PHILADELPHIA | Comcast Technology Center | 1,121 FT | 60 FLOORS - Page 64

Jawnadelphia · #**1261** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I am not dismissing the design as postmodern crap. I am dismissing the idea that it is a "nod" to the NBC building as a postmodern crap notion. the design is great, I like it a lot. but I wish people would stop trying to assign these notions to it like that. the design is what it is because that's what the building demands, not because it might make it look a little like the NBC building.

^^Agreed. Also, I prefer that term referred to as - Po-Mo. Thanks.

Jawnadelphia · #**1262** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

^^Agreed. Also, I prefer that term referred to as - Po-Mo. Thanks.

I enjoy looking at this model ... it's massive.

Londonee · #**1263** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 2:56 PM**

If you all are going to wax on about "notions" or whatever the hell that means, at least get the building that CITC is derivative of right: NBC Building - Chicago.

Cro Burnham · #**1264** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insoluble

It's been fairly well established that the spire is intended to be a reflection of the industrial past among other things. If this wasn't mentioned with official documentation about the building, it's certainly been brought up by architecture critics. Philadelphia's industrial past is part of the ethos of the entire building, and the visual appearance reflects that in many ways.

Trying to recreate an industrial / loft aesthetic (which this building does) does not mean that the spire is intended to mimic a smokestack. That is silly.

Quote:

It's a also been noted that the spire/fin ties together the building architecturally by . . . It's quite brilliant actually.

I'm really not trying to be bitchy, but let's put things in perspective . . . discovering relativity was quite brilliant. Or the creation of the internet or Beethoven's or even the Beatles' musical innovations or Michael Jordan's basketball playing.

This design is very nice. It is not brilliant. The problems it addresses are not that complex and do not require brilliance to resolve.

I guess I don't really get ascribing brilliance to architects' fairly routine attempts to address fairly everyday problems. Most architecture (as in almost all professions) hovers around ordinary. Some is pretty good, alot is pretty bad. Rare examples are actually brilliant. This building doesn't belong in that category as far as I can see, nor does it need to.

Plokoon11 · #**1265** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 7:05 PM**

^ You know maybe they could shoot smoke out of the spire.

Cro Burnham · #**1266** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 7:20 PM**

This is Foster's nod to elbow macaroni, which in many cases is made from wheat grown in Alberta.

This is his reference to Led Zeppelin, which was formed in London.

It is also said by some to be a reference to the barber pole of Sweeney Todd, who's infamous shop on Fleet Street was a kilometer or so away.

skyscraper · #**1267** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insoluble

It's been fairly well established that the spire is intended to be a reflection of the industrial past among other things. If this wasn't mentioned with official documentation about the building, it's certainly been brought up by architecture critics. Philadelphia's industrial past is part of the ethos of the entire building, and the visual appearance reflects that in many ways.

Oh, well, if it's been *established*, I guess that settles that then. And brought up by architecture critics? Case closed.

Jawnadelphia · #**1268** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 8:23 PM**

This is his reference to Led Zeppelin, which was formed in London.

...Squeeeeze my lemon...

GarCastle · #**1269** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

It is not "giving a nod" to the NBC building in NYC. that's ridiculous. that is postmodern crap talk.

What is with all the "ridiculous" insults lately.

Look at the NBC building. Notice the tapered setback and what comes out of the roof. Kind of like CITC. Almost like it's a broadcast antenna. /sigh

Cheers,
G.

GarCastle · #**1270** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Londonee

If you all are going to wax on about "notions" or whatever the hell that means, at least get the building that CITC is derivative of right: NBC Building - Chicago.

Ack! You are correct, sorry about that, Chicago, not NYC.

Regards,
G.

GarCastle · #**1271** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

agreed. as I said, the notion of "nods" or referencing other buildings is all post modern crap, which Foster is above.

So Skyscraper,
You don't think that Comcast wanted to make the new building's design with a slight similarity to the WHQ of NBC whom they just bought out?

Cheers,
G.

Cro Burnham · #**1272** Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarCastle

So Skyscraper,
You don't think that Comcast wanted to make the new building's design with a slight similarity to the WHQ of NBC whom they just bought out?

Cheers,
G.

Of course it's possible, but it seems a bit of a stretch. Not that you asked me.

The only way to know for sure would be to ask Foster. Maybe Sasso can.

Even if it were true, I can't see how making such a reference is clever or noteworthy.

I mean, the NYC RCA building - if that's the one people are talking about - is a vastly more important and innovative (for its time) building than CITC will ever be. What is architecturally or intellectually significant about referencing a more significant building? Does doing so somehow make the new building better? At best it's just a meaningless footnote. Some call that intellectual masturbation.

If people are talking about the Chicago NBC building, then the reference is doubly meaningless: the Chicago building is itself an unimportant building itself nodding to buildings 50 years older.

As you probably sense - but don't care, and who would? - this is a pet peeve of mine. People are so used to reading and saying things like "it nods to such and such . . . " that it is assumed to have meaning and relevance when it really has none. It sounds clever, but it's really just bull shit.

Big starchitects and newspaper critics are particularly good at this, and people buy into the bull without really thinking. These kinds of catch phrases are just regurgitations of celebrity designer and critic community marketing gimmicks.

I think most of us can agree, though, that what matters at the end of the day is whether the building functions properly, whether it enhances the experience of the users, whether it contributes to the life of the city around it, and whether it has an overall reasonably good aesthetic appeal up close and from a distance. Obscure reference to past architectural ideas is so far down the list of what makes a building worthwhile.

But the people who have an interest in preserving notions of celebrity and unattainable cleverness - "brilliance" - the starchitects and critics, they are thrilled when us lay people buy into their nonsense.

In the end it's still just nonsense.

Cro Burnham · #**1273** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 12:14 AM**

As far as critics are concerned, I don't mind Inga at all. Of course alot of what she writes is pseudo intellectual bull, but that's how you keep your job as a critic, I suppose. The important thing is to make seemingly clever allusions that most readers don't actually have the time, interest, or background to actually think through and then disregard as empty phrases.

Inga is at her best when she dons her reporter's cap and investigates the real issues affecting design and development in the city: back room politics, institutional/bureaucratic idiocy, power player personalities, etc. I wish she'd stick to those kinds of pieces than the jargon-y, largely meaningless design critiques.

skyscraper · #**1274** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarCastle

So Skyscraper,
You don't think that Comcast wanted to make the new building's design with a slight similarity to the WHQ of NBC whom they just bought out?

Cheers,
G.

No.

summersm343 · #**1275** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 12:49 AM**

Guys. Shut up.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. And if someone thinks the design pays homage to the NBC Chicago Tower, Industrial Factories and smokestacks or a fucking middle finger, who are we to tell them their wrong?

It's really not that big of a deal. Stupidest argument ever.

skyscraper · #**1276** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Guys. Shut up.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. And if someone thinks the design pays homage to the NBC Chicago Tower, Industrial Factories and smokestacks or a fucking middle finger, who are we to tell them their wrong?

It's really not that big of a deal. Stupidest argument ever.

I'll take issue with that. There have been *far* dumber arguments than this one that I usually stay out of, but come on. To suggest that CITC is meant to resemble the GE building just because it has a setback (whereas the GE has many layered and nuanced setbacks that are more sophisticated than CITC's single setback) and Comcast owns both companies is just ludicrous. As I've said, this suggestion is symptomatic of that po mo crap that as an architect, I cringe at and am embarrassed of my profession for ever having embraced.

Jonboy1983 · #**1277** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 1:11 AM**

Man, who the hell cares about all this nonsensical crap with this nod to NBC? I'd like to really start to see this behemoth of a tower rise out of the hole that's there now! What is that rooftop restaurant going to be called?

summersm343 · #**1278** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Man, who the hell cares about all this nonsensical crap with this nod to NBC? I'd like to really start to see this behemoth of a tower rise out of the hole that's there now! What is that rooftop restaurant going to be called?

Xfinity Live!

Oh no, wait....

Jonboy1983 · #**1279** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Xfinity Live!

Oh no, wait....

Wow... so from the sounds of that name, I'm thinking the service is comparable to a cable outage. You wait forever for service to be restored, and when it is it's unsatisfying...

summersm343 · #**1280** Posted **Oct 8, 2014, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Wow... so from the sounds of that name, I'm thinking the service is comparable to a cable outage. You wait forever for service to be restored, and when it is it's unsatisfying...

Bahahaha.

What about "Comcastic?"

...or CHOPS 2
...or Top of the Tower Part II

...or "Top of the Smokestack." Just to piss some people off... HAHA