HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

Comcast Innovation & Technology Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Philadelphia Skyscraper Diagram
Philadelphia Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1961  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 5:52 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plokoon11 View Post
A guy from city data who works on the site. He said there working on design changes.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/phila...-rising-4.html

That's awesome. Guy seems legit (a lot of posts and rep on the site). I'm thinking it couldn't involve additional floors, though. Wouldn't any (significant) design change cause complications and require a lot of additional approvals? Do any of our resident insiders/investigators have any knowledge of a 20 ft. increase? Would the L&I signage on site have to reflect a change? Anyway, I hope it's true and I hope it involves the roof height (currently 911.5 ft.)

Last edited by boxbot; May 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1962  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 6:28 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
If the lower roof went up 20 feet it would be at 931' so no. The upper roof(cooling tower) is already 996' so it would push that past 1000'
Right.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1963  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 7:06 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,384
20 foot height increase =

931 foot roof height
1,015 foot mechanical tower height
1,141 foot spire height

50 foot height increase =

961 foot roof height
1,045 foot mechanical tower height
1,171 foot spire height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1964  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 7:14 PM
japmes japmes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
20 foot height increase =

931 foot roof height
1,015 foot mechanical tower height
1,141 foot spire height

50 foot height increase =

961 foot roof height
1,045 foot mechanical tower height
1,171 foot spire height
The determining factor will be whether the teal mobile crane can reach an extra 50'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1965  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 7:55 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,810
I am by no means a construction expert, but I wonder....

Lots of folks are asking where the permanent crane is and why are they still using mobile cranes. Could this be it? The change in height is requiring them to hold off on the permanent crane?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1966  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 8:05 PM
iheartphilly iheartphilly is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I am by no means a construction expert, but I wonder....

Lots of folks are asking where the permanent crane is and why are they still using mobile cranes. Could this be it? The change in height is requiring them to hold off on the permanent crane?
I doubt it. The crane can grow with the height of the building. There's a lot of things going on at the ground level (i.e., foundation and other core work) and I think they need to get that done first before setting up a crane. They would also need the room to stage pieces of the crane which doesn't look like much room right now with everything going on in the pit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1967  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 8:40 PM
Plokoon11 Plokoon11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,586
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for more hieght is because of the demand of Comcast's need for space, and maybe the fact that the merger fell apart that they could probably post pone the next tower and just add more space in this one. But I am most excited (if this this is the case) to see how the design changes, do they add more floors to the top?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1968  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:04 AM
phillyjoel phillyjoel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 8
What if they push it passed 1,200?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1969  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:31 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,384




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1970  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 6:34 PM
joemustardo joemustardo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 81
Went by today and a bunch of concrete trucks were there. The core is HUGE!

Last edited by joemustardo; May 16, 2015 at 12:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1971  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 8:27 PM
kraggman's Avatar
kraggman kraggman is offline
Always Lookin' Up
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Right Coast
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemustardo View Post
Went buy today and a bunch of concrete trucks were there. The core is HUGE!
I knew it !! Size does matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1972  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 8:44 PM
TallCoolOne's Avatar
TallCoolOne TallCoolOne is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Phila., PA
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemustardo View Post
Went buy today and a bunch of concrete trucks were there. The core is HUGE!
It's very true. It feels just gigantic in person ...like its about to destroy the Sterling, and well 1900 Arch looks quite inferior/weak in the presence of the mighty core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1973  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 8:59 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,810
The entire site is huge. And it does make me wonder. With all the chatter about a 3rd tower, it seems odd that this site, which is surely big enough to accommodate two towers, was designed for only one tower (directly across the street, you have two highrises and a garage). You'd think they would have created that base to support a second tower or otherwise create some flexibility for the future. It's an awfully spacious site, not very efficient use of space. I say that within the context that Comcast is already appearing to need more space and in order to do that, they now need to buy land, create another worksite, create another foundation, etc. all of which is expensive and time consuming.

It's not a knock on the tower. It just doesn't seem like Comcast/Liberty thought it through all the way. If they end up needing a 3rd tower, it probably could have gone up in half the time had they decided ahead of time to maximize the existing footprint. That's all.

And yes, I understand that planning for this tower was done well before the possibility of a 3rd tower entered into anyone's minds but still, someone should have been thinking about the long term, no?

(This post assumes that the actual tower will not be extending the entire width of the block.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1974  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 12:15 AM
joemustardo joemustardo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
The entire site is huge. And it does make me wonder. With all the chatter about a 3rd tower, it seems odd that this site, which is surely big enough to accommodate two towers, was designed for only one tower (directly across the street, you have two highrises and a garage). You'd think they would have created that base to support a second tower or otherwise create some flexibility for the future. It's an awfully spacious site, not very efficient use of space. I say that within the context that Comcast is already appearing to need more space and in order to do that, they now need to buy land, create another worksite, create another foundation, etc. all of which is expensive and time consuming.

It's not a knock on the tower. It just doesn't seem like Comcast/Liberty thought it through all the way. If they end up needing a 3rd tower, it probably could have gone up in half the time had they decided ahead of time to maximize the existing footprint. That's all.

And yes, I understand that planning for this tower was done well before the possibility of a 3rd tower entered into anyone's minds but still, someone should have been thinking about the long term, no?

(This post assumes that the actual tower will not be extending the entire width of the block.)
The whole tower occupies the entire site. But as seen in the rendering, the actual tower itself doesn't go end to end, just the structure (lobby, retail, parking)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1975  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 2:26 AM
tower's Avatar
tower tower is offline
resu deretsiger
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: fishtown philadelphia
Posts: 895
I still can't quite shake the feeling sometimes that CITC is just a shorter building than CC with a stick on top. Got used to the concept but 20 extra feet is certainly a favor if true
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1976  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 3:04 AM
Elevator1 Elevator1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 129
Core is now visible from Vine Street xway eastbound exiting Schuylkill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1977  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 11:51 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
The entire site is huge. And it does make me wonder. With all the chatter about a 3rd tower, it seems odd that this site, which is surely big enough to accommodate two towers, was designed for only one tower (directly across the street, you have two highrises and a garage). You'd think they would have created that base to support a second tower or otherwise create some flexibility for the future. It's an awfully spacious site, not very efficient use of space. I say that within the context that Comcast is already appearing to need more space and in order to do that, they now need to buy land, create another worksite, create another foundation, etc. all of which is expensive and time consuming.

It's not a knock on the tower. It just doesn't seem like Comcast/Liberty thought it through all the way. If they end up needing a 3rd tower, it probably could have gone up in half the time had they decided ahead of time to maximize the existing footprint. That's all.

And yes, I understand that planning for this tower was done well before the possibility of a 3rd tower entered into anyone's minds but still, someone should have been thinking about the long term, no?

(This post assumes that the actual tower will not be extending the entire width of the block.)
Not an efficient use of space? Haha wow. It's going to be the tallest building in America outside of NYC and Chicago! They really need to jam another tower on the property to get McBane approval for efficient use of space?

I think they've used their space just fine, there are plenty of other places they could build another tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1978  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 4:26 PM
philatonian's Avatar
philatonian philatonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by tower View Post
I still can't quite shake the feeling sometimes that CITC is just a shorter building than CC with a stick on top. Got used to the concept but 20 extra feet is certainly a favor if true
That's what I keep thinking every time I look at the rendering. It's a sexy building, but as much money as it's costing, I wonder what kept them from making it truly taller than Comcast Center. What's another couple million from Comcast?
__________________
Philly Bricks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1979  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 4:36 PM
tower's Avatar
tower tower is offline
resu deretsiger
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: fishtown philadelphia
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by philatonian View Post
That's what I keep thinking every time I look at the rendering. It's a sexy building, but as much money as it's costing, I wonder what kept them from making it truly taller than Comcast Center. What's another couple million from Comcast?
I'll still end up liking the building regardless, but I wonder the same thing. It kinda bugs me that it "falls short", because "falling short" of things seems to be a longstanding Philly tradition haha.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1980  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 6:11 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by tower View Post
I'll still end up liking the building regardless, but I wonder the same thing. It kinda bugs me that it "falls short", because "falling short" of things seems to be a longstanding Philly tradition haha.
This is a 1.2 BILLION dollar - largest building investment in Pennsylvania's history - Norman Foster building. That should, honestly, be where your concerns end. It's going to be wonderful. Stop worrying about insecure manly things like size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.