Medical Mile/Michigan Street Developments

[tamias6]

Having the Parking Structures clearly marked with signs would mitigate the first point..

Points two, three and four can be blamed on outdated automotive mindsets of city leaders I also blame the Mainstream since most people seem to not want to vote the old out to make way for the new.

Of course is been a very long time since I been to Detroit . But at the time it seemed Grand Rapids had allot more parking ramps in a given amount of space than Detroit. When I was in DT Detroit I really did not notice that many parking ramps. But go to DTGR there's a parking structure at almost every turn of the corner. But that was 15 years ago. So Detroit may have spouted up a ton of parking ramps since then.

Just some random thoughts after reading the previous entries:

The photos from the Boise report look nice. One can't hardly tell the structures are parking ramps. Question: Will folks continue to think there's no parking downtown because they can't see it? I'm not advocating ugly ramps or lots, just wondering about the suburbites perceptions.

Downtown Detroit has lots of new buildings but a lot of them are just parking ramps

Grand Rapids is getting some new buildings downtown but they too are parking ramps

GRD3 has pointed out how much land in DT is surface parking lots

My question/comment - what do Detroit & GR have in common with regards to parking? Both only have a conventional bus system for mass transit - no quick way for daily commuters to get DT.

[DwntwnGeo]

I did some quick computations, and to do glass instead of the louvers ($25 more per sf), it would have been about 260' x avg 20' or 5200 sf x $25 = about $130,000. Burdensome on a $260,000,000 project? And since this project is mostly doctor's offices, I'm not sure it would have meant one less CAT scanner or anything.

I have a question: So if you replace the louvers with glass do you in turn have to add additional cost to the project? Meaning GRDad, you mentioned it is only $130K for the material replacement from louvers to glass. Now you have created a more enclosed parking structure with dangerous car/truck exhaust. Would additional ventalation systems need to be installed in order to get these dangerous gases out? With installing additional ventalation/exhaust fans, do you now have to change the structual support of the buidling foudations to fit these into places. My point is that chaning one item, may (but not always) change several other items adding additional costs than just the cost difference of the materials.

I not in full support of blank walls in downtown enviroments, but I think that Designcritic has brought up some good points. I do agree with him that it seems (in my opinion) that most of this board revolves around members criticism of projects. Sometimes sitting on my couch, I can b!tch and moan about how I would have done things better and how I would have fought for this and that. At the same time I look at my own Engineering work and realize that sometimes items I disagree with at my level are not what the members up the food chain believe or think. Sometimes items are strong enough that I bring them up while others are not worth the effect or risk of job/project. We all have to decide what items we choose to live and die over. I do believe if there are enough people (in and outside of this forum) that feel so bad about these walls, that they should go and plead their case with the City because fighting about it here doesn't do anyone any good in my opinion. By the time projects are announced and are published here, there isn't much any of use can do to change any of it.

[GRDadof3]

I have a question: So if you replace the louvers with glass do you in turn have to add additional cost to the project? Meaning GRDad, you mentioned it is only $130K for the material replacement from louvers to glass. Now you have created a more enclosed parking structure with dangerous car/truck exhaust. Would additional ventalation systems need to be installed in order to get these dangerous gases out? With installing additional ventalation/exhaust fans, do you now have to change the structual support of the buidling foudations to fit these into places. My point is that chaning one item, may (but not always) change several other items adding additional costs than just the cost difference of the materials.

I not in full support of blank walls in downtown enviroments, but I think that Designcritic has brought up some good points. I do agree with him that it seems (in my opinion) that most of this board revolves around members criticism of projects. Sometimes sitting on my couch, I can b!tch and moan about how I would have done things better and how I would have fought for this and that. At the same time I look at my own Engineering work and realize that sometimes items I disagree with at my level are not what the members up the food chain believe or think. Sometimes items are strong enough that I bring them up while others are not worth the effect or risk of job/project. We all have to decide what items we choose to live and die over. I do believe if there are enough people (in and outside of this forum) that feel so bad about these walls, that they should go and plead their case with the City because fighting about it here doesn't do anyone any good in my opinion. By the time projects are announced and are published here, there isn't much any of use can do to change any of it.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. I can think of several projects that have gotten good reviews on this forum. Why should we give "attaboys" for a bunch of junk? We've given architects, building owners and construction companies more free exposure on this site than they could ever dream of. Sorry if it gets a bit hot around here too.

We bring up many items on here that are set to go before the planning commission or have hearings planned. And by bringing these issues to light here, then perhaps there will be enough people out there who don't have the time to keep with city agendas or public notices who might take action. Seriously, if we're not coming to this site to make a difference in the community and inform people, what are we here for? To look at pretty pictures?

BTW, I'll bet $50 that the louvers aren't there to provide venting. In fact, if you look at this image, it looks like there are large ventilation shafts between the planters and the wall:

[DwntwnGeo]

BTW, I'll bet $50 that the louvers aren't there to provide venting. In fact, if you look at this image, it looks like there are large ventilation shafts between the planters and the wall:

In the image above, it does show venting between the planters and the wall for the lower parking decks. What about the top parking level in the picture. It is above the "planter" section in the picture, so where does the gasses on this level go?

Edited April 8, 2007 by DwntwnGeo

[GRDadof3]

The entire back of the parking levels is wide open to the outside.

Plus, there are two wide doors facing out onto Michigan for ventilation.

Also, the view of the new med schools shows the parking levels open and not covered:

And the concern for ventilation doesn't seem to be much of a problem here:

Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is they were originally going to be all brick/concrete walls, and they were "value engineered" down to openings covered with louvers.

[DwntwnGeo]

Here is a picture in the Ballet thread post today.....

Should be be bashing this thread too? It looks like another blank wall and it even faces US131. Granted it is a threatre, but the donors could have paid to build windows and shadow boxes or someting so people walking by will have something to inspire their lives. Maybe it will be a big billboard for the Highway, oh I forgot Jenny won't let us build any new ones.

[GRDadof3]

Here is a picture in the Ballet thread post today.....

Should be be bashing this thread too? It looks like another blank wall and it even faces US131. Granted it is a threatre, but the donors could have paid to build windows and shadow boxes or someting so people walking by will have something to inspire their lives. Maybe it will be a big billboard for the Highway, oh I forgot Jenny won't let us build any new ones.

It's definitely not looking good. That picture only reinforces the point that something is awry.

[DwntwnGeo]

(1) The entire back of the parking levels is wide open to the outside.

(2) Plus, there are two wide doors facing out onto Michigan for ventilation.

(3) Also, the view of the new med schools shows the parking levels open and not covered:

(4) Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is they were originally going to be all brick/concrete walls, and they were "value engineered" down to openings covered with louvers.

First of all I am an Electrical Engineer and not one that studies the law of air movement.

(1) Even with the entire back of the deck open on all levels I would guess that there would have to be at least some openings on the other three sides of the deck to generate the cross winds needed to evacuate the "bad" gasses.

(2) Even with the large doors that open onto Michigan, I do not know if there would be enough cross winds generated to evacuate that amount of sq footage on a given floor. There may be enough with just the openings, but if there wasn't I would think a louvered wall would be an option.

Another thing to think about is because in the eyes of Utility companies and probably the city these are three seperate buildings with seperate addresses. Yes they are all being built at the same time, but they have to be considered indivigual buildings and be able to stand alone and hold all the code requirements as a stand alone building.

(4) You could be right on the fact that they are/were valued engineered down to save money. I am not in the design/construction side of this project (or any on this board) and wouldn't know if there were other options out there or not.

Another idea is maybe there is some kind of glass window/wall, that will open and close automatically. This would allow for the transparentancy and also any air movement required. I would have to think that if air movement wasn't need they would have put something else in other than louvers.

Edited April 8, 2007 by DwntwnGeo

[GRDadof3]

First of all I am an Electrical Engineer and not one that studies the law of air movement.

(1) Even with the entire back of the deck open on all levels I would guess that there would have to be at least some openings on the other three sides of the deck to generate the cross winds needed to evacuate the "bad" gasses.

(2) Even with the large doors that open onto Michigan, I do not know if there would be enough cross winds to evacuate that amount of sq footage on a given floor. There may be enough with just the openings, but if there wasn't I would like a louvered wall would be an option.

Another thing to think about is because in the eyes of Utility companies and probably the city these are three seperate buildings with seperate addresses. Yes they are all being built at the same time, but they have to be considered indivigual buildings and be able to stand alone and hold all the code requirements as a stand alone building.

(4) You could be right on the fact that they are/were valued engineered down to save money. I am not in the design/construction side of this project (or any on this board) and wouldn't know if there were other options out there or not.

Onther idea, is maybe there is some kind of glass window/wall, that will open and close automatically. This would allow for the transparentancy and also any air movement required. I would have to think that if air movement wasn't need they would have put something else in other than louvers.

Now you're thinking Geo. If this were written into the code, then this whole thing wouldn't even need to be discussed. Having a more pleasing environment at ground level is good for everyone downtown, including Spectrum and the other entities involved. Seriously, if they paid more attention to the first 2 - 3 floors, I could care less the rest of the buildings looked like. These aren't high-rises, so it's not like they are going to make a mark anyway. Trust me, when big developers figure out exactly where they want to build, they will go to the nth degree to get it finished, including coming to the table and agreeing to some simple codes for aesthetics. They just want treatment to be fair and on a level playing field with their competition.

[numstead]

Personally, I don't think your idea (GRdad) of replacing the louvers with glass is much better. Large expanses of glass would be just as "blank" as a brick or louverred wall. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it would be even more oppressive. One... glass has a cold, sterile appearance by nature. Two... glass tends to reflect sound and light, in this case the more important would be the sound. Imagine how much noiser it would be at sidewalk level with a glass wall amplifying the passing vehicles.

Obviously we've gotten to this point with this particular project because it was poorly planned. Granted, the slope of Michigan Street presents great challenges and the market demand for ridiculous amounts of parking adds more. I think its silly that the towers address the highway more prominently than the street, and the elevated driveway is even sillier. That whole gesture is very "office park" of them.

I think the way Boise stated it was great... "Creating a building fa

[Rizzo]

Personally, I don't think your idea (GRdad) of replacing the louvers with glass is much better. Large expanses of glass would be just as "blank" as a brick or louverred wall. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it would be even more oppressive. One... glass has a cold, sterile appearance by nature. Two... glass tends to reflect sound and light, in this case the more important would be the sound. Imagine how much noiser it would be at sidewalk level with a glass wall amplifying the passing vehicles.

Obviously we've gotten to this point with this particular project because it was poorly planned. Granted, the slope of Michigan Street presents great challenges and the market demand for ridiculous amounts of parking adds more. I think its silly that the towers address the highway more prominently than the street, and the elevated driveway is even sillier. That whole gesture is very "office park" of them.

I think the way Boise stated it was great... "Creating a building fa

Edited April 8, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I agree that flat is bad, even if it is glass. I would even like it better if it were a mix of glass and louvers, with at least some semi-transparent glass mixed in, and more vertical column separations (or at least the vertical sections more pronounced).

I've spoken with several architects about joining UP and they say we're "brutal" on here. We're not that bad once you get to know us.

[tamias6]

UP being "brutal" to architecture would be a good thing for architects brave enough to join forums.

Seriously, as an artist I see no difference between architecture and visual art fields when it comes to the need for constructive criticism.

I agree that flat is bad, even if it is glass. I would even like it better if it were a mix of glass and louvers, with at least some semi-transparent glass mixed in, and more vertical column separations (or at least the vertical sections more pronounced).

I've spoken with several architects about joining UP and they say we're "brutal" on here. We're not that bad once you get to know us.

[Nitro]

I've spoken with several architects about joining UP and they say we're "brutal" on here. We're not that bad once you get to know us.

Hey, I'm here aren't I? I know of several architects that frequent these boards. I think there's more of us around here then people realize.

[designcritic]

BTW, I'll bet $50 that the louvers aren't there to provide venting. In fact, if you look at this image, it looks like there are large ventilation shafts between the planters and the wall:

I will PM you my address for the $50. The louvers have a 50% or more openess factor which means that those levels to not need to be mechanically exhausted. The airshaft are for the lower levels. As someone stated, if glass was to replace the louvers more cost would be added to the mechanical system and the structural system to add airshafts and exhaust fans. It's never as simple as it seems. There needs to be positive air movement at every point in the structure. The small entry/exit openings would not provide enough area to accomplish that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is they were originally going to be all brick/concrete walls, and they were "value engineered" down to openings covered with louvers.

Nope, it was always planned to be louvers because they are necessary to avoid mechanically exhausing the structure. There was also an alternate to put louvers on the north elevation as well but that alternate was not taken because of the cost and the fact that all the other decks that front I-196 in that area have nothing to screen the structure.

[joeDowntown]

Even with it's small warts, I'm still excited to see it go up! I do think they should build an outdoor escalator from Ottawa to the top of the hill. Wouldn't want us fat Michiganders to have to hoof it all the way up the hill.

Joe

[tamias6]

Ha! And to think that 2/3 of all we Americans are over weight or obese. No wonder Health Hill is booming.

Wouldn't want us fat Michiganders to have to hoof it all the way up the hill.

Joe

[GRDadof3]

I will PM you my address for the $50. The louvers have a 50% or more openess factor which means that those levels to not need to be mechanically exhausted. The airshaft are for the lower levels. As someone stated, if glass was to replace the louvers more cost would be added to the mechanical system and the structural system to add airshafts and exhaust fans. It's never as simple as it seems. There needs to be positive air movement at every point in the structure. The small entry/exit openings would not provide enough area to accomplish that.

Nope, it was always planned to be louvers because they are necessary to avoid mechanically exhausing the structure. There was also an alternate to put louvers on the north elevation as well but that alternate was not taken because of the cost and the fact that all the other decks that front I-196 in that area have nothing to screen the structure.

Sure, I'll put you on paypal.

Edit, never mind, what's done is done. I'm going to see if the city would be open to changing the code, before it's too late.

In the meantime, here's a little treat for everyone:

Remember when this was the design across the street?

At least the newer version is a lot better:

[torgo]

The only reason I complain so much is because it seems like what should be the most important part of the building, the ground floor, seems to get ignored over and over again the high profile projects.

[beergeek]

Granted, the slope of Michigan Street presents great challenges and the market demand for ridiculous amounts of parking adds more.

Yes, because those silly cancer patients, or families with children in the ICU, should welcome the opportunity to park 2 miles away and ride the bus in. I am constantly amazed at the "ground level transparency" mantra around here without any consideration for use of the buildings. High-rise condos don't serve the same purpose as Cancer centers. These buildings weren't created to beautify the skyline (or to give the UPers something to gripe about), they were built with a purpose in mind. You might be singing a different tune about accessable parking if your child was in a car accident and in the ICU and you needed to get to the hospital ASAP.

[Veloise]

...I've spoken with several architects about joining UP and they say we're "brutal" on here. We're not that bad once you get to know us.

Hey, I'm brutal. Have given up walking the 1/8 mile to Waterfall Plaza; not worth it.

[has its own thread, complete with photos of the pedestrian-ignorant "design"]

[GRDadof3]

Yes, because those silly cancer patients, or families with children in the ICU, should welcome the opportunity to park 2 miles away and ride the bus in. I am constantly amazed at the "ground level transparency" mantra around here without any consideration for use of the buildings. High-rise condos don't serve the same purpose as Cancer centers. These buildings weren't created to beautify the skyline (or to give the UPers something to gripe about), they were built with a purpose in mind. You might be singing a different tune about accessable parking if your child was in a car accident and in the ICU and you needed to get to the hospital ASAP.

I don't believe any of the parking being added is for the ICU is it? If my child is ill, I have to negotiate parking in a massive 2300 space ramp? I doubt it. Plus, these are office buildings, aren't they? There's no critical care going on (except in the LH Cancer Pavilion, which again isn't being discussed).

torgo, without proper codes and explicit language laid out, there is no incentive for developers to pay any attention to the ground floor. It's an afterthought (or not even thought of period). And with parking taking up more and more of the lower floors of buildings, how parking levels are handled is going to greatly affect how the city looks when walking, or even driving, through it. It seems like everyone falls on one side or the other: form and function on the upper floors with no regard to the bottom of the cake except whatever will fit in the budget, or form and function for the project as a whole including the ground floor. And I think other than golscorer, there's an unwritten rule in this town that architects don't come out publicly (or semi-publicly) against each other's work.

I think the main thing I like about the Boise standards is that the overall theme is that the parking garage should look like a "building", or part of the building above it. Again, I highly doubt that if these standards were written in back in 2005 that the hill developers would have made it a deal breaker and built out in the burbs. They're bound and determined to make Pill Hill a major iconic health area. They may have kicked and screamed a bit, but that's it.

Going back to the venting, I think even a mixture of louvers and windows would have at least given the lower floors the impression that it was "part of the project", not an appendage of the project, and would have accomplished the needed venting. And I'm guessing RDV and Christman probably would have been happier with the look, especially since I believe they still have an entire tower to still lease out (?)

BTW beergeek, no one is attacking you or your employer.

I don't know if this quick sketch will help or hurt my case.

[AlexPKeaton]

Personally, I don't think your idea (GRdad) of replacing the louvers with glass is much better. Large expanses of glass would be just as "blank" as a brick or louverred wall.

I agree. One of the parking ramp horror photos included ground-level glass and it still sucked. Shiny doesn't mean good. For this particular project I don't know what the answer would be honestly. I'd like to see nice wide sidewalks, but beyond that I think it's too much to expect ground-floor retail or restaurants on that hillside in an already sterile part of downtown. Maybe hospital workers would use them, but no downtown workers would likely make the walk up there.

Perhaps if there were a transit stop in this building brining workers to downtown it would increase the foot traffic up and down the hill to the point where street-level activities would be viable.

[AlexPKeaton]

Yes, because those silly cancer patients, or families with children in the ICU, should welcome the opportunity to park 2 miles away and ride the bus in.

Nobody is arguing that these buildings don't need parking. It is too much to expect somebody visiting for medical treatment to take mass transit when they're likely not all that familiar with downtown or the potential future transit system. But people working here should definitely be encouraged to use public transit, live downtown, or find some other way to get to work thereby reducing the number of parking spaces required. That said, my understanding is that this project already doesn't come close to providing enough parking spots to employees and patients, so maybe by creating a shortage of spots it will have that desired effect. Time will tell.

[beergeek]

I don't believe any of the parking being added is for the ICU is it? If my child is ill, I have to negotiate parking in a massive 2300 space ramp? I doubt it. Plus, these are office buildings, aren't they? There's no critical care going on (except in the LH Cancer Pavilion, which again isn't being discussed).

<snip>

BTW beergeek, no one is attacking you or your employer.

I believe the majority of parking for the forthcoming Children's Hospital will be at LH/Towers complex. The parking at-site at the hospital will be for ED only (and some physician parking) AFAIK.

I don't feel attacked, don't worry. And you can feel free to bash SH all you want (I've done my share). My continued grievance is that form needs to follow function, not the other way around. Could Spectrum have raised another half a mil to do a better job disguising the parking? Abso-friggin-lutely, no argument from me there. But to suggest that they could have done without the parking ramps on a hope and a prayer of some sort of transit system (as some have hinted) is ridiculous. As it stands right now, I'd guess 90%+ of the people walking around are visitors or employees trudging in from the satellite parking lots. It's a chicken and the egg thing....I can't see SH investing $$$ or real estate hoping that light rail comes to Pill Hill. And light rail isn't going to come up the hill unless people have places set aside for it. Who has to go out on a limb first?

Changing subjects, do we know where the tunnel from Lemmen Holton is connecting to the main hospital? What building & at what level?