Quote:
Originally Posted by boxbot
This is a major development going smack dab between two of the ugliest 60s buildings we have. I don't understand the hate either.
|
Hey, I like the PECO Building!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983
Philadelphia has it right. They (the politicians) let city planners do what they do best and we have things like CITC, all the other 40-50-plus-story-tall buildings going up (including residential), and now this. Pittsburgh is still run by bureaucratic cronies who impersonate city planners; Pittsburgh needs a 30-some-floor-tall residential building last year...
|
Our current planning commissioner Alan Greenberger is about the only worthwhile one we've had maybe since Ed Bacon. He's great, and we're very lucky. I hope he stays after Nutter leaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry King
Legit partner on this one though.
|
The fact that Hines has any interest in Philly is very, very encouraging, forgetting just the Fergie Tower. One of the few blue chip national developers to take notice of us. Hope they can pull it off. I'm glad U3 sold out of this deal, I think it was a bit more than they could chew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee
If you can point out a stunningly designed PMC building . . . . they are building shlocky, non-architect driven, pre-fab disasters . . . These will not only become horrible, dated relics, but due to their hasty prefab nature will also collapsing in on themselves.
|
Gensler (Shanghai Tower) is apparently the archtect for 2400 Market, which is good. But I agree the PMC buildings to date aren't stunners, while I couldn't necessarily say that they are schlocky pre-fab disasters that will eventually collapse on themselves. I'd be far more likely to say that of the Home2Suites at 12th & Arch, for example. A real piece of junk.
I think the PMC facade systems are probably good, if not at all exciting. They are metal, as opposed to say, prefab concrete (Lancaster facade of the Summit, 2116 Chestnut parking plinth) or dryvit panels (Home2Suites), which are really ugly and age really badly. The metal panels are easy to maintain and keep clean, and stand up well over time to the elements. I think they are probably better at sealing off the interior from water damage.
I don't mind that they use light weight pre-fab modular structural framing systems. I don't think those are inherently more likely to collapse on themselves over time than more sturdy concrete or steel frame. It just limits the load they can bear (and the height or course), resulting in stocky buildings.
I worry alot more about the zillions of schlocky 4 to 5-story wood-framed apartment structures going up all around town (like 777 S. Broad, all Toll Brothers stuff). These will almost surely age poorly and quickly due to water infiltration, rot, infestation, and/or fire. I don't think light wood framing is appropriate for multi-family buildings but is cheap and it's what everyone is doing. Much worse than PMC in my opinion.
PMC seems to have completely transitioned away from their old model of buying class-C apartment or office buildings dirt cheap and doing the bare minimum to convert them to barely class-B apartments, to a new model of opportunistically acquiring good-priced sites that enable rapid construction of plain looking low-cost light-weight mid-rise apartments buildings.
Prev
Linear Mode
