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

[christof]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Iwill does make a small but significant point about skyscrapers and skylines. Yes, skyscrapers may not necessarily define a city, but each city does have its signature building/landmark that does/do make it stand out. Here are some examples:

New York: Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Grand Central Station, One World Trade Center
Chicago: Willis Tower, John Hancock Center
Atlanta: Sun Trust Plaza
Pittsburgh: US Steel Tower, PPG Place, Cathedral of Learning
St. Louis: The Arch
Los Angeles: US Bank Tower, Hollywood Sign
Seattle: Columbia Center, Space Needle

Again, I'm not saying that these locations are defined by their skylines, but the aforementioned landmarks are something that outsiders can identify the cities with. This building, along with Independence Hall, Liberty Place, Comcast Center, and Reading Terminal to name a few, will likely be a signature landmark for Philadelphia.

Here's a question, what is the tallest mixed-use building in the States? Technically, since this is going to house a Four Seasons Hotel, wouldn't that make this building a mixed use structure?

Folks, the skyline is moving toward the west, not the east, in Philly. Moving forward, the next great skyscraper building mania is going to occur along the banks of the Schuylkill river. That includes Markets street, the CHOP construction, and the open land around 30th Street (on JFK Blvd, Market, and Chestnut Streets).

[apetrella802]

Why so boxy?

It's not an office building but a cyber factory. The machine/industrial aesthetic reflects this function, although this factory will turn out clean technology; no smoke no dirt. Once you accept(if you can) what this building aims to be you can appreciate that this is a very transformational event. I also think Comcast's dedication to doing business in Philadelphia is somewhat like what the Pennsylvania Railroad was to Philadelphia 100 years ago.

apetrella802

[eliasrapp98]

Originally Posted by lwill

Yes, pehaps my argument is a waste of time, but think im trying to say a little bit more about the overall planning of this city. Philadelphia seems to shun projects which would open us up to the world.

For example, how in the world do you piss Donald Trump to the point where not only do we lose a Trump Tower, but the man says "I will never attempt to do business in this city ever again"? Again, the casino waterfront project was an opportunity for this city to create a Las Vegas type strip on the eastern seaboard; instead we get a gambling box for our local market.

My argument is that this city seems to thwart progress, and building a tower which obscures two others in the process is just the type of planning which is perfect for keeping our city looking small to the world.

So again, I think Im hinting at a general pattern of deliberate planning which seeks to minimize this cities presence, and global friendliness.

I would have liked to see this tower be our John Hancock in contrast to the Sears Tower; demarcating a new distinct sector symbolizing this cities wish to
attract more super talls.

By the way, the ACC design was killer; this one is less than inspiring, even more so by clustering it together with other buildings. In the renderings it seems to have little distinction from the rest. A Comcast twin tower was definately not the way to go.

And I will do some more renderings as some of you asked shortly.
thanks.

That's not how towers work. Comcast is building this for jobs and business, not for your personal gain. They don't care that it blocks other buildings, hell, it helps them by making it look like the whole city is Comcast buildings. Sorry that a business, that does so much for Philadelphia, built their building in your 2nd favorite location and not your first... Boohoo.

[cubanChris]

I'll only say that Donald Trump said that because he is an idiot. Run through the laundry list of quotes he has for any city, person or government entity... he's a dope and, from what I recall, his project was always unlikely to happen during the boom. The bust simply put the nail in that coffin.

Furthermore, there were only ever allowed to be 2 casinos in the city and 2 casinos a Las Vegas stripe does not make.

All of that said, you are right, Philly does not always make itself the most friendly to development and to having a comprehensive city plan. So I hear ya there. The bigger argument is for a better business climate and cheaper building costs. That would easily get us all what we want

[apetrella802]

just imagine if you will what the argument for a "balanced" skyline would mean if applied to NYNY!

apetrella802

[FlyersFan]

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by FlyersFan

That's the money shot...CITC fits right in with the core of the other high rises. If it was anywhere else as previously suggested, it would look out of scale relative to the other buildings. Having the tallest buildings in proximity to each other make the city feel and look impressive, IMO.

[apetrella802]

if you play the 5 sec clip of Sir Foster talking about his design for CITC at the link below, you will see many vertical elements in the façade, something that does not show up in the other renderings I've seen so far. This is the model he is using to represent the building and if this is a more accurate representation of the building then is even more industrial even futuristic than I thought. You may or may not like this, I do because it reflects even more than I though how revolutionary this building is.

http://www.archdaily.com/467277/fost...-philadelphia/

apetrella802

[SJPhillyBoy]

FlyersFan, excellent job. I see you have CITC, FMC, EVO, W and SLS in there. Nice Job. I think FMC will have a larger visual impact on the Philly skyline than the new Comcast, just because of its location.

[tower]

nice diagram FF!

i think the location makes the most sense and is fine. ideally we would like to see a building of a better design and in the most proportionate location but that's only wishful thinking. what we're getting is what we're getting and i'm okay with that, although i wouldn't mind seeing some refinement to the design. here is my current contribution

[flyflyfly]

Love that shot! Is there any other vantage point where new tower will not have the effect of covering up other towers? I am thinking mainly from SS Bridge. Will it cover up Bell Atlantic Tower from there? Any possible angle where you can get it all in?

[eliasrapp98]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

FlyersFan, excellent job. I see you have CITC, FMC, EVO, W and SLS in there. Nice Job. I think FMC will have a larger visual impact on the Philly skyline than the new Comcast, just because of its location.

I disagree. A tower 150 feet taller than our current tallest will make SUCH a huge impact.

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by FlyersFan

One hell of a city.

Nice job man.

[BigDan35]

Is this tower already approved or is it still just a "proposal"? If so, when will construction begin?

[duffey]

construction begins this summer

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by BigDan35

Is this tower already approved or is it still just a "proposal"? If so, when will construction begin?

Comcast doesn't really need approval lol. The city pretty much already approved it by giving it $10 mill in public funds. Construction begins this summer.

[alasi]

After looking at Tower's take, this is starting to grow on me.

[williamphilapa]

Thanks Plokoon11, Iwill, FlyersFan and Tower for posting rendings ... makes the pre-construction time enjoyable and time go by quicker.

Awesome stuff!

[shipsterns]

Regarding Iwill's critiques and the subsequent discussion of CITC's placement in the skyline:

I think it's perfect where it is. Yes, some of the world's most recognizable skylines have the bimodal shape, but it don't think it's a necessary criterion for being recognizable. If anything, NYC and Chicago are exceptions -- because they're so massive, they can get away without the wedding cake shape. Look at Atlanta for instance -- from afar, it looks like a sprawling, loosely connected string of cities rather than a single, unified urban center:


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fr...wn2Buckead.jpg)

Philly, on the other hand, has the classic wedding cake shape, and it pulls it off incredibly well. Combine that with an abundance of midrises (you can thank the gentleman's agreement for that) and you have a really neat, dense, and world-class skyline. I mean look at Shanghai for God's sake! No one would say, "hm...let's put the Shanghai Tower further from the central business district." Why do the same for Philadelphia?

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by shipsterns

Regarding Iwill's critiques and the subsequent discussion of CITC's placement in the skyline:

I think it's perfect where it is. Yes, some of the world's most recognizable skylines have the bimodal shape, but it don't think it's a necessary criterion for being recognizable. If anything, NYC and Chicago are exceptions -- because they're so massive, they can get away without the wedding cake shape. Look at Atlanta for instance -- from afar, it looks like a sprawling, loosely connected string of cities rather than a single, unified urban center:


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fr...wn2Buckead.jpg)

Philly, on the other hand, has the classic wedding cake shape, and it pulls it off incredibly well. Combine that with an abundance of midrises (you can thank the gentleman's agreement for that) and you have a really neat, dense, and world-class skyline. I mean look at Shanghai for God's sake! No one would say, "hm...let's put the Shanghai Tower further from the central business district." Why do the same for Philadelphia?

The city needs to add more subway lines if it wants to create another big office CBD.