 
Gds
Member
Username: Gds
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 3:37 pm: |    |
I too lament the loss of Hudson's but the reality is that the building was built for a singular purpose: To be Hudson's. It was built in disjointed pieces as the store/office expanded but most of the 2 million sq. ft. was "internal". VERY large floors with only a small percentage of square footage near windows, elevators, etc. Not unlike the Macy's stores of today. The only thing it could really be used for is another HUGE department store and those just don't exist anymore.
The Book Cadillac on the other hand, although also purpose built, was built for a function that we still need in modern time - a hotel.
I never got a chance to go to downtown Hudson's and although the nostalgic idea of a classic local mega department store is a nice one, its kind of gone the way of the drive-in movie. A place for another time and another culture. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3799
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:07 pm: | |
I've gotta put in my two cents. Hudson's was a very ugly building. Except for perhaps the tower, it had no charm whatsoever; a hodgepodge of add-ons from the original building over the years, all done in plain face brick. Yuk.
You may now shoot me. |
Jarvo
Member
Username: Jarvo
Post Number: 16
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:27 pm: | |
...basically it amounted to a question of economics... there was/is more money to be made by getting rid of it than by trying to save it. So down went Hudsons... plain and simple, the almighty dollar wins out. Nobody gives a damn about historical nostalgia or "Detroits heritage" if there is money to be made by getting rid of some more of it... |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5070
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:28 pm: | |
quote:...basically it amounted to a question of economics... there was/is more money to be made by getting rid of it than by trying to save it.
How much money has been made from the Hudson's site in the past 10 years? |
Jarvo
Member
Username: Jarvo
Post Number: 17
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:33 pm: | |
?? it is hard to tell... yet i am pretty certain more people and dollars have flowed down to that area since the whole general area has been cleared and somewhat redeveloped?? yes? |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3838
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:44 pm: | |
Oh yes, I forget, surface lots are considered big fancy developments in Detroit.
Doh! |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2936
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:44 pm: | |
quote:however, at the time, there was no other subsidies available other than city money.
That's not true.
* The federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit has been available since 1976;
* The state version became available shortly after that; and
* The Brownfield tax credit programs were instituted in 1997.
In fact, when one looks at the financing for the Book-Cadillac Hotel, almost all of tax credits that made it work were available in 1998 when the Hudson's building came down. The only exception to that was the New Markets Tax Credit, which didn't become available until two years later.
quote:You may now shoot me.
Since you gave me your permission, BANG!
All kidding aside, I think that with a decent scrubbing of the facade and some better lighting, the Hudson's building could've looked decent.
Oh, and I recall that some retired Detroit cop who said back when the Book-Cadillac Hotel was announced that he'd buy me a drink in the hotel's bar if the place ever re-opened.
It's time to pay up, old man. LMAO!!! |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1983
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:47 pm: | |
Gds
I'd agree with you on that one. Once I was an aspiring architect and I tried to play around with the building's interior on paper. In order to make apartments of a rentable size fit on the empty floors most of the units were coming up with some terrible dimensions: 12 feet wide by 55 feet long, with only a couple of windows. No one wants to live in an apartment that looks like a bowling alley and has little light. Even if you could put retail on the bottom five floors and fill the rest with offices, you're putting 1.5 million + square feet of office on the market with little chance of it being leased. And many of the renovated storefronts along Woodward right now have never had a permenant tennant since renovation. |
Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:48 pm: | |
thank you for that excerpt burnsie.
however you are wrong in your comparison of the two. hudson's was bought by a company that immediately started scrapping, stripping, and generally trashing the building. they then simply walked away from it leaving it wide open.
the book cadillac, on the other hand, was slightly mothballed. there was a guard in it protecting it's valuable bones for 13 years after it's abandonment. even after that there was an effort by the city to try and keep it secure. it was generally pretty hard to get into it (but obviously not impossible). there was never camps of homeless living on the mezzanine level of the book cadillac, like hudson's.
dan, i believe jarvo is referencing "throw away culture," and he's right to a degree. controlled demolition got a lot of money tearing it down and carting it off, walbridge made a lot of money engineering and building the parking structure, and the city makes a hand full of dollars every month on parking fees. it's a questions of immediate payoff vs. long term investment. |
Border5150
Member
Username: Border5150
Post Number: 274
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:53 pm: | |
The fact is there's a better chance of something being built there, now on an empty piece of land than there was was of somebody renovating and reusing the Hudson's building.
Granted, nothing is going to get done anywhere, with the economy as it is for the foreseeable future. |
Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 4:55 pm: | |
sorry fnemecek, i should've been more specific. i meant to close the gap to make it feaseable. eg. the money DEGC provided that aided merchants row, kales, etc. but i'm just repeating excuses that seem believeable to me, that have been fed to me by people making the decision at the time. i'm totally on your side.
detroitplanner; there were many architects that came up with different schemes to make the building work for a variety of uses. for residential, some of the more creative ones i saw involved putting parking on the inner floors with residences around the perimeter (yes that could've worked; floors were analyzed to see if they could hold cars and they could've) and selective demolition to create a light court in the center. believe me; creativity and ingenuity were not the obstacles to adaptive reuse of the building. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5071
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm: | |
There are, of course, ways of increasing the amount of natural light that flows into a building, without demolishing the whole damned thing. |
Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 5:07 pm: | |
quote:The fact is there's a better chance of something being built there, now on an empty piece of land than there was was of somebody renovating and reusing the Hudson's building. not necessarily. there's been no information to back this theory up. reference monroe block, tuller block, kern's block for almost 40 years, now statler block, etc. i think the contrary; there are tax credits and other incentives to reuse an existing building. there's nothing really for new construction on a vacant lot. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3800
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 6:10 pm: | |
"Oh, and I recall that some retired Detroit cop who said back when the Book-Cadillac Hotel was announced that he'd buy me a drink in the hotel's bar if the place ever re-opened.
It's time to pay up, old man. LMAO!!!"
Yeah, I recall that. Well, I'll be in Detroit next summer sometime, and if we can get a DY group together, I shall be delighted to honor my obligation. I'll be posting on 'connect' when the trip is booked. |
Otter
Member
Username: Otter
Post Number: 327
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 6:44 pm: | |
Does anybody have some pictures online of downtown (around that block) from the time just before and after the HUdson's demo?
I moved to detroit a month or two before it went down, but I have no mental photographs at all of what downtown looked like then, only what it's been like for the past 5 years or so. I don't have any real photos, either. |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 7:25 pm: | |
Rsa
I've seen several examples of which you speak, one of the more successful examples was the Marshall Fields Flagship store on State in Chicago. The big concerns with Hudson's would have been the location of elevators, the trying to marry up of several disjointed additions (a lot of people seem to forget that there were stairs that needed to be climbed on many of the floors due to different heights).
I do recall seeing literally dozens of proposals for the building. I can also remember a company stripping it of anything useful, as well as the occasional fire that was set by squatters. Fires alone would be a reason to rip it down. I don't want to risk the life of fire personnell on something like that. I'd rather have them out saving lives than empty buildings.
The architectural parts may have been able to be overcome, but you would still have no market for the building itself. 10 years later there still is no market for it. You just can't blindly invest millions into a project and hope for a return. No one will invest in a project like that. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 8:07 pm: | |
RSA-- Granted, the guard at the BC helped prevent fires from starting. But Ferchill eventually had to strip the entire interior down to bare concrete and steel, getting rid of everything that the scrappers and elements didn't. The same process undoubtedly would have happened at Hudson's had it been renovated.
Ray1936-- I beg to differ! Hudson's was a very dignified-looking, classic building. The tall pink granite base wrapping around the entire structure, the terra cotta ornamentation and elaborate cornices, the ornate iron marquee, details around the mezzanine and 2nd floor windows, and pedimented corner 3rd floor windows were all combined very gracefully. The net result was a captivating, impressive building with a theme that transcended its additions.
As for all that red brick, it was a very interesting contrast to the more typical limestone or glass on Detroit's skyscrapers.
I'm definitely not saying the Hudson's should have been saved just because of its aesthetic appeal, but its looks also were not a valid reason to tear it down. There were other, more substantial reasons than that. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3801
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 9:22 pm: | |
Interesting view, Burnsie. I admit to being an architectural moron, but I still think the place looked bland, if not ugly.
Then again, what do I know? I think Vegas is beautiful.  |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3841
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 9:32 pm: | |
quote:I admit to being an architectural moron, but I still think the place looked bland, if not ugly. Then again, what do I know? I think Vegas is beautiful.
Good point. |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 655
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 4:37 am: | |
Another post reminding me to bring home more of my stuff from my Moms. Having been to the Redford Theatre the last two weekends I can say I am glad that it has been saved. But in the case of Hudsons if any thing had come of the building in the last ten years, I belive that would have came about after the renovation of the Book Cadillac.
Hudsons really did not have to come down , yet it also had no real reason to stay. |
Blair
Member
Username: Blair
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 11:39 am: | |
RE Compuware: Peter Karmanos' position was that he would have loved to be the redeveloper of Hudsons. He stated this several times in 87 and 88. He loved the building. But, he deferred to Mayor Archer.
Compuware could have been placed in Hudsons. The completion of a Hudsons redevelopment could have occurred several years earlier than the completion of the new building. . It could have cost the city far less subsidy. With the economic redevelopment ball rolling a couple years earlier, perhaps there could have been more spin off delopment during the go-go 90’s and early 21st century.
We could never find anyone in the Archer administration that could stand up and explain the decision to demolish Hudson’s. It was a case of all the players relying on someone else’s due diligence. It was maddening that we could never find a single person who could get their arms around the decision.
The important forum, Detroit YES, did not exist then. And Peter Zieler (Skulker) for whom I have immense respect (and disagreement) did not play the intellectual role that he did advocating the demo of the Statler Hilton.
Beth DunCombe, the chief economic development officer of Detroit, and Archer’s sister in law, told Attorney Steve Riesman in deposition that “…Detroit had used up its allocation of Historic Tax Credits… and there were none left for the Hudson’s project…” (There is no “allocation”. The Feds and the State grant the credit as a percentage on every dollar spent. Period.) This was a shocking revelation of the Archer Administrations arrogance and ignorance.
There are large empty buildings in most of the out-state cities that are adequately mothballed for the day when the stars align for their redevelopment. Detroit failed in the 80’s to mothball its architectural and as-built resources. In the case of the Book Cadillac, it permitted strippers in broad daylight, with the FP reporting on it, with people calling the city, to remove the copper roof, causing millions of dollars of water damage and replacement costs.
That dark cloud of debris that shrouded the Downtown on October 24, 1988 was full of lead base paint and high levels of asbestos. The demolition violated the NESHAPS regulations of the Clean Air Act. The city got away with a “cheap” demo without protecting the citizens. Future folly can be avoided if the regulations are adhered to, because the economic balance between re-development versus demolition gets tipped in the favor of redevelopment if the full legal costs of demolition are functioned into the equation.
Dennis Archer got his lungs full that day. He choked for weeks. I will never support him for Governor. He is a light-weight who could not engage the arguments – he could neither articulate a reason or an excuse. In 2004, he accepted money to lobby before the Detroit Historic Commission in favor of the demolition of the Madison Lenox. He had not learned a single argument or reason. Citizens argued more cogently, and the Commission voted him and the demo down. KK then hacked it at night…
This is painful stuff… |
Cookin64
Member
Username: Cookin64
Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 11:53 am: | |
Does anyone remember when the news crew and the demo expert went in there before it was blown up? Did you see the big mushrooms growing in there and the creatures along with the homeless people in there?? That was awful!!! |
Mortalman
Member
Username: Mortalman
Post Number: 448
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 12:06 pm: | |
Lowell, what a great fall photo you attached in your post earlier in this thread of the Hudson implosion with those beautiful trees at the foot of that photo with those wonderful autumnal colors! |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 7423
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 12:27 pm: | |
Blair, welcome to the forum!!
Is it possible that you and I may have met at the "Save Hudson's" party at Intermezzo's back in 1998 (and then again later at the Arthur Buhl mansion)? If so, then you probably know "Dan" on this forum.
Cheers,
Gistok |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2938
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 2:14 pm: | |
I'm going to take a wild guess here. I believe that Dan and Blair have met once or twice. |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 2504
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 3:35 pm: | |
Reddog289--glad to see you have been patronizing the Redford, the last neighborhood movie theatre open in Detroit!
We had the 70th anniversary program at the Redford the day of the implosion of Hudson's, comments appeared in the paper that week that "while the Hudsons building was being demolished, another group knows how to preserve Detroit's great buildings"
It's taken a lot of hard work by many great people over a 34 year period, glad you enjoyed.
Bring your friends next time! |
Dan
Member
Username: Dan
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 4:35 pm: | |
Yes, it is true, we have met.
Please spare the old fella criticism on the dates.
Time flies... |
Detroitman32
Member
Username: Detroitman32
Post Number: 47
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 4:21 pm: | |
Curious, if somehow, possibly by more expansion, had Hudson's been the largest department store- would that have made any difference?
And what was that store that had a bridge connecting its two halves? |
Raptor56
Member
Username: Raptor56
Post Number: 567
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 5:27 pm: | |
What do you call a large building with minimal windows and a very open floor plan? A modern day Mall. Detroit could have been like Columbus, OH and have an indoor mall downtown.
(not advocating anyone would want to be like the scarlet and gray over rated city, just saying) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5081
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 5:30 pm: | |
quote:What do you call a large building with minimal windows and a very open floor plan? A modern day Mall. Detroit could have been like Columbus, OH and have an indoor mall downtown.
Sure! And Detroit could also be like Columbus, and figure out how to fill such a huge vacant space. |
Bobl
Member
Username: Bobl
Post Number: 167
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 6:43 pm: | |
Watched the implosion. We barely beat the dust cloud to Cypress Taverna.
Anyone have a photo of the collapse to post? |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 6:46 pm: | |
Local Malls are dead. Now it's all about downtowns and/or destination shopping.
Hey....... |
One_shot
Member
Username: One_shot
Post Number: 400
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 8:58 pm: | |
I was there the day it came down. Actually somehow walked up to a block away from it a day or two before it came down, only to be yelled at by the cops. We watched from a parking garage to the south. I remember the dust cloud rolling towards us and hiding in the elevator lobby of the parking garage while the dust settled. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 922
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 5:43 pm: | |
Hudson's could have seen the introduction of an atrium in the middle of the building. This could have opened up the interior to more light.
If there was a will there would have been a way to reuse that building and bring it up to modern standards.
I was actually just talking about retail with one of my urban planning professors, as he was showing department stores in Europe and how great they look.
I posed the question, why they can't seem to survive here and why all these stores are on hard times.
His comment was that the department store is number one not dead. Walmart is a department store.
Two, he said the big stores like MACY's are suffering, because they have not urbanized.
All the famous stores in Europe do not pour money into suburban stores. They maintain urban stores downtown that are destinations.
The department store is not dead.
And Hudson's like I said, could have been reused and used for a number of uses. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.