Discuss Detroit » Active Archive » Trump Towers Detroit « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas

Post Number: 61
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Im wondering if Donald Trump ever consider building here or will he ever consider soon. Im wondering why Detroit seems like the city that never builds up and having their limit of 15-story building to be build. They never tried to go taller or grand. Most major cities right now have at least 4 or more 40-story skyscrapers being build or proposed but we have 5 to 15-story being build and we praising those projects like it has a effect on the city. The tallest building in detroit is the Rencen and its only 70-story or something like that. We need more residential skyscrapers not office towers. Chicago's downtown consist of more residential skyscraper than office towers and they build 80-150 story high buildings..... DETROIT NEEDS TO BUILD UP and fill that skyline up. Im in school now, a Drafting & Urban design major in Architecture and i have about 2 years left and i will be the first to test the market and work on building detroit's first 90-100 story residential skyscraper with a few other 30-50 story building
Top of pageBottom of page

Rfban
Member
Username: Rfban

Post Number: 46
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's uplifting, good luck...
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8507
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Land prices dictate building up. Detroit has a whole bunch of land and prices are cheap enough where there isn't the need to build up in most areas.

I would prefer Detroit stay with mid-rise buildings and cover more space. Paris doesn't have a lot of height but it is an amazingly beautiful city.

If Detroit ever got to the point where prices and demand dicated building higher I would love it. Right now I think the city would be better off with 5 10 story buildings than one 50 story building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn

Post Number: 1186
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tall buildings are expensive, but that expense is justified where land prices are really high. Land is dirt cheap here so it doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I want a skyline too!

Don't forget that Comerica (or 500 Woodward again now) was planned as one of two. We couldn't even pull off another of those.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 700
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You do realize that building are built for a purpose? We simply lack the office and residential demand. You may know architecture, but you're completely clueless about the economics of why building are constructed in the first place.

(Message edited by eric on March 12, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 779
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rfban...funny
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3786
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eric, it's bad enough we have one person calling everyone on this Forum "clueless"... do you really want to go there??
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2483
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tall buildings also don't make sense in a city without decent mass transit. A tall building in Detroit would be at least 30% parking deck. Look at the towers in the Detroit suburbs. They are encircled with acres of parking lots around the base.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas

Post Number: 62
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Excuse me sir but i was typing fast and in a rush. Im very educated....how bout yourself? Im working on my masters!!!! Let me UPGRADE you to my level....Thanks
Top of pageBottom of page

Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas

Post Number: 63
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

referring to TARkus!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn

Post Number: 1187
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1...good point about Paris.

Tarkus...ditto your recommendation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 227
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I guess we should just start building stuff whether there is demand for it or not, why didn't we think of that before? I am sure we can find the tens of millions of dollars in the city budget to do that.

As for Trump, he was in the group of people who wanted to put a casino in the city, he did not succeed. His offer was interesting though, he said he would pay for demolishing the backlog of abandoned buildings that Detroit has been unable to get to due to lack of equipment and money.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn

Post Number: 1188
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 4:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Gthomas, where are you working on your masters? Where are you completing your apprenticeship?

You might be surprised to find out that there were plenty of large, tall buildings planned for Detroit that were never built because of low demand.

In a way, I hate that this thread includes Donald Trumps name. If ever there were a person who would build a large building to raise community spirit like you suggest, it would not be Donald Trump. Karmanos, maybe...not Trump.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1097
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GThomas--what are your views on the adaption of historic buildings for re-use? Who is going to pay (= where is the demand) for all of these high rises?
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1098
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

also--master the use of this key--it helps greatly whan making contractions


gotta be U of M



packman--high school grad
Top of pageBottom of page

Vas
Member
Username: Vas

Post Number: 679
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ouch. Don't let these folks get you down buddy. They're just taking the tough guy approach to telling you that a Trump tower in Detroit has no chance at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 871
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I live in Chicago, and I assure you, there are not more residential towers than there are commercial ones, at least not in your preferred height category. Perhaps if you never stray from Michigan Avenue/River North, you would be under the impression that every tall building is residential. But that's certainly not the case. Also, the vast, VAST, VAST majority of buildings in Chicago are in the 40-60 floor range.

Besides, contrary to your own belief, there are 25 buildings in Detroit that are 100m or more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1683
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gthomas, I admire your ambition. Have you considered http://www.activeworlds.com/? There you can build to your heart's content.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077

Post Number: 24
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Grammarphiles unite!!!!! Someone forgot to use a ' in a contraction. Why don't you find something more useful to get worked up about.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sumotect
Member
Username: Sumotect

Post Number: 266
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Detroit has a real nice skyline as it is. Looks great from Windsor, or on a post card.

There is something inherently bad about very tall buildings. They waste your time going up and down in them. They can create congestion and confusion at street level. They are also much more expensive, and considerably more unsafe that lower buildings. (Think a hook and ladder truck with ladder fully extended that is the tallest I think most buildings should be.)

Take the skyscraper idea and lay it on its side. Slice it into sections and use the sections to fill the gaps in the streetscape caused by parking lots.

Take the parking lots and create small footprint automated parking towers. Dispersed throughout the Downtown area. Might look kind of cool with cars moving up and down like some sort of automated sculpture. Put the cars in skyscrapers not people.

Detroit needs a more complete “feel” at the street level. The walls of buildings become like the walls in a big public corridor with each building contributing to and activating the life on the street.
Top of pageBottom of page

Leland_palmer
Member
Username: Leland_palmer

Post Number: 240
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The reason that Paris doesn't have many skyscrapers is it has very restrictive height regulations. Skyscrapers are only allowed in a few areas such as La Defense.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider

Post Number: 234
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

According to Skyscraperpage.com Detroit ranks #33 in number of high rises and buildings. Not a bad start, Detroit appears to be doing quite good in regards to taller buildings.
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/ cities/
Top of pageBottom of page

3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity

Post Number: 513
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok: Who in the world calls "everyone" on this thread clueless? I haven't a clue.
Top of pageBottom of page

Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve

Post Number: 175
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with GThomas in a narrow sense.

I don't think Detroit needs a bunch of residential skyscrapers, but

If ONE was built and it was UNIQUE and located correctly, etc. etc. it might work.

It would be geared toward a niche market - a relatively small number of folks interested in that particular concept.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 385
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

sumotect:
your suggestion would also waste time, yet in moving horizontally, rather than vertically. in your suggestion, a person would have to walk that distance, in a skyscraper, they can get in an elevator and be there in less time.

As for expense, you forget land expense in your calculations. if the land is cheap (say like it was in troy back when kmart moved their headquarters there), yeah, it is cheaper. but in a downtown area, the price goes up significantly, especially if the owners of the land know they'll get what they want for it, since otherwise a huge project would fall through. that's why skyscrapers are built, because it's cheaper than buying 10 times that amount of land.

so far as congestion at the ground level, some would call that density, which is what makes retail possible. good luck filling in ground floor retail in your plan, since you now have 1/10th the population.

confusion? i fail to see how it is any more confusing than having to drive past 10 blocks of your 'sideways skyscraper'. and you would be driving, just as they do in any suburb. Another name for what you describe, with the possible exception of your parking towers, is 'sprawl'.

As for the realities of the parking towers, you suggest a world where it is economically feasible to build a parking skyscraper, (in other words, real estate is limited enough that parking is at a premium) yet somehow land values are low enough to allow what would have taken up one block to take up far more than that. The idea contradicts itself.

Certainly Detroit needs a more complete feel, but you won't reach that point by spreading people out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 386
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As for Gthomas' suggestion, i agree in a sense. I would love to see more skyscrapers built, particularly if some were residential. however, i'd rather see our existing buildings renovated before we go putting up new 100 story buildings. the demand needs to be there first, and it has a ways to go before we need anything nearly that tall. Honestly, i don't think we'll ever go higher than maybe some 50-60 story buildings (a long ways off themselves), but i don't see any 100 floor buildings going up - ever. land values around here will just won't reach that point.
Top of pageBottom of page

Harsensis
Member
Username: Harsensis

Post Number: 194
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm going to get in line behind Tarkus. I'm going to say if your moving towards a masters level you should pay a little more attention to your writing. I'm going to pay attention to the spell checker when I post this and I'm not perfect, but at least I make a try at it. I'm done ranting, and that is I'm.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 2201
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Putting aside the grammar I really am perplexed by your almost complete lack of knowledge regarding Detroit. You seem to be very ignorant about the cities architecture.

You write that Detroit neve decided to go taller or grand citing someting about fifteen stories. Have you been to the Fisher bldg? How about the Guardian or the Penobscot? You aint gonna get as grand as those bldgs; those days are over. How about the Masonic temple been there? It's "grandness" is intractable. And moving around the city there are wonderful examples of residential architecture in single family houses and apt bldgs that are nothing if not grand.

I have not touched on the .."It must be tall".. to be important nonsense. I will only relay as an analogy a cartoon I once saw in which a man was behind the wheel of a limousine about six blocks long the caption read: " Man with worlds smallest penis".

I am against any new skyscrapers in Detroit.Until the Penobscot and Stott the Guardian and Whitney, the Broderick and Farwell and the Whittier and Book Tower are thriving I am against bldg new as that will only hasten the demise of these already threatened bldgs........bldgs I guarantee are grander then any being built today.......

You want tall for the sake of tall get a gig in Singapore or Kuala lumpau(sp)
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 289
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 7:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I am against any new skyscrapers in Detroit.Until the Penobscot and Stott the Guardian and Whitney, the Broderick and Farwell and the Whittier and Book Tower are thriving I am against bldg new as that will only hasten the demise of these already threatened bldgs"


It's way more complicated than that....
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 176
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 8:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Indeed it is. First of all, I would say new skyscrapers would be welcomed in Detroit, given a demand or a will to build by say a private company or developer, etc. The fact that a new tower be built in the city does not mean that the other older towers struggling with occupancy rates will just sit longer and become more difficult to redevelop. In fact, it would be just as likely, if not more, for the older towers to be redeveloped given the investment in the new.

A small example, though not entirely accurate: perhaps the Lafayette Building will have better odds at redevelopment if other developers notice the sales at the new Griswold condo development complimenting the Book Cadillac are high.

I admire your ambitions, Gthomas, but I hope you either have had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to take a real estate development course in your tenure.

I've often daydreamed about what Trump would do if he ever thought of giving Detroit the time of day. Not that it really matters, but it's nice to imagine.

Contrary to what some others have mentioned above, just because there is a lot of land in Detroit doesn't mean the city can't build up...in fact, I believe it should more in order to create more of a demand for density, which I believe will bring the city closer to functioning the way it use to, when it originally grew into itself.

Take a look at Atlanta and Charlotte. These cities could sprawl to the moon they have so much land, but they are building residential highrises in response to lifestyle and demand.

Guess what. We have a market of approximately 5 million people to determine unique market niches off of. The fact that downtown and Midtown Detroit are experiencing urban residential booms is because part of that market is being tapped. WHERE, (other than the city of Detroit) in this 5 million-person economic system is there an urban lifestyle market for that certain percentage that desire it? It doesn't exist other than Detroit...unless you're Royal Oak, but I don't even count that.

People DO want to live in high rises, but they also want a vibrant network of functioning city when they take that first step outside of their lobby foyer. For this reason, Riverfront Towers condos are a bit of a disgrace, but nonetheless a part of the urban cityscape of downtown that will be occupied by those with that desired lifestyle.

The key lies within how the city and its leaders choose to fill in the gaps. Detroit is a unique 1/2 empty canvas, and those with the specialization and know-how to bring it back to full-functioning potential are going to be the ones that realize each individual project is going to have large impacts on the whole of things. Mass transit is a must, walkability is critical, even the movement of personal vehicles has utmost importance.

So, keep dreaming big. Pieces will start to come together. It can't and won't happen over night like in high growth markets, but those with the education and artistic/creative/talent ability will contribute great things in reinventing Detroit as a self-sustaining metropolitan hub of activity.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 112
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would put my preference on density over height for downtown but I think some sites should remain for taller structures. Sites like Monroe, Hudson, and Statler should be max-ed out for height in my opinion.

Gthomas wrote:
"Im in school now, a Drafting & Urban design major in Architecture and i have about 2 years left and i will be the first to test the market and work on building detroit's first 90-100 story residential skyscraper with a few other 30-50 story building"

Im curious but as an architect how do you test the market? You have no control of developments you just play a role in the design process. Unless you plan on being a developer and architect, good luck with that one, you will just be one of many in a firm who may or may not get a the bid for such a project if it ever comes along.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077

Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 9:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rocket_city,

That was a beautiful post and I agree whole-heartedly with everything you said.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gibran
Member
Username: Gibran

Post Number: 71
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 9:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To the young dreamer, Gthomas...keep it up. You know how many people failed because they couldn't dream big. Detroit, or for that matter any city needs young minds like yours...What has failed in the past is already the past...keep reaching, Detroit needs people that can envision a future...reality Can be created, with the right timing and desire. Detroit has the geographical location, and is just waiting for the right leadership.......I type fast also, and usually need to check my grammar....my level of education? PhD.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 49
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's nothing wrong with building up in the CBD.
I agree that demand and restoration initiatives happen first.
Once the old buildings are restored and filled, I'd like to see (1-2) 60 story, (6) 40 story, (24) 25-30 story, and numerous lesser buildings for the CBD.
Dreaming big should be commended, not derided. (There's a quote from Daniel Burnham concerning Chicago and about Dreaming big). Look at how Chicago turned out.

I've always considered my conversations on this forum to be informal, not as nit picky as nuclear launch codes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3795
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LOL at 3WC... no it wasn't you... you intimidate them via "a reality check"... :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 2557
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point, Warrenite84. You can't help but dream when you look around downtown Detroit. You see all those vacant lots and you wonder what will go there over the coming decades.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox

Post Number: 124
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"LOL at 3WC... no it wasn't you... you intimidate them via "a reality check"..."

But do keep trying...
Top of pageBottom of page

Sumotect
Member
Username: Sumotect

Post Number: 267
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a great deal of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in Detroit. I suppose that since it is a free country people should be able to build what they want to build. There is also a new golden age of skyscraper construction going on, and maybe Detroit could participate in that, but I doubt it. I certainly could not support such a folly.

What seems to be lacking here is the knowledge of how buildings function in their context. What we need here is a clearer view of urban spatial structure. You cannot separate a building from where it is built and when it is built. Context shapes architecture and architecture in turn shapes context.

Detroit has suffered greatly from the destruction of its urban fabric. Density is good and the lack of density caused by sprawl has injured us socially. What needs to happen is a return to standard urban form consisting of buildings close together and close to the street. Super tall buildings remove people from the street and they make it harder to build buildings closer together. Cities and the urban form that works were in existence long before skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are a recent phenomenon and frankly only needed now in situations where land is very expensive or rare and unavailable. Think Manhattan, or Hong Kong.

Asia is building the big ones now because they have the money and want to make a statement. They want to say, “here we are, take us seriously”. I could care less. We should be looking at re-creating a working, livable, vibrant city.

I remember the Renaissance Center and how it was supposed to turn things around. One can argue that all the time, and money, and tax breaks thrown at that thing resulted in very little. It is a broken promise.

I have been in the business of sharing dreams and making them come true for some time. I am a professional dreamer. This “The John Holmes Memorial” project is not one that makes sense to me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2194
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

As for expense, you forget land expense in your calculations. if the land is cheap (say like it was in troy back when kmart moved their headquarters there), yeah, it is cheaper. but in a downtown area, the price goes up significantly, especially if the owners of the land know they'll get what they want for it, since otherwise a huge project would fall through. that's why skyscrapers are built, because it's cheaper than buying 10 times that amount of land.



The land acquisition costs might be cheaper for a skyscraper, but the savings is quickly eaten up in engineering fees, and more substantial structure for foundations, lateral load resistance, cores, etc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 578
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey, I got bored during Civics last year and drew a quick sketch of 2 100+ story towers, one hotel and one office. Any chance of those being built? :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 14
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would like to see a very tall residential skyscraper, but have each floor only 900 sq ft, 4-5 floors per residence, each with their own elevator shaft capable of lifting two cars into the garage that would be on the first floor of every residence. get 20 people to buy one and there is your 80-90 foot skyscraper. of course, the top residence might need to have whiplash insurance
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2195
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^and half the building cost is in elevators.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 15
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BTW, on http://www.skyscraperpage.com/ cities/

Detroit is #5 in the US. Dallas does not seem to be on the list at all -- am I blind?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rfban
Member
Username: Rfban

Post Number: 49
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rocket_city how have you been? I understand however, I think it would be best to see spaces fill up first with no less than medium density residential, and commercial (e.g. Washington D.C). I do agree with you though on the niches and that it could happen but personally don’t think it would; at least not in Detroit. Did you go last Saturday?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mdoyle
Member
Username: Mdoyle

Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wouldnt mind seeing a few larger buildings in the cbd (in the 150m range) and then medium size infill. Anything taller would make the rest of the city feel very out of scale.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider

Post Number: 237
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

where do you see it as #5 the link doesnt show that?

(Message edited by fareastsider on March 13, 2007)

(Message edited by fareastsider on March 13, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Exmotowner
Member
Username: Exmotowner

Post Number: 123
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Trump is building a lot of residental skyscrapers between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. "condos starting at $1,000,000" and you know thats not an ocean view. Nashville just completed a new skyscraper (the Varidian) and are going to be starting the Signature tower this year. http://www.signaturetowernashv ille.com/ its suppose to be the fourth tallest in the country. Doesnt detroit still have skyscrapers empty? I do think if Trump builds anything there it would be a casino! Can anyone talk him into making a casino/hotel out of the MCS building? That would be awsome!
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 581
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Click on the list of worldwide cities. We're listed 30th in the world for total buildings. If you click on the US part of the list it gives you a total list. We are listed as 7th, Dallas as 16th.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quozl
Member
Username: Quozl

Post Number: 346
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 1:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dallas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ategory:Skyscrapers_in_Dallas

Detroit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ategory:Skyscrapers_in_Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Hans57
Member
Username: Hans57

Post Number: 44
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 1:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems that Detroit has a slight edge over Dallas in the skyscraper aspect, but it's possible that the Dallas entry just doesn't list all of the not so tall buildings as Detroit does. Cobo hall is listed as a skyscraper.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 498
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dallas has an impressive skyline from a distance but up close it's kinda boring. The downtown isn't that dense and all of the buildings look like they were built in the same year (1982) and designed by the same architect.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1403
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Trump would never think about Detroit in the current economic climate here. Although he likes to make a splash and get his name in the headlines, so I could see him doing it for that reason.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hans57
Member
Username: Hans57

Post Number: 45
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Isn't Trump part of the MGM development right now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sumotect
Member
Username: Sumotect

Post Number: 268
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Trump has good taste in women, bad taste in buildings.

His apartment is so bad it is funny.

Evidently money can't buy you everything.
Top of pageBottom of page

3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity

Post Number: 525
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Most of Trump's buildings developed in the last few years are actually developed by others, using Trump's name for a fee and possibly a small minority interest in the project.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 113
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 7:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That must explain why most of them lately havent been black and gold.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 5
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 8:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While I love city skylines building up is NOT the appropriate developmental move for Detroit. Why, you might ask? This is because Detroit's downtown has a lot of "dead space" still. For example, when you build up you will revitalize the few blocks around that building... but everything else will still be dead. Detroit needs to build horizontally (for the moment) to rejuvinate more city blocks. Rather than one big skyscraper it's better to spread out 2-4 smaller buildings over a larger landmass. This way you have people walking all around in between the buildings, local cafe's, restaurants etc. etc. You can revitalize twice the actual area by building out rather than up. A great example is the new compuware building. If we built a few more buildings of that size spread out 2-5 blocks from each other we could link the beauty/liveliness of the campus martius area to other areas of the downtown. This is by creating foot traffic and mini lively areas around each building. The alternative would be just to build another huge and tall skyscraper (possibly far away) that would never really link the lively areas to each other. Especially since most workers downtown don't venture more than a few blocks from their building for lunch etc. Now, if we had tons of demand to move downtown (both commercially and residentially) we might be able to get away with building up. However, for the moment we need to encourage building out.

(Message edited by sparty06 on March 13, 2007)

(Message edited by sparty06 on March 13, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 596
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 9:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Screw Trump Tower!

Sekou Tower will be that deal once completed in 2030. It will stand where the current MCD ruins are it will be over 2500' tall. It will be the landmark tower that will symbolize the complete rebirth of the city of Detroit and it will be a source of pride for its 4 million residents. Only 3 billion away now from building the thing.

In all seriousness I would prefer we rebuild the city with London or Paris mid range buildings first. Fill in all the blanks, get the city's overall density pushing 20,000 then build higher up. Cities like that are more interesting anyway, we cant all be Manhattan so skyscrapers are not always as great as they are made out to be. Look at half of US downtowns for proof on that, nice pretty tall buildings but no real downtown (ex. LA, Atlanta, Houston, etc.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 181
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rfban, do I know you? lol
I'm trying to think of where I would have gone Saturday that you (a person I don't know) would know about.

I understand what you are saying, Sparty, but I think by building "up" most people would agree that Compuware is an example of that. Or maybe it's just me. Compuware did it right. The building could have been one of Detroit's tallest skyscrapers (given the total square footage), but the vision for Campus Martius was strategically intended for it to be the way it is. Most importantly, IT WORKS! It doesn't matter if there is no awe-inspiring height, and I think we can agree that this is what you meant.

An example of bad urban design, in my opinion, is the Crosswinds extension of their townhouses north on Woodward. When that new one started construction a few months ago, I scuffed and burried my face in my shirt. The original townhouses next to the freeway are great and much appreciated as the catalyst that helped the neighborhood flourish, but Woodward is no place to extend this kind of development. City code got smart when they refused to let Crosswinds develop the west side of Woodward, and required any developer over there to abide by good urban design standards. Maybe someone with more knowledge can ellaborate on that.

Woodward is WIDE through Midtown. Good urban design literature discusses that there is a ratio between corridor width and building height that creates a good sense of place. Because of these principles, I would consider the Ellington at Woodward and Mack to be "built up". Imagine the great sense of place if in addition to the Ellington and Orchestra Place, the southern 2 corner parcels were developed with structures of at least similar height and street-frontage scale!! I try to image that whenever I'm riding or walking past there.

Now, imagine if a developer put a "Crosswinds townhouse" development on those two corners. It would be a disaster and would not live up to this lands' full potential.

Grand Rapids is building Michigan's tallest residential tower right now called RIVERHOUSE. It is going to redefine that city's skyline, and quite frankly its image, in a positive way. I don't think Trump Tower is out of the question, especially with the strides Detroit is making. We have regional leadership that is as stong as the strongest throughout the country. When the economy agrees to be in good company with that, I think Detroit will encounter some good opportunities.

Hey, if we're developing this well in the worst economy of some of our lives, imagine what we can do in a fair economy, a good economy, a great economy, and a strong economy.

Someone also mentioned redefining the city's density. I think this is key and here's why. Detroit's expanse was heavily interconnected to transit. This city was build on transit, not highways. Yes, eras changed things, and ALL cities were forced to adapt. Some succeeded, some not. I don't believe Detroit did.

Our traditional retail corridors like Woodward, Oakland, 6 and 7 Mile, Livernois, Dexter, etc...were once served by transit oriented functionality, which created their sustainability. We took that away. Yes, bus transit was the replacement, but neighborhoods fell apert in sync with this infrastructure change. NOW, when you see new developments along these routes you see the old line of store fronts lining the sidewalks with little-to-no setback with new stripmalls with trashy parking lots haphazardly plopped in the midst of the crummy, run down traditional strip. There's not much of a realized retail market in Detroit (there is, but it's failed), so all these dollar and liquor and check cashing stores are built for the sake of developing. If we would have held on to the transet oriented mindset, maybe we could have found more creative ways to provide for automobile parking needs, while at the same time making the new development "mesh" with the old.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it might be wiser to use what's already vacant (but habitable) in detroit than it would be to spend on new projects.

really no point in fixing something that isn't broken (building new buildings when we can't fill the ones we have).

"If you build it, they will come" works better with baseball fields for dead guys than it does with stuff like that.


However, your passion is definitely something worth admiration.
JD
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 51
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An urban plan that embraces skyscrapers spread out within the CBD, added only when needed would be the best plan.
Special sites, presently clear, should be held for landmark quality skyscrapers. Example, when driving into downtown on Grand River, the building that stands out is the Book Tower.

If you have an insatiable urge to develop the CBD as you like, take a look at Google Sketchup. It allows you to upload satellite imagery from Google Earth so you can build like crazy and drop YOUR models into YOUR Google earth program.
Although my models aren't very detailed, I've been building models like a madman over the past month. It is habit forming, haha!
Top of pageBottom of page

Hardliner
Member
Username: Hardliner

Post Number: 25
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A skyscraper? why? some some terrorist can fly into it? Ask New York about having the tallest building. and see what they say.

-HL
Top of pageBottom of page

Rfban
Member
Username: Rfban

Post Number: 52
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rocket_city, remember the party @ Saint Albertus when we were all talking about DetroitYES!? Katy's going away party Sat. night. I could not make it because I was out of town.

"Our traditional retail corridors like Woodward, Oakland, 6 and 7 Mile, Livernois, Dexter, etc...were once served by transit oriented functionality, which created their sustainability. We took that away. Yes, bus transit was the replacement, but neighborhoods fell apert in sync with this infrastructure change. NOW, when you see new developments along these routes you see the old line of store fronts lining the sidewalks with little-to-no setback with new stripmalls with trashy parking lots haphazardly plopped in the midst of the crummy, run down traditional strip. There's not much of a realized retail market in Detroit (there is, but it's failed), so all these dollar and liquor and check cashing stores are built for the sake of developing. If we would have held on to the transet oriented mindset, maybe we could have found more creative ways to provide for automobile parking needs, while at the same time making the new development "mesh" with the old."

Very nice point.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 114
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"A skyscraper? why? some some terrorist can fly into it? Ask New York about having the tallest building. and see what they say.

-HL"

You cant be serious with this, are you?

You are aware that there are plans to build the worlds tallest building at 1776ft on the site of the twin towers right? So if you were to ask New Yorkers how they felt, im sure they would say just fine. Plus skyscrapers are going up all over the country, to think we shouldnt build one here in Detroit because of terrorism is absolutely foolish and hilarious. I really do hope you were being sarcastic.
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit has far too many empty buildings to validate the construction of any new high rises at this point. One idea is to build up the density of downtown with highrise buildings and letting some empty areas of the city reverting to nature. The land mass of the city is large so either building large amounts of shorter buildings to fill in empty areas or having some other plan for vacant land needs to play a part.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 873
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When Trump Tower is completed in Chicago, Chicago will have 4 of the 5 tallest buildings in the country. I'm sure if you asked New York about skyscrapers, they'd say something like "we need to catch up to Chicago".

FWIW, Trump Tower will be the second tallest in the country. Should Freedom Tower ever get off the ground, it would be the nation's tallest. Same for the Chicago Spire, it would be the tallest if it were to be built, which is likely.

Terrorism fears will not stop us from building skyscrapers...if anything, we should build them IN SPITE OF what happened at WTC.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2200
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

When Trump Tower is completed in Chicago, Chicago will have 4 of the 5 tallest buildings in the country. I'm sure if you asked New York about skyscrapers, they'd say something like "we need to catch up to Chicago".



My professional opinion: I don't think New Yorkers give a flying f*ck about what they're building in Chicago. Skyscrapers are built based on economics, not some goofy ego-trip.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 507
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Freedom Tower will have 20 stories of solid concrete walls. We're building FOR terrorism.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Besides the fact, there are plenty more dire threats in this country than terrorism.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 103
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The so called "freedom tower" amounts to not much more than a giant government funded penis and is not economical. In fact, the government hid the low demand for the world trade center space by occupying so much of it with government offices--like the port authority.

However at lower heights many skyscrapers can be highly profitable. The absurd ones over say 70 stories usually are accounting for some "prestige value" or outright goverment funding.

I think that Gthomas is has a great point but has taken that obscured by taking it to crazy levels. "80- 150 story buildings are not even the norm in Hong kong. As far as I know, the world trade center was around 107 stories.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2204
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 8:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The so called "freedom tower" amounts to not much more than a giant government funded penis and is not economical. In fact, the government hid the low demand for the world trade center space by occupying so much of it with government offices--like the port authority.



That's disingenuous. The owner of the WTC was the PANYNJ. "Owner" meaning, they paid to have it built in the first place. If I'm not mistaken, the Freedom Tower is being financed with insurance payments to PANYNJ.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 8:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, anyway when if a solid chunk of the building is occupied by government offices, it's hard to show that there was a solid, market demand for the building. The Petronas towers in Maylasia were built by the state oil company which doesn't make a good case for those being market driven either.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2206
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Demand for government office space is still demand. Those people need *somewhere* to work, right? If they weren't working in a building they owned, they'd have to lease space in a privately-owned building. Just because government agencies/authorities pay rent with tax dollars doesn't mean they don't take up space.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas

Post Number: 66
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Build and they will come"...from my understanding. I learn to take chances and I get very far with it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas

Post Number: 67
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe not that magnitude of a skyscraper but at least.. "50-story" high. Or just fill in the empty lots throughout downtown with nice size buildings.Cant complain when you can replace a surface parking lot with a beautiful building..... thats all I'm saying.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 184
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rfban...AH YES! Gotcha now. :-) I was actually at 2 going-away parties on Saturday. All of our young professional minds are moving away. I may be next. :-(

Have you guys ever seen pictures of Dubai? The entire city is being constructed at this very moment. It is simply amazing and, TO ME, makes absolutely no sense. Also, the world's tallest building, BURJ DUBAI is being built there right now. It will soon exceed 2,000 feet in the air.

Burj Dubai:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?t=106899&page =41

Construction of the city of Dubai:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?t=116769

The argument against building the world's tallest building doesn't really seem to be very valid after seeing some of the projects going on around the world.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I basically agree with you, but throwing in the "150 story" building throws off your point.
From a distance, it seems like moves towards much higher density levels would pay off and that has to mean apartment buildings.

Apartment buildings can to a certain extent create their own demand. The key is proportion and mixed use.

Why would a person pay a millions for a NY apartment? The main selling point is that you are buying access to people and getting a huge level of 24 hour convenience. A level that could not be supported without all those people living close by. You stand a good chance of walking to work and you might have 70 restaurants in walking distance with a choice of 6 supermarkets, a dozen bars and clubs, movie theaters and all kinds of shopping.Thanks to all the people, it's easy to run a busy mass transit system and keep thousands of cabbies on hand.

The main thing is to keep growth mixed use so that it's self balancing. Sticking an 80 story office building in without dense residential, just creates a transit/ parking problem.What you want is a situation in which every other building is not a parking garage.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 107
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One emerging positive trend is that a number of the new ultra tall buildings combine a number of different uses like office, retail and hotel in one building. Even so, I think it pretty hard to economically justify most of them. The general rule is that 60-80 stories is about the limit for economical buildings with current technology.

In NY, you are finally seeing enough tall residential buildings to ballance out the office towers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 186
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^Yes, definately! In the case of Dubai, how do you justify building an entire city from scratch all at once?

In the world of urban planners (like myself) I just haven't reached the capacity of thought to comprehend how this can happen. To me, it seems as though Dubai is not sustainable. Where does the market all of a sudden appear from? Who's to say the demand for all types of uses isn't extremely high or extremely low? Who determines the market demand? And where has it been all these years for it to just appear over night? I...just...don't...get...it! lol
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 108
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think this has more to do with sheltering oil wealth than anything else. Still, it is amazing to see and to see how it turns out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 609
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Goddamn why are they building a thousand of the same tower? Good God that city is looking horrible.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 53
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 1:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nyburgher, great posts! I hope a few Detroit urban planners take your advice and not just throw up anything on a whim.

Does NYC contain a lot of buildings that have office and residential over parking?

I stayed at Hilton Times Square last May, (hotel, 20 screen movie theatre, shopping and restaurants),in 44 floors. A lot of multi use there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 874
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 1:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

My professional opinion: I don't think New Yorkers give a flying f*ck about what they're building in Chicago. Skyscrapers are built based on economics, not some goofy ego-trip.


Dan, my statement was in response to Hardliner, who insisted that New Yorkers have no interest in building skyscrapers because of terrorism.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2209
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 10:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^They also don't have an interest in building skyscrapers just because Chicago is building skyscrapers!
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 877
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry that my off the cuff comment was taken as a serious assertion. In MY professional opinion, I was joking.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ladyinabag
Member
Username: Ladyinabag

Post Number: 86
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 6:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When the casinos were up for grabs, Trump put in a bid to open one. The mayor before Kwami (how soon we forget) said NO to him. I could see the mayors' point. Detroit would have turned into Donald Trumpville. It would have been a whole new social event to the exclusion of everyone else in town. The mayor wouldn't let Don Barden and Michael Jackson in here either. I can see why about Michael Jackson, but I thought that, at the time, Barden might have got in if he hadn't partnered-up with Michael Jackson.

(Message edited by ladyinabag on March 15, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 109
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Parking oriented buildings - where half or more the building is parking are not too common in NY and I think they are getting more rare. In the 1960's till a few years ago you saw a lot of parking garage construction on the west side of Manhattan, but a lot of that is now being replaced by residential and office space.

The first big city near NY, where you see parking centric buildings is-- Newark, NJ. Newark seems to have no pride. There are all kinds of amenities like a fancy performing arts center and also the headquarters of a major company like Prudential.

But everything you see is oriented towards cars. There are elevated walkways to make sure you don't step on the street and garages all over. in spite of a ton of government money and a lot of private investment- the city is a depressing contrast to NY. I think that is just starting to change.
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 105
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 11:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow Dubai, is ugly. Its like a crazy mass of the same thing 10,000 times. There is no building or material diversity. It doesn't make a pretty city. Its strange. I really don't care for the look of it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk

Post Number: 4243
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If GThomas is representative of the next generation's best and brightest then I think it is safe to say Detroit is on that fast track to becoming the Calcutta of major American cities. The Michissippi tag isn't too far off if college educated people in Detroit have such a simple-minded approach to the city and state's problems.

I look forward to the DSO' announcement they are moving to Alabama because they need to be a more cultured population.

Michigan and Detroit are in serious, serious trouble. The deindustrialization of the 1970's decimated smaller industrial towns and this current wave of deindustrialization threatens to do the same to major industrial cities like Detroit unless we adapt. Instead of honest evaluations of the problems and real efforts to find solutions, we choose to buy into the snake oil schemes of dime-store philanthropists and dim-witted hucksters.

Go through the DetroitYES archives, for the last year you idiots have pinned the hopes and future of Detroit on Quicken Loans - even though common sense told you subprime lenders were about to take a big hit. Now Donald Trump (or whomever) should build us a 100-story skyscraper? Remember the last time some wealthy do-gooders built a skyscraper downtown to "help" Detroit? Yeah that worked out well for the downtown real estate market.

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to figure out how you can "help" or waiting for the silver bullet angel to save the day maybe, just maybe, we can decide how (and if) Detroit can work for you. The "yeah Detroit" and "Detroit Rises" shit only works for so long. Eventually Detroit has to stop being a cause and has to start being a place people (a lot of people, more than show up for a Synergy meeting) want to live, work, and play. If you only care about Detroit for the grit and the challenge then you are part of the problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 192
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 5:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well someone's panties are bound tight in a wad. Maybe if you loosened them just a little, a solution would come popping out. Warn others to cover their noses first though.

On a serious note, you don't have to demoralize people taking a liking to Detroit. The majority in this area would rather drop a bomb on the place and start over. Popular concensus say, "let's bulldoze Detroit into the river and start over." I've heard it before, and I'm sure you have too.

So if people want to express their hopes and dreams somewhere (like here) where they feel pretty confident that they won't be belittled or attacked for ideas that might be far fetched or just mere rhetoric that excites others into a discussion, then what right do you have to get angry over something so small?

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but you didn't have to express anger over it. The great thing about working with other people (in this case talking with them) is that not everyone shares the same ideas. Agree with them or disagree with them. Either way, try to learn something while showing and receiving respect. If we all thought the same way, what good would we be?
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 140
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 7:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I really hope you do build those or w/e that would be a better skyline!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Dbest
Member
Username: Dbest

Post Number: 8
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Building a tower to improve is the dumbest thing i ever heard
Top of pageBottom of page

Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn

Post Number: 1287
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 6:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh no...not this thread again.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
Only registered users may post messages here. To participate click JOIN THE DISCUSSION at the left to obtain a free account.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: