyone actually making that argument.

Perhaps the facade details on this building were removed because they were too expensive to maintain and keep the building's rental rates at the level of comparable office towers downtown. Far more objectionable are owners of buildings like the Book Tower and the Michigan Building who won't keep their facades clean.

(Message edited by miesfan on November 21, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 356
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For whatever reason they came down, they still came down and people are entitled to an oppinion of the look of the structure. I dont think I read one person who complained that the building is in use, but its still unfortunate that the structure was altered.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rob_in_warren
Member
Username: Rob_in_warren

Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Half of a building's beauty is seen from the outside. Maybe more since most people only see the building from the street. All must be grateful that it was renovated, but some are disappointed it was done on the cheap.

There has been a number of concerns raised regarding the BC and Fort Shelby interior. Several people are disappointed that the ballrooms and lobby will not be returned to their full, former glory. The upper floors needed to be gutted to make the hotel attractive from a modern, luxury hotel (business case) standpoint.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5788
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miesfan, you better go back and reread the entire Book-Cadillac thread... we've been complaining REPEATEDLY... that the ornate lobby ceiling one of the last remaining opulent details was not being saved. The Venetian Dining room was bastardized back in 1938, the Italian Garden in the early 1950's (with the drop ceiling and mezzanine), and the Grand Ballroom had its' ornate plasterwork ruined by elements.

But the grand lobby's ornate plaster ceiling survived (above drop ceilings and fluorescent light fixtures) until now. That it is not being restored is a crime...

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