PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

if they wanted cohesion, they would have designed a cohesive campus, not gone about it as slapdash as they have. just because they're calling what they have a campus doesn't make it one.
and proximity is different from cohesion.

Incorrect. The "design" of their campus was the product of a combination of business needs, growth, and available land. Not everything happens at the same time, and their space needs didn't either. Not to mention it's a very different company than 10 or 15 years ago. Sometime the pieces don't line up for a business to build and expand their offices like Sim City. The real world is messier. Sure, they could abandon their existing buildings and start from scratch for the company they are today in University City as you suggest. That would allow for a "cohesive" campus. But that's obviously not what they want to do. Amazon's growth was also haphazard. But H2Q won't be.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

And, they could of went all the way up on CTC but instead there's a hotel and 3 private penthouses.

and..?

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I have a feeling the next 1 or 2 will be 600 ft or under. And that might be a 3-5 year start to completion time-frame.

based on what?

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Incorrect. The "design" of their campus was the product of a combination of business needs, growth, and available land. Not everything happens at the same time, and their space needs didn't either. Not to mention it's a very different company than 10 or 15 years ago. Sometime the pieces don't line up for a business to build and expand their offices like Sim City. The real world is messier. Sure, they could abandon their existing buildings and start from scratch for the company they are today in University City as you suggest. That would allow for a "cohesive" campus. But that's obviously not what they want to do. Amazon's growth was also haphazard. But H2Q won't be.

oh yes, please tell me, an architect working on huge projects for a huge architectural firm, how messy the real world is and how the needs of a client change over time.
I never suggested they abandon their existing buildings, I said that if they are going to build two more towers they should build them at SY so they could have some of this cohesion you keep talking about because it doesn't exist in the two existing towers. they would have 2 towers in the business district and two in the technology district. the business district towers aren't cohesive, doesn't mean they should be abandoned, just live with that fact for those buildings and go for cohesion for the other two while there is a clean slate there. as a telecommunications company, they are not limited by their physical proximity to their other properties, so if they want cohesion they should go for it where and when they can, but don't pretend it's there now.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Arch+S...3524b192c!8m2!3d39.9554141!4d-75.1711372

Let's go for a walk:

I know Liberty owns the parking lot on the corner at 19th and Arch.
Then there is the Byers School--that has been doing renovations/construction in the back of the building (they dont seem to be going anywhere).

Keep walking down Arch Street, and the next parking lot on the other side of Byers, Liberty also owns that too.

Keep walking further down the street, and Liberty owns the parking lot on the other side of the street, at the corner of 20th and Arch (across the street from the Indian joint). I think Liberty also owns the building with mural girl as well.

Is my understanding....

Thanks, good to know. Do you know if there are any height restrictions on those parcels? Doesn't one of them go over the train tracks? Just wondering what could realistically be built in these spots.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

and..?

based on what?

https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/news/office/comcast-three-logan-square-third-tower-82202

"The telecommunications giant has expanded and extended its lease at Three Logan Square, bringing its total footprint in the Brandywine Realty Trust-owned building from 230K to 300K SF, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports."

"Comcast's lease at Three Logan Square, at 1717 Arch St. across from its Comcast Center headquarters, was set to expire in 2018. Its new lease, brokered by Binswanger CEO David Binswanger, will run until 2023. Comcast's total footprint in Downtown Philadelphia outside of the Comcast Center now totals 590K SF, with 200K SF at neighboring Two Logan Square and 90K SF in nearby Centre Square."

My first point is that they could of taking the whole CTC bldg if they wanted to, but I think there are lots of moving parts with existing leases and continuity of business units. And, their business projections of the space they need w/r/t technology jobs, like how many they will need to hire, whatnot. Also, if there were any deals in the works and additional spaces needed was contingent on that.

My 2nd point is that they could consolidate the office spaces they are leasing from others and move them into future LPT buildings as part of their campus goals. The height and number of buildings will be a function of projected needs, based on M&A activity, organic growth, re-shuffling/re-locating existing business units as leases come up on expiration.

[Frontst17]

What’s more cohesive than 2 buildings essentially on the same block connected underground? Do you want skywalks? Or should they have torn down CC to make one giant building? People are lazy but they can take and elevator and walk 50 yards if they have to.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Frontst17

What’s more cohesive than 2 buildings essentially on the same block connected underground?

a planned campus.
someone in an earlier post said that this would be Philadelphia's Rockefeller Center, and I am disputing that because RC is planned, with public spaces and circulation through the entire place, with buildings that have an aesthetic that ties the whole thing together. the comcast buildings do not have anything like that.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

oh yes, please tell me, an architect working on huge projects for a huge architectural firm, how messy the real world is and how the needs of a client change over time.
I never suggested they abandon their existing buildings, I said that if they are going to build two more towers they should build them at SY so they could have some of this cohesion you keep talking about because it doesn't exist in the two existing towers. they would have 2 towers in the business district and two in the technology district. the business district towers aren't cohesive, doesn't mean they should be abandoned, just live with that fact for those buildings and go for cohesion for the other two while there is a clean slate there. as a telecommunications company, they are not limited by their physical proximity to their other properties, so if they want cohesion they should go for it where and when they can, but don't pretend it's there now.

It's there now more than it would be by shunting off half their workforce to University City...and will be moreso when CTC opens. My friends at Comcast think the two buildings will function interdependently and have plenty of cohesion. A planned campus would be nice but for two existing trophy buildings that are already located where they are.There are a lot of very smart people at Comcast. If a bifurcated setup made sense for them, it would happen. Maybe you guys should pitch it to them...

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

oh yes, please tell me, an architect working on huge projects for a huge architectural firm, how messy the real world is and how the needs of a client change over time.
I never suggested they abandon their existing buildings, I said that if they are going to build two more towers they should build them at SY so they could have some of this cohesion you keep talking about because it doesn't exist in the two existing towers. they would have 2 towers in the business district and two in the technology district. the business district towers aren't cohesive, doesn't mean they should be abandoned, just live with that fact for those buildings and go for cohesion for the other two while there is a clean slate there. as a telecommunications company, they are not limited by their physical proximity to their other properties, so if they want cohesion they should go for it where and when they can, but don't pretend it's there now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihqjk8kN0cI&t=3s

We understand your point. But it's moot, literally, because that's not what Comcast *wants* to do. They want to build a campus based on proximity. And I think it will be more cohesive than you're giving it credit for. There's already a direct, landscaped walkway, (complete with a raised, protected crosswalk) between building 1 and CITC. They will be adding branded signage as well. Other than similar looking buildings - which no one wants - what are you particularly looking for?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

oh yes, please tell me, an architect working on huge projects for a huge architectural firm, how messy the real world is and how the needs of a client change over time.
I never suggested they abandon their existing buildings, I said that if they are going to build two more towers they should build them at SY so they could have some of this cohesion you keep talking about because it doesn't exist in the two existing towers. they would have 2 towers in the business district and two in the technology district. the business district towers aren't cohesive, doesn't mean they should be abandoned, just live with that fact for those buildings and go for cohesion for the other two while there is a clean slate there. as a telecommunications company, they are not limited by their physical proximity to their other properties, so if they want cohesion they should go for it where and when they can, but don't pretend it's there now.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Londonee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihqjk8kN0cI&t=3s

We understand your point. But it's moot, literally, because that's not what Comcast *wants* to do. They want to build a campus based on proximity. And I think it will be more cohesive than you're giving it credit for. There's already a direct, landscaped walkway, (complete with a raised, protected crosswalk) between building 1 and CITC. They will be adding branded signage as well. Other than similar looking buildings - which no one wants - what are you particularly looking for?

no one? or just you?
I don't want anything, I'm just making suggestions. my original thought was to have the 2 new buildings at SY so that project could get under way, and backed that idea up with the definition of what a cohesive campus is.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

no one? or just you?
I don't want anything, I'm just making suggestions. my original thought was to have the 2 new buildings at SY so that project could get under way, and backed that idea up with the definition of what a cohesive campus is.

no one

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

We don't design skylines, we design buildings. skylines happen organically.
this particular megatall building would be occupied by one company, it wouldn't be a speculative building, meaning that there could still be 5-10 600-700 foot tallers as you suggest if there is a need for them outside of comcast. but you can't tell comcast they have have to have smaller builidings because you don't like the look or scale of one large building on the skyline.

But there isn't a need for them and there is a need from Comcast.

So yes, I'd be happier if they built 2 or 3 700'ers than 1 massive building.

Urbanism is not about height boners. It's about the best street level experience over the widest area possible.

Further, the economics of buildings become prohibitively more expensive above a certain height. But yeah, let's wait for that 2,000 footer.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Proximity is no longer such an issue. If you'll recall, Comcast is a *tele*communications company. It would be nice if they could all be together, but I wouldn't think it'd be necessary.

I’m sorry to pile on about this, but to assume a company’s corporate culture is open to teleworking/virtual teams/etc. because they run cable lines and produce content is patently absurd - even given their growing tech focus. Especially if this assumption leads to your scenario where they (Comcast) would turn down convenience and operational efficiencies (close, already acquired land in partnership with LPT) to have some nebulous master plan with an unfamiliar business partner (Brandywine). Who would benefit from this scenario besides the firm hired to develop the plan?

If you’re going to credential drop to tear others down, then understand the potential for being called out on aspects that are not architecture-specific; this board is such a great resource and is enjoyable precisely because of the varied perspectives people bring.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

if they wanted cohesion, they would have designed a cohesive campus, not gone about it as slapdash as they have. just because they're calling what they have a campus doesn't make it one.
and proximity is different from cohesion.

Has the ghost of 1487 arisen?

[TechTalkGuy]

I’d like to believe that Comcast is planning their campus based on acquired nearby property.

I referred to this as Philadelphia’s very own "Rockefeller Center" because Comcast is clearly growing.

Great conversation so far!

[hammersklavier]

Please remember that personal insults will yield SSP vacations. You lot have been warned.

Now, as you were...

[Inquizative]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

We don't design skylines, we design buildings. skylines happen organically.
this particular megatall building would be occupied by one company, it wouldn't be a speculative building, meaning that there could still be 5-10 600-700 foot tallers as you suggest if there is a need for them outside of comcast. but you can't tell comcast they have have to have smaller builidings because you don't like the look or scale of one large building on the skyline.

I seriously doubt they would even remotely consider a 2,000 ft skyscraper. That's a Dubai image building effort. Keep in mind, how could Arch street, a 2 lane, one way thoroughfare support a 2,000 ft building? The traffic coming in and out of such building would be overwhelming, even with underground access. We are talking upwards of a 100,000 people in an out up to 5 days or more a week. The first purpose of building a skyscraper is the need for office space. The reason why a city like NYC can support so many supertalls is because they have the infrastructure, wider streets, mass transit and corporations with money to support such projects. Philly is not in that league.

Aesthetics of a skyscraper is an aspect to project an image of stability and power. I speculate that other land Comcast owns on Arch will be space for a couple (maybe 3) 500-700 footers.

They do position buildings for it's aesthetics on a skyline, this is why certain skyscrapers are called 'trophy' buildings, they are built to be seen, so the position of a highrise on the skyline can be important. Skylines can happen 'strategically.'

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Inquizative

I seriously doubt they would even remotely consider a 2,000 ft skyscraper. That's a Dubai image building effort. Keep in mind, how could Arch street, a 2 lane, one way thoroughfare support a 2,000 ft building? The traffic coming in and out of such building would be overwhelming, even with underground access. We are talking upwards of a 100,000 people in an out up to 5 days or more a week.

You're way off. the twin towers of the WTC amounted to 2700 vertical feet of construction and only had 25,000 people in them.
i am working on a proposal for an office building in Asia that is 2200 feet tall and would have maybe 12,000 office workers.
that said, I know they wouldn't build a megatall building, just suggesting it as an alternative to building two more towers. it's something to consider but has a low-to-no probability of happening.

[GtownFriend]

Sold sign at 15th & Cherry (5/6/18). Some sort of changes in store?


Philadelphia by cinxxx, on Flickr