PHILADELPHIA | Schuylkill Yards Future Phases | 1,095 - 375 FT | 70 - 28 FLOORS

[Lincolnlover2005]

I take it the supertall is not rising?

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Lincolnlover2005

I take it the supertall is not rising?

Check back in 3 years.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Gene Therapy Research Facility Coming Soon Near 30th Street Station

Current site:






Read/view more here:
https://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phil...street-station

Any updates on this? A rendering even?

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by McBane

Any updates on this? A rendering even?

Nothing yet. Probably won't be a major high rise though, considering its more industrial use.

[Mayormccheese]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Nothing yet. Probably won't be a major high rise though, considering its more industrial use.

What a waste of that lot. What do we think the chances are the super tall actually gets built? I’d say the over under is around 5%

[reparcsyks]

Originally Posted by Mayormccheese

What a waste of that lot. What do we think the chances are the super tall actually gets built? I’d say the over under is around 5%

Everyone is going to freak out on me, and that's OK, but I'm confident we won't see a supertall built in Philadelphia in the next 50 years, if ever again. We'll definitely get a lot more 500-700 footers. And that's cool with me. In fact, I'd rather have a 14 story massive gene therapy lab on this lot, than another CITC. In fact, I'd take 20 more mid-rise gene therapy labs over 1 supertall.

I may be in the minority, but I prefer density over supertalls (and that's not to say I don't love supertalls, but I am also a realist).

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

Everyone is going to freak out on me, and that's OK, but I'm confident we won't see a supertall built in Philadelphia in the next 50 years, if ever again. We'll definitely get a lot more 500-700 footers. And that's cool with me. In fact, I'd rather have a 14 story massive gene therapy lab on this lot, than another CITC. In fact, I'd take 20 more mid-rise gene therapy labs over 1 supertall.

I may be in the minority, but I prefer density over supertalls (and that's not to say I don't love supertalls, but I am also a realist).

Is this a troll post? 50 years? You understand 50 years ago was 1972 and 50 years from now will be 2072? If you're confident about anything in 2072...

I can't finish that sentence without an insult.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Is this a troll post? 50 years? You understand 50 years ago was 1972 and 50 years from now will be 2072? If you're confident about anything in 2072...

I can't finish that sentence without an insult.

...yeah, this is a very nearsighted comment about a very long term outlook. Outside of City Hall, has any building in Philadelphia held the record for tallest building for close to 50 years?

This statement assumes a lot about the next 50 years:
1. Little to no additional population or business growth in the city proper
2. No technological changes in construction techniques to make taller buildings easier/cheaper to build

If you're assuming climate change, nuclear war, or some other catastrophe takes out the city/country then, sure. It's a big assumption still but it gives some rationale for why that would be the case. This gut feeling of confidence with nothing to back it up is either a troll or an extremely poorly thought out statement. Not realistic at all.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

Everyone is going to freak out on me, and that's OK, but I'm confident we won't see a supertall built in Philadelphia in the next 50 years, if ever again. We'll definitely get a lot more 500-700 footers. And that's cool with me. In fact, I'd rather have a 14 story massive gene therapy lab on this lot, than another CITC. In fact, I'd take 20 more mid-rise gene therapy labs over 1 supertall.

I may be in the minority, but I prefer density over supertalls (and that's not to say I don't love supertalls, but I am also a realist).

I can agree with this to a degree. 50 years is so long from now, so who really knows but I'm confident in saying no supertall will be built in the foreseeable future. Why?

1) Because supertalls are typically for office space and I don't see the demand for that in the post-covid world especially in Philly.

2) Philly's growing commercial sector is in life sciences and those buildings tend to be shorter. All other segments are stagnant. Also, our only supertall is only a supertall because of the spire. We don't have any buildings over 60 stories.

3) Supertalls for residential is more of a possibility but I still don't think the demand is there in Philly. And not an insult - where in the US are residential supertalls being built outside NYC? I know there's one in Miami perhaps something in Chicago. But otherwise, it's rare. We just got residential towers close to 600 ft - do we really think someone is going to come along and build a 1,000 footer? NIMBY's wouldn't allow it (not that that's rational but that's another argument altogether).

This doesn't mean that Philly will stop growing or building towers. As reparcsyks said, we will probably continue to see towers above 500 ft but 1,000 ft doesn't seem realistic to me either.

Finally, circling back to my original question about the parking lot at 30th and Chestnut - it was never intended to be a supertall so I don't get the initial complaint that took us down this road anyway.

[reparcsyks]

Originally Posted by McBane

I can agree with this to a degree. 50 years is so long from now, so who really knows but I'm confident in saying no supertall will be built in the foreseeable future. Why?

1) Because supertalls are typically for office space and I don't see the demand for that in the post-covid world especially in Philly.

2) Philly's growing commercial sector is in life sciences and those buildings tend to be shorter. All other segments are stagnant. Also, our only supertall is only a supertall because of the spire. We don't have any buildings over 60 stories.

3) Supertalls for residential is more of a possibility but I still don't think the demand is there in Philly. And not an insult - where in the US are residential supertalls being built outside NYC? I know there's one in Miami perhaps something in Chicago. But otherwise, it's rare. We just got residential towers close to 600 ft - do we really think someone is going to come along and build a 1,000 footer? NIMBY's wouldn't allow it (not that that's rational but that's another argument altogether).

This doesn't mean that Philly will stop growing or building towers. As reparcsyks said, we will probably continue to see towers above 500 ft but 1,000 ft doesn't seem realistic to me either.

Finally, circling back to my original question about the parking lot at 30th and Chestnut - it was never intended to be a supertall so I don't get the initial complaint that took us down this road anyway.

Agree with everything here and is exactly what I meant.

[mcgrath618]

I think I agree with the sentiment that it's impossible to predict the next 50 years that well. In 1972 they probably had the same discussion about anything taller than City Hall.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

I can agree with this to a degree. 50 years is so long from now, so who really knows but I'm confident in saying no supertall will be built in the foreseeable future. Why?

1) Because supertalls are typically for office space and I don't see the demand for that in the post-covid world especially in Philly.

2) Philly's growing commercial sector is in life sciences and those buildings tend to be shorter. All other segments are stagnant. Also, our only supertall is only a supertall because of the spire. We don't have any buildings over 60 stories.

3) Supertalls for residential is more of a possibility but I still don't think the demand is there in Philly. And not an insult - where in the US are residential supertalls being built outside NYC? I know there's one in Miami perhaps something in Chicago. But otherwise, it's rare. We just got residential towers close to 600 ft - do we really think someone is going to come along and build a 1,000 footer? NIMBY's wouldn't allow it (not that that's rational but that's another argument altogether).

This doesn't mean that Philly will stop growing or building towers. As reparcsyks said, we will probably continue to see towers above 500 ft but 1,000 ft doesn't seem realistic to me either.

Finally, circling back to my original question about the parking lot at 30th and Chestnut - it was never intended to be a supertall so I don't get the initial complaint that took us down this road anyway.

That's not true. A lot of Supertalls now-a-days are entirely mixed-use.

I would say I agree in that I don't see another Supertall in Philadelphia within the next 10 years - but after that? Anything could change.

I could very well see a Supertall in Philadelphia that is a mixed of office, hotel and rental apartments like the Supertall going up in Austin. See below - I don't think it's unthinkable to believe at all that a Supertall could be built in Philadelphia with 700,000 sq ft of office space, a 240 room hotel, and 352 rental apartments.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

Any updates on this? A rendering even?

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Nothing yet. Probably won't be a major high rise though, considering its more industrial use.

Probably within the next 2-3 months I would imagine we'll see this at CDR.

Plus, if rumors are to be believed, this MAY very well have 8-12 floors of lab space, and a separate residential tower component.

Guess we'll see!....

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

That's not true. A lot of Supertalls now-a-days are entirely mixed-use.

I did qualify my answer with typically. And even in mixed use towers, office is the primary driver of the height. We can call CITC mixed use b/c it does have a hotel but let's be real, it's primarily an office building. The tower in Austin that you cited is 700k of office! Whether it's part of a mixed use tower or a dedicated office building, 700k of office space is huge and probably not going to happen in Philly for the foreseeable future. For context, FMC is 600k square feet.

Hey, I'll happily eat my words. But I think the tallest towers going up in the near future will continue to be primarily residential and probably mostly under 700 ft.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by McBane

I can agree with this to a degree. 50 years is so long from now, so who really knows but I'm confident in saying no supertall will be built in the foreseeable future. Why?

1) Because supertalls are typically for office space and I don't see the demand for that in the post-covid world especially in Philly.

2) Philly's growing commercial sector is in life sciences and those buildings tend to be shorter. All other segments are stagnant. Also, our only supertall is only a supertall because of the spire. We don't have any buildings over 60 stories.

3) Supertalls for residential is more of a possibility but I still don't think the demand is there in Philly. And not an insult - where in the US are residential supertalls being built outside NYC? I know there's one in Miami perhaps something in Chicago. But otherwise, it's rare. We just got residential towers close to 600 ft - do we really think someone is going to come along and build a 1,000 footer? NIMBY's wouldn't allow it (not that that's rational but that's another argument altogether).

This doesn't mean that Philly will stop growing or building towers. As reparcsyks said, we will probably continue to see towers above 500 ft but 1,000 ft doesn't seem realistic to me either.

Finally, circling back to my original question about the parking lot at 30th and Chestnut - it was never intended to be a supertall so I don't get the initial complaint that took us down this road anyway.

One quibble. Many supertalls are only that because of spires. The biggest cheater is the World Trade Center, which is actually shorter than the Willis Tower, yet the antenna is included in total height, but not for the Willis Tower.

Wilshire Grand Tower is another building clearly under 1000', yet the skinny antenna (non-structural) increased the height to supertall status. https://www.google.com/search?q=Wils...2tYjHEqc4BVSQM

Not sure why people come for Comcast 2 when that the spire/lantern is a huge structural piece of the building, not just a skinny antenna. And I don't get caught up on story count since floor heights vary.

[summersm343]

Salesforce Tower in San Francisco is also only a Supertall by the decorative glass crown on top of it. The actual roof height of Salesforce Tower is something like 970 feet tall.

There are literally numerous Supertalls that are only Supertall by their spires or decorative crowns... this is nothing unique to Comcast Technology Center.

[MAC123]

Ans there's nothing wrong with that either. They are still supertalls regardless of if it's a spire or not.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

I did qualify my answer with typically. And even in mixed use towers, office is the primary driver of the height. We can call CITC mixed use b/c it does have a hotel but let's be real, it's primarily an office building. The tower in Austin that you cited is 700k of office! Whether it's part of a mixed use tower or a dedicated office building, 700k of office space is huge and probably not going to happen in Philly for the foreseeable future. For context, FMC is 600k square feet.

Hey, I'll happily eat my words. But I think the tallest towers going up in the near future will continue to be primarily residential and probably mostly under 700 ft.

What world have you lived in where 10 years has been predictable, let alone 50..... hell, even 2 years is not predictable (COVID).

At any point in time Philadelphia could land a company large enough to fill 700K sq ft of office space. That's really not that much.... plus, most office buildings require 50% or greater leased to get off of the ground and get financing unless they're entirely built on spec. So that would require 350K sq ft of office space to be leased to get off of the ground... sounds reasonable to me.

If Philadelphia landed this for instance, that would more than likely fill 350K sq ft of office space or more:
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...1b-arpa-h.html

Plus, if you look at the hypothetical Supertall for Schuylkill Yards, it's literally stepped back or tiered along several spots in the tower to plan for multiple uses. Obviously, this is likely not the final design, but let's take a look at it:





1. The first portion of the building is on a very large podium. Let's call this 8 floors. This podium is easily large enough for lab/life science space. Let's say a 20 foot floor height for the first floor, and 15 feet for every other floor for a total of 125 feet for this portion.

2. The second two portions/set backs/tiers of the building could be office space. Let's call this 700,000 square feet across 22 floors. Let's say 20 feet tall for the first floor of the office portion and 14 feet tall for every other floor for a total of 314 feet tall.

3. The third portion/set back/tier of the building could be hotel space. Let's call this 15 floors. Let's say 20 feet for the first floor of this portion and then 12 feet for every floor after that for a total of 188 feet tall.

4. The final portion/tier of the building could be residential rental apartments. Let's call this 27 floors with a 20 foot tall first floor for this portion of the building, and 12 feet tall for every other floor for a total of 332 feet tall.

5. Lastly, the top of the building is adorned with decorative spires or a decorative crown. Let's call this 60 feet tall.

Total building height = 1,019 feet tall - 72 floors

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by McBane

1) Because supertalls are typically for office space and I don't see the demand for that in the post-covid world especially in Philly.

2) Philly's growing commercial sector is in life sciences and those buildings tend to be shorter. All other segments are stagnant. Also, our only supertall is only a supertall because of the spire. We don't have any buildings over 60 stories.

3) Supertalls for residential is more of a possibility but I still don't think the demand is there in Philly. And not an insult - where in the US are residential supertalls being built outside NYC? I know there's one in Miami perhaps something in Chicago. But otherwise, it's rare. We just got residential towers close to 600 ft - do we really think someone is going to come along and build a 1,000 footer? NIMBY's wouldn't allow it (not that that's rational but that's another argument altogether).

This doesn't mean that Philly will stop growing or building towers. As reparcsyks said, we will probably continue to see towers above 500 ft but 1,000 ft doesn't seem realistic to me either.

Finally, circling back to my original question about the parking lot at 30th and Chestnut - it was never intended to be a supertall so I don't get the initial complaint that took us down this road anyway.

1. Most modern supertalls rising in the US are mixed use or fully residential, though some are office.

2. The higher Comcast has a roof of 996' at the base of the "lantern" so it's a supertall in any case. Floor count is a poor indicator.

3. This could change as people leave NYC for Philly, it was a trend recently, not sure if it still is.

1,000 feet is really not that far fetched IMO, maybe 40 years ago but not really today. Philly's basically already done it twice.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Probably within the next 2-3 months I would imagine we'll see this at CDR.

Plus, if rumors are to be believed, this MAY very well have 8-12 floors of lab space, and a separate residential tower component.

Guess we'll see!....

There's a thought. Given the proximity to the Northeast Corridor and the universities, adding a residential component wouldn't be a stretch.