PHILADELPHIA | FMC Tower @ Cira Centre South | 736 FT | 49 FLOORS - Page 62

summersm343 · #**1221** Posted **May 13, 2014, 3:56 PM**

Setting up for tomorrow's groundbreaking

Philly Fan · #**1222** Posted **May 13, 2014, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Setting up for tomorrow's groundbreaking

Looks like it will be quite a media event.

Too bad they won't be able to catch a Phillies game immediately across Walnut Street right after the groundbreaking.

[Sorry, couldn't resist.

]

summersm343 · #**1223** Posted **May 13, 2014, 4:20 PM**

Height of FMC Tower confirmed at 690 feet

More about the groundbreaking here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...zazz-at-skyscrapers-ground-breaking.html

ichigo · #**1224** Posted **May 13, 2014, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Height of FMC Tower confirmed at 690 feet

More about the groundbreaking here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...zazz-at-skyscrapers-ground-breaking.html

That is great.

Can't seem to find the time it will happen anywhere. You would think they would want people to come and see the fireworks

skyscraper · #**1225** Posted **May 13, 2014, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Height of FMC Tower confirmed at 690 feet

More about the groundbreaking here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...zazz-at-skyscrapers-ground-breaking.html

It's a minor pet peeve of mine, but rather than this thing being 690 feet and 49 stories, why not just make it 50 stories and / or 700 feet. Why get that close to a milestone then stop short of it?
When they were planning the Hancock Center in Chicago, they initially thought it would be 95 stories, then the developer said screw it, just make it 100. there is a cachet to hitting those milestones that adds a little value (not much I grant you, but a little) to the building.

TheOldMan · #**1226** Posted **May 13, 2014, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

It's a minor pet peeve of mine, but rather than this thing being 690 feet and 49 stories, why not just make it 50 stories and / or 700 feet. Why get that close to a milestone then stop short of it?
When they were planning the Hancock Center in Chicago, they initially thought it would be 95 stories, then the developer said screw it, just make it 100. there is a cachet to hitting those milestones that adds a little value (not much I grant you, but a little) to the building.

This seems to be a recent trend with Philadelphia skyscrapers ...While i am grateful for the extra height with FMC (my favorite new Phila skyscraper in terms of design), stopping just a few feet short of the next milestone doesn't make any sense, especially since this building can likely support an additional 10 feet of height and/or an additional floor.

Other offending buildings:
1. Comcast Center - 975'; should have been 1000'
2. CTIC - 990'; should have been 1000 to the tip of the external core structure
Ill cut CTIC a break because they did exceed 1100 feet with the total recognizable height

Chicago has a rich skyscraper history (skyscraper's birthplace) and developers there take such things into consideration...I wish all cities in the US had that mentality

summersm343 · #**1227** Posted **May 13, 2014, 5:14 PM**

Uhh we are getting a 690 foot skyline transforming tower. Who the fuck cares if there is 10 more feet to it or not, no one would notice. We already have two 700 footers. I'll take a 690 footer any day with no complaints.

Late1 · #**1228** Posted **May 13, 2014, 5:30 PM**

For one thing, we tend to look at these things in terms of the Imperial measuring system, whereas Cira (designed by an Italian) was probably designed according to the metric system.

I doubt it's coincidence that the original height of 656' was exactly 200m.

Regardless, I can see wanting a milestone height for a city's new tallest, but when it comes to a building that will place 7th in the skyline, the height is really just a number. I can see maybe wanting to do a nice round # of storeys (like 50, as opposed to 49), but 700 vs 690? Irrelevant to an architect.

If it makes you feel better, consider this: on paper, 690' will be a more even spread between the 739' BA Tower and the 625' IBX. The only way I'd prefer 700' over 690' would be if it meant making the crown's peak on the eastern side a bit higher and more pronounced (assuming we're getting a roofline that slopes up as it heads east, rather than bowing up in the middle and back down to the same height it is on the west.)

In any case, whether it's 690' or 700' - 59 storeys or 60 - this tower is going to look AMAZING, especially at that location. Celebrate!

skyscraper · #**1229** Posted **May 13, 2014, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Late1

For one thing, we tend to look at these things in terms of the Imperial measuring system, whereas Cira (designed by an Italian) was probably designed according to the metric system.

going to pick some nits here:
Ceasar Pelli is Argentinian, not Italian. but the bigger issue is that it is still designed to the Imperial system because the components of the building are mostly fabricated in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Late1

Regardless, I can see wanting a milestone height for a city's new tallest, but when it comes to a building that will place 7th in the skyline, the height is really just a number. I can see maybe wanting to do a nice round # of storeys (like 50, as opposed to 49), but 700 vs 690? Irrelevant to an architect.

I'm an architect and I brought it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Late1

In any case, whether it's 690' or 700' - 59 storeys or 60 - this tower is going to look AMAZING, especially at that location. Celebrate!

No argument: I'm not complaining. As I said, it's a minor pet peeve, that's all.

Late1 · #**1230** Posted **May 13, 2014, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

going to pick some nits here:
Ceasar Pelli is Argentinian, not Italian. but the bigger issue is that it is still designed to the Imperial system because the components of the building are mostly fabricated in the U.S.

Whoops, thanks for the correction!

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I'm an architect and I brought it up.

OK, irrelevant to some architects

iheartphilly · #**1231** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:07 PM**

It does come down to economics and occupancy. Potential occupancy out into the future is bad formula for return on investment.

summersm343 · #**1232** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

It does come down to economics and occupancy. Potential occupancy out into the future is bad formula for return on investment.

Exxxxaaacccttlllyyy.

Finally someone thinking like a developer

summersm343 · #**1233** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:22 PM**

Looks like this is in fact the final design of the tower:

skyscraper · #**1234** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

It does come down to economics and occupancy. Potential occupancy out into the future is bad formula for return on investment.

not necessarily. there is such a thing as speculative buildings that they build without knowing who is going to occupy it. The Empire State Building was speculative.
besides, they could tweak the design and make it slightly narrower to get that last 10 feet or 1 story just to hit that milestone.

iheartphilly · #**1235** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

not necessarily. there is such a thing as speculative buildings that they build without knowing who is going to occupy it. The Empire State Building was speculative.
besides, they could tweak the design and make it slightly narrower to get that last 10 feet or 1 story just to hit that milestone.

Yes, but we are talking about Brandywine and the FMC tower. Apparently, they do not want to speculate on this building just to appease those looking for a 700ft milestone. Theoretically, on paper, we could of say it's a 700 footer, but from a skyline viewpoint, a 10 ft. difference is unnoticeable.

Cro Burnham · #**1236** Posted **May 13, 2014, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

not necessarily. there is such a thing as speculative buildings that they build without knowing who is going to occupy it. The Empire State Building was speculative.
besides, they could tweak the design and make it slightly narrower to get that last 10 feet or 1 story just to hit that milestone.

Ten feet shouldn't be a big deal to add, I agree: just add a storage shed on the roof. But 690 is fine with me.

BTW, building spec is very risky, obviously, and not in the cards for Philly or too many other downtowns these days. For years during the Depression, the ESB was called the Empty State Building. I'm guessing the builder went bust.

mmikeyphilly · #**1237** Posted **May 13, 2014, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Uhh we are getting a 690 foot skyline transforming tower. Who the fuck cares if there is 10 more feet to it or not, no one would notice. We already have two 700 footers. I'll take a 690 footer any day with no complaints.

aww, come on, not even a 10 foot sphere? They can scotch-tape it on after completion!

I'm with you summer, 690 feet is better than no feet.

This is really getting exciting!!