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

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by allovertown

For a tower to even be finished within two years of the CITC it would have to be proposed basically right now and experience no difficulty with financing, approvals, etc. Super talls don't normally just spring up over night. At this point it seems very unlikely a tower will surpass it by 2020 and the more time passes without a legitimate proposal to build such a building, the longer you can safely push that date back. I'd guess that CITC is the tallest outside of chicago and nyc for about 10 years.

He was talking about how long the US Steel Tower in Pittsburgh was the tallest outside of Chi and NY before being dethroned, not a prediction for CITC.

[kraggman]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

That this individual wants a 1250ft skyscraper built east of City Hall - more or less. (me too - btw).

What exactly is the reason for the lack of highrise development east of Broad ?? The skyline is so unbalanced.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by SSBMEXPERT

I'm honestly not trying to start a fight ...but I really do worry about how long this building will be able to keep it's "tallest building outside New York and Chicago" title.

Why? As titles go, it's on par with "World's Greatest Grandpa." I hope the US continues to build. Because of roof height, I'm not sure the average person would even consider this the tallest building in Philadelphia, let alone the US outside of NY and CHI.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by kraggman

What exactly is the reason for the lack of highrise development east of Broad ?? The skyline is so unbalanced.

The east side is much older and was largely commercially developed before the advent of the skyscraper.

The west side consisted largely of underutilized industrial land until the late 1800s and was more suitable (less disruptive) for commercial highrise development when skyscrapers started being built back then.

In addition, with the development of City Hall and Broad St & Reading rail terminals, and then the BSL & MFL junction, Broad St. became the logical locus of office development.

After the WWII, the demolition of the PRR viaduct and burying of rail lines left lots of vacant land suitable for skyscraper development.

By then, East Market had gotten a bit rundown; red light districts, low end retail. The west side of Broad had still-ritzy Rittenhouse, clubs, more prestige.

No big banks, law firms, etc. were attracted to more rundown east side.

But I think the initial germ for high rise growth on the west side can be said to have taken root initially because the east side was too crowded and busy in the late 1800s. It was just easier, cheaper, less disruptive to build City Hall and rail transit toward the west. Office, highrise development naturally evolved from there, and the east side's role remained more mid-19th century mercantile in scale, while the west became more 20th century corporate in scale. The only real high rise area on the east side was around Independence Hall, where the traditional insurance and publishing industries remained until the 60s or so. But all the other larger industries migrated west.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by kraggman

What exactly is the reason for the lack of highrise development east of Broad ?? The skyline is so unbalanced.

Skylines are not paintings with deliberate "compositional" arrangements, so its a bit silly to imagine that balance is necessary or even appropriate to consider.

It's like expecting a mountain range or a traffic jam to have balance. But why would they? Skylines, like these other things, evolve organically without any consciousness.

A balanced skyline is either an accident or the result of a plan. Planned skylines are almost always boring and ugly. It is exactly the organic, unplanned aspect of skylines that make them exciting and interesting, like mountain ranges.

Each skyline evolves in response to the social, economic, political, technological, and geographic forces at play at various points in a city's history. As a result, the shape and composition of a skyline tells a great deal about the history and character of its city.

A planned skyline would not have this aspect. Thus the boringness. All such a skyline would tell you about is the probably not so interesting mindset of the chief planner/builder.

I love Oscar Neimeyer, but Brasilia is awful. Chaotic Sao Paulo is clearly the more interesting skyline, and not just because it is bigger.

This notion of skyline "balance" is just a pet peeve of mine.

We frequently read posts about how a proposal should be taller or in a different location so as to affect better "balance" in the skyline. As if developers ought to care about such nonsense, or as if the planning commission had devised a "skyline balance" scheme.

Buildings get built where and how they get built due to numerous constructive and destructive forces. But squishy subjective notions of skyline composition are, thankfully, not one of them.

[philly13]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Skylines are not paintings with deliberate "compositional" arrangements, so its a bit silly to imagine that balance is necessary or even appropriate to consider.

It's like expecting a mountain range or a traffic jam to have balance. But why would they? Skylines, like these other things, evolve organically without any consciousness.

A balanced skyline is either an accident or the result of a plan. Planned skylines are almost always boring and ugly. It is exactly the organic, unplanned aspect of skylines that make them exciting and interesting, like mountain ranges.

Each skyline evolves in response to the social, economic, political, technological, and geographic forces at play at various points in a city's history. As a result, the shape and composition of a skyline tells a great deal about the history and character of its city.

A planned skyline would not have this aspect. Thus the boringness. All such a skyline would tell you about is the probably not so interesting mindset of the chief planner/builder.

I love Oscar Neimeyer, but Brasilia is awful. Chaotic Sao Paulo is clearly the more interesting skyline, and not just because it is bigger.

I think you are over-analyzing kraggman's comment a bit, I think they just used the word "unbalanced" for lack of a better term.

But I do agree that unplanned cities have a certain unique feeling to them, something that is hard to replicate.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by philly13

I think you are over-analyzing kraggman's comment a bit, I think they just used the word "unbalanced" for lack of a better term.

Probably. It's just a pet peeve that sets me off. Kragg probably didn't intend anything, but many posters on SSP bleat on about the fictitious desireability of skyline balance.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

To me it's of just slightly more consequence than the price of tea in China

Philly has taller buildings than Tokyo. Dallas or Atlanta may get taller buildings than Philly. See my point?

Dallas has that Ross Perot tower that will be over 1.5 million square feet. With no height limit, it could be the tallest outside of NYC or Chicago. But in the end, who knows. Something taller could rise in the future.

[apetrella802]

Originally Posted by philly13

I think you are over-analyzing kraggman's comment a bit, I think they just used the word "unbalanced" for lack of a better term.

But I do agree that unplanned cities have a certain unique feeling to them, something that is hard to replicate.

Phila is more of a planned city then just about any in the US. The 1988 plan, if I remember correctly, very purposely worked to preserve Walnut, Locust, Pine st North of Broad st from large tall buildings(skyscrapers). This seems to have worked when you look at West Market, and Arch sts. Who would have thought 25 years ago that Philadelphia's tallest buildings would be on Arch st? As for balancing the skyline that is not something this or any city planning document would address. I thought zoning in this case is subject to the city plan. The result is that the 1988 plan did preserved the wonderful middle and late 19th c. mostly residential character of the area around Rittenhouse Sq.

I remember signing a petition to preserve the NE corner of 17th and Locust from development years ago. Right before the 1988 plan was put in place. Can you imagine a 20 story glass box replacing the Tudor like building on the corner there and the next three townhouses, twin Georgian revival houses and the Trumbauer limestone(EC Knight) house.

[Plokoon11]

Looks like a bit of rebar action in the core pit, wouldn't be surprised if in a month they have another big pour.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

Looks like a bit of rebar action in the core pit, wouldn't be surprised if in a month they have another big pour.

What's the webcam link again? I'm too lazy to go back through this thread to find it.

[Plokoon11]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Comcast-Tower-Building-Cam-274808381.html

http://phillynews.net/#webcam

[kraggman]

Sorry for the term "unbalanced". I guess that was a poor description. I guess "two cities" would be a better description. Looking from the Art Museum you have the "foothills" east of city hall, then BOOM, the "mountains" to the west.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Comcast-Tower-Building-Cam-274808381.html

http://phillynews.net/#webcam

Thanks!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by kraggman

Sorry for the term "unbalanced". I guess that was a poor description. I guess "two cities" would be a better description. Looking from the Art Museum you have the "foothills" east of city hall, then BOOM, the "mountains" to the west.

Yeah. I enjoy asymmetry (sp?) in the skyline.

It really does accentuate the similarity to mountain ranges in terms of a sort of natural evolution.

I think SF's skyline is much more interesting now with those new towers south of the Bay bridge. Or Boston with the sparser but taller Back Bay cluster contrasted to the denser Financial District. It really speaks to what makes these cities more unique and interesting in comparison to the relatively symmetric, indistinct skylines you see in a lot of duller generic midwestern or southern cities.

[summersm343]

From the webcam



http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Comcast-Tower-Building-Cam-274808381.html

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Yeah. I enjoy asymmetry (sp?) in the skyline.

It really does accentuate the similarity to mountain ranges in terms of a sort of natural evolution.

I think SF's skyline is much more interesting now with those new towers south of the Bay bridge. Or Boston with the sparser but taller Back Bay cluster contrasted to the denser Financial District. It really speaks to what makes these cities more unique and interesting in comparison to the relatively symmetric, indistinct skylines you see in a lot of duller generic midwestern or southern cities.

I get what you're saying, I think. I remember imagining what the skyline would have looked like if Bridgeman's View would have been built along with the other midrises proposed for the waterfront. It would have really drawn the skyline outward. As it is, it's very centered around Comcast, Liberty Place, etc. In some ways, when I see old pre-Liberty Place photos of the skyline it almost looked like a bigger city because you're focal point wasn't on a hub, it rambled.

Few tall cities really ramble: maybe New York and Chicago in the U.S. It would be interesting to see Philadelphia's height stray from the Market/JFK. It's kind of happening with University City. I haven't seen San Francisco in person, but I know Portland really redefined its skyline by expanding its South Waterfront area.

Still, and maybe I'm bias, but I do think Philadelphia has a uniquely three dimensional skyline. Even in cities just as tall, you're often faced with a wall of skyscrapers that looks similar from any angle. But if you come into Philadelphia from any direction, it's like looking at a completely unique city because of the way the new buildings rise from the old. Again, maybe I'm bias because I know the city. But I like what we've got, even if I'd like to see more towers emerge from other neighborhoods.

The CITC looks great, but IMO it doesn't redefine the skyline. It's another tall building next to other tall buildings. It just happens to be even taller.

[Plokoon11]

rebar is almost above the core hole today, seems like this and FMC are in a race! Great times for this city!

[Jonboy1983]

I'm getting more and more excited for this project and for Philadelphia. At least this is one city in PA that doesn't have its head up its ass like the joker brigade over in Allegheny County...

[justremember]

Just a little [more] historic context around the shape of the skyline: It's actually reflective of a problem that's as old as the city itself. Penn's intention was always that people would live on and develop the land from river to river. However, everyone wanted to live on the Delaware, so they subdivided their properties, turned the east part of the city into a bustling urban area, and left the west side barren. The skyline would have looked the reverse of what it does now.

I would imagine William Penn would look at CITC and other development and think "Finally!"