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

[LMich]

They've been going to town on the caissons, recently, and the steel reinforcement caging has been disappearing. I'll sound like a broken record, here, but if Bedrock would just give us even a monthly update on exactly what they are doing, we'd all be the better off for it.

BTW, it really does appear unless they stop that they are busting up the entire section of the floor within the tower's footprint. I noticed this over the last week or two. I don't recall them doing that with the other 2/3 of the site where they cut out small and specific sections of the floor. Looks like they are using one breaker and two excavators for that section. They could definitely use another breaker.

[seabee1526]

Hope to see some vertical construction by mid July? They have a lot of work to do to finish the foundation pilings and clean up the site.

[The Lurker]

If you watch the Youtube video from the Hudson site today, at just after 1:00 firetrucks start showing up on site, 5 in total and a crowd of emergency responders forms. Did something happen? Or some kind of emergency training exercise?

[animatedmartian]

Nothing major showed up in the news and slowing down the video looks like they're just having a big meeting. Doesn't seem to interrupt construction activity at all.

[seabee1526]

They were back (in smaller numbers) in the following days video. Possibly a training exercise.

[The Lurker]

That's what it looks like. Glad there wasn't an accident

[animatedmartian]

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/real-estate/progress-slows-monroe-blocks-project

Minor update but it is official that Bedrock has been working on (another) redesign and that has caused some delay in the construction timeline.

This could possibly mean that the tower will be taller than 912 ft but that is not yet confirmed. That is only an assumption based on prior statements about why a redesign would be needed.

Either way, work on the foundation is still on-going.

[The North One]

I can't imagine this being taller, that would make no business sense at all. The design is likely being value engineered.

[subterranean]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it goes higher. Nothing about the height of this has had anything to do with business sense. If height wasn't important for some other reason, the entirety of the site is likely large enough to have a building with the same FAR at less than half the height.

[Steely Dan]

as long as it stays significantly higher than the ren cen marriott, it's a huge win.

it doesn't much matter if it's 912' tall or boosted up to 975' or VE'd down to 850'.

what matters most for the skyline is a new tallest that stands at least 10% taller than the ren cen marriott.

[The North One]

Here's today's update.

• Video Link

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

as long as it stays significantly higher than the ren cen marriott, it's a huge win.

it doesn't much matter if it's 912' tall or boosted up to 975' or VE'd down to 850'.

what matters most for the skyline is a new tallest that stands at least 10% taller than the ren cen marriott.

Indeed, we in the Detroit area wouldn't want to be stuck with the same tallest building for too much longer than 42 years, right? The cities below have had the same tallest buildings since 1977 or earlier. Hopefully Detroit will get out of this "arrested development club" soon!

Detroit MI: 1977, 727 ft
Boston MA: 1976, 790 ft
Tulsa OK: 1976, 667 ft
Chicago IL: 1974, 1451 ft
Buffalo NY: 1974, 529 ft
Minneapolis MN: 1973, 792 ft
Columbus OH: 1973, 629 ft
Milwaukee WI: 1973, 601 ft
Albany NY: 1973, 589 ft
Baltimore MD: 1973, 529 ft
New Orleans LA: 1972, 697 ft
Portland OR: 1972, 546 ft
Pittsburgh PA: 1970, 841 ft

See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=8345804 for the complete list.

[Skyguy_7]

^There's not much shame in being on that list. NYC was on there for a LONG time, with the ESB.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Indeed, we in the Detroit area wouldn't want to be stuck with the same tallest building for too much longer than 42 years, right? The cities below have had the same tallest buildings since 1977 or earlier. Hopefully Detroit will get out of this "arrested development club" soon!

Detroit MI: 1977, 727 ft
Boston MA: 1976, 790 ft
Tulsa OK: 1976, 667 ft
Chicago IL: 1974, 1451 ft
Buffalo NY: 1974, 529 ft
Minneapolis MN: 1973, 792 ft
Columbus OH: 1973, 629 ft
Milwaukee WI: 1973, 601 ft
Albany NY: 1973, 589 ft
Baltimore MD: 1973, 529 ft
New Orleans LA: 1972, 697 ft
Portland OR: 1972, 546 ft
Pittsburgh PA: 1970, 841 ft

See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=8345804 for the complete list.

Chicago's being twice as tall as everything else on the list means it should probably be left off

[The North One]

the 70's was really one heck of a decade for new tallest buildings.

I don't care either way, I just want something aesthetically attractive and urban/pedestrian friendly.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't care either way, I just want something aesthetically attractive and urban/pedestrian friendly.

for sure, aesthetics and urban integration are paramount (and from what we've been shown thus far, things seem good on those fronts), but i really do hope that this ends up being a new tallest for detroit. not so much because the current tallest is bad or anything, it's just that the ren cen is kind of off to the side of downtown detroit and a new tallest on the hudson block would really go a long way toward re-centering and balancing the skyline in a pleasing fashion IMO.

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

Chicago's being twice as tall as everything else on the list means it should probably be left off

i don't know that chicago needs to be left off a list of factual information, but dubbing said list as the "arrested development club" and then including chicago on it is a bit dubious.

chicago may not have superseded the sears' extremely lofty heights yet, but the city's skyline can hardly be lumped into the arrested development category. i mean, chicago has built 52 buildings over 500' over the past 2 decades. and 2 of the 3 tallest buildings in the city (and 4 of the top 10) have been built over the past 10 years.

so far this century, the US has built 52 buildings over 800' (including U/C towers). here's how that breaks down:

new york - 32
chicago - 9
SF - 3
philly - 2
miami - 2
LA - 1
detroit - 1
seattle - 1
oklahoma city - 1


i don't think anyone can make a sensible argument that chicago's skyline development has been arrested over the recent past.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't think anyone can make a sensible argument that chicago's skyline development has been arrested over the recent past.

The fact is the 70s was a good time for dynamic change in a lot of cities specifically their skylines. The 80s and 90s for most cities didn't change much and from the 2000s onward, only a handful of cities have really had any drastic change to their skyline.

With Chicago, of the top 10 tallest, only 2 were built later than 1990 while 4 of the current tallest were built between 1969 and 1979. Many other US cities have a very similar trend.

You would think by 2020 plenty of the tallest skyscrapers for most US cities would all be less than 10 years old, but this isn't the case expect for NYC or Austin and maybe one or two other places. In general, the newest skyscrapers might be decently tall, but the tallest skyscrapers are not really new.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

With Chicago, of the top 10 tallest, only 2 were built later than 1990 while 4 of the current tallest were built between 1969 and 1979.

huh?

4 of chicago's 10 tallest have been built in the past 10 years (including 2 of the 3 tallest): trump, vista, one chicago, and NEMA.

and the late 80's was a period of pretty big change to chicago's skyline with the construction of 4 towers over 800' tall.

and there are active proposals for 3 more towers that would break into the top 10 should they go forward, including a new 2nd tallest.

chicago's 10 tallest buildings:






anyway, this is all radically off-topic, does anyone have a recent shot of the construction site to post?

[pianowizard]

Let me first emphasize that my list didn't mean to ridicule Chicago for not having a new tallest building since 1974. As I have said numerous times on this forum, I love Chicago and its skyline is my #1 favorite in the US and possibly even the world. (Please, let's not start yet another skyline war based on this 100% subjective comment!)

I agree it's unfair to suggest that Chicago is suffering "arrested development", and apologize for that. Nevertheless, the completion of a 1451-footer, an 1136-footer and an 1128-footer within a 5-year period when buildings this tall were extremely rare (nonexistent outside the US) is a feat that Chicago hasn't repeated. Thus, while development surely isn't arrested, it has slowed. Again, I am not criticizing, and in fact if the 2717 ft Burj Khalifa had been built in Chicago, my favorite skyline would probably NOT be Chicago's.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

anyway, this is all radically off-topic, does anyone have a recent shot of the construction site to post?

I will be in Detroit this afternoon and evening, and will try to take a photo or two of the site.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Thus, while development surely isn't arrested, it has slowed.

in the interest of not taking this thread even further off-topic, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I will be in Detroit this afternoon and evening, and will try to take a photo or two of the site.

awesome, thanks!