Detroit’s Renaissance Center has long stood as a defining mark on the city’s skyline. For generations, it has been a landmark that locals recognize and tourists admire, but the future of this towering structure has been uncertain since General Motors announced its decision to move headquarters to the Hudson’s site. The conversation surrounding the RenCen’s fate has now reached a pivotal moment. Once thought to be on the path to complete demolition, the discussion has shifted toward transformation, though that shift is not without resistance.
The Detroit City Council rejected a request to make the Renaissance Center a historic district amid talks of redevelopment plans. Since reports about transforming the RenCen surfaced—including proposals that include demolishing portions of the tower campus—residents, preservationists, and public officials have begun to act to preserve the structures. That included a letter from preservationists urging the city to consider adapting the existing buildings, and several residents stunned by the potential loss of a portion of their iconic skyline, asking the council to consider a historic designation study. This study would allow the Historic District Commission to review permit applications for any work within a proposed historic district for one year.
On the other side are stakeholders and supportive residents who view any future plans for the RenCen—even demolishing portions or all of it—as a viable path to create jobs, opportunities, and a flourishing riverfront. During council session, members overwhelmingly voted 8-1 to deny the historic review, with Council Member Angela Whitfield-Calloway being the lone vote supporting it, making room for Dan Gilbert’s Bedrock team to proceed with its proposal to conceptualize a different future for one of Detroit’s most iconic buildings.
“I don’t think we have to demolish to build. I really don’t. I think we can preserve and build at the same time. I think they can coexist. And I’ve watched with a broken heart, all of our buildings be demolished, and then what’s being built now downtown are Lego-style buildings. They don’t have any kind of architectural flavor or design. They are all cookie-cutter designs,” Calloway said. “We are destroying our history… That skyline will be forever destroyed” if the city allows the developer to move forward.
During last Thursday’s planning and economic development committee meeting—where stakeholders outlined the proposal and addressed questions—Jared Fleisher, vice president of Dan Gilbert’s Rock Family of Companies, said demolishing two towers and maintaining the rest of the properties is the “only viable path to preserving the Renaissance Center.”
“Just because something can’t be the same, doesn’t mean it can’t be spectacular, and our vision is to make this and to make the riverfront spectacular,” Fleisher said. “It should be something that Detroiters cannot just see as a stale icon from afar, but can actually experience and enjoy directly. It should be something that is inclusive, not designed to exclude; that is open, inviting, accessible, and easy to navigate. It should be something that connects and integrates the rest of the city with its riverfront, doesn’t divide it. It should be something that anchors a thriving riverfront that is not just based on Navy Pier in Chicago, but that is the envy of Navy Pier in Chicago.”
Chicago’s Navy Pier is one of the Windy City’s most celebrated attractions, drawing millions of visitors each year to its mix of entertainment, retail, and public gathering spaces. The pier serves as a central point for both residents and tourists, offering a space that blends history with modern engagement. Detroit’s riverfront has its own identity, one deeply connected to the city’s industrial past and cultural richness. It is distinct from Chicago, yet equally deserving of recognition and investment.
Fleisher believes Detroit’s riverfront has the potential to become a major gathering place for residents and visitors alike. At a Detroit Downtown Partnership Spring Forum, he emphasized that the current design of the Renaissance Center creates too many barriers to accessing the riverfront. According to Fleisher, the redevelopment project would break down these barriers, making the riverfront a more welcoming and interactive space.
“It is too much work to get to our riverfront,” Fleisher said. “With updates and the reimagining of the towers at the RenCen, it would create a clear and accessible path to the riverfront for all to enjoy.”
By the end of the committee meeting, Council Member Fred Durhal III recommended denying the historic review. Council President Pro Tem James Tate supported Durhal’s position.
“I wanted to preserve as much as possible. Nothing in this denial does that. It does not now give a green light to a total demolition of the Renaissance towers,” Tate said at formal session. “There’s multiple discussions that have to happen prior to that taking place. And then, even if there’s a request to demolish that, there has to be approval to do so.”
Tate, who initially opposed the plan, citing a lack of nuance in conversation surrounding demolition, questioned whether mothballing was a viable option. Fleisher said it would repeat the “mistakes of the past” of letting buildings sit and deteriorate.
“If you think about the success of the project that we presented today and the vision presented today, that’s a thriving, active destination. It’s very difficult to reconcile that with two ghost towers looming over it. So, the fact that the economics won’t change, we’ll just delay the inevitable. And by delaying the inevitable, we will hurt today. Those are the reasons why we do not believe mothballing is the answer.”
Jennifer Stallings Dewey, legal counsel for General Motors, outlined some of the building’s structural details and tenancy over the years, implying that the whole campus is unable to be economically viable. The RenCen can accommodate 17,000 people. But at its peak, it held 10,000, which was not intended to be strictly GM employees, she said. At most, GM would have about 5,400 employees in the building, requiring more tenants to fill it up.
“This building was built to be a city within a city. It was built to be self-contained, to be separate. That is one of its biggest challenges,” Stallings Dewey said. “It’s hard to get in and out of, and then once you’re inside of it, it has this difficult-to-navigate looping structure. If you’ve ever worked at the RenCen or even attended an event, you’ve probably gotten lost inside of it.”
After the vote, Mayor Mike Duggan said in a statement that designating the site as historic “would have killed any realistic hope of redevelopment and pretty much guaranteed Detroit would have five empty towers sitting on the riverfront for the next 30-40 years.”
The property is zoned as planned development, which requires work to align with the city’s Master Plan, according to the city. Alterations of the property would be under the purview of the City Planning Commission and the City Council, according to Marcell Todd, director of the planning commission.
Stakeholders remain divided. Preservationists fear losing another crucial part of Detroit’s identity, while developers argue that the city cannot afford to maintain an outdated structure that fails to serve residents. The RenCen’s transformation is more than a real estate project—it’s a reflection of Detroit’s future. Whether this vision brings an inclusive, accessible space or erases a historic landmark remains to be seen. The decisions made now will echo for generations to come.
About Post Author
