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

[Mr Saturn64]

You know what's nice? Before this got built, New York and Chicago were the only cities where I had seen a thousand footer. It made it special, you know? Like I gotta look at this building as much as possible. But today, I was out on my normal routine and I saw Comcast off in the distance, and I know that we have our own thousand footer now.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by McBane

I wonder when Inga is going to review this building? Not that she's the end-all be-all, but I'm curious what she thinks of the building and in particular the massing/shape.

inga is the Mikey from the old Life cereal commercials of architectural critics - she hates everything. she is from new york, and as such, harbors a condescending resentment toward Philadelphia.

[R5Ryder]

Dat tape doe.

It does hold it's own against many of Chicago's buildings (not that it's a competition), however is dwarfed by the Hancock building (coincidentally, my favorite US skyscraper) which is officially about the same height.


(diagram source = http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=83148270)

[Plokoon11]

When ate they going to turn the spire lights back on?

[Boku]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

inga is the Mikey from the old Life cereal commercials of architectural critics - she hates everything. she is from new york, and as such, harbors a condescending resentment toward Philadelphia.

Oh, ok.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

inga is the Mikey from the old Life cereal commercials of architectural critics - she hates everything. she is from new york, and as such, harbors a condescending resentment toward Philadelphia.

Nope. She certainly doles out praise where warranted as well as criticism. A lot of Philadelphia architecture going up is poor or mediocre, and her criticism is warranted. Sometimes she gives too short shrift to economic realities of building in this city, though.

[Elevator1]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Nope. She certainly doles out praise where warranted as well as criticism. A lot of Philadelphia architecture going up is poor or mediocre, and her criticism is warranted. Sometimes she gives too short shrift to economic realities of building in this city, though.

I agree. I do not always agree with her opinion but she is generally fair in her assessments. Sometimes tastes differ but I don't see the hidden agenda.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Nope. She certainly doles out praise where warranted as well as criticism. A lot of Philadelphia architecture going up is poor or mediocre, and her criticism is warranted. Sometimes she gives too short shrift to economic realities of building in this city, though.

Well said. Afterall, Inga's job is a critic not a cheerleader. Her criticisms come from a desire to see better urban experience, better materials, more creative designs, etc. That she pushes developers to do better is not a bad thing.

[Jawnadelphia]

^She's said a few things on social media regarding it, basically saying she didn't really understand it haha.
But since then, she's spent some time in London and reviewed some of their new towers that are similar to CTC... so maybe, she's started to like it.

We shall see...

[iheartphilly]

^^
I'm not sure that she pushes developers to do any better or anything for that matter. Developers could care less unless she is paying the design and construction bills.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

inga is the Mikey from the old Life cereal commercials of architectural critics - she hates everything. she is from new york, and as such, harbors a condescending resentment toward Philadelphia.

Do you listen to yourself? There are like 11 absurd things in one sentence here that it's impossible to get to them all. But I will ask, you're suggesting that only people from Philadelphia can actually like Philadelphia?

[mcgrath618]

Ok now that I've been to the lobby and seen it in person, what in God's name is this giant sphere?

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^^
I'm not sure that she pushes developers to do any better or anything for that matter. Developers could care less unless she is paying the design and construction bills.

Everyone pays attention to critics, trust me. Also, architects are the ones executing the actual design - developers pay for it - and having your firm's name smeared through the paper and interwebs isn't ideal - regardless of your bottomline health.

And Dranoff was incredibly offended and super defensive about her excoriation of his S. Broad passion project. His newest Broad Street proposal is a step in the right direction.

She's also been an incredibly influential voice in the Jane Jacobsian urban identity that has positively impacted a ton of our local bloggers and writers. Not attributing this to her per se, but 20 years ago this city didn't allow outdoor sidewalk cafes - we've come a long way in how we view ourselves as an urban core.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Ok now that I've been to the lobby and seen it in person, what in God's name is this giant sphere?

A "surprise" according to an earlier posting. It might be some sort of multimedia "experience."

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Everyone pays attention to critics, trust me. Also, architects are the ones executing the actual design - developers pay for it - and having your firm's name smeared through the paper and interwebs isn't ideal - regardless of your bottomline health.

And Dranoff was incredibly offended and super defensive about her excoriation of his S. Broad passion project. His newest Broad Street proposal is a step in the right direction.

She's also been an incredibly influential voice in the Jane Jacobsian urban identity that has positively impacted a ton of our local bloggers and writers. Not attributing this to her per se, but 20 years ago this city didn't allow outdoor sidewalk cafes - we've come a long way in how we view ourselves as an urban core.

Ok, fair points. I think designs move along with the times. Like when he built the salmon color symphony house around 2005-7 and in today's time that draws a lot of criticism. I don't think his latest projects like One Riverside are home runs either. As a matter of fact, a lot of the newer construction is meh. If that is the Inga effect, then I'm hugely disappointed. Sidewalk cafe, yes...maybe she did or didn't have an effect on that, but seems like all big cities have it...kind of copycatting of other cities...than a singular act of change.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Ok, fair points. I think designs move along with the times. Like when he built the salmon color symphony house around 2005-7 and in today's time that draws a lot of criticism. I don't think his latest projects like One Riverside are home runs either. As a matter of fact, a lot of the newer construction is meh. If that is the Inga effect, then I'm hugely disappointed. Sidewalk cafe, yes...maybe she did or didn't have an effect on that, but seems like all big cities have it...kind of copycatting of other cities...than a singular act of change.

Carl's Symphony House drew negative criticism for it's design right from the start and Inga did, rightfully, tear into it. To Carl's credit eventhou the building was a business success he engaged with Inga in an attempt to better understand her specific points and to see what he could learn from her. Did it do any good? Who knows; but One Riverside could have been much worse, it's certainly gets a passing grade. How does Inga fit into this city's design standards? Who knows, but apparently her columns are very successful and well read. I'd much rather have her, and others similar to her, around then to not have her point of view in the public view.
Yes design does shift, sometimes very quickly but most of the time the changes are slow, and are often changed by economic interests, such as cheaper glass curtain wall paneling, and technology, like being able to cut and ship thin stone slabs, and sometimes certain needs change, like open plan offices, but there's always a range of great to poor design in any era.
Unfortunately in Philly the design standard at the top end seems to be "it's good enough". In housing maybe from a developers point of view that makes some sense since in housing ass ugly seems to rent/sell just as readily as something where the design has been carefully thought through, so why go to the bother and energy of trying to build something special. Would 1911 Walnut rent/sell better if it was a world class design?

[TK2001]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Ok now that I've been to the lobby and seen it in person, what in God's name is this giant sphere?

I had posted this a few pages back, but I was also in the lobby 2 days ago and I asked a worker by the office gates and he said it's a virtual reality experience and Steven Spielberg helped develop it

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Carl's Symphony House drew negative criticism for it's design right from the start and Inga did, rightfully, tear into it. To Carl's credit eventhou the building was a business success he engaged with Inga in an attempt to better understand her specific points and to see what he could learn from her. Did it do any good? Who knows; but

How does Inga fit into this city's design standards? Who knows, but apparently her columns are very successful and well read.

Yes design does shift, sometimes very quickly but most of the time the changes are slow, and are often changed by economic interests, such as cheaper glass curtain wall paneling, and technology, like being able to cut and ship thin stone slabs, and sometimes certain needs change, like open plan offices, but there's always a range of great to poor design in any era.

. In housing maybe from a developers point of view that makes some sense since in housing ass ugly seems to rent/sell just as readily as something where the design has been carefully thought through, so why go to the bother and energy of trying to build something special.

One Riverside could have been much worse, it's certainly gets a passing grade.

Well this isn't setting a higher standard that Inga is suppose to do with her articles of praise or criticism.

I'd much rather have her, and others similar to her, around then to not have her point of view in the public view.

Agreed. I think her criticism or praise is welcome. I just question whether there's proof that what she says ever gets implemented by developers or architects.

Unfortunately in Philly the design standard at the top end seems to be "it's good enough"

Agreed. Most developers are in it to make money and probably don't care too much about the design as oppose to getting the most units out of each building or getting the most usable square footing based on shape configurations (i.e., square or rectangle floor plates seems to satisfy this). And it follows your thinking after this quote.

Would 1911 Walnut rent/sell better if it was a world class design?[/QUOTE]

I think 1911 Walnut will fill up fine, but having a world class design establishes precedent. It's like a pissing contest where others want to join when they think they have been bested. However, I only say it with a caveat that if Philly has enough wealthy buyers or can attract them from the suburbs or NJ, NY, or international buyers, then that is a part of the analysis a developer must do in determining if a project is viable and profitable enough as a business proposition to investors and bankers.

[Tatts]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

You know what's nice? Before this got built, New York and Chicago were the only cities where I had seen a thousand footer. It made it special, you know? Like I gotta look at this building as much as possible. But today, I was out on my normal routine and I saw Comcast off in the distance, and I know that we have our own thousand footer now.

Yeah, but the difference is--and it's a big difference--in NYC & Chicago those buildings are really 1,000 feet tall. Ours isn't. And because it isn't, there is 200 feet of empty sky sitting up there that should be filled with building!

It's a cheat and everybody knows it. That lantern is nothing more than a p*n*s extender for Comcast.

[Gonzo the Great]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Yeah, but the difference is--and it's a big difference--in NYC & Chicago those buildings are really 1,000 feet tall. Ours isn't. And because it isn't, there is 200 feet of empty sky sitting up there that should be filled with building!

It's a cheat and everybody knows it. That lantern is nothing more than a p*n*s extender for Comcast.

That is so true and Im not sure there will be a true 1000 footer in Philly anytime in the next twenty years .