DETROIT | Hudson's Detroit | 685 FT & 240 FT | 49 & 14 FLOORS - Page 20

Steely Dan · #**381** Posted **Oct 17, 2018, 7:43 PM**

^ thanks for that awesome recap!

The North One · #**382** Posted **Oct 17, 2018, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seabee1526

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?

The plans were submitted to the city so I don't think there's any chance of that happening.

Steely Dan · #**383** Posted **Oct 17, 2018, 8:39 PM**

given that so many have compared the new design for this project to one chicago square and NEMA (one grant park) in chicago, i thought it would be interesting to look at them all together now that hudson tower has a diagram drawn for it in the SSP datatbase.

source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=82904465

seabee1526 · #**384** Posted **Oct 17, 2018, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That green terracotta building in LA is wild. Not sure I'm a huge fan of it. Chicago has one too.

MNMike · #**385** Posted **Oct 17, 2018, 9:33 PM**

Glad I am not alone in wondering whats up with the secrecy. Thanks for the info.

DetroitRises · #**386** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

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!

He did something similar with his plans conducting a big project announcement in book tower last year followed by hudsons groundbreaking shortly after. Don’t be surprised if there’s a big announcement with final plans of Hudsons just before the Monroe Blocks groundbreaking, which hopefully happens in December

TallBob · #**387** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 9:02 AM**

Well...I hope it get's built! Is the 912' official?

pianowizard · #**388** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 1:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

Fun fact:

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

By today's "structural height" criterion, which I think has been in place since the Sears vs. Petronas controversy back in 1998, the Guardian Building completed in 1929 is taller than Penobscot. Though Guardian's roof height of 495 ft is lower than Penobscot's 565 ft, the former's spire brings its structural height to 632 ft. Penobscot's antenna doesn't add to the building's structural height.

Thus, using this criterion Guardian was Detroit's tallest for 48 years, from 1929 to 1977.

LMich · #**389** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 1:41 PM**

Flagpoles are not counted as spires.

pianowizard · #**390** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

Flagpoles are not counted as spires.

SkyscraperPage's Diagrams site includes the spire as Guardian's structural height. The Wikipedia article for this building also calls it a spire. That being said, the original design of Guardian might not have included the spire -- see for example this postcard. If that's the case, I suppose we can say the spire wasn't an integral part of the building's design, and exclude it from the structural height.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=82904465

IMO Hudson Tower looks nicer than One Grant Park!

Steely Dan · #**391** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

SkyscraperPage's Diagrams site includes the spire as Guardian's structural height.

that's a mistake. there are many flagpoles that are incorrectly included in the structural heights of buildings in SSP's database.

according to the rules laid out by the CTBUH, flagpoles are treated the same way as antennas, part of the total height, but not structural (official) height.

pianowizard · #**392** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's a mistake. there are many flagpoles that are incorrectly included in the structural heights of buildings in SSP's database.

according to the rules laid out by the CTBUH, flagpoles are treated the same way as antennas, part of the total height, but not structural (official) height.

If someone decides to put a flag on One World Trade Center's spire, would the structural/official height suddenly be reduced from 1776 ft to 1368 ft?

The North One · #**393** Posted **Oct 18, 2018, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

according to the rules laid out by the CTBUH, flagpoles are treated the same way as antennas, part of the total height, but not structural (official) height.

CTBUH's rules make no sense half the time, their rulings are just as arbitrary as anybody else. I say screw them, who gave them the power?