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: | |
A very fond memory from April 14, 1967
|
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: | |
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!" |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
Crane/Kellog are the architects of record. That's Crane, as in "C.Howard". It was his last theatre job. |
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: | |
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) |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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) |
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: | |
Feb 1957 parking rates at Ford Underground
|
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
Good point, Gistok. It's like attributing the works of Albert Kahn Associates to the works of the man himself in his heyday. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
Adieu Ford Theatre! by the empty promises of Detroit's African American KING KWAME KILLpatick |
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: | |
|
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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..." |
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: | |
The interior was very plain. at the Walter Reuther Funeral Beauty Shots and a Marshal Fredrick during installation all pix WSU |
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: | |
Time for the refrain: tear that schitt down |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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). |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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? |
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: | |
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! |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
"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. |
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: | |
OH, THE BUILDING IS SOOOO GREAT ... Oh, yeah, that's why it's vacant. |
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: | |
Sorry ... Mackinaw, you're much more diplomatic about this than I am ... It's so obvious to me. |
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: | |
He really is. I even agree with you, but those posts were childish, at best. |
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: | |
childish = two Beefeaters straight up and some extra time on the computer! Haha!
|
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: | |
I vote to tear it down. That's one. Anyone else? |
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: | |
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 |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |
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* (Message edited by lmichigan on June 17, 2006) |
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: | |
(Message edited by 56packman on June 17, 2006) |
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: | |
That's odd. Anyway, I'll shoot you a message. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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) |
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: | |
Packman, did you ever recieve my email? I haven't gotten a reply, yet. |
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: | |
(Message edited by 56packman on June 18, 2006) |
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: | |
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). |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
and u would rather have it urban-industrial wasteland of abandoned factories contaminating the soil?...whats ur alternative |
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: | |
A simple park, office buildings or apartment buldings, with pedestrian-friendly sidewalk hugging front facades. Maybe something like this...
|
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: | |
Since you asked Ray I will answer...........It's you. |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
Ray, I agree. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. |
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: | |
Does anyone else think it'd be better to rehab instead of all this excessive building? |
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: | |
??? Have you read this thread at all? |
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: | |
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. |
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: | |
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. |