Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sparky05

Medical Hill - Tower 25

147 posts in this topic

I've decided that it's time to start differentiating between the various buildings rising on Medical Hill, so welcome to the new thread devoted to Tower 2 on Medical Hill!

Today:

435782845_6eaca73011_b.jpg

435781048_d6289bd330_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nice pics, Sparky. I've seen allot of panos from you. They all look real seamless. What software are you using?

I've decided that it's time to start differentiating between the various buildings rising on Medical Hill, so welcome to the new thread devoted to Tower 2 on Medical Hill!

Today:

435782845_6eaca73011_b.jpg

435781048_d6289bd330_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice pics, Sparky. I've seen allot of panos from you. They all look real seamless. What software are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to put it in perspective, it costs approx. $12,000/parking space to build an above ground parking structure and about $24,000/parking space below ground. IMHO the project owners already went above and beyond the cheap route, but I'm sure future owners would be more than happy to let you take a collection from everyone that wants to help the aesthetics of their project :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought above ground ramps were getting close to $20,000+ per space, and underground double that? Unless you're talking about a plain concrete parking ramp with no architectural features to it.

And you're right, property owners are under no obligation to make the ground floor of their projects aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure the property owners feel the same way about homes and buildings in their own neighborhoods as well. It's up to publicly driven bake sales and penny drives to make a city more inviting.

I'm just curious how the applicant was given a free pass for basically an 800 foot long blank wall that will be as tall or taller than pedestrians walking by, and as tall as a 3 - 4 story buildings in some areas, and only about 10% transparency (just driveways BTW), when the requirement is 60%. I know, I know.... think about the jobs, there is nothing to see here, you are getting very sleepy, this will cost my client money..............

447442684_a009fbe117_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure where you're getting your data, but that $20,000/parking space looks to be extremely out of whack. On a SF-basis, you're looking at a national average of about $43/SF, but you have to realize that the total SF of the structure is not composed of parking spaces. And that includes typical architectural features - not the "brick and mortar."

Back to your concern about the 800-foot blank wall - this ain't Japan man. If you want artsy fartsy little structures like Japan and some European countries, look downtown - not in a commercial district. Also, when I get a minute I'll shoot your 10% transparency value to hell with some calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Who said anything about artsy-fartsy structures? Are windows artsy-fartsy structures?

We must have been in japan a few short years ago! Look at all those stupid windows! What retard drew up that god-awful design?

HeartCtrDay.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, those are windows! Crazy, because the way everybody makes it sound, none of the glass on these buildings is considered a window.

078e4cda.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat up on you more, but Japan is not known for its great architecture. Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai- maybe. Japan? Not so much. Been there and wasn't impressed by a whole lot of the architecture.

this ain't Japan man. If you want artsy fartsy little structures like Japan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples like this one you pointed out as well as Icon and Bond's first floor, the west side of Calder Plaza, the Pearl and Iona Parking Ramp, the new Marriott's ball room and so on, are examples of a fundamental need for a change in building codes to force developers into including transparency into their projects.

I'm just curious how the applicant was given a free pass for basically an 800 foot long blank wall that will be as tall or taller than pedestrians walking by, and as tall as a 3 - 4 story buildings in some areas, and only about 10% transparency (just driveways BTW), when the requirement is 60%. I know, I know.... think about the jobs, there is nothing to see here, you are getting very sleepy, this will cost my client money..............

447442684_a009fbe117_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This development is a great thing. No doubt about that. But I agree with you in that Pill Hill's short fall is its ability to accommodate pedestrians or lack there of. This is so because the city and state are still thinking in an automotive-centric mindset. Because of that there is a lack of a robust mass transit system to get people to and from Pill Hill. Same can be said for all of DT GR. The ridiculous building codes forcing developers to add excessive amounts of expensive parking to their projects is a vivid case and point. The result is Health Hill's shear size is a spawning gargantuan parking structure so massive that it will take 16 threads on the GR forum to store all the complaints about it. If GR would have been thinking outside the box and implemented at least a park-n-ride mass transit system to get workers in and out of DT, I'm sure the hill and the rest of DT would look allot different than does now.

I just wanted to clarify myself because this comment of mine seems to have started a maelstrom in this thread and another thread. It is great the money and resources that are being spent on this project and the “knowledge-based” jobs that will be created. What I was stating was that from a pedestrian point of view and urban planning point of view is that this project does nothing to create street life, which is a known positive externality to any development in an urban environment.

I would be a hypocrite to demand the developers to use my suggestions, especially considering my screen name:0. I am sure a lot of Upers would disagree with me on this. As my previous post implies, I was only pointing out the obvious and demanding nothing. Rleuthueser, your insight into these projects (I believe you work on one of them?) have been great, but don’t jump to conjecture on others’ posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


snip The ridiculous building codes forcing developers to add excessive amounts of expensive parking to their projects is a vivid case and point. The result is Health Hill's shear size is a spawning gargantuan parking structure so massive that it will take 16 threads on the GR forum to store all the complaints about it. If GR would have been thinking outside the box and implemented at least a park-n-ride mass transit system to get workers in and out of DT, I'm sure the hill and the rest of DT would look allot different than does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there is also pressure coming from end users of the development for more parking. Mass Transit would be a major help reducing pressure to build more parking since people would not have to drive to DT.

Sorry to keep this off topic subject going.

It is my understanding that GR allows a payment in lieu of parking, and that payment is about $7500 per space. The office parking requirement in the CBD is one per 1000 sq ft. It would seem that a developer, from strictly a capital point of view, would have incentive to not build parking spaces if they were to cost him 2-3-4 times as much as this. Does the pressure to build parking structures in buildings like this come from tenants/users? For what some of this parking leases for, $110 - $140 a month, it would seem difficult to justify the cost to build parking from a return on capital perspective. If it is not exclusively because of the building code what is the motivation for a developer to build these structures? I do understand the Michigan Ave development may not represent what "market forces" dictate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This development is a great thing. No doubt about that. But I agree with you in that Pill Hill's short fall is its ability to accommodate pedestrians or lack there of. This is so because the city and state are still thinking in an automotive-centric mindset. Because of that there is a lack of a robust mass transit system to get people to and from Pill Hill. Same can be said for all of DT GR. The ridiculous building codes forcing developers to add excessive amounts of expensive parking to their projects is a vivid case and point. The result is Health Hill's shear size is a spawning gargantuan parking structure so massive that it will take 16 threads on the GR forum to store all the complaints about it. If GR would have been thinking outside the box and implemented at least a park-n-ride mass transit system to get workers in and out of DT, I'm sure the hill and the rest of DT would look allot different than does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there is also pressure coming from end users of the development for more parking. Mass Transit would be a major help reducing pressure to build more parking since people would not have to drive to DT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why they even highlight the wall on this collage? Our walls are better than the competitions' walls (?)

448700352_c88be20fd5_o.jpg

towermart, I'm assuming the parking requirements are coming from the end users, and building owners just build it into their rents (?) Any commercial brokers out there know?

Perhaps that's why we haven't seen too many new Class A office buildings built in a while (of any substantial size). Anyone know the last one built? Bridgewater I was almost 15 years ago now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70 Ionia is Class A and I would guess that the Riverfront Plaza expansion is Class A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there is also pressure coming from end users of the development for more parking. Mass Transit would be a major help reducing pressure to build more parking since people would not have to drive to DT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because all the neutropenic cancer patients would loooooove to ride mass transit. Cough, sneeze, whoops, you've got meningitis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I like the wall. It would certainly seem that the $250mil budget for the Children's Hospital, or the $xx mil for the cancer center (hell, $7.5 mil for the new lobby) could absorb a few extra windows. But this building has a purpose, to cure the sick. The sick, who would probably not be too thrilled about parking their cars "somewhere" to hop on mass transit to get radiation treatments. At what point should function be sacrificed for form? Say what you will about exceptions to transparency (I'm not saying the hospital should get a free pass on this) but to suggest a new hospital shouldn't have parking for patients is ludicrous (tamias, this isn't directed at you). It simply doesn't make sense to group hospitals in with condos with offices. Different users, different needs. Should the heart of DT have some sort of mass transit? Sure. But including the Medical Mile with that is a waste of money, IMO, as the end users are vastly different.

Soooo...anyways...I'm drinking a Bells HopSlam, how about the weather? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that the walls look forboding. Maybe in the spirit of health they could make them into rock-climbing walls ;). I do wonder why they didn't have to follow the same rules about transparency. Is it because they aren't in the CBD?

I don't know about the whole idea of mass-transit being a requirement for building. It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse here. Plus, the concrete is still moist on a new 500,000 spot parking ramp. I don't think your going to find many people ready to give up the automobile.

It'll be interesting to see how it all looks in the end. I've always been unimpressed with the VAI's lack of transparency on the ground floor, when the rest of the building is almost like working in a fishbowl. I think Phase II on Division will be the same way, and that is a big shame. That will be one long blank wall to walk by. Put in some windows, maybe even a door :P. It sure seems like people let the small things go, and those finishing touches are what makes a building part of the city.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the thousands of Spectrum, VAI, and MSU employees and students on the hill who store their cars for 8 - 12 hours a day that seem like would be better served by mass transit (and much less expensive for the hospitals and business owners). Just taking those people out of the equation may have negated 1/2 the current parking ramp being built, or more, since there are already 3 or 4 ramps on the property already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.