PHILADELPHIA | Comcast Technology Center | 1,121 FT | 60 FLOORS

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

I typically agree that spires sticking out from the dead center of a flat roof often look out of place. But this isn't really the case with CITC. The offset core on the west end of the building is incorporated into the stepped setback look in a really masterful way. The official roof (which is actually the mechanical/core roof) forms the base part of the fin, and has a much smaller floor plate than the highest occupied floor. The tallest part of the fin completes the look and I think this building would actually look a lot worse without the architectural component of the fin. The core would be jutting up enough to be noticeable but would look awkward and incomplete. I also think the fin does a good job drawing attention to one of the most intriguing architectural elements of the building (the split offset core) while giving a nod to the the broadcasting roots of NBC.

The rendering that spyguy posted is also nice, but that necessary scaffolding/lattice on top just doesn't do it for me. I guess I feel the same way about that type of roof as many others do about spires.

I agree. And I think we should also keep in mind the imagery of an industrial smokestack, which this is meant to suggest (remembering, when this was first announced, Comcast's and Foster's references to it as a new type of urban, high-rise, high-tech "factory" representing Philly's transition from manufacturing "things" to manufacturing technology and software).

[fastdupree]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Spires usually don't look good on rectangular topped buildings, it just doesn't have much aesthetic flow. I think this building look alright though. But look at liberty one. The spire does serve a purpose for several radio stations, and it makes it look complete and just gorgeous. So I'd say spires are not completely pointless or cheesy, they just need to be done right.

The spire does look absolutely great on Liberty One in Philly and also the Chrysler Bldg in NY City. You just can't see a spire when standing next to a skyscraper and looking straight up at it. The building just don't seem as dominating from that point. On the other hand, a rectangular topped building looks way more taller and dominating from that same point when standing. That is why I like the old design.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by fastdupree

On the other hand, a rectangular topped building looks way more taller and dominating from that same point when standing. That is why I like the old design.

I agree.

[Plokoon11]

^ Yeah but honestly having a hollow prism at the top is sort of like a spire in a way right?

[philopdx]

I really dig the original design. The interior and details of the new design are slick, but that asymmetrical and opaque smokestack is an assault on my eyes. It's somehow arbitrary and clumsy at the same time - combining the worst traits of both modernism and post-modernism.

It's trying too hard. It's like... Jim Carrey waving.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

^ Yeah but honestly having a hollow prism at the top is sort of like a spire in a way right?

Yeah, but it seems to me to be all about the perception of height and mass created by the frame vs. spire-like element.

The original design looks like it's about 1100 feet. It would easily stand shoulder to shoulder with the Hancock, Aon, or Trump in Chicago even if the empty framework is sort of cheating.

But with the final design, the dinky little lantern element climbing the last 210' to hit 1121 competes technically with above three, but not visually. It simply looks smaller and shorter, like a 911' building with a little object on the roof.

I also think the framework has a more muscular, industrial feel. Overall, I think I prefer the detailing on the final design, though I'm not a big fan of the lantern/spire element. It'd be nice if they could simply incorporate a variation of the earlier framework structure in place of the lantern/spire on the current design.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by philopdx

It's somehow arbitrary and clumsy at the same time

Except, as explained several times, it's not arbitrary. It calls attention to one of the most innovative design features of the building (in fact really completes that feature) while elegantly evoking connections to both Philly's and the company's histories. If anything the afterthought scaffolding slapped on the top of the original design was arbitrary and clumsy.

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Yeah, but it seems to me to be all about the perception of height and mass created by the frame vs. spire-like element.

I think this is probably the real reason that some folks are digging the previous design so much. It does a better job at cheating and "looking" taller. I personally just don't give a S*** about whether a spire or open lattice or what have you does a better job of faking it. This thing will be tall as heck either way and the overall design is awesome.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

Except, as explained several times, it's not arbitrary. It calls attention to one of the most innovative design features of the building (in fact really completes that feature) while elegantly evoking connections to both Philly's and the company's histories. If anything the afterthought scaffolding slapped on the top of the original design was arbitrary and clumsy.

I think the historic reference stuff is a stretch, and if actually intended, a completely contrived and irrelevant gesture by the designer.

Originally Posted by Insoluble

I think this is probably the real reason that some folks are digging the previous design so much. It does a better job at cheating and "looking" taller.

Absolutely true - the main reason, anyway. Like I said, I'm not a big spire fan under most circumstances, but a massive skyscraper on the skyline is what I'm really after. This is likely Philly's best shot at a supertall for a very long time, so I wish they'd make look like a real supertall.

[McBane]

I had asked a question when this was first announced about the ground floor massing that hasn't been answered. I walked by the site again the other day and it is just a super long block. Is the ground floor going to take up the entire block? If so, I think that's disappointing b/c that location could easily fit two supertalls (or even three shorter buildings).

I know that Comcast has that other site next to the original CC (fact or myth - can only accommodate up to a 300 foot building) and there are other parking lots nearby the CITC (one of which Summers says is owned by Liberty). Maybe the tower will be aligned to one side so that perhaps a future tower can be built on the other side? Sorta thinking aloud here....

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by McBane

I had asked a question when this was first announced about the ground floor massing that hasn't been answered. I walked by the site again the other day and it is just a super long block. Is the ground floor going to take up the entire block?

It certainly looks like it.

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

Posted in the Philly thread.

I know that at the moment it doesn't really feel like there are any places another supertall can go, but remember that things like this can change drastically given time. I'll bet in the 70's no one would have imagined the original Comcast Center in it's current location. Who knows what things will be like 20 or 30 years down the road. We may have supertalls along 30th street!

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Spires usually don't look good on rectangular topped buildings, it just doesn't have much aesthetic flow. I think this building look alright though. But look at liberty one. The spire does serve a purpose for several radio stations, and it makes it look complete and just gorgeous. So I'd say spires are not completely pointless or cheesy, they just need to be done right.

I completely agree and wish I'd added that. The spire on Liberty Place is appropriate. The building would look weird without it. The CITC would actually look better without the spire in my opinion.

[fastdupree]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I think the historic reference stuff is a stretch, and if actually intended, a completely contrived and irrelevant gesture by the designer.



Absolutely true - the main reason, anyway. Like I said, I'm not a big spire fan under most circumstances, but a massive skyscraper on the skyline is what I'm really after. This is likely Philly's best shot at a supertall for a very long time, so I wish they'd make look like a real supertall.

Thank you Cro Burnham. You seem to feel the way I do. The Comcast Center is tall but I wish for something much taller for Philly these days. I just rather see it in another location. Say, Maybe 8th & Market Street or even 22nd & Market just to spread the skyline a bit. Something of that size moved a distance away from Comcast would also make the skyline look wonderful once Cira Centre South and others are completed.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by fastdupree

I wish for something much taller for Philly these days. I just rather see it in another location. Say, Maybe 8th & Market Street or even 22nd & Market just to spread the skyline a bit.

Responding to you and McBane, there are certainly still plenty of sites that could accommodate a supertall. No shortage of empty lots around Market West or East.

But there is only one Comcast. There is no other company in Philly with the size, fundamentals, long-term growth prospects and hometown spirit necessary to make a supertall possible here.

After this, we just have to wait for them to want to build another, which could be years.

[McBane]

My comment about the footprint was more about how the lot would be best utilized. Based on the model (that I hadn't seen before), I retract my concerns. It's a rather wide tower, and, with the base, doesn't look like like it's wasting much of that lot. This makes sense, because the old fart's home on JFK somewhat limits the building's North-South girth; if you think about some of the other real tall buildings in town, they tend to stretch block to block, north to south, e.g., Comcast - JFK to Arch and Mellon Bank - JFK to Market.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Responding to you and McBane, there are certainly still plenty of sites that could accommodate a supertall. No shortage of empty lots around Market West or East.

But there is only one Comcast. There is no other company in Philly with the size, fundamentals, long-term growth prospects and hometown spirit necessary to make a supertall possible here.

After this, we just have to wait for them to want to build another, which could be years.

That's not necessarily true. If vacancy rates continue to drop in Center City and rents continue to rise it's not too far fetched to imagine something proposed--especially if a hotel or residential component was attached to it. I sometimes get the sense that people overstate Comcast's influence in town. While no one's denying their presence and importance, it's good to bear in mind the fact that according to the CCD, Greater Center City has roughly 288,000 employees--of which maybe 5,000 are Comcast. They are just very visible and consumer facing.

Originally Posted by McBane

My comment about the footprint was more about how the lot would be best utilized. Based on the model (that I hadn't seen before), I retract my concerns. It's a rather wide tower, and, with the base, doesn't look like like it's wasting much of that lot. This makes sense, because the old fart's home on JFK somewhat limits the building's North-South girth; if you think about some of the other real tall buildings in town, they tend to stretch block to block, north to south, e.g., Comcast - JFK to Arch and Mellon Bank - JFK to Market.

Comcast doesn't even come close to touching JFK--there's a 50ft wide plaza there. Philly's properties seem to be much thinner and more rectangularly shaped as compared to NYC and Chicago--whose lots appear to be more square. Clear evidence can be found with pretty much every building along JFK Blvd that isn't called the comcast center.

To get the tall, more square shaped buildings, Philly's talls utilize a lot of tricks: Mellon has a large footprint pedestal, from which the much narrower tower rises. The Liberties have a hotel/mall component which flesh out the building's down and along Chestnut Street. Verizon Tower has a large garden on its north side to abut Cherry St. Comcast has the garden on its south side to abut JFK. The CITC will employ a similar design strategy as that of Mellon.

Squarer lots encourage more graceful verticality. 1701 Rittenhouse Square is a good example of a small square lot leading to a thin, graceful, tall building.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Londonee

That's not necessarily true. If vacancy rates continue to drop in Center City and rents continue to rise it's not too far fetched to imagine something proposed--especially if a hotel or residential component was attached to it.

True, if rents go up substantially, anything is possible. It's just that rents have declined in real terms since 1990 or so. Only Comcast, and now, it seems, FMC, are willing to pay a premium for the latest class A space.

Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a trend of big companies relocating downtown to attract urban-dwelling talent. I hope so. But the City still needs tax reforms for that to really take hold.

[shipsterns]

Not concerned about a lack of space leading to less potential for supertalls -- look at 111 57th for christ's sake!

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by Londonee

To get the tall, more square shaped buildings, Philly's talls utilize a lot of tricks: Mellon has a large footprint pedestal, from which the much narrower tower rises. The Liberties have a hotel/mall component which flesh out the building's down and along Chestnut Street. Verizon Tower has a large garden on its north side to abut Cherry St. Comcast has the garden on its south side to abut JFK. The CITC will employ a similar design strategy as that of Mellon.

I always figure this has to do with the FAR restrictions in the zoning code. To go tall you have to have a footprint significantly smaller than the lot size. IN some cases it works out okay, but in some cases it leads to underutilized space. The Verizon Tower garden for instance feels like a wasted opportunity. It's nice and all, but it seems like that space would be much better used for another building. But I imagine it's only there to allow the tower to reach the height it does while remaining within the FAR restrictions.

Originally Posted by Londonee

1701 Rittenhouse Square is a good example of a small square lot leading to a thin, graceful, tall building.

1701 Ritt is a lot of things. Graceful is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

True, if rents go up substantially, anything is possible. It's just that rents have declined in real terms since 1990 or so. Only Comcast, and now, it seems, FMC, are willing to pay a premium for the latest class A space.

Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a trend of big companies relocating downtown to attract urban-dwelling talent. I hope so. But the City still needs tax reforms for that to really take hold.

A lot of things declined in the 90s but those trends have been reversing over the past 5 or more years. Both the overall population and number of jobs in the city have been increasing since about 2009 or so. Residential rents in center city have gone way up and it's quite possible that commercial rents will follow suit.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

A lot of things declined in the 90s but those trends have been reversing over the past 5 or more years. Both the overall population and number of jobs in the city have been increasing since about 2009 or so. Residential rents in center city have gone way up and it's quite possible that commercial rents will follow suit.

All of the major national surveys now have downtown Philly as about to enter a major growth period with rising rents and lower cap rates in the office sector. This is a big change in outlook from the previous 5 years. Lots of new money is entering into the market on the investment side of things.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

All of the major national surveys now have downtown Philly as about to enter a major growth period with rising rents and lower cap rates in the office sector. This is a big change in outlook from the previous 5 years. Lots of new money is entering into the market on the investment side of things.

It's clear alot of capital has increasingly been heading our way, but there are real forecasts for demand growth (i mean office demand)?

Can you link to any of the more credible surveys?

Well, i hope they are accurate! I just wonder what they say is/will be pushing demand, because i haven't heard of anything in particular other than Comcast and healthcare-related offices, research spaces, and clinics.

HUP, CHOP, and Jeff alone can't be the driver of big time office growth.