DETROIT | Hudson's Detroit | 686 FT & 240 FT | 49 & 14 FLOORS - Page 21

Chris Stritzel · #**401** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 7:00 AM**

I included four versions of the Tower at this link. The new render makes the building look really fat but I still love it.

https://flic.kr/p/2aUUf32

Steely Dan · #**402** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 2:24 PM**

^ yeah, the proportions look off compared to earlier iterations of the tower, but this is the best looking design yet IMO.

The North One · #**403** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 2:36 PM**

I found it on google images, it seems burohappold wrote an article with some of the renders but it's not showing up on the link. Really weird.

subterranean · #**404** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 3:19 PM**

Google probably crawled the article, but then Burohappold may have realized their mistake and took the article down. However, the link to the image was never removed.

Interestingly, the image link is from September when we hadn't even received any info until October. The Crain's article releasing the new design and info on the potential height increase was Oct 9.

I, too, and pretty curious why there is so much secrecy and why we have been led to believe this is going to be one thing, only to have it changed every few months.

M. Brown · #**405** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 3:43 PM**

I hope they aren't having a hard time getting this approved. Maybe that is why no more details have been released.

animatedmartian · #**406** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Brown

I hope they aren't having a hard time getting this approved. Maybe that is why no more details have been released.

Unlikely. The city wouldn't allow the project to get to this point if there was a chance of it not going through.

patriotizzy · #**407** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Stritzel

I included four versions of the Tower at this link. The new render makes the building look really fat but I still love it.

https://flic.kr/p/2aUUf32

I think it's the angle. Usually pictures from below give a sense of fatness because the foreground is composed of the base of the building, with the upper portion stretching up and towards the background, creating a sense of stubbiness.

subterranean · #**408** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 4:49 PM**

This is also the first time we've seen this from "behind", or not from Woodward.

M. Brown · #**409** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Unlikely. The city wouldn't allow the project to get to this point if there was a chance of it not going through.

I meant the new design specifically. Do you mean that it is unlikely that this new design would get rejected at this point?

animatedmartian · #**410** Posted **Oct 22, 2018, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Brown

I meant the new design specifically. Do you mean that it is unlikely that this new design would get rejected at this point?

I thought you meant the whole project, lol. But yea the only thing about the tower is that it might be too wide for Detroit's zoning standards.

Detroit's zoning only allows for towers that are 60 feet wide in any horizontal direction but the Hudson's tower is 177'. So there is a request for zoning variance mentioned in the review application that was posted last week (they've since redacted a few pages).

If the variance isn't approved, then the tower will have to be thinner but presumably this could also mean the tower may end up taller than the current 912' if Gilbert wants to maintain the same amount of square footage.

Of course, as stated in previous news, 912' is as high as the current elevator shafts can allow and so presumably a taller tower would need a structural redesign which would also delay the project and probably increase the cost.

DetroitRises · #**411** Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 1:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

I thought you meant the whole project, lol. But yea the only thing about the tower is that it might be too wide for Detroit's zoning standards.

Detroit's zoning only allows for towers that are 60 feet wide in any horizontal direction but the Hudson's tower is 177'. So there is a request for zoning variance mentioned in the review application that was posted last week (they've since redacted a few pages).

If the variance isn't approved, then the tower will have to be thinner but presumably this could also mean the tower may end up taller than the current 912' if Gilbert wants to maintain the same amount of square footage.

Of course, as stated in previous news, 912' is as high as the current elevator shafts can allow and so presumably a taller tower would need a structural redesign which would also delay the project and probably increase the cost.

Wouldn’t all Hudsons building proposed designs have needed the same variance approved? I don’t see how it could be an issue at this point, more like a formality.

The North One · #**412** Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 1:23 AM**

I'm not sure why the render makes it look fatter, it's the same footprint as the old tower (at least I think so).

I wonder if those verticle lines are white terra cotta? I'm glad the green terra cotta is ruled out since that would have looked awful. I'd also like to see some bronze elements but I don't see any evidence of it in the render.

animatedmartian · #**413** Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitRises

Wouldn’t all Hudsons building proposed designs have needed the same variance approved? I don’t see how it could be an issue at this point, more like a formality.

That assumes Gilbert and those involved agreed that any of the previous designs were to be final or if, in fact, they all changed due to some unmentioned issues and the variance could have been one of those issues or one of any number of such issues.

Or it could be likely that Gilbert found that he could add more to the project, like the height, but that usually changed some other factor, like how much parking is required per apartment if most of the tower would stay a residential tower. So now more of the tower is dedicated to hotel space to save on parking, but then now the design has to be altered slightly to accommodate the amenities expected with a hotel that size. Oh but now this and this needs to change, and so on...

That's why when I think someone from the team was quoted as saying "We're just trying to figure out the programming" for this building, it struck me as odd because normally projects of this magnitude have a clearly defined use before it's even proposed. Even for mixed use projects, I feel there's not nearly as much uncertainty in what's going on as there is in Hudson's.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and Gilbert knows exactly what he's doing but just hasn't decided to tell the public yet.

animatedmartian · #**414** Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm not sure why the render makes it look fatter, it's the same footprint as the old tower (at least I think so).

I wonder if those verticle lines are white terra cotta? I'm glad the green terra cotta is ruled out since that would have looked awful. I'd also like to see some bronze elements but I don't see any evidence of it in the render.

It is slightly fatter. From this angle of the old rendering, there's two setbacks pretty much around the same height as the podium block. The 2nd setback also looks like it backs the tower off from the north side a bit too.

In the new design, the setbacks are much higher up. One at near the same height as the podium block, but with not nearly as much depth as the setback in the old design. The next setback is 200 feet up, but again not a whole lot of depth. Then another 200 feet and at this point, it's half the height of the old design. It's not a whole lot, but there's enough volume created between the height and depth of the setbacks to make the tower definitely fatter than before.

hudson site plan

LMich · #**415** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:12 AM**

BTW, this is a shot of the site from today. If this is a caisson for the foundation, then this thing is under construction.

https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...208#post558208

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Detroit's zoning only allows for towers that are 60 feet wide in any horizontal direction but the Hudson's tower is 177'. So there is a request for zoning variance mentioned in the review application that was posted last week (they've since redacted a few pages).

BTW, it just needs to be clarified that the 60-foot width is only in the case that a building uses it's entire lot. What I'm still not clear on is if these two structurally seperate buildings are considered one building for this requirement due to the skybridge that was added, or because they are both on a single lot? That is to say whether the width requirement is attached to the buildings or the lot. If the latter, short of the variance, they could also simply do a lot split, leave the passageway between the two buildings on either of the lots, and then simply build as tall as they would want.

Oh, and the site plan review was introduced in September, apparently. The only reason we're seeing it is because Crain's did a FOIA. If the city weren't so far behind the times in placing documents online, we'd have known this a good month ago.

Steely Dan · #**416** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

BTW, this is a shot of the site from today. If this is a caisson for the foundation, then this thing is under construction.

That sure looks like a drilled caisson hole to me.

Is that the end of the site where the tower will go?

If so, I think we have to consider this bad boy as officially U/C!!!

Time to move the thread?

rlw777 · #**417** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That sure looksike a drilled caissons hole to me.

Is that the end of the site where the tower will go?

If so, I think we have to consider this bad boy as officially U/C!!!

Time to move the thread.

Yes that is a caisson on the tower end.

LMich · #**418** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That sure looksike a drilled caissons hole to me.

Is that the end of the site where the tower will go?

If so, I think we have to consider this bad boy as officially U/C!!!

Time to move the thread.

Yes, the tower fronts the south end of the site along Gratiot. They said that they'd be requesting a foundation permit next month, which had me wondering whether this was foundation work for a tower crane. But this clearly appears to be for the tower, itself.

M. Brown · #**419** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 12:31 PM**

We made it!

pianowizard · #**420** Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:25 PM**

I hope you guys are correct that this building really is under construction! I find it a bit surprising that there isn't an official announcement that construction has started.

Admins, on the Diagrams page, would you change the status of this building to "Under contruction"?