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

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Yurkek

Just a hypothetical question. Is is better for the city (not for the developer) - to have six 10 floor office buildings in the downtown or one 60 floor skyscraper? Or is it better to build 12 5 floor office buildings?

One can ask what is good for the city (with no reference to a developer's interests) in isolation, but how can such a question be meaningfully answered in that way? Building any non-public project requires a developer -- who may or may not be as considerate of the "greater good" as we'd like, but is clearly not a charity. Any meaningful answer requires that all interests be addressed. If a project does not consider the developer's best interests along with community interests, we get to keep another parking lot or community garden.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

You can blame the late Ed Bacon for the foolish and not legal, "Gentleman's Agreement" to limit building height below the statue of William Penn atop City Hall tower.

Back to the present; 31 years later and the magnificent Comcast Innovation and Technology Center will bring more jobs, more tax revenue and more street life to the city.

Remember, this tower will have a hotel offering magnificent views!

The return of investment will help the city grow for the future.

Well, I don't think that the Gentlemen's Agreement did anything to limit density. It limited height but it also meant that more vacant lots had to fill in around Center City to accommodate the same amount of demand.

Let's remember that the 11th arrondissement of Paris is twice as dense as Manhattan and is primarily four to six story buildings with no skyscrapers.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by br323206

Well, I don't think that the Gentlemen's Agreement did anything to limit density. It limited height but it also meant that more vacant lots had to fill in around Center City to accommodate the same amount of demand.

Without crossing the fence into off-topic territory and with respect to the members of this forum, the "Gentleman's Agreement" prevented successful companies, such as Comcast Corp. from locating their entire operations in Philadelphia.

Other nearby cities could have easily snatched Comcast Corp., such as New York (for example).

The following video from PA Governor Tom Corbett explains why "Urban Sprawl", a condition of having coporations housed in several smaller buildings is bad for business and bad for the city:

• Video Link

The revitalization of Philadelphia 31 years ago had directly to do with ending the "Gentleman's Agreement", championed by the late Ed Bacon.

This is the very core reason that Comcast Corp. is able to build yet another tower in Philadelphia.

In fact, don't be surprised when a third tower is announced sometime in the future!

[boxbot]

I should be able to view these forums without fear of having to see Tom Corbett.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by boxbot

I should be able to view these forums without fear of having to see Tom Corbett.

I don't understand why you don't like the man who supported the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center in Philadelphia.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

I don't understand why you don't like the man who supported the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center in Philadelphia.

He really stepped out on limb for this one. Clearly support for this building is the one and only issue anyone could judge Corbett by.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by allovertown

He really stepped out on limb for this one. Clearly support for this building is the one and only issue anyone could judge Corbett by.

Are you suggesting that he supported Comcast for political reasons?

If so, it's still a major win for Philadelphia, wouldn't you agree?

[Plokoon11]

The Comcast Innovation and technology Center thread is like a box of chocolates, you never know which one your going to get.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

The Comcast Innovation and technology Center thread is like a box of chocolates, you never know which one your going to get.

No matter how much research you put into a post, there are always some who don't appreciate the effort you took into the wealth of information you had provided.

Keep it up and see how frequent some of us contribute!

[Yurkek]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Without crossing the fence into off-topic territory and with respect to the members of this forum, the "Gentleman's Agreement" prevented successful companies, such as Comcast Corp. from locating their entire operations in Philadelphia.

Other nearby cities could have easily snatched Comcast Corp., such as New York (for example).

The following video from PA Governor Tom Corbett explains why "Urban Sprawl", a condition of having coporations housed in several smaller buildings is bad for business and bad for the city:

I don't won't to take our off-topic conversation any further, but I still don't get why a super tall skyscraper surrounded by parking lots is better then complete infill with low- and mid-rise buildings. I think that you need to build up when there are no empty lots left. It is clear to me that construction and land costs are much lower per floor for skyscrapers, but it looks like it is the only benefit.

I understand that in current environment choices are limited and you either get a skyscraper or urban spawl. That is sad and doesn't make me approve current approach to building business districts.

Sorry for being off-topic.

[TechTalkGuy]

You see it all the time.
A company signs a multi-year lease for office space inside of a skyscraper to house their operations (typically 20 years).

As the company approaches the end of their lease, if they don't grow or shrink, they typically sign another multi-year lease.

If the company grows in size, they most likely have offices in other locations and will move to a taller skyscraper.

If the company shrinks in size, they most likely will either stay or move into a smaller skyscraper.

The Comcast Innovation and Technology Center is perfect for those small start-ups as well as for Comcast Corp.

In other words, it's a win for everyone - city revenue, job growth and sustainability.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Yurkek

I don't won't to take our off-topic conversation any further, but I still don't get why a super tall skyscraper surrounded by parking lots is better then complete infill with low- and mid-rise buildings.

I don't think anyone is asserting that a skyscraper surrounded by parking lots is better than rows of low and mid rise buildings. All the regular Philly contributors - heck everyone on this forum period - would agree that low rise infill (i.e., the DC model) is better than skyscrapers surrounded by parking lots (i.e., 1970's Houston). For all the talk on this forum about skyscrapers and height, 99 out of 100 people here prioritize urbanity over height. Hence, why people like myself don't give a rats — how many supertalls are built in Dubai, Jeddah, etc.

[apetrella802]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Without crossing the fence into off-topic territory and with respect to the members of this forum, the "Gentleman's Agreement" prevented successful companies, such as Comcast Corp. from locating their entire operations in Philadelphia.

Other nearby cities could have easily snatched Comcast Corp., such as New York (for example).

The following video from PA Governor Tom Corbett explains why "Urban Sprawl", a condition of having coporations housed in several smaller buildings is bad for business and bad for the city:

• Video Link

The revitalization of Philadelphia 31 years ago had directly to do with ending the "Gentleman's Agreement", championed by the late Ed Bacon.

This is the very core reason that Comcast Corp. is able to build yet another tower in Philadelphia.

In fact, don't be surprised when a third tower is announced sometime in the future!

The so called Gentleman's agreement could only exist when the city was in the economic doldrums. When the economic conditions were such to support building Commerce Square and One Liberty Place that non legally binding "agreement" was pushed aside. To my knowledge there was only one building that was built under say 500 or so feet that would have benefited from being much higher. The Sun Oil building(I think it's #10 Penn Center) is over or right around 1,000,000 sq feet and is squashed down to 40 stories to keep it under the 548 feet of City Hall. The others built before One Liberty Place did not require to be built taller than City Hall since they only had maybe 500,000 to 700,000 sq feet.

[GarCastle]

Originally Posted by Yurkek

I don't won't to take our off-topic conversation any further, but I still don't get why a super tall skyscraper surrounded by parking lots is better then complete infill with low- and mid-rise buildings. I think that you need to build up when there are no empty lots left. It is clear to me that construction and land costs are much lower per floor for skyscrapers, but it looks like it is the only benefit.

I understand that in current environment choices are limited and you either get a skyscraper or urban spawl. That is sad and doesn't make me approve current approach to building business districts.

Sorry for being off-topic.

It's convenient for the company to have all their staff in a tower or two, rather than spread all over. Why have to go outside and over a couple buildings when you can just take an elevator ride or at worst go to the next tower over? If nothing else, quite a bit of employee time is lost between meetings, which leads to people being late or not being able to make it at all if being late is an unacceptable thing within the company. Or half the persons have to call in which means they will be at their desk reading/writing emails or doing other work (or no work at all) LOL.

While I'm getting more steps in walking between meetings lately (15k a day mostly at work), crossing campus in 84+ degrees (and humid) with even just a tie (no suit jacket) just plain —. Higher ups try to always be in person, at least in my experience, and that makes their calendar a mess which trickles down since he or she is not available in person due to walking back from another meeting across campus. Then they try to setup a X:15 to X:45 meeting or something which messes up everyone else's calendars since it blocks both half hour time slots even though it is only 30 minutes long.

So having a large building has its perks, not to mention the view.

Cheers,
G.

[TechTalkGuy]

Looking at Downtown Philly on Apple Maps is amazing!

The entire block where the new Comcast Innovation and Technology Center is being built appears as one huge parking lot.

Question: The block just to the west on Arch St. between 19th and 20th Streets - is that block occupied by any important building(s)?

It appears as a lowrise building on the western half of the site.

It looks like a great opportunity for a future Comcast tower!

When looking at this from Apple Maps, you can see the skyscraper density beginning to take shape here.

Not as dense as Lower Manhattan around Wall and Water Streets, mind you - but it does have potential.

When scrolling south of Market Street, there is even more potential with blocks of lowrise buildings.

So - much - potential.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

I don't think anyone is asserting that a skyscraper surrounded by parking lots is better than rows of low and mid rise buildings. All the regular Philly contributors - heck everyone on this forum period - would agree that low rise infill (i.e., the DC model) is better than skyscrapers surrounded by parking lots (i.e., 1970's Houston). For all the talk on this forum about skyscrapers and height, 99 out of 100 people here prioritize urbanity over height. Hence, why people like myself don't give a rats — how many supertalls are built in Dubai, Jeddah, etc.

... and why some of us ultimately don't care about the ultimate height of CITC's roof or get bent out of shape about 1919's lack of stature.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

... and why some of us ultimately don't care about the ultimate height of CITC's roof or get bent out of shape about 1919's lack of stature.

Good point!
I know Comcast wants it's tower to have a new "tallest" title, even if it's a spire.

[boxbot]

Edit: Sigh. Nevermind.

[TechTalkGuy]

[iheartphilly]

Looks like the red crane jumped yesterday or today on CITC.