tag:www.criticaldetroit.org,2008-08-04:/blog//1 2008-11-13T18:12:33Z engaging local architecture Movable Type Pro 4.21-en tag:www.criticaldetroit.org,2008:/blog//1.64 2008-10-03T12:07:53Z 2008-11-13T18:12:33Z

Steve VanBrussel I recently ran across an old Detroit Free Press (October 27, 1991) article about unbuilt architecture projects in downtown Detroit.  Written by John Gallagher (still writing about architecture) and illustrated by Dick Rochon (later known as Richard), who has produced many architectural renderings over the years.  If you can find one, take a look at a hand drawn rendering of Detroit architecture the next time you see one.  Chances are it's one if Rochon's.View image View image
]]>
The first few projects were canceled due to the Great Depression during the 1920's.

• Fisher Building (Albert Kahn) - Everyone is familiar with today's Fisher Building, but did you know that what you see today is actually one of three towers that the Fisher Family planned to construct?  The original plan would have occupied the entire block from 2nd to 3rd along West Grand Boulevard and consists of a large 60-story tower flanked by two smaller towers.  Only the smaller eastern most tower was built before the Great Depression.
• Hart Plaza (Eliel Saarinen) -What you see today are only bits and pieces of his original plan which also included a soaring tower, domed memorial hall, and an exposition hall & convention center.  This project was approved by voters, but the Great Depression made it difficult (impossible?) to actually obtain the money.
• Book Tower (Louis Kamper) - The Book Family, who had already built the Book Building and the Book-Cadillac, had plans for a third even grander tower.  They had plans for a 70-story building that would have been the tallest building in Detroit, until the RenCen came along in the 70's.

The next major project was the Renaissance Center (John Portman) in the 1970's.  If you can believe it, the overall plan was much more elaborate and included at least six more towers, another hotel, and a residential complex along the Detroit River.  However, the initial stages of the building saturated the market and the remaining towers were never built (Thankfully).

Even during the 1990's there were a couple notable buildings that were proposed but never built.

• Comerica Tower (Cesar Pelli) - In 1990, Pelli worked with Comerica Bank to design new headquarters building.  The plan included demolishing the Ford Auditorium which generated tremendous public outcry (at the time) and the project was eventually cancelled.
• Two Detroit Center (John Burgee & Phillip Johnson) - At the time of the article, One Detroit Center was under construction and plans were in place to create an identical twin tower to the east.  Softening market conditions put the second tower on indefinite hold.  A parking deck currently occupies the site.  One Detroit Center, now known as Comerica Tower, remains the last skyscraper built in the city.

Other plans that didn't get built:

• Riverfront Park - Ok, this one did get built, but at the time of the article, it was noted that architects had long championed a park from Downtown to Belle Isle. City planners had placed more priority on expanding the tax base rather than creating public land.  Gallagher predicted that the riverfront would likely see commercial development rather than the development of parkland.
• Woodward Mall - Responding to the suburbs innovative (not my word) plans to redevelop their downtowns, a local architect responded by designing a glass canopy for Woodward Avenue with a pedestrian plaza underneath.  Federal grant money that was anticipated for this project was never awarded and the project was, thankfully, canceled.

If you'd like to read the entire article it's available for viewing online [ via Scribd ].  You will need to register if you want to download it.  I've also made it available for download directly from Critical Detroit if you don't feel like registering.

Also, if you know of any recent unbuilt projects, please drop us a line.  I'd love to publicize more of them.  I'm particularly interested in any projects that involve anything on the riverfront, like new convention center locations (not on the riverfront? - I know it's out there), lowering Jefferson Avenue downtown (The not so Big Dig), and relocating JLA to create more space for Hart Plaza.
]]> tag:www.criticaldetroit.org,2008:/blog//1.61 2008-09-26T15:56:58Z 2008-11-13T18:14:27Z

Steve VanBrussel Two new books were recently released that cover Detroit art and architecture.

Great Architecture of Michigan contains 150 photographs by Balthazar Korab for what the MAF feels are architecturally significant buildings from around the state.  John Gallagher, Architecture Critic from the Detroit Free Press, wrote the accompanying text.  Korab's photographs are wonderful as usual.  AIA Michigan has put together a nice site where you can browse the photos. 

Art in Detroit Public Places details the locations and story behind 150 of Detroit's vast collection of public art.

Both books are available at Wayne State Press (Even though I'm not an affiliate, I've provided easy links for you!)

If you're really excited about these books and would like to get them autographed, consider traveling to The Book Beat in Oak Park this Sunday.  The authors will be available from 2:00 - 3:30 to autograph and discuss their books.
]]> tag:www.criticaldetroit.org,2008:/blog//1.54 2008-08-13T13:22:07Z 2008-08-13T17:43:29Z

Steve VanBrussel Even though this event happened in April 2008, I hesitate to publish this for a variety of reasons which I'll get to later.

First, a little background about the event.  The AIA Committee on Design was founded to "promote design excellence among members of the AIA, the broader design community, and the public at large, both nationally and internationally."  In keeping with their goals, the committee held a debate in Detroit from April 3rd thru April 6th to debate parallels between architecture and other forms of design including automotive, landscape, furniture, and crafts.

John Gallagher put together a nice little article which amounts to a daily journal of the days events. ]]>

• Landscape - Belle Isle, Cranbrook, Kresge Foundation
  
• Automotive - Ford Rouge Plant, GM Technical Center
• Crafts - Cranbrook, Affleck House
  
• Furniture - Cranbrook, Affleck House
  

They also visited many other significant buildings in Metro Detroit.

Unfortunately, the article provides little insight to the debate.  Apparently, outside of Detroit there is little love among architects for automotive design and no consensus was reached regarding design parallels.  We''ll have to wait until after September 4th to see if the committee really does reach a consensus, as agreed, in Copenhagen.

You can read through the article and draw your own conclusions.  I'll share my own to get the ball rolling and the reason I hesitated to publish this.

First, this article provides little insight into the debate.  Where is an depth discussion to compare design methodology, technological impact, and target audience between these forms of design?  Does each field even define design the same way?  Does each field share certain traits or even generate responses between industries?  (I am grateful that MGM wasn't completed so they could see the "consummate" result of combining automotive and architectural design.)

Second, the buildings visited are mostly from a very specific time period.  They visited some of Detroit's most prominent historical buildings.  How can you compare contemporary compartmentalized automotive design with the all encompassing design of Saarinen's Cranbrook?  Why not compare Cranbrook with automotive design at the time?

Third, there is no mention of design professionals from other fields being engaged or even present at this debate.  This one point alone really makes me question how productive this debate really was and wonder what it could have been. 

Finally, some of the published comments really make me cringe.  As an architect, I'm embarrassed by these comments, but I'll publish them anyway.  A few of my favorites:

• "...automotive design 'is really packaging.'"
• "My impression is that they're really decorators."(referring to an automotive designer)
• "They all read the same comic books."
• "...it is so much more about marketing, so much more about fashion."
• "It's like nobody really designs a car. It's all these little pieces, and that's totally different."

These are some pretty ignorant statements by some Fellows of the AIA (which means they've been recognized by the AIA for their contributions to the field) and really exposes their misunderstanding of how automotive and architectural design are related.  Substitute "building" for "car" or "automotive" and these statements would be just as relevant to architectural design.   One could substitute any of the debated design forms and it still makes sense. 

I realize this is a feature article, not a final white paper, and it's intended to promote the committee and raise awareness.  However, the lack of insightful debate and participation from other design fields make this out to be nothing more than a site seeing trip for the committee.

]]>