PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

I posit an honest question to you all now: we didn’t trust the Sixers’ Penn’s Landing proposal, so why should we trust them now? What makes this project better researched and planned?

I'm not sure what is meant by "we didn't trust the Sixers..." None of us had any say there... Penn's Landing was an RFP and the DRWC would have factored in a lot of things, including financial benefits. It's entirely possible Durst simply offered more money for site, and that their proposal just accomplished a lot more of what DWRC was looking for. That was a quasi-public agency making a selection for the best benefit to the public vs a private transaction at Market East. Plus I think it's entirely reasonable to think that closer in Center City on top of more transit is a better place for an arena than on the riverfront which is way more out of the way via transit vs the Market East location. I don't think it had anything to do with a lack of trust in the Sixers to build an arena there so much as this location makes way more sense in almost every possible way. I cannot think of a single advantage of the Penn's Landing site over the Market East site, other than perhaps not having to deal with PCDC... but it'd just be another group of NIMBYs instead.

[jaysb]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

The Net's moved to Brooklyn because someone else bought the team during the 08 recession.

The move wasn't the sole contributor but a big one, they've essentially 10x their investment since then:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1946...e-new-jersey-nets-of-the-nba-since-2006/

No doubt Harris and Co are looking to do the same.

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

I posit an honest question to you all now: we didn’t trust the Sixers’ Penn’s Landing proposal, so why should we trust them now? What makes this project better researched and planned?

I think the assumption they are working with PREIT to incorporate it in the gallery, or whatever they call it now/will call it in the future, along with the more reasonable access to transit makes it easier to swallow.

Personally i think it make way more sense in market east than Penn's landing and maybe that will give it legs as opposed to Penn's landing which just seemed doomed to me.

I also liked the idea of it over the rail yard at 30th Street however outlandish (although brandywine did make both cira centers happen)

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Skintreesnail

I think the assumption they are working with PREIT to incorporate it in the gallery, or whatever they call it now/will call it in the future, along with the more reasonable access to transit makes it easier to swallow.

Because PREiT has such a good track record.
To be clear: I’m not opposed to the stadium, just playing devil’s advocate.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

I'm not sure what is meant by "we didn't trust the Sixers..." None of us had any say there... Penn's Landing was an RFP and the DRWC would have factored in a lot of things, including financial benefits. It's entirely possible Durst simply offered more money for site, and that their proposal just accomplished a lot more of what DWRC was looking for. That was a quasi-public agency making a selection for the best benefit to the public vs a private transaction at Market East. Plus I think it's entirely reasonable to think that closer in Center City on top of more transit is a better place for an arena than on the riverfront which is way more out of the way via transit vs the Market East location. I don't think it had anything to do with a lack of trust in the Sixers to build an arena there so much as this location makes way more sense in almost every possible way. I cannot think of a single advantage of the Penn's Landing site over the Market East site, other than perhaps not having to deal with PCDC... but it'd just be another group of NIMBYs instead.

There was an Inquirer article posted on here when it happened titled, “Why Rejecting the Sixers’ Penn’s Landing Proposal was a Grown-Up Moment for Philly”

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

There was an Inquirer article posted on here when it happened titled, “Why Rejecting the Sixers’ Penn’s Landing Proposal was a Grown-Up Moment for Philly”

The correct title should have been

“City Leaders have no foresight, more at 6”.

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Because PREiT has such a good track record.
To be clear: I’m not opposed to the stadium, just playing devil’s advocate.

Sure, i think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, just for me it ends up being less skeptical for market east vs Penn's landing.

[PurpleWhiteOut]

Originally Posted by Skintreesnail

I think the assumption they are working with PREIT to incorporate it in the gallery,

They need to be explicitly clear on what they're planning. If they were planning to also be investing in an entire complex with more uses, I'd be on board. So far they haven't shown anything other than their investment starting and stopping at the arena itself. Some people have assumed further development, but we need to see that.

Let's not forget this is about them making money, not from the goodness of their heart. Saving Market East is part of the marketing story telling

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

Stadiums / arenas by themselves do not spark development. Ask the city of Chester what the Union have done for them. Almost nothing, in spite of what they said when they built that stadium..

are you seriously using this as an analogous situation?

[Gatorade_Jim]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

They need to be explicitly clear on what they're planning. If they were planning to also be investing in an entire complex with more uses, I'd be on board. So far they haven't shown anything other than their investment starting and stopping at the arena itself. Some people have assumed further development, but we need to see that.

Let's not forget this is about them making money, not from the goodness of their heart. Saving Market East is part of the marketing story telling

The value of the arena and the franchise goes up when the area surrounding the arena succeeds. Why would they plop down the arena and not push to bring more development in?

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

They need to be explicitly clear on what they're planning. If they were planning to also be investing in an entire complex with more uses, I'd be on board. So far they haven't shown anything other than their investment starting and stopping at the arena itself. Some people have assumed further development, but we need to see that.

Let's not forget this is about them making money, not from the goodness of their heart. Saving Market East is part of the marketing story telling

I agree, they need to be clear. They're saying 2031 for delivery, so they should still be working out details and hopefully we get more clarity and some real renders/master plan. I don't think retail there is a bad idea, just what was delivered as the gallery revamp was kind of half-assed. So i think some form of urban mall/retail would fit into their money making venture. I think they want to have a sense of place, meaning retail, restaurants, etc. Would all be part of it, otherwise what's the point of moving from to the sports complex.

[brenster]

Eagles just put out the sickest drone footage i’ve ever seen. https://twitter.com/eagles/status/1616593922091896834?s=46&t=4kAbBFbh6ACBFa-HU05t8g

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Because PREiT has such a good track record.
To be clear: I’m not opposed to the stadium, just playing devil’s advocate.

A minor nit there. While Fashion District is a 50/50 joint venture with Macerich, the latter is now the dominant partner in terms of managing the Fashion District. That’s probably a good thing.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by Skintreesnail

I agree, they need to be clear. They're saying 2031 for delivery, so they should still be working out details and hopefully we get more clarity and some real renders/master plan. I don't think retail there is a bad idea, just what was delivered as the gallery revamp was kind of half-assed. So i think some form of urban mall/retail would fit into their money making venture. I think they want to have a sense of place, meaning retail, restaurants, etc. Would all be part of it, otherwise what's the point of moving from to the sports complex.

An arena and even the video game tournament venue would go great on Market. Add a hotel on top and do discount overnight stays for games. And then people can shop and eat in FD if it’s cold or they don’t want to venture out too far. Having that fully contained environment would limit impacts on Chinatown — which even with the convention expansion, it hasn’t had much impact on taking over Chinatown.

Center City needs to evolve. It can’t depend on business commercial like it used too. It needs to invest in ways of attracting more people into the core as an offset.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by brenster

Eagles just put out the sickest drone footage i’ve ever seen. https://twitter.com/eagles/status/1616593922091896834?s=46&t=4kAbBFbh6ACBFa-HU05t8g

Seriously, what's up with Comcast not having color-capable lighting on its two towers??? It's a massive media/entertainment conglomerate, for god's sake, and it can't spring for occasional colored lighting on its two headquarters towers? Really sticks out among all the green towers.

[TK2001]

Comcast 2 was intended to have color LED's, but apparently they ripped it from the design

Philadelphia skyline from my roof by Philly SkyGuy, on Flickr

More pics tomorrow

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

Seriously, what's up with Comcast not having color-capable lighting on its two towers??? It's a massive media/entertainment conglomerate, for god's sake, and it can't spring for occasional colored lighting on its two headquarters towers? Really sticks out among all the green towers.

Comcast I has colored lights, someone here before said they lit them when the Phillies were in the 2008 series, as well as other times.

If you're driving down arch you can see the color, they are just dim, which makes me believe they are outdated and broken, also parts of the white LED's on Comcast I are out currently.

Why Comcast doesn't revamp there lighting system to a new RGB LED is very dumb, they can easily make the skyline pop even more, as well as making other towers add or upgrade lights.

The Mellon center and the Laurel currently take the cake for the best lights in the city.

I wonder if we send enough emails to Comcast if they would update the lights.

Also a article from 2018 with the whole city green, and a dumb explanation for Comcast not having colored lights on their towers.

The real reason for that absence is by design – quite literally.

"The building architecture in both the first and second buildings do not have the ability to change color," Gattuso said. "That was an intentional decision."

Both Robert A. M. Stern, the architectural firm that designed the first tower, and Foster and Partners, which designed the second skyscraper, preferred a more "elegant" lighting scheme, Gattuso said.

That's why the Comcast Center, completed in 2008 at a cost of $540 million, only ever lights up white. The new, $1.5 billion tower also will maintain white lighting, which will radiate along its western spine and lantern top.

Initially, the Comcast Center had the capability to light a stripe of colored lights at the very top, Gattuso said. But no one liked the way it looked, so it was removed.

Yet, Liberty Property Trust is exploring the possibility of adding the capability to light multiple colors as part of an upcoming retrofitting of the skyscraper, Gattuso said. But a final decision has not been made.

[TK2001]

^
A final decision that has not been made since 2018. It really shows how they don't care, that article is almost five years old!

[R5Ryder]

My main issue with Comcast 1 is that the 5000k lighting strips in the corners that lead up to the crown get lost in the sea of warm lighting, so it often looks like only the crown is lit - so just a white box on top of the tower. And it's dim.

Going with some color scheme might remedy the issue, since strips of red/pink/green/etc wouldn't get drowned in the warm lighting, and the overall effect would be closer to what they were going for in the original renders.

That, or just go with warm lighting all around, so rather than strips in the corners, it would simply look like the entire inner "pyramid" is lit.

There's a lot of potential with Comcast 1, but as others have stated, aesthetics aren't too high on the priority list of whoever writes the checks.

[TK2001]

One thing's for sure, if color lights were installed on the crown, they would have to install them on the corners of the building to match the decorative lighting. And I would love to see that, hopefully the Comcast towers do get an upgrade