HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    The Alexander in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Philadelphia Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Philadelphia Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 12:40 PM
Williard Mouse's Avatar
Williard Mouse Williard Mouse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 58
Specifically, there are a lot of blue areas around the oval windows and some verticals near the top. Limestone?
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 12:54 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Posts: 2,797
Location: 1739 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Site: 1.6 acres.
Exterior Finish: Granite.
Ordinance Rooms: Two ordinance rooms (two-stage progressive) and four sealing.
Total Floor Area: 53,000 square feet.





http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/philadelphia/
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 12:55 PM
BenKatzPhillytoParis BenKatzPhillytoParis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williard Mouse View Post
Specifically, there are a lot of blue areas around the oval windows and some verticals near the top. Limestone?
That's the layer underneath on which they have not yet put the granite.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 1:05 PM
Williard Mouse's Avatar
Williard Mouse Williard Mouse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis View Post
That's the layer underneath on which they have not yet put the granite.

Thanks, Ben. You have allayed my fears.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted May 6, 2015, 9:35 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,717
I am not a fan of faux historic design. It always turns out like crap due to the cheap materials being used against a "traditionalist" design. That said, the temple looks AMAZING. Really goes to show how far quality materials go. It should be against the law to design a traditional building and then build it with paneling. Using real granite today is a rare feat and I applaud the developers for taking the high road. It puts to shame all those other traditional buildings and townhomes that have gone up in recent years (which are about as authentic as Olive Garden).

I have high hopes for the tower, too.
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 1:49 AM
philatonian's Avatar
philatonian philatonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I am not a fan of faux historic design. It always turns out like crap due to the cheap materials being used against a "traditionalist" design. That said, the temple looks AMAZING. Really goes to show how far quality materials go. It should be against the law to design a traditional building and then build it with paneling. Using real granite today is a rare feat and I applaud the developers for taking the high road. It puts to shame all those other traditional buildings and townhomes that have gone up in recent years (which are about as authentic as Olive Garden).

I have high hopes for the tower, too.
Exactly. I love historic buildings, but hate "interpretations" because they skimp on materials and - like you said - look as authentic as Olive Garden. The difference between faux historic and whatever you want to call the LDS Temple (and hopefully the apartment tower) is materials and the quality of construction. I know I'll p*ss off my Catholic friends for saying this, but in a century, the LDS temple will be just as revered as the Basilica across the street.
__________________
Philly Bricks
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:14 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 1:05 PM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williard Mouse View Post
What's going on with the exterior of the Temple? It appears to be Garden State Brickface slapping limestone colored stucco over Styrofoam columns. Is Philly becoming the next Walt Disney World?
Oh NO, that almost sounds sacrilegious!

To quote Madonna: From American Life (Nothing Fails)

"I'm not religious, but I feel so moved"

(Not an expert, but every time I'm in the usual traffic jam on(under)Vine 676, when I look up, it "makes me wanna pray."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBao...=RDwBaoOfbh3hY
(I know I'm gonna burn in )
__________________
whatever

Last edited by mmikeyphilly; May 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM. Reason: insert link
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 4:29 PM
Philly-Drew's Avatar
Philly-Drew Philly-Drew is offline
Φιλαδέλφεια
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoLibs
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I am not a fan of faux historic design. It always turns out like crap due to the cheap materials being used against a "traditionalist" design. That said, the temple looks AMAZING. Really goes to show how far quality materials go. It should be against the law to design a traditional building and then build it with paneling. Using real granite today is a rare feat and I applaud the developers for taking the high road. It puts to shame all those other traditional buildings and townhomes that have gone up in recent years (which are about as authentic as Olive Garden).

I have high hopes for the tower, too.
I know McBane. I've seen you mention how much you don't like, or "hate" (such passion, such negativity!) other buildings too because you personally identity them as "faux historic design". Well, many of us like it, and that's why they get built. If everyone "hated" them, they wouldn't get build now would they?

I and others, prefer traditional design, and taking designs directly from our past, even from centuries ago. Of course for the most part modern materials will be used. Why wouldn't modern materials be used? Typically they are more efficient, easier to work with, and yes, more affordable.

More affordable is a feature, not a bug.

You are entitled to your opinion for sure but damn dude, you are friggin negative and your comments don't promote discussion but rather hinder it.

You can post without "having to worry about walking on eggshells" for sure. But at the same time I can call you out for the negative affects many of your posts have on a few of the Philadelphia threads.
__________________
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace." :Lennon
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 9:27 PM
philatonian's Avatar
philatonian philatonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly-Drew View Post
I know McBane. I've seen you mention how much you don't like, or "hate" (such passion, such negativity!) other buildings too because you personally identity them as "faux historic design". Well, many of us like it, and that's why they get built. If everyone "hated" them, they wouldn't get build now would they?

I and others, prefer traditional design, and taking designs directly from our past, even from centuries ago. Of course for the most part modern materials will be used. Why wouldn't modern materials be used? Typically they are more efficient, easier to work with, and yes, more affordable.

More affordable is a feature, not a bug.

You are entitled to your opinion for sure but damn dude, you are friggin negative and your comments don't promote discussion but rather hinder it.

You can post without "having to worry about walking on eggshells" for sure. But at the same time I can call you out for the negative affects many of your posts have on a few of the Philadelphia threads.
I think people who dislike "traditional" design fall into two camps, and some overlap. 1. The cost of quality materials and craftsmanship makes it difficult to "build 'em like they used to." 2. Historic interpretations often fall a bit flat, design wise. I don't think either is the case with the LDS temple, and I doubt it will be with their apartment tower either. It's an interpretation, yes, but I think most on here would agree it's a good one.

But when it comes to a truly historic building - something old - often it's not the design that wows us, its the materials used and the brute force required to get it done. To fake it with faux brick and stone just gives us a kinda old looking building without a backstory. I don't think places like 10 Rittenhouse or Symphony House are necessarily bad, but they will never be anything significant because the design isn't unique and neither were the logistics behind their construction.

That said, not every building needs to be architecturally significant, not everyone wants to live in something significant, and not every developer wants to build one. Modern architecture doesn't age well, and once the design trend has been exhausted, it's relegated to architecture history books with Brutalism. Developers know this, especially with residential towers. Something wild today will look dated in ten years, and harder to rent out.
__________________
Philly Bricks
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted May 18, 2015, 2:44 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly-Drew View Post
I know McBane. I've seen you mention how much you don't like, or "hate" (such passion, such negativity!) other buildings too because you personally identity them as "faux historic design". Well, many of us like it, and that's why they get built. If everyone "hated" them, they wouldn't get build now would they?

I and others, prefer traditional design, and taking designs directly from our past, even from centuries ago. Of course for the most part modern materials will be used. Why wouldn't modern materials be used? Typically they are more efficient, easier to work with, and yes, more affordable.

More affordable is a feature, not a bug.

You are entitled to your opinion for sure but damn dude, you are friggin negative and your comments don't promote discussion but rather hinder it.

You can post without "having to worry about walking on eggshells" for sure. But at the same time I can call you out for the negative affects many of your posts have on a few of the Philadelphia threads.
Why do you have such a hardon for me? I really like this project and I thought I made that very clear but you have to focus on one small part of my post and make a big fucking deal about it? Get off my ass already.

Oh and just an FYI, it was philatonian that used the word "hate", not me. But you didn't get all pissy with him over it....
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted May 18, 2015, 5:22 PM
BenKatzPhillytoParis BenKatzPhillytoParis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Why do you have such a hardon for me? I really like this project and I thought I made that very clear but you have to focus on one small part of my post and make a big fucking deal about it? Get off my ass already.

Oh and just an FYI, it was philatonian that used the word "hate", not me. But you didn't get all pissy with him over it....
Plus, I saw no negativity from McBane's posts about this. I also don't see how he was discouraging discussion, since he brought up completely valid points. It seems like telling him not to make them is the greater risk in discouraging discussion.

I really like architecture from periods in the past, but the problem is that "traditional" architecture that is built today is often the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it is not innovative. In addition, however, it often lacks the craft, artistry, and coherent context of the architecture it is kind of sort of half-heartedly imitating. Now, I know this is not universal. I like the design of this building and I have seen some beautiful contemporary designs that borrow aesthetics, certain techniques, and a design vocabulary from the past. But that is by far the exception. And I think people are wary of this approach to architecture because it is often chosen for the wrong reasons, and it shows. For example, motifs that vaguely reference past architecture are used to appeal to homebuyers or other clients who may have relatively conservative tastes (again, nothing wrong with that in principle). Or brick is chosen simply because a project is in Philadelphia. Combine that with often lower-quality materials, and it ends up looking like a bland homage to some mix-and-match nothing-too-daring approach to architecture that's more about a marketing model than the design itself.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 1:15 AM
philatonian's Avatar
philatonian philatonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 596
Just to expand on this, historical interpretation isn't anything new. In the late 1800s, Europe and North America were having a love affair with Egyptian, Middle Eastern, and Indian architecture. The facade of an 18th Century building with Egyptian symbols and columns is under the Brutalist building across from Independence Hall, there were several theaters around the same time with roofs that echoed the Taj Mahal, and the dome atop the Inquirer building is vaguely Middle Eastern. I'm sure they all had their own detractors of the time asking why architects weren't looking for new styles. Their longevity really hinged on quality, and even back then, plenty of developers built crap on the cheap.

Personally I think both the LDS Temple and the apartment building look great and the Mormon church rarely skimps on materials.

Sorry, McBane, I didn't mean to use the word "hate." I don't remember what I said it about, but there are very few buildings in Philadelphia I'd say I hate.
__________________
Philly Bricks
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 1:26 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,717
No need to apologize phil! I certainly didn't mean to throw you under the bus! Keep up your level headed posts.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 3:24 PM
Insoluble Insoluble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 655
I agree that this building looks like it will be one of the few historical imitation buildings that will come out nice simply due to the quality of material and quality of design. It's not just the materials, but the attention to details in the design that make a big difference in these types of buildings, and this one will likely have both.

So yes, often times buildings built these days that imitate historical styles come off a bit flat due to cheap design decisions. The same thing can be said for modern designs though. AQ Rittenhouse is a perfect example of this. Not to knock that building, which is a huge improvement over what was there and has a terrific urban design. But let's face it, it's an ugly building designed with a completely modern aesthetic. I suppose buildings imitating historical styles are more likely to be glaringly bad about cheap details than modern ones, but we also have our fair share of cheapo modern buildings. Thankfully we also have enough examples of high quality buildings in various styles to balance that out.
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted May 20, 2015, 12:03 AM
philatonian's Avatar
philatonian philatonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insoluble View Post
I agree that this building looks like it will be one of the few historical imitation buildings that will come out nice simply due to the quality of material and quality of design. It's not just the materials, but the attention to details in the design that make a big difference in these types of buildings, and this one will likely have both.

So yes, often times buildings built these days that imitate historical styles come off a bit flat due to cheap design decisions. The same thing can be said for modern designs though. AQ Rittenhouse is a perfect example of this. Not to knock that building, which is a huge improvement over what was there and has a terrific urban design. But let's face it, it's an ugly building designed with a completely modern aesthetic. I suppose buildings imitating historical styles are more likely to be glaringly bad about cheap details than modern ones, but we also have our fair share of cheapo modern buildings. Thankfully we also have enough examples of high quality buildings in various styles to balance that out.
I couldn't agree more about AQ Rittenhouse. Yep, modern definitely comes in its good and bad too. Personally, I think the Ritz Residences looks of cheap materials and a design that will age fast, while the Murano was well done all around.

As for 1600 Vine, for me it's the design too. Considering it was done by the same firm that did 10 Rittenhouse, I think where 10 fails, 1600 succeeds. I'd almost rather see 1600 on Rittenhouse Square because it's just a very handsome design. Not that Vine Street doesn't deserve it. Done in the right materials, it would almost look as though it had been there since the 1920s.
__________________
Philly Bricks
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 3:16 AM
Philly-Drew's Avatar
Philly-Drew Philly-Drew is offline
Φιλαδέλφεια
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoLibs
Posts: 1,395
I obviously didn't do a good job of making my point above. I'll shelf it at this point. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
__________________
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace." :Lennon
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 9:04 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Posts: 2,797
Steel for Meeting House- I believe:

[IMG]IMG_1775 by screennameLLC, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_1782 by screennameLLC, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_1783 by screennameLLC, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_1780 by screennameLLC, on Flickr[/IMG]
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 11:02 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Nice update TallCoolOne!

Yep, that's steel for the Meeting House. Looks like hardcore excavation is still underway for the tower. Lots of rock on site.
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 1:59 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Daybreak (So. Jordan), UT
Posts: 788
Any idea when this thread will move from "Highrise & Supertall Proposals" into the actual highrise category?
__________________
Giant Meteor 2024
Just end it all already.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.