Talk:Renaissance Center/Archive 1

$600 million vs. $337 million

The figure $600 million is used in the paragraph about GM buying the property and the figure $337 million is used in the first paragraph of the Statistics section. Is this intentional? Tomhormby 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-urban assumptions

Surely we can find someone to quote on the anti-urban assumptions involved in having built this so isolated from the city's pedestrian life. I bet Lewis Mumford had something to say about this, and probably Jane Jacobs, maybe others. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Interior

I recommend adding some pictures of the interior. Nathanlarson32767 01:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Originally a Marriott Hotel?

I think the article has it backwards. It was originally a Westin Hotel, and now is a Marriot.

Yup. When did the changeover occur? MMetro (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Little too rosy-'POVish'

The article seems a little too personal in tone at times, deleted this because it sounds too POV: to the chagrin of some who dislike its modernist architecture and isolated setting.

As well it sounds a little to upbeat, yes it has been improved but it has always had the circle ring walk around and smaller retail shops and resturants, but gone is the revolving restuarant on top, for instance, so compared to the years of renovation, its improved, but unless you go there for other things like the auto show or sporting and dinner events, not much has changed. It is a good start, in my opinion, but the atruim has not radically changed the river front view and I can personally say that in the winter especially, it is a horrible place to walk around there. --Mikerussell 05:28, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Lots of POV in this article: "With the addition of several prominent restaurants and retailers to the complex, notably Jos A Bank, Brooks Brothers, Seldom Blues, and a first-run movie theatre, the Ren-Cen has started to redefine Detroit once again for a new generation." Yikes. One thing I have noticed is that the interior is not only still difficult to navigate, the presence of security personnel has increased dramatically since GM came in, making it even more difficult insofar as the "shortcuts" through the elevator corridors are now cut off. Jtmichcock 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Emporis.com Quotes

Hello, I'm the one that wrote the Emporis.com quotes for these towers that seem to have been copied word-for-word to this site. Whoever wrote them needs to provide a redirect to Emporis.com, reword the quotes so it's not so obvious that you stole them, or delete them altogether. --Criticalthinker 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Detroitmalls template added

It's a bit of a stretch, but since the RenCen does have a fair whack of retail inside it, I added the Detroitmalls template. TenPoundHammer 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Redevelopment section POV

This section stands out to me as heavily POV. It speaks of the Wintergarden as "brilliant" and "stunning", and that the renovations recently will "redefine Detroit once again for a new generation". --Tom (talk - email) 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing those comments from the article. Flibirigit 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New information

Please advise of new information regarding the Renaissance Center here so that it may be included in the article. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Podium

There should be information about the podium. Angie Y. (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article has no negatives what so ever. It's basically a travel guide to the RenCen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.146.135 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

...which is problematic because this is one of the more heavily criticized examples of American public spaces in the field of urban planning.Synchronism (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

its not problematic, the building is not the same building and has been completely renovated and reconfigured.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So that's history and the article will need to include it to provide comprehensive coverage and explain the current configuration.Synchronism (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links to sources:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Synchronism (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Included reference to design change and purpose. Fringe criticisms, not really relevant / significant to the buildings purpose of the time. The architecture initially emphasized interor spaces and security in the 70s, the focus later changed as did the design. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No negatives...I'd say that was true. But a deeper problem is that it is a sterile recount of figures on ... meters of glass ... for example ... that belong in the architect's version of "Trivial Pursuit", but which are utterly unsuited for any general encyclopedia. The costing, which is a major article feature, is not adjusted for inflation, or compared to anything else, so is just a bunch of figures thrown to the wind. Aricle needs a rewrite that emphasizes what, exactly, is notable about the place. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(Mostly@ThomasPaine)Actually it's a mainstream opinion. Please expound how the criticism is fringe and not directly related to the subject. I'd say the criticism (which is actually quite mainstream; the views of many and facts reported by Chicago Tribune, New York Times and Edmund Bacon (architect) are certainly not fringe) of the center is one of the reasons it's notable.Synchronism (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)