HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


    Comcast Innovation & Technology Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Philadelphia Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Philadelphia Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2014, 2:29 AM
TheOldMan's Avatar
TheOldMan TheOldMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Philly/Las Vegas
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by apetrella802 View Post
I would have liked the roof of CITC to be higher than Comcast
It should have been. I personally think they blew the design at the top. After looking at San Fran's Transbay tower, the various Hudson Yards proposals and a few others, Foster has underwhelmed with this building.

I also don't buy the whole "it takes extreme costs to build higher" argument. If that were truly the case, there would be very few, if any new super tall buildings proposed, let alone built.

I realize I'm looking at this through the lens of a skyscraper enthusiast and not a CEO of a client company but, then again, that's the point of this site, right?
__________________
"Individuals Are Smart, People Are Stupid"-the late great George Carlin

Last edited by TheOldMan; Feb 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2014, 3:46 AM
mmikeyphilly mmikeyphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 768
revision possibly?

Maybe all is not lost yet. For those of us who were a little disappointed by the lack of height compared to Comcast I, the architects may have a different design, possibly a plan B design? It may be that they presented the renderings to get feedback. I'm just the regular guy who likes skyscrapers, so what do I know? Anyway, remember back when the Liberty Place renderings were first introduced to the public? Liberty Place 2 was much shorter, and was designed like a "tower". They revised it to the height that it is today,(almost as tall as Liberty Place I) and made the "extension" of the building wider. The only problem that I see right now is Comcast's time frame before groundbreaking. A redesign could take months, I'm sure. If there isn't already a "Plan B", then this rendering is probably etched in stone. I'm still excited either way! I hope that they look at feedback from John Q.Public.
__________________
whatever
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2014, 5:17 AM
msquaredb msquaredb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmikeyphilly View Post
Maybe all is not lost yet. For those of us who were a little disappointed by the lack of height compared to Comcast I, the architects may have a different design, possibly a plan B design? It may be that they presented the renderings to get feedback. I'm just the regular guy who likes skyscrapers, so what do I know? Anyway, remember back when the Liberty Place renderings were first introduced to the public? Liberty Place 2 was much shorter, and was designed like a "tower". They revised it to the height that it is today,(almost as tall as Liberty Place I) and made the "extension" of the building wider. The only problem that I see right now is Comcast's time frame before groundbreaking. A redesign could take months, I'm sure. If there isn't already a "Plan B", then this rendering is probably etched in stone. I'm still excited either way! I hope that they look at feedback from John Q.Public.
Thats certainly a lot of speculation, but I like the optimism for a height increase. The design is fine, but I do agree that is is awkward in how it doesn't stand out from Comcast. I don't like the twinning effect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2014, 7:05 AM
Perklol's Avatar
Perklol Perklol is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by apetrella802 View Post
I would have liked the roof of CITC to be higher than Comcast I but the highest occupied floor of CITC is taller than the highest occupied floor of Comcast I.

I believe the highest occupied floor of the Sears(Willis) tower is higher than that for 1 World Trade Center
That's true but what does Sears or WTC have to do with this supertall?

Anyway, there is a diagram!

Last edited by Perklol; Feb 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 12:35 AM
MusicMan84 MusicMan84 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 274
Just a couple of context photos of the site - took today.


Untitled by Music_Man84, on Flickr


Untitled by Music_Man84, on Flickr


Untitled by Music_Man84, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 3:43 AM
fastdupree fastdupree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
Not only does this building need a taller roof height, It needs to be built blocks away from the other buildings in Downtown Philly. This city has a habit of bunching skyscrapers together. Spreading them out will give the city a better, wider skyline. That's just my two cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 5:21 AM
eliasrapp98 eliasrapp98 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 65
Can we stop acting like spoiled brats? We've been crying for a super tall for years and then we get one and complain that it's not "spread out enough" and not "tall enough". It's pissing me off hearing you all act like jackasses. We're getting what we've wanted forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 7:46 AM
TheOldMan's Avatar
TheOldMan TheOldMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Philly/Las Vegas
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliasrapp98 View Post
Can we stop acting like spoiled brats? We've been crying for a super tall for years and then we get one and complain that it's not "spread out enough" and not "tall enough". It's pissing me off hearing you all act like jackasses. We're getting what we've wanted forever.
Relax dude - it's a skyscraper enthusiast site, which means folks will comment on, critique or give their opinions on skyscrapers, whether existing or proposed. Not every design is a winner, not every building a masterpiece.

In the case of this proposal (assuming the renderings are accurate and the design is final), there are some things, design-wise, that are questionable. Some may share this opinion while others may not.

Bottom line - no one is acting like a jackass because they have feedback about the design...

Feel free to not visit or post here if their opinions piss you off.
__________________
"Individuals Are Smart, People Are Stupid"-the late great George Carlin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 11:36 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
No need to argue here!

This tower looks promising and the location is perfect too!
Thank goodness Philadelphia will host another supertall (finally)!
Here's the intro video:
Video Link

Last edited by TechTalkGuy; Feb 2, 2014 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Video added.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 2:53 PM
NewYorker2009 NewYorker2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 273
This will be Philly's first supertall. Comcast Center didn't make the cut by it being about 10 feet short of the 984' requirement, which is stupid. It's great this building will surpass 1,100 feet, making a marker for the Philly skyline. I'm glad this one isn't going to hell like the American Commerce Center did.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 3:08 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
This tower makes a statement without bragging (think Liberty Place in contrast to this remarkable design).

I admire the fine works of Lord Norman Foster as evidence of his international portfolio of excellent skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 4:52 PM
Flyers2001 Flyers2001 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastdupree View Post
Not only does this building need a taller roof height, It needs to be built blocks away from the other buildings in Downtown Philly. This city has a habit of bunching skyscrapers together. Spreading them out will give the city a better, wider skyline. That's just my two cents.
Its called Zoning. The city is very specific in where it wants its skyscrapers.

And for common sense why would Comcast build blocks away from their headquarters?

Sorry if it sounds mean, but its reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 5:06 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
I love skyscraper density.
Just look at New York for a prime example of lots of tall towers in close proximity!

This is exactly what Philadelphia needs !!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 5:32 PM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Deep South
Posts: 1,275
The interior looks brilliant, but I'm not a big fan of the asymmetrical spire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 5:54 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
That spire is the best feature!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2014, 6:41 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post
I love skyscraper density.
Just look at New York for a prime example of lots of tall towers in close proximity!

This is exactly what Philadelphia needs !!
Philly is remarkably dense. It will get there eventually. Also, the city is great for its street life. Its very busy, and has a great energy to it. Street life > Density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2014, 2:43 AM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by looper121 View Post
The whining about this project absolutely amazes me.
Not me, the first stage of almost any new American Super tall is whine, then acceptance, then love (there are exceptions). I for one am happy for Philadelphia. It is about time they got a supertall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2014, 4:01 AM
fastdupree fastdupree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyers2001 View Post
Its called Zoning. The city is very specific in where it wants its skyscrapers.

And for common sense why would Comcast build blocks away from their headquarters?

Sorry if it sounds mean, but its reality.
It's not just about Comcast, Other future proposed skyscrapers should be spread out from one another. You have areas like 8th & Market, South Broad Street, 30th & Market and the Water Front which are prime areas for construction that will give Philadelphia a great addition to the skyline. Just use your imagination!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2014, 2:05 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by apetrella802 View Post
The other concern is whether or not the new hotel to be operated in the old(current) FS hotel will be as upscale as the current FS. Since Marriott corp owns the building I read that they might put a "J. W. Marriot" in the current building. This would be a disappointment to me.
The lobby may be nice, but look at the reviews of this hotel on TripAdvisor. Apparently, the rooms are dated and not up to 5-star standard (e.g., shower curtains instead of glass shower doors). The 4 Seasons will probably be replaced by something on the 4-star standard. And frankly, it wouldn't be the first hotel that features a beautiful lobby and common spaces but dated rooms. I've stayed in several hotels with stark differences between the common spaces and guest rooms.

Also, I think we all appreciate discussions and criticisms, but let's keep things grounded in reality and intelligent This is an office building built by a developer who's goal is to make money, not improve the skyline or whatever. Not to sound crass but this isn't Sim City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2014, 3:58 PM
apetrella802 apetrella802 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 546
in years past I stayed at this 4 seasons on three occasions, all that is needed is to update carpets, room furniture etc. The "bones" are great, i.e., design, location. The standard rooms have French doors separating the bedroom and the sitting room so they are not considered small. Converting bath and showers could be done easily.

The real problem is that the 4seasons has struggled to fill it's 375 rooms with the increase of hotels in CC without a corresponding increase in demand. So their solution is to downsize to 220 rooms.
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 > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.