Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Ford Auditorium to be razed as part of riverfront development « Previous Next »
Ford Auditorium to be razed... - 1Merchantgander115 06-05-06  7:06 am
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 1086
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 68.60.45.70
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A very fond memory from April 14, 1967
vf1

VF 2

vf 3

vf 4
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 357
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Virgil really didn't like the Ford auditorium A-S, I remember him going on about it in '75--it was more the room/installation than the organ itself. If you really wanted to hear him rip and roar, Fort St. Pres. was THE place!
Interesting to see the Allen studio ad on the back of that program. It was run (then) by Bill Peck, an absolutely wild character!

"Johann Sebastian Back is GLAD you are here!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3865
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 10:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but I can't seem to find this anywhere on the web. Who was the architect and/or construction company/general contractor of the Ford Auditorium? All I've been able to find is the year built.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 360
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 129.9.163.105
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Crane/Kellog are the architects of record. That's Crane, as in "C.Howard". It was his last theatre job.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3867
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 6:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And who was Kellogg? I suspect Crane was the interior architect (associate architect). Is there anywhere on the net that has a profile of this building?

(Message edited by lmichigan on June 14, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 366
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 8:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LMich--now that I have had time to think about it, I think the firm was known as Crane, Kehiler and Kellog. I know the nephew of Kehiler, he was a structural engineer, and worked at the Crane office in the 20's. I'll ask the nephew next time I see him. My former employer had a set of blueprints to Ford auditorium, the parking garage (does anyone still use that?) and the VA building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3868
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Those blueprints would be so awesome to view. I love gleaning information and details off of them. Thanks, 56packman. It would just be great to know the stats on this building before it's brought down. 56packman, who'd you work for before that they'd be in possession of this item?

(Message edited by lmichigan on June 14, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 1089
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 68.60.45.70
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 11:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Feb 1957 parking rates at Ford Underground
Rates
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2309
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.105.217
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 11:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

C. Howard Crane spent the last 20 years of his life in London England, where he died in 1952, and is buried there. Ford Auditorum was built in 1955. I don't think he had anything to do with Ford Auditorium, although his former architectural firm did.

He'd be turing over in his grave if he knew how bad the accoustics were. Maybe his sudden demise (at age 67 IIRC) contributed to an "accoustic" void at the architectural firm.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1747
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 70.237.11.26
Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 11:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point, Gistok. It's like attributing the works of Albert Kahn Associates to the works of the man himself in his heyday.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 367
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 129.9.163.105
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok--I think that materials and shape had more to do with the acoustics @ Ford than the lack of supervision by the master. The teens-twenties european rip-offs were wet plaster shells, with cherubs,arches,gargoyles,colum ns--all manner of gobbly-gook that resulted in a random dispersion of sound. The "International style" shoe box with theatrical hardware hanging everywhere makes for some messed up acoustics.
Lmich--I worked for an individual who works in many real estate matters in SE mich, the D included.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4289
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Adieu Ford Theatre! by the empty promises of Detroit's African American KING KWAME KILLpatick
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 368
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 129.9.163.105
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

kwame
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2314
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.81.225
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe so 56packman, but it seems inconceivable to those on this forum that so little attention was paid to accoustics by the architects. After all it WAS built as a symphonic hall, was it not?? How many symphonic halls today are built without accoustics being among the most important variables?

Had C. Howard Crane still been around and working at the firm when Ford Auditorium was built, I am sure he would have paid attention to the accoustics.

Sad thing is that oversight is probably what ended up dooming the building. Had Ford Auditorium had great accoustics, there wouldn't have been a reason for DSO to leave a 2,800 seat venue for a smaller 2,286 venue.

Also, the accoustic problem was not unique to Ford Auditorium. When they built the Lincoln Center for the Performing Art in NYC in the 1960's, accoustics were also a problem. Today the Metropolitan Opera House is sure death for small voices. And the Avery Fisher hall next door was abandoned recently by the New York Philharmonic in favor of Carnegie Hall.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2315
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.81.225
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ironically, most architects deride old movie palaces, but I tend to agree with David Naylor, author of several movie palace books:

"No buildings in America have been, collectively, as audaciously romantic, blatantly derivative, and wonderfully original as the movie palaces. They ranged in style from bewilderingly eclectic to near-perfect replicas of the finest royal palaces of Europe and the Orient. Imitation wonders of the world, from Mayan tombs to Babylonian hanging gardes, were incorporated into the decorative schemes."

"No buildings have been as loudly hyped by their owners, totally reviled by architecture critics, and well attended by the masses..."
Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 1090
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 68.60.45.70
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The interior was very plain.

at the Walter Reuther Funeral
Funeral
Beauty Shots
Interior

Int 3

and a Marshal Fredrick during installation
Fredrick

all pix WSU
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1749
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.95.23
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Time for the refrain:

tear that schitt down
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 369
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 129.9.163.234
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok: no it wasn't built as a Symphony hall, it came one by default, as the DSO was in the Cass tech auditorium before that. The big Idea I had heard from old-timers was that there was to be a smaller Symphony hall built at a later date, and the money just wasn't there after Ford went up (free of charge to the city). At 2,286 seats, orchestra hall is near the upper end of the envelope of what is acustically "good" or "acoustically perfect". Most of the treasured halls in europe are around 1200-1500 seats, max., Carnegie hall in NY is 2,804--but is not a modern shoe box, and is a "fat" room, more square than rectangular. To repeat what I've said before, all of those 50's-80's "moden" auditoriums were a joke. an ugly, acoustical nightmare. It's funny how much "acoustical expert consultation" took place in the construction of those houses opposed to the "acoustical kismet" of the earlier pre-war houses.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1670
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.250.205.35
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What is also interesting is how modern "acoustical expert consultation" is now producing halls with outstanding acoustics, as in the Walt Disney Concert Hall in LA.

I see no reason why the outside of Ford Auditorium could not be preserved for the cool International Style building it is, and the inside redone by a significant contemporary architect.

Well, I mean LOGICALLY I see no reason. Obviously there are other forces at work here, forces that range from economic to the aesthetic values of the community. In the interest of getting along, I won't comment on those.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1615
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.119
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I absolutely agree Dialh.It is amusing to me how the only thing offered here is opinion, there has not been one post that makes a good case for taking Ford aud down only peoples opinions.

As for the acoustics; I went to concerts at Ford in the 70's.They were all highly amplified so I don't think the acoustics could be fairly judged because the amplification overpowered any natural acoustics .I can say that I don't remember the acoustics being especially bad.I do wonder how many of you have been to Ford aud since it has been closed for a long time.
And there is no doubt that Dialh is correct in that an acoustic engineer could probably do a lot with Ford aud,certainly it could be a viable venue acoustically.

What is disturbing is how easily some of you dismiss mid century architecture.The same mentality that destroyed much of the Victorian architecture is certainly active here.Back in the 50's and 60's there was alot more Victorian architecture than there is now.It is gone because there was the same dismissive tear that shit down sentiment I see here about mid century bldgs.

If the argument is that Ford aud is obsolete then the same argument could easily be made about the Broderick, David Whitney, and the Book tower I don't read of anyone wanting to tear that shit down.

The waterfront argument seems wrong to me as well.The things GM has done are great.But really there is a whole lot of land east of Ford aud where the Whittier is and other structures .....why not revive that area?

I respect any legitimate architectural style.I may not like it all equally but I respect it enough to not advocate its destruction simply because I don't find it to my taste.Detroit has some pretty cool midcentury bldgs downtown and in the burbs as well.

Btw there are many websites devoted to mid-century architecture and culture.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1758
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.95.23
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 8:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's some logic: can the city make money off the FA? No. Can it aid us in hosting large events in conjunction with the Riverfront/Campus Martius? Not really. Would a modern, more acoustically perfect, indoor/outdoor facility like the mayor's proposal be better? Of course. Would a private development or something related to the Port of Detroit or something that would attract outsiders be better? Indeed.

On top of this, the vast majority of people would tell you this place is ugly. It sits on prime real estate, and is a vacant blight in the middle of downtown.

The odds of posterity mourning our shortsighteded with regards to this piece of midcentury architecture are not great, but if they do, they can look across the street at One Woodward or City Hall, or they can go up to the campus of Wayne State to get their fill.

Midcentury marked a disturbing shift in the quality of architecture, both in terms of design (which can be debated, with people like me always favoring pre-war buildings), and materials and craftsmanship (which is a simple fact quite hard to debate).
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3874
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ford Auditorium was an average internationl design even at the time of its construction. It's not really architecturally significant. One can make the point of preservation for its own sake, but the architectural significance argument is weak, at best. Again, Ford Auditorium can still be exactly replicated, today, with little trouble (money, materials...). Something like the Book-Cadillac, for instance, can not.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1616
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.119
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Of course it is debatable.I bet you the Kessler house in G.P is made with craftsmanship equal to any era.
When you call something ugly you are simply stating an opinion.Some may find it ugly others don't the point is that respecting something, realizing it has historical as well as cultural significance is the intelligent way to approach things.
As fro prime real estate I can not buy that idea because there is so much other real estate along the waterfront in need of revival.To pick one area when the vast area is in play is not a valid argument.
As for the city making money off FA well the city aint making money off anything.........again to pick one thing when there are so many is specious.
As for whether FA can aid in things I don't for a second buy your dismissive attitude.Somebody with a bit of creativity could make something work at FA in that context.
I presume that since one can look across the street to the Mich-con bldg or up to WSU for their fill of midcentury that you will support tearing down the Buhl, the Penobscot and the 1st national bldgs as one can easily view the Guardian, Broderick and Book tower to get their pre- war fix.Certainly none of those bldgs are anywhere near capacity what is their value now?
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 461
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK, opinion this, opinion that ... Polls measure opinions, votes measure opinions. Let's take a vote ... down with the FA or not?

Voters/polls would register an overwhelming majority in favor of tearing that ugly MF'n eyesore down.

The land there is simply too valuable to have that ugly, hulking, unused piece of SHIT sitting there.

Those in favor of keeping it are the minority. A minority opinion doesn't get results ...

BTW, it's too ugly to be considered historical.

And that's MY OPINION!
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1617
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.119
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On what do you base your statement that those wanting it down are a majority? Most people sad- ly are too uninformed to give a shit.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 375
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dial4,city lover--perhaps you are too young, but an acoustical expert was hired and Ford auditorium was re-muddled at terrific expense in the 70's. The flat side walls were replaced with three half-cylinders on each side, and much other work was done. This gave the appearance of looking into a six pack of beer, and did not fix things much. It still sucked. It would be a great rock and roll hall, where acoustics don't really matter (as long as there isn't an echo). The city could sell it and it could become the new Michigan Palace, and the kids would have a new place to trash. The reason much mid-century architecture is biting the dust is that it wasn't built to hold up like pre-war work. Some mid-century buildings are re-muddled beyond their original appearance due to the limited life span of the materials used. Hey--take out all of that oxidized aluminium and green glass and put metal studs and drive-it on 'er.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1760
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.95.23
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The reason much mid-century architecture is biting the dust is that it wasn't built to hold up like pre-war work. Some mid-century buildings are re-muddled beyond their original appearance due to the limited life span of the materials used"

Beautifully put.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 462
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OH, THE BUILDING IS SOOOO GREAT ...

Oh, yeah, that's why it's vacant.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 463
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry ... Mackinaw, you're much more diplomatic about this than I am ...

It's so obvious to me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3875
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He really is. I even agree with you, but those posts were childish, at best.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 471
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

childish = two Beefeaters straight up and some extra time on the computer!

Haha!
:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1637
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.215.248.187
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 1:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I vote to tear it down. That's one. Anyone else?
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 499
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 35.11.210.161
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 3:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If someone can make a good economic case to save I'd have no problem keeping it around. But there's been no public clamoring for it to reopen Cobo Center and Arena seemingly provide enough civic space. In light of this replacing it with a new amphitheater is a good idea it would centralize concerts downtown and it'd open up land that would have to remain parking on the East Riverfront to development
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 6132
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 208.27.111.125
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 9:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On what do you base your statement that those wanting it down are a majority?

Especially when you consider that the public already voted to spare Ford Auditorium, rather than give up the land to build an office tower.

You guys need a little vision. Ford Auditorium is mostly made up of white marble. If cleaned, the marble would be dramatic and beautiful. The huge black grill can be updated to something more contemporary. (Paint it seafoam green and it would look great next to One Kennedy Square.) With landscaping, cool outdoor art and dramatic lighting, Ford Auditorium would be an important part of our Civic Center.

I remember reading a lot of grumbling here about how hot it was at Movement. An updated Ford Auditorium would have been able to provide air conditioning, restrooms and vending - a great respite from the heat. And that might have boosted attendance.

But, ultimately, it will come down. This is Detroit and that's what we do here. The public would be much better served by tearing down a gift from the Ford family and replacing it with a $50 million tent.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1762
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 70.141.78.3
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 10:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Should the city, which is broke, invest $$ in it? Since this is not likely, how long would it take to find willing investors to form some sort of private coalition to rehab FA? It's hard to imagine people lining up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 6133
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 208.27.111.125
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 10:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The City wouldn't take money from the general fund to restore Ford. They'd get the soups to work their magic.

I'm assuming that no private entity would be willing to help restore Ford without the city giving up ownership.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1638
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.208.36.74
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 11:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Itsjeff, I believe city voters voted against Mayor Young's plan to develop the land for private use. The vote was not about saving and supporting Ford Auditorium. It was really a vote against Mayor Young's attempt to put a casino hotel on the site.

At the time people were against casinos, and this was the real reason the voters voted against tearing down Ford Auditorium. If you put on the ballot the following: "Should the City of Detroit tear down Ford Auditorium because it's outdated and no longer needed?" the majority of citizens would vote "yes." There's no love for FA. Most city residents won't miss it.
Top of pageBottom of page

J32885
Member
Username: J32885

Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 68.41.108.161
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've never attend Ford Auditorium for any past events, however my parents went there years ago to see the DSO, before they moved back to Orchestra Hall.

They said the acoustics for the Ford Auditorium didn't work well for the DSO, and is the reason why they went back the Orchestra Hall.

Any how, I don't mind if we lost Ford Auditorium, the space would be better put to use, if they extended Hart Plaza and the park towards the RenCen. The more greenspace the better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1618
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.229
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 12:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That sounds good but is not quite right.Orchestra hall was literally hours from the wrecking ball and would have been demolished if not for a member of the DSO.He(name unknown to me) actually and literally stood in the way of the bldg being destroyed.
It was some time after that orchestra was even partially read for the DSO or any event.So it is not as if the DSO just decided to move back to Orchestra hall.It took a lot of willpower and work to bring it back and thank goodness it was.
I will say it again the sentiment and mentality toward FA here is the same sentiment and mentality that destroyed many of the bldgs now gone, bldgs many of you would have loved.
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 6142
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.242.213.167
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 12:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Royce, the Mayor wanted to sell the land to Comerica Bank for their new headquarters. When the voters nixed that plan, Comerica moved to 500 Woodward. Casinos never entered the discussion.

J3288g, that Ford Auditorium wouldn't make a good venue for an orchestra is moot. We have Orchestra Hall now. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be good for live theater, graduation ceremonies, movies, public meetings and other events. (I think downtown could support an arthouse theater.) Also, the current proposal isn't to replace Ford with "greenspace." It is to replace it with a 4000 seat amplitheater.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1640
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.208.36.74
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 2:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Itsjeff, I remember many people objecting to the way that the proposed Comerica headquarters would look. The casino hotel was another issue. However, the vote to save Ford Auditorium was not about the citizen's of Detroit wanting to save FA, but a rejection of the Comerica plan.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 385
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 2:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Comerica plan was a hugh skyscraper right smack-dab on the riverfront, and most everyone who wasn't in bed with Comerica though it a stupid use of riverfront property.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3880
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 3:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

*edit*

(Message edited by lmichigan on June 17, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 388
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 3:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



(Message edited by 56packman on June 17, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3882
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 4:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's odd. Anyway, I'll shoot you a message.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2319
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.72.134
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the pics PSIP! I was only ever in Ford Auditorium once as a kid in the 1960's, and couldn't remember how it looked (now I know why, it had a plain interior).

Even though it is plain looking on the inside (I like the outside better), I wouldn't mind if there was a business case for saving it.

It is interesting to see that Ford Auditorium had a "shelf balcony", which are those shallow balconies that appear connected to the back wall. Theatres like the State Theatre, had large deep clear span balconies that loomed above much of the orchestra level seats.

A couple of other things about accoustics.... 56packman you are correct about the size of a theatre being important for good accoustics. The 5,174 seat Fox Theatre has bad accoustics because of its' huge size.

But the Detroit Opera House (original seating 3,384, today 2,765) has great accoustics. It is a very large theatre, and yet still has good accoustics. Maybe its' fantastic sounding board above the procenium arch helps compensate for the fact that it is so large.

But even when a theatre has bad accoustics, sound amplification doesn't always help. 2 years ago I took some folks downtown to see Les Miserables at the Fisher. We were 10 rows from the back of the balcony. The folks I took all said that they would have liked it more if they could have understood the words!

Ironically large theatres are what helped kill Vaudeville in the 1930's. With Vaudeville theatres getting larger and larger, many people were seated too far from the Vaudeville acts. Supposedly when you get more than 75 feet from a Vaudeville performer, you lose the intimacy with your audience.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 395
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok--there are different degrees of "god and bad" in acoustics. Its a size thing, there are types of entertainment that just don't work in some halls. Any big selling Rock act in the Pontiac Silverdome sucked due to the oversizing of the room. It's like buying a pair of shoes.The Fox has great acoustics, just not for certain types of entertainment/music. it is a BIG hall, and it's acoustics are good for BIG music. I once saw Tony Bennett there, and he sang one song with the PA system turned off, Just his lung power to send "fly me to the moon" to the top of the balcony. Just Tony and Ralph Sharon, his old pianist. every word was clear as a bell. You couldn't do that at Ford aud. The Fox is great, just not for every type of presentation. The Fisher isn't bad, it might just be that "Les Misrable" (aptly named) SUCKS and the people never stop singing, so you can't understand a word anyway. My bride talked me into going to that one, I couldn't have hated anything more, three hours of the French revolution and misery. Oh yea, I left the theatre humming that one.
And people think that that shit and ALW is the greatest thing since sliced bread. They don't get out much, and wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the ass. (you'll have to excuse me, we just got back from Father's day dinner, and I'm writing this on a half a pitcher of margaritas)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3888
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Packman, did you ever recieve my email? I haven't gotten a reply, yet.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 396
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 65.185.132.134
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



(Message edited by 56packman on June 18, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2321
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.105.168
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lol.... 56packman, old C. Howard Crane seemed to always get the accoustics right in his theatres. Some of his fellow movie palace architects seem to have more problems in that regard.

John Eberson, famous for populating America with his wonderful Atmospheric theatres, found that that sometimes that Atmospheric effects caused accoustic problems. One of the finest movie palaces ever constructed, the 1929 Chicago Paradise (his work) was torn down in 1954, after only 35 years, because the accoustics were so bad in an otherwise magnificent theatre (it had 3,600 seats, but they were almost all on the main floor).
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 716
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.42.133.85
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is it just me or does the whole downtown riverfront a planning disaster? You start with those pedestrian-hostile gerbil walkways and freeway overpasses near Riverplace, to the Joe, to old Cobo, to FA to Hart Plaza to the Tunnel Plaza to the entire Ren Cen. What a waste, no? The whole thing is like the post-modern wet dream of some fat-ass half-wit suburban automotive executive.

Holy smokes, now that I think about it, it WAS the post modern wet dream of a fat-ass half-wit suburban automotive executive!

<== gagging at the thought of it all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Apbest
Member
Username: Apbest

Post Number: 119
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.40.65.66
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

and u would rather have it urban-industrial wasteland of abandoned factories contaminating the soil?...whats ur alternative
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 718
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.42.133.85
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A simple park, office buildings or apartment buldings, with pedestrian-friendly sidewalk hugging front facades. Maybe something like this...


Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1621
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.192
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Since you asked Ray I will answer...........It's you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3900
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.154.56
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It really is. There are quite a few worst riverfronts in this country, believe it or not. Detroit's downtown riverfront actually works, and to the east and west things are finally starting to follow suit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1773
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 70.228.2.13
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 7:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ray, I agree. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards.
Top of pageBottom of page

Genesyxx
Member
Username: Genesyxx

Post Number: 527
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 71.159.22.7
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone else think it'd be better to rehab instead of all this excessive building?
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 6161
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 208.27.111.125
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

???

Have you read this thread at all?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 883
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.224.94
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

man, reading this thread is like banging one's head against the wall. and personally, i'm really tired of the "pre-war architecture is the only quality architecture to save" crap. what do you think people were saying about pre-war buildings in the 50's and 60's? [tear it all down, modernize it, build a new style!] this is what those of you with this opinion are saying about post-war architecture right now. and look what happened.

everyone's entitled to their own opinion on style. but to propogate the demolition of a style you don't like with the justification of "it's ugly" is asinine. [i'm not going to discuss the quality of ford auditorium, or modern architecture, here; i've done it before several times and found it to be a waste of time.] and to claim that a style should be disregarded because it is not "quality" or that it wasn't built well is completely without merit and ignorant. some structures this is true, but not all by a large margin.

nobody has brought up the most logical solution to both of these arguments. why not take the enclosure off the auditorium while leaving the stage and lobby enclosed? you'd be able to keep most of the notable pieces of the building, provide sheltered areas immune to the elements, and have outdoor seating. it's called adaptive reuse; why don't we try and think out of the box a little (not just directed to forumites, city in general) and stop thinking "save it exactly as it is or completely get rid of it."

and one alst point; anyone that thinks the demand for outdoor venues warrants the demolition of an indoor one (or vice versa) is kidding themselves.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitstar
Member
Username: Detroitstar

Post Number: 62
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 35.8.144.6
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If the idea is to put an amphitheatre in Hart Plaza, why not just rip the roof off and reduce the seating capacity a bit. This has got to be possible, and would likely save quite a bit of coin.

Hell, reuse the tent from Chene Park for all I care.

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