DETROIT | Hudson's Detroit | 685 FT & 240 FT | 49 & 14 FLOORS

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jackster99

one could even argue it's second only to NYC in terms of amount of Art Deco skyscrapers.

it would be a weak argument because chicago is clearly the #2 city in terms of the amount of art deco skyscrapers, but detroit is a contender for the 3rd spot.

philly has a few more over 300' tall built in that time period, but detroit has more in the taller height ranges.

obviously, no one comes close to touching new york in this department.


Buildings over 300' tall built between 1920 and 1940:

1. new york - 146
2. chicago - 37
3. philly - 16
4. detroit - 11
5. san francisco - 11

[Tiorted9]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it would be a weak argument because chicago is clearly the #2 city in terms of the amount of art deco skyscrapers, but detroit is a contender for the 3rd spot.

philly has a few more over 300' tall in that time period, but detroit has more in the taller height ranges.

obviously, no one comes close to touching new york in this department.


Buildings over 300' tall built between 1920 and 1940:

1. new york - 146
2. chicago - 37
3. philly - 16
4. detroit - 11
5. san francisco - 11

Yep good points by the above poster. I think what makes Detroit unique is the lack of modern glass boxes which would hide the old art deco buildings, leaving it with a strong art deco appearance. But yeah NYC and Chicago have more, and when in Chicago walk west along the river past Michigan ave about a block or so and look around, it's where you can really see some old gems. Another thing that makes Detroit unique is the street design, it's quite different than the simple grid that you see in NYC or Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

^ absolutely. in terms of "skyline visibility of art deco skyscrapers today", detroit would certainly be far ahead of chicago because all of chicago's numerous art deco towers have been, for the most part, buried by the dozens upon dozens of taller towers built in the various post-war building booms over the past 8 decades, whereas detroit has seen relatively little new tower construction during that time. however, chicago still has a very large collection of art deco towers now buried down in the weeds, by the numbers it's 2nd only to NYC.

10 of detroit's current 25 tallest buildings were built in the pre-war era (and 3 of its top 10).

0 of chicago's current 25 tallest buildings were built in the pre-war era.

in fact, the tallest pre-war tower in chicago, the 605' tall CBOT, now only ranks as the 50th tallest tower in chicago's skyline (including U/C towers). it's only a very short matter of time before chicago won't even have a single pre-war tower in its top 50 tallest.

[jackster99]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ absolutely. in terms of "skyline visibility of art deco skyscrapers today", detroit would certainly be far ahead of chicago because all of chicago's numerous art deco towers have been, for the most part, buried by the dozens upon dozens of taller towers built in the various post-war building booms over the past 8 decades, whereas detroit has seen relatively little new tower construction during that time. however, chicago still has a very large collection of art deco towers now buried down in the weeds, by the numbers it's 2nd only to NYC.

10 of detroit's current 25 tallest buildings were built in the pre-war era (and 3 of its top 10).

0 of chicago's current 25 tallest buildings were built in the pre-war era.

in fact, the tallest pre-war tower in chicago, the 605' tall CBOT, now only ranks as the 50th tallest tower in chicago's skyline (including U/C towers). it's only a very short matter of time before chicago won't even have a single pre-war tower in its top 50 tallest.

Yup that's more what I meant by one could argue Detroit has the 2nd best art deco skyline. Chicago of course has more of them, but they have been mostly hidden.

Detroit's old gems are front and center

[DetroitRises]

Originally Posted by jackster99

Would be incredible if so. Detroit has such a great Art Deco skyline, one could even argue it's second only to NYC in terms of amount of Art Deco skyscrapers.

It would be fitting for it's tallest signature tower to be art deco with a 21st century twist

But NY’s Art Deco is so overwhelmed by the modern super talls that soon even its venerable Empire State Building will be lost to most of the skyline, whereas Detroit’s still Art Deco surrounds the Hudsons Building and the Ren Cen is away from to the side of the cbd

[The North One]

They still haven't released any high detailed renders, we have no idea what the facade will look like.

[DetroitRises]

Originally Posted by seabee1526

Green Terracotta...sounds fun

I’m hoping they go red for the built color like the old hudsons building or grey /sand color like the Penobscot and book tower

[DetroitRises]

Originally Posted by The North One

They still haven't released any high detailed renders, we have no idea what the facade will look like.

But, at least, we know for sure its not a boring rectangle box like the original (700’) design or the 2nd (800’) design. There has been an awakening as to what Detroit’s most iconic site should have sitting on top of it, whatever that final design will be in January.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DetroitRises

But NY’s Art Deco is so overwhelmed by the modern super talls that soon even its venerable Empire State Building will be lost to most of the skyline, whereas Detroit’s still Art Deco surrounds the Hudsons Building and the Ren Cen is away from to the side of the cbd

That's not really true. Most of New York's buildings are really old, old, old. The tallest towers on the skyline may be new, but walk around Midtown or Downtown, you would think the city needs more modern towers.

But as far as Detroit goes, I was there last summer, and took a lot of photos of the skyline, Downtown, and the surrounding neighborhoods (all of which I lost). I was told that there is already a big improvement of the downtown area. It's very exciting to see new development, especially of this scale, taking place in the older downtowns of some of the older cities, particularly in the northern cities that haven't seen a lot of it. And anytime you can get a new tallest is major news, and shoots down the notions that cities are dead and people will notice.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's not really true. Most of New York's buildings are really old, old, old. The tallest towers on the skyline may be new, but walk around Midtown or Downtown, you would think the city needs more modern towers.

But as far as Detroit goes, I was there last summer, and took a lot of photos of the skyline, Downtown, and the surrounding neighborhoods (all of which I lost). I was told that there is already a big improvement of the downtown area. It's very exciting to see new development, especially of this scale, taking place in the older downtowns of some of the older cities, particularly in the northern cities that haven't seen a lot of it. And anytime you can get a new tallest is major news, and shoots down the notions that cities are dead and people will notice.

When I spent a few months in NYC last winter, I was actually surprised at the number of old buildings. For some reason my preconceived notion of Manhattan was similar to that of Chicago; many new modern high rises towering over a few notable oldies. In fact, I found Brooklyn and Queens (and even a bit of Jersey) to have more modern skylines compared to most parts of Manhattan.

And speaking of Chicago, the Historic Detroit Facebook page had posted an old picture of an American city with a boat in the river some time ago. Something about luxury passenger steamers that traversed the Great Lakes. But for the life of me I couldn't figure out the city I was looking at! I only recognized maybe two or three towers and the angle threw me off completely. I only found out the city when I did a reverse Google search.


https://www.facebook.com/GreetingsFr...0073263712573/

By the way, the year for this photo is 1957. Probably the last notable view of the skyline before the wave of modernism became popular. Here's the same view today if you're curious.

[TallBob]

Prudential HQ I thought was built in 1956....Witch would have been South of the photo above.

[LMich]

I wouldn't suspect the color of the terra-cotta has changed (white and yellow-orange), and that god for that. Green would be a terrible color on this skyline.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by TallBob

Prudential HQ I thought was built in 1956....Witch would have been South of the photo above.

I was thinking the same thing, but I guess it might be just off the left of the picture the more I look at it

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's not really true. Most of New York's buildings are really old, old, old. The tallest towers on the skyline may be new, but walk around Midtown or Downtown, you would think the city needs more modern towers.

the bolded part was kind of the point of the discussion though. we weren't talking about how many old buildings you can see walking around on the street, we were talking about the current visibility of art deco/pre-war towers on a given skyline, and as skylines tend to be defined by their tallest towers, a good proxy for that would be to look at how many of a city's current 5 or 10 or 25 or even 50 tallest buildings were built prior to 1940.

NYC slots in somewhere between chicago and detroit by those metrics.


city - pre-war towers in top 5 - in top 10 - in top 25 - in top 50:

detroit - 2 - 3 - 10 - 20

new york - 0 - 1 - 4 - 6

chicago - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1(and not for long)


new york certainly fairs much better than chicago in this department thanks to those GIANT art deco towers like ESB and chrysler. chicago built a good number of pre-war towers as well, but none of them ever stretched anywhere close to NYC's elite heights. there were some plans back in the roaring 20s for some truly monster chicago towers (ditto for detroit), but they never came to fruition.

however, detroit really stands out in this regard these days. that looks like it might be changing a bit thanks to this hudson tower project and the monroe block. if they both go through, detroit's skyline will trade-in a bit of its pre-war glory for some modern majesty. nothing wrong with that. onward and upward!

for its potential to completely transform and redefine one of america's greatest, most classic skylines, this hudson tower project has easily become one of the most exciting skyscraper developments in the entire nation right now.

[subterranean]

Cool perspective, Steely Dan. I like that breakdown.

It’s gonna be cool watching this thing rise among the classics.

Lightsncolours

[MNMike]

Why are they so mysterious about this project in not even releasing official renderings? Odd. I keep checking back because construction seems around the corner, but still no official plans!

[subterranean]

Fun fact:

Penobscot was the tallest building in Detroit for 49 years (1928-1977) when the RenCen was built.

If the Hudson’s site is completed by 2022, RenCen will have been the tallest for 45 years.

So there could be about the same amount of time between Penobscot and RenCen as there between RenCen and Hudson’s.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Why are they so mysterious about this project in not even releasing official renderings? Odd. I keep checking back because construction seems around the corner, but still no official plans!

i don't know, but i find it mildly annoying too.

just show us already! these impatient eyes are tired of waiting.

[seabee1526]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know, but i find it mildly annoying too.

just show us already! these impatient eyes are tired of waiting.

I do as well. Consensus seems to be that we like the new stepped design, I'm just hoping that that rug does not get pulled out from under us and they go back to the box design. I'm hoping that they are just waiting until all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted, once they get permits and final sign-offs they will release everything....December maybe?

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Why are they so mysterious about this project in not even releasing official renderings? Odd. I keep checking back because construction seems around the corner, but still no official plans!

This is Dan Gilbert's MO. 99% of the time, his ideas jump ahead the details. He has a basic idea of what he wants to accomplish, but seemingly, all the final details and stuff are usually worked out the last minute often with a number of changes from the original design.

He's been very consistent about completing this project by 2020 though now it's slightly backed up to 2022 (likely due to actually fleshing out the details of this project). This is now the 4th (or 5th) iteration of the Hudson's site design since Gilbert announced the project a few years ago.

Pre-concept leak from a Shop Architect during some TED talk or something. Februrary 2015

https://www.freep.com/story/money/bu...sons/24411227/

Officially first released concept 2015.

https://detroit.curbed.com/2015/3/5/...cept-rendering

December 2016


February 2017

https://archinect.com/news/article/1...tinues-to-rise

December 2017

https://detroit.curbed.com/2017/12/1...ing-renderings

October 2018

https://detroit.curbed.com/2018/10/4...ridge-timeline

These last two might be mixed up but it doesn't really matter at this point since we're waiting on new renderings.