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

[thisisforreal]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

I have to wonder if they would stand out in other skylines. Is our skyline short in general or are these buildings just so tall that they stand out so well.

No need to wonder, you can see exactly that here on this website. Venture from the forums over to the diagrams and use the advanced form field to do just that:


Combine cities, compare against other continents, restrict by year built, etc. It's a very powerful tool, and you can see how vertically challenged we are:

[Knight Hospitaller]

I'm ambivalent about the building, but am waiting until the "stick" is installed before forming a final opinion. If you want to see a gimmick, look no further than One WTC. Same concept: The top floor is lower than the roofline of other buildings in town (and I think lower than the top floor of that new Park Ave residential stick). Counting the mast makes it officially the tallest, but the low roofline height is always distracting when I visit NYC. At least the "stick" on CTC seems somewhat integrated and less of an afterthought.

[summersm343]

These buildings - Comcast Tech, Comcast Center, One Liberty, Two Liberty, BNY Mellon, Three Logan and FMC - would ABSOLUTELY make a dramatic impact on any US skyline you put them in not named Chicago and NYC. They are all very tall - and aside from FMC - cluttered together... which makes everything else around them seem less tall.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I'm ambivalent about the building, but am waiting until the "stick" is installed before forming a final opinion. If you want to see a gimmick, look no further than One WTC. Same concept: The top floor is lower than the roofline of other buildings in town (and I think lower than the top floor of that new Park Ave residential stick). Counting the mast makes it officially the tallest, but the low roofline height is always distracting when I visit NYC. At least the "stick" on CTC seems somewhat integrated and less of an afterthought.

Just to be clear, the highest occupied floor of CTC is higher than Comcast I. The rest of the height of both buildings is non-occupied utility space. Another good example is Salesforce. The top floor of that building is about the same height as CTC's, it just depends on how much you want to split hairs on what you want to call the top or the roof of the building.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by summersm343

These buildings - Comcast Tech, Comcast Center, One Liberty, Two Liberty, BNY Mellon, Three Logan and FMC - would ABSOLUTELY make a dramatic impact on any US skyline you put them in not named Chicago and NYC. They are all very tall - and aside from FMC - cluttered together... which makes everything else around them seem less tall.

please tell me you meant to say "clustered" together, not "cluttered." you might lose admin privileges on this board if you think they are cluttered.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Just to be clear, the highest occupied floor of CTC is higher than Comcast I. The rest of the height of both buildings is non-occupied utility space. Another good example is Salesforce. The top floor of that building is about the same height as CTC's, it just depends on how much you want to split hairs on what you want to call the top or the roof of the building.

I'm aware that the Four Seasons sky lobby will be higher than Brian Roberts' office. Despite veiling the HVAC equipment and damper, the top portion of the CC is integral to the design, not a mere appendage (like the One WTC "mast"). As I said, I'm waiting to see how/if the "lantern" on CTC works to distract from the obvious fact that its roofline is lower than CC's. I'm hopeful that it will not look like an afterthought (but I think it will from most angles). I'm excited to have this new tower in town, but that doesn't mean that I have to fall in love with it. I just can't. Comcast has provided height on the skyline (and interesting lobbies), but I think their design taste favors clunky structures.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

please tell me you meant to say "clustered" together, not "cluttered." you might lose admin privileges on this board if you think they are cluttered.

Yes, haha! Clustered. Simple typo.

[jjv007]

[QUOTE=Gonzo the Great;7978733]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

I'm already looking to see what building will be built in Philadelphia taller this this. A lot of the people in the office where I work are as excited as I am.



I think it is probably safe to say a lot of people in your office may hit retirement before anything taller
than CITC is built / completed , in Philly .
Not against going higher , just would like to see a shit load of surface lots hit 400/500/600 ' before thinking about
anything 1095' or 1200' scraping the skyline .

Yeah I'd like to see a steady stream of 400'-600' buildings as well. Philly is pretty low in this category and the gap continues to grow compared to other cities. This, along with the fact that our top 5 or 6 buildings are actually quite impressive and clustered together makes our skyline have a steep drop-off, especially in certain sight lines.
Ultimately, though, buildings are dictated by market trends so most of all I'm hoping the city continues to take positive steps forward and fix some of the ills that have plagued it over time. That's how construction really takes off.

[JohnIII]

Originally Posted by summersm343

These buildings - Comcast Tech, Comcast Center, One Liberty, Two Liberty, BNY Mellon, Three Logan and FMC - would ABSOLUTELY make a dramatic impact on any US skyline you put them in not named Chicago and NYC. They are all very tall - and aside from FMC - cluttered together... which makes everything else around them seem less tall.

You know, I'm really glad you said that; not only because it cleared up what I was thinking; but I pondered this. The buildings we have would make a huge impact on any American skyline other than New York City and Chicago and in fact; its possible to include New York and Chicago and here is why I'll included those cities.

Comcast Tech is only a few feet shorter then Hancock Tower in Chicago; I think its about 6' or something like that. Of Comcast Tech were in Chicago it would be the 5th tallest with 2 others within 20' taller; so I considered it well. If Comcast Tech were in a skyline like Chicago; the impact would be about like the Mellon building is to our city; very noticeable. You are right!

If Philadelphia continues to grow as it can; we can have a skyline that is the envy of this nation because so many of our buildings have a sense of class and style; and its not just that; their placement in the Business District is very well thought out which is unique because when building a building the city is so well laid out; one really has to consider the genius of William Penn to a degree because though he didn't live to see skyscrapers his planning affects them here so well.

[Knight Hospitaller]

^ That huge gap between Downtown and Midtown Manhattan would be vastly improved by a building like CTC

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

You know, I'm really glad you said that; not only because it cleared up what I was thinking; but I pondered this. The buildings we have would make a huge impact on any American skyline other than New York City and Chicago and in fact; its possible to include New York and Chicago and here is why I'll included those cities.

Comcast Tech is only a few feet shorter then Hancock Tower in Chicago; I think its about 6' or something like that. Of Comcast Tech were in Chicago it would be the 5th tallest with 2 others within 20' taller; so I considered it well. If Comcast Tech were in a skyline like Chicago; the impact would be about like the Mellon building is to our city; very noticeable. You are right!

If Philadelphia continues to grow as it can; we can have a skyline that is the envy of this nation because so many of our buildings have a sense of class and style; and its not just that; their placement in the Business District is very well thought out which is unique because when building a building the city is so well laid out; one really has to consider the genius of William Penn to a degree because though he didn't live to see skyscrapers his planning affects them here so well.

You know, after visiting London this year, I came to realize how little a large skyline actually matters. I would much prefer to have a well integrated and active street level, than a massive sprawling skyline.

London's skyline is much smaller than Chicago, Miami, Houston, Atlanta... hell, even San Francisco, but it far exceeds every single one of those cities combined as an interesting and exciting city to explore. I may even put London over NYC for it's human scale and easy navigability. You could walk for literal miles on end in each direction in London and not run out of interesting things to explore. It's really remarkable.

[iheartphilly]

We are somewhere in the middle as far as our high-rises being interesting in design and looks. Not fair to compare to NYC-Manhattan. Seems like anybody who is somebody wants to have the name associated with Manhattan by building bigger, better, or bolder. And, not fair to compare to other international cities as well. However, I do believe we have a chance to have more interesting and bold designs in the shape and looks of future buildings. Take Schuykill Yards as an example of bolder designs. If things every come to fruition there, I think we should see a few buildings that could be in any alpha cities as trophy/landmark type buildings that should be different than any of the current building stock we have.

[Plokoon11]

So any spire updates today? Also does anyone find it strange how this spire is being constructed beam by beam instead of prefabed pieces like other spires.

[Mr Saturn64]

[QUOTE=Groundhog;7978840]

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great

I'm sure many people would have said the same thing back in 2007-8 when the original Comcast Center was close to completion, and here we are less than 10 years later. I don't think it's safe to say it will be that long before we get a new king. Liberty Place took the crown for 21 years, then the Comcast will had it for 9. I'd split the different and take the under that we have a new tallest in 15 years.

And that 15 years could be much closer to 5-10 if a certain Fortune 15 company or two (or three if they were publicly traded) sauntered on over from Seattle/Conshy/Malvern.

And even if they don't, don't discount the momentum building organically in University City and the continued ambitions of the development community (ok, mostly just Liberty and Brandywine) to reach for the sky.

I think you're retirement line might work better for a fully residential building reaching the heights of CTC, but I'd be disappointed if this is our pinnacle before my almost 2 year old is able to get his drivers license*.

*Assumes autonomous vehicles haven't become such a thing that drivers licenses for kids are obsolete by then.

If we do land Amazon, and I hope we do, we can expect to see a skyscraper boom here. Not only would we get another thousand footer from Amazon, but I'd expect other companies would seek to move here, and residential towers a-plenty would come up as well.

Originally Posted by summersm343

These buildings - Comcast Tech, Comcast Center, One Liberty, Two Liberty, BNY Mellon, Three Logan and FMC - would ABSOLUTELY make a dramatic impact on any US skyline you put them in not named Chicago and NYC. They are all very tall - and aside from FMC - cluttered together... which makes everything else around them seem less tall.

I think CTC would have a fairly big impact on Chicago, depending on where it goes. If we want a bigger skyline, more buildings in the 500-700 foot range would help a lot.

Originally Posted by summersm343

You know, after visiting London this year, I came to realize how little a large skyline actually matters. I would much prefer to have a well integrated and active street level, than a massive sprawling skyline.

London's skyline is much smaller than Chicago, Miami, Houston, Atlanta... hell, even San Francisco, but it far exceeds every single one of those cities combined as an interesting and exciting city to explore. I may even put London over NYC for it's human scale and easy navigability. You could walk for literal miles on end in each direction in London and not run out of interesting things to explore. It's really remarkable.

Well, that's the difference between cities that are 300 years old and those that date from the Roman period. They have had much more time to develop the city into something interesting.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

As I said, I'm waiting to see how/if the "lantern" on CTC works to distract from the obvious fact that its roofline is lower than CC's. I'm hopeful that it will not look like an afterthought (but I think it will from most angles).

couldn't possibly disagree more, look at the renderings on page one which the building is turning out to mirror exactly. The lantern is integral to the design from the street level up, I really cannot comprehend how it could be viewed as an afterthought like some cheesy antenna bolted onto the side of a building as some spires appear to be, & that can be viewed from north, south and west with the east view being the only one you won't be able to appreciate the obvious integration. Even from the east however I think it'll still have a very nice 'supposed to be there' look to it given that it's the 4th step of a tapering design as opposed to a lantern that might've jutted out of the top of a giant rectangular office building.

[Elementguy13]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the top of the cooling tower on CTC supposed to be roughly 30 ft taller than Comcast 1? I don’t see it from below and I have yet to see one picture that convinces me of this. At best they looked similar in height?

[R5Ryder]

Originally Posted by Marcos

couldn't possibly disagree more, look at the renderings on page one which the building is turning out to mirror exactly. The lantern is integral to the design from the street level up, I really cannot comprehend how it could be viewed as an afterthought like some cheesy antenna bolted onto the side of a building as some spires appear to be, & that can be viewed from north, south and west with the east view being the only one you won't be able to appreciate the obvious integration. Even from the east however I think it'll still have a very nice 'supposed to be there' look to it given that it's the 4th step of a tapering design as opposed to a lantern that might've jutted out of the top of a giant rectangular office building.

It could look like an afterthought from the direct north and south views, if the lantern is flush with the cooling-tower part. If it's inset a bit, that'll help, but the silhouette will basically just be a narrow rectangle on top of a huge rectangle from those sides.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by summersm343

You know, after visiting London this year, I came to realize how little a large skyline actually matters. I would much prefer to have a well integrated and active street level, than a massive sprawling skyline.

London's skyline is much smaller than Chicago, Miami, Houston, Atlanta... hell, even San Francisco, but it far exceeds every single one of those cities combined as an interesting and exciting city to explore. I may even put London over NYC for it's human scale and easy navigability. You could walk for literal miles on end in each direction in London and not run out of interesting things to explore. It's really remarkable.

Depends on how you define skyline. London has thousands of high rises and counting, more than any city in America besides NY. Those add so much to density mile after mile (think like UCity in a way with all the mid rise-ish buildings). And they’re changing on the skyline thing anyway. Everyone uses London and Paris and a handful of other European cities as an anti-skyline thing but virtually all major world cities including them have huge amounts of construction constantly happening with countless high rises. Also, all of them (except a handful of thousands-year old cities in Europe), have pretty major skylines to boot or are unable to do so for economic reasons rather than choice.
I’ll be the first to tell you urbanity doesn’t directly correlate with tall buildings. I don’t think the Market Street business district is anyone’s favorite spot in Philly. But generally, major cities around the world are constantly building and/or have impressive skylines, including London. The European cities that opt against skylines by choice (this is changing too btw) are the exceptions rather than the rule. London’s world-class urbanity is not due to the fact that it eschewed tall buildings for so long but rather due to their centuries of rich history, solid quantity of people, and good urban planning. I think now the city is also starting to realize that vertical development can be efficient and effective under certain circumstances.
Also, next time you’re looking at construction numbers across the US, take a look at the number of high rises under construction or total projects (high rise or not). This often gives you a better idea of how rapidly a city is rising than one or two trophy buildings.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by R5Ryder

It could look like an afterthought from the direct north and south views, if the lantern is flush with the cooling-tower part. If it's inset a bit, that'll help, but the silhouette will basically just be a narrow rectangle on top of a huge rectangle from those sides.

I guess, it's all in the eye of the beholder in the end right? To me it appears to be inset which will give it that stepped look from north & south but even if it were flush with the cooling tower it would then be fairly massive in its width from those angles so I still don't see how that's consistent with an afterthought given its sheer mass - I see an afterthought potential in a spire like the one on the Wilshire Grand that's tiny in diameter relative to the building itself & resembles an antenna that could've been attached at any time, even years after the building was completed.

And let's not forget this puppy lights up

[Elementguy13]

Side note, did anybody notice the new lighting scheme on Comcast 1 last night? It was a two story wide strip of blue light on the north side only. Testing out something new? Or has the building always had this capability?