HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2016, 9:50 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
I don't think something shouldn't be built just because it would block the view of something else. That's ridiculous.
There's room for nuance here. I think it's ridiculous when a resident of a city buys a property in the downtown, CMX 4-5 core and goes ape shit over "shadows" and austere ideas about colonial scale or views being blocked from their precious balcony.

But this is a massive monolithic structure on the Schulkykill river trail that could have a very negative impact on the aesthetics and feel of this part of the city.

95% of the time I agree with your thesis, but it's not absolute, nothing is - room for nuance.
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2016, 12:19 AM
Late1's Avatar
Late1 Late1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia Metro (Chesco)
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
...the city should demand something that doesn't wall off Center City from the river the way that 2400 Chestnut does...
This.

If I'm not mistaken, height limits have been set along the Delaware River waterfront because "we don't want to wall off the city from its waterfront."

But tall buildings don't wall off the city from its waterfronts; wide-ass, wall-like buildings do.

The very least the developer could do is visually break up the building's length into smaller sections, varying the facade and roofline by several stories here and there.

But yeah, as others have mentioned, I'd rather see some innovative (dare we ask for avant-garde?) architecture here, especially if the property is to be limited to around 22 floors.
__________________
pretty, pretty pictures

Last edited by Late1; Feb 20, 2016 at 1:53 PM. Reason: and another thing!
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2016, 4:55 PM
MadhattersLT MadhattersLT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 30
I really hope this goes away. Height is fine but the width is terrible. Really gonna look awkward as hell.
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2016, 5:46 PM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadhattersLT View Post
I really hope this goes away. Height is fine but the width is terrible. Really gonna look awkward as hell.
I agree. Here's what I said about one of PMC's other project on the eastern side of Center City:


Width is becoming one of the styles or designs that PMC must go by. I said a while back that One Water St. was an obstacle to the eastern edge's skyline impact. One Water St. also takes away some of the best views of the Ben Franklin Bridge. Yes, you move one step to the left or one step to the right to see maybe half of the skyline. But I have a better idea: Why don't the architects design a structure built on roller skates to move the building left or right. (Please, you know that's sarcasm, I hope.)


Photo :Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post


[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mmikeyphilly;7183279
Oh no.
Just seeing this shot of One Water St. made me a little more cautious of a positive comment. Somehow I (now) think that having a "very low-rise" located in this location may have looked better. Or just the opposite, something VERY slender and MUCH taller. It's just at this height and girth it seems to block out much of the Philadelphia skyline at certain points. And the façade being just "ok" or "Meh", well I may be premature in making a decision if this will really be a "positive". Somehow or other even the Bridge may have looked better without an intruding neighbor.
Sooooo.....PMC has managed to ruin the views on the eastern edge of town, AND it looks like they're on their way to messing up the views on the western edge of town too.
OH...and let's not forget they own the land property to probably destroy what was once the River's Edge project.
OH....and remember 1900 Arch ? need I say more?

2400 Market is going to be an eyesore, and that will be sad. Maybe they can retrofit with roller skates on the base of the building.
__________________
whatever
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2016, 1:01 AM
Urbanthusiat's Avatar
Urbanthusiat Urbanthusiat is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South Philly
Posts: 1,072
I'm not so sure this will be "the usual" for PMC. This is their first office project, and it sounds like they're trying to make it an attractive place for tenants. Given its at a much more prominent location than either 1900 Arch or 1 Water Street, I I imagine they'd want to step it up for this project. I don't have my hopes up though.
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2016, 1:27 AM
Palms's Avatar
Palms Palms is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat View Post
I'm not so sure this will be "the usual" for PMC. This is their first office project, and it sounds like they're trying to make it an attractive place for tenants. Given its at a much more prominent location than either 1900 Arch or 1 Water Street, I I imagine they'd want to step it up for this project. I don't have my hopes up though.
Glass,gold,diamonds. It doesnt matter how attractive they try to make this project its not going succeed with that horrible massing.
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2016, 4:20 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,751
There are some relevant site constraints.

First of all, this is an overbuild and as a consequence they're limited to using the existing elevator core. One elevator core = one tower, and one tower = slab. The only ways around that site constraint would be to flatten the old Gimbels warehouse or to punch a hole down to the foundations for a second core. Both of which make the project cost rise and therefore financing more difficult.

That said, however, there are certainly more creative ways around the site constraints. One idea here would be to break the tower up into two or perhaps even three distinct massings connected by breezeways (which would preserve the circulation patterns of a single tower but make the building visually more vertical and interesting, at the very least).
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2016, 5:24 AM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,505
Massing is terrible and design is so amateurish. I could do a better job with mega bloks first builders-seriously.


http://media.philly.com/images/pmc17.jpg[/QUOTE]
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2016, 10:52 PM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat View Post
I'm not so sure this will be "the usual" for PMC. This is their first office project, and it sounds like they're trying to make it an attractive place for tenants. Given its at a much more prominent location than either 1900 Arch or 1 Water Street, I I imagine they'd want to step it up for this project. I don't have my hopes up though.
I hope you're right about making it attractive for tenants. This project, with the amount of horizontal space it takes up, would look terrific in the King 0f Prussia area, or Cherry Hill, N.J., or any other type "mall" setting.

BUT, with this prime Philadelphia river side spot, to make an addition on top of the existing structure, well, let's just say, they took it to the extreme.

How? By filling every square inch from end to end, and not leaving a space where the view wouldn't be totally obstructed.
In other words, totally overpower the site and obstructing a very important view. This view is vital for people, (both Philadelphians, and visitors), to see a beautiful center city with outstanding looking skyscrapers, and just the whole city landscape.
Maybe if they re think the design by making the project a twin.
(But from reading Hammer's comments, stating they are limited to elevator capacity in the existing structure.)
There has to be another alternative than this. If they can't afford to put a second or third elevator core in, because it's "too expensive", then that tells me they're looking for the cheapest materials to be used, as well. (I'm already disappointed that this developer has claimed this prime spot.)
With PMC's track record so far, they still strike out as far as design or materials used. Every project they create, just makes them less credible in the "impressive design" department.
__________________
whatever
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 4:05 PM
PHL10's Avatar
PHL10 PHL10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 969
I think you guys are missing the mark to a degree. The reason some of these views existed is because nothing of significance was there prior. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing that you can see the entire trophy tower panorama when anywhere inside the core (western Schuylkill bank in this case). You now need to be aligned with the right street in order to get a view of a certain trophy tower or get higher. As an example, I don’t complain that I can’t see Liberty Place when I’m standing on the corner of 19th and Spruce.
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 4:08 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10 View Post
I think you guys are missing the mark to a degree. The reason some of these views existed is because nothing of significance was there prior. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing that you can see the entire trophy tower panorama when anywhere inside the core (western Schuylkill bank in this case). You now need to be aligned with the right street in order to get a view of a certain trophy tower or get higher. As an example, I don’t complain that I can’t see Liberty Place when I’m standing on the corner of 19th and Spruce.
Agreed, one view goes, another replaces it. No one is talking about the great views that will be on the high floors of this new building
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 4:56 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10 View Post
I think you guys are missing the mark to a degree. The reason some of these views existed is because nothing of significance was there prior. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing that you can see the entire trophy tower panorama when anywhere inside the core (western Schuylkill bank in this case). You now need to be aligned with the right street in order to get a view of a certain trophy tower or get higher. As an example, I don’t complain that I can’t see Liberty Place when I’m standing on the corner of 19th and Spruce.
Agreed. Elimination of views from certain angles isn't a major concern. Eliminating them by building a 300' brutalist wall is.
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 6:25 PM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry King View Post
Agreed, one view goes, another replaces it. No one is talking about the great views that will be on the high floors of this new building
I agree with what you're saying. What I was trying to put forth was, this project "overwhelms" the area, sort of "Bullying" the other structures around it. I never thought that the FMC Tower or even for that matter, the Peco Headquarters. as intrusive. Yes, Peco's Headquarters isn't award winning by any means, but it doesn't block or take away from other structures. The same with FMC. FMC is blocking other buildings or structures, But it doesn't sprawl the entire area with its building. Anything this wide needs to be more impressive, at least. The renderings always look terrific when it comes to PMC's projects. Let's just see how this turns out. I'm sure it won't even come close to the rendering. (The final outcome I can bet, will make you puke.)
__________________
whatever
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 6:32 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
There are some relevant site constraints.

First of all, this is an overbuild and as a consequence they're limited to using the existing elevator core. One elevator core = one tower, and one tower = slab. The only ways around that site constraint would be to flatten the old Gimbels warehouse or to punch a hole down to the foundations for a second core. Both of which make the project cost rise and therefore financing more difficult.
Are you certain there's just 1 core? This is one of the largest footprint buildings in the city - massive. I find it hard to believe there's just one core here.
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 6:38 PM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
Are you certain there's just 1 core? This is one of the largest footprint buildings in the city - massive. I find it hard to believe there's just one core here.
I actually thought of that after I posted my above comment. Can you imagine the long lines at the elevator?? The original structure probably had bottlenecks at the elevator.
Maybe PMC is putting in "walk up steps". HA! (They're cheaper.)
__________________
whatever
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 8:16 PM
Bariscos Bariscos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 13
I went on one of my Philly skyscraper construction walking tours yesterday. Started at my apartment in Queen Village, through Society Hill, Old City, Chinatown, Wash sq. West, Business district, Logan Square, through to University City and back home via South St. bridge & South Street. Anyway, once I crossed the Schuykill, I walked along the old post office building, imagining this building based on the appearance of 2400 Chestnut. Walking that street along the river to get to FMC, I realized that I would be unlikely to see any of the city beyond these two buildings from that viewpoint. Granted, I was the only person on that stretch of sidewalk. It will completely obscure everything, except possibly Comcast 1 & 2.

It is one of the only buildings I think needs major reconsidering. I can usually see the good and bad in most buildings. But aside from density, this definitely takes much more than it gives.
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2016, 8:36 PM
Kidphilly Kidphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartphilly View Post
Massing is terrible and design is so amateurish. I could do a better job with mega bloks first builders-seriously.


http://media.philly.com/images/pmc17.jpg
[/QUOTE]

is the mid section parking?

maybe we need an LED whale wall

I hate the massing don't hate everything about this but it feels out of sync here
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 9:44 PM
New2Fishtown New2Fishtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 154
is the mid section parking?

maybe we need an LED whale wall

I hate the massing don't hate everything about this but it feels out of sync here[/QUOTE]

Middle part is fancy "creative" office space, skinned differently than the retrofitted office (existing building) below it. The residential's the small-windowed massing on top.
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2016, 4:32 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
Are you certain there's just 1 core? This is one of the largest footprint buildings in the city - massive. I find it hard to believe there's just one core here.
Not completely. It's been a very long time since the last time I wandered around inside that building.

But based on my interpretation of the space (its previous uses were industrial and warehousing, remember), I am fairly certain that it would have had a single core in the middle, across the main floor from where the ramps are (i.e. the whale mural). I'd also add that the ramps themselves add a second vertical distribution element, which appears to have been more than enough to handle internal freight moves.

Anyway.

The big problem is the leviathan slab massing. I don't necessarily see a problem with blocklong structures (example); the problem is when they're freaking slabs. A series of wings linked by a central horizontal passage would be a much more successful massing IMO.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2016, 5:02 AM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
I just got sucked into looking around Detroit for the last 30 minutes. It's so much more vacant than I imagined.

     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:34 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.