PHILADELPHIA | FMC Tower @ Cira Centre South | 736 FT | 49 FLOORS

[McBane]

Boy, the west side of the river is certainly doing its part in trying to tie together UC and CC. But the CC side needs to get it together! With Market East being transformed, the far west end of Market Street is the last frontier in CC. And with UC becoming its own center of gravity, the city will (or should) begin to do what it can to encourage development here. The decision to put a memorial park on a vacant corner property next to a subway stop was shortsighted and not helpful in getting this area cleaned up but hopefully the city and developers can overcome this.

Slowly, slowly, this end of Market St is replacing Market East as the "gap" between two desirable areas. Hopefully, we won't have to wait 30 years for this part of CC to be redeveloped.

What can the city do? (Most of these are pure fantasy)
1) Fix the tax structure so that land is taxed based on its location/zoning, not its current usage.
2) Eliminate some extra lanes on Market and create a grassy landscaped median.
3) Do something with that fire station (I believe the city recently stated that it's not moving).
4) Reverse the decision to put that idiotic park there (Look at what NYC did on Ground Zero or what we did on 1 Meridian Plaza).
5) Encourage PECO to sell the air rights to the parking lot, contingent on the new structure including free parking for PECO employees.
6) Replace the current Market Street "bridge" with an eye catching signature bridge. Must every bridge between CC and UC have to be so nondescript?
7) Rezone the entire stretch as the C5max (?)

[br323206]

Originally Posted by McBane

Boy, the west side of the river is certainly doing its part in trying to tie together UC and CC. But the CC side needs to get it together! With Market East being transformed, the far west end of Market Street is the last frontier in CC. And with UC becoming its own center of gravity, the city will (or should) begin to do what it can to encourage development here. The decision to put a memorial park on a vacant corner property next to a subway stop was shortsighted and not helpful in getting this area cleaned up but hopefully the city and developers can overcome this.

Slowly, slowly, this end of Market St is replacing Market East as the "gap" between two desirable areas. Hopefully, we won't have to wait 30 years for this part of CC to be redeveloped.

What can the city do? (Most of these are pure fantasy)
1) Fix the tax structure so that land is taxed based on its location/zoning, not its current usage.
2) Eliminate some extra lanes on Market and create a grassy landscaped median.
3) Do something with that fire station (I believe the city recently stated that it's not moving).
4) Reverse the decision to put that idiotic park there (Look at what NYC did on Ground Zero or what we did on 1 Meridian Plaza).
5) Encourage PECO to sell the air rights to the parking lot, contingent on the new structure including free parking for PECO employees.
6) Replace the current Market Street "bridge" with an eye catching signature bridge. Must every bridge between CC and UC have to be so nondescript?
7) Rezone the entire stretch as the C5max (?)

Just looked at the zoning map and saw there is a ton of CMX-4 all over Center City, including the south side of Market in this stretch, that should be CMX-5. It's silly not to allow the maximum building height and mass in these areas.

[summersm343]

Really starting to make an appearance on the UCity skyline now.

Update from Building Philly:



https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly

[philatonian]

I was up on Belmont Plateau this weekend imagining how this building is going to look, as well as all the upcoming UCity high-rises. Philadelphia is looking sexy as he11!

[Londonee]

every time i see EVO, for some reason, i keep waiting for it to be finished. The whole building just feels incomplete to me and I can't really explain why. It looks partial.

[techchallenger]

Originally Posted by McBane

Boy, the west side of the river is certainly doing its part in trying to tie together UC and CC. But the CC side needs to get it together! With Market East being transformed, the far west end of Market Street is the last frontier in CC. And with UC becoming its own center of gravity, the city will (or should) begin to do what it can to encourage development here. The decision to put a memorial park on a vacant corner property next to a subway stop was shortsighted and not helpful in getting this area cleaned up but hopefully the city and developers can overcome this.

Slowly, slowly, this end of Market St is replacing Market East as the "gap" between two desirable areas. Hopefully, we won't have to wait 30 years for this part of CC to be redeveloped.

What can the city do? (Most of these are pure fantasy)
1) Fix the tax structure so that land is taxed based on its location/zoning, not its current usage.
2) Eliminate some extra lanes on Market and create a grassy landscaped median.
3) Do something with that fire station (I believe the city recently stated that it's not moving).
4) Reverse the decision to put that idiotic park there (Look at what NYC did on Ground Zero or what we did on 1 Meridian Plaza).
5) Encourage PECO to sell the air rights to the parking lot, contingent on the new structure including free parking for PECO employees.
6) Replace the current Market Street "bridge" with an eye catching signature bridge. Must every bridge between CC and UC have to be so nondescript?
7) Rezone the entire stretch as the C5max (?)

Say what? The Market Street "bridge" is the best looker of the bunch! It has the Penn Station eagles and lamps. Philadelphia missed a great signature bridge opportunity with the design of South Street Bridge.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by techchallenger

Say what? The Market Street "bridge" is the best looker of the bunch! It has the Penn Station eagles and lamps. Philadelphia missed a great signature bridge opportunity with the design of South Street Bridge.

Eh, I like the light Pillars, especially at night. Would it have been cool to have a Norman Foster-designed Millenium Bridge? Sure. But this is Philly, where corner cutting is the name of the game - so at least the Light Pillars add some modern-sleakness.

[Plokoon11]

As per buildingphilly. next 3 floors of steel are going up.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Eh, I like the light Pillars, especially at night. Would it have been cool to have a Norman Foster-designed Millenium Bridge? Sure. But this is Philly, where corner cutting is the name of the game - so at least the Light Pillars add some modern-sleakness.

Are you thinking of the JFK Bridge? The Market Street Bridge is the historic one with the illuminated stone arches. It's kind of ironic (or maybe deliberate?) that you referenced Foster's Millennium Bridge in London considering the Market Street Bridge in Philadelphia looks like it was modeled after the bridge London sold to Arizona. London Bridge in London, OTOH, looks more like JFK.

JFK is the meh one, as are Walnut and Chestnut Streets. If the city ever wants to replace a bridge with a Foster (I'd prefer a Zaha Hadid), there are plenty of bridges to replace before tearing out Market Street.

And I wouldn't sell Philadelphia short. Sure, we cut corners (most cities do), but the city has made some great investments in the last ten years, particularly on the Schuylkill.

I'll admit the South Street Bridge is lackluster, but I think that was out of imminent need, not from being cheap. The bridge was about to collapse. With enough foresight, I could see the city investing in something pretty astounding, and that doesn't always need to come from a starchitect like Foster. We have plenty of homegrown architecture firms that could (IMO) blow Foster out of the water (heh, I made a pun).

But all of that's kind of moot where Cira Centre and FMC are concerned. Commuters are going to be wowed by the buildings, not the bridges. Still, compared to a lot of cities, Philadelphia has a very handsome collection of bridges.

[jjv007]

I agree Londonee, I think exactly the same thing. Evo sticks out like a sore thumb and doesn't even seem close to completed at all. Every time I look at UCity I think how beautiful Cira Centre is but it's marred by Evo. I wish they could do something to change it. Really excited about FMC but at the same time disappointed about the building right next to it.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jjv007

I agree Londonee, I think exactly the same thing. Evo sticks out like a sore thumb and doesn't even seem close to completed at all. Every time I look at UCity I think how beautiful Cira Centre is but it's marred by Evo. I wish they could do something to change it. Really excited about FMC but at the same time disappointed about the building right next to it.

Don't really get how the Cira Center is hurt in any way by a nearby building. If anything wouldn't an ugly building make the Cira Center look better by comparison?

In any event I sort of get what both of you are saying. The Cira Center and FMC Tower share similar design elements and both have a very polished... almost crystallized look that is very is striking especially due to their asymmetrical angles and edges. Evo does not match, and it's hard to argue that its quality is on par with the other buildings or at least the Cira Center and the renderings of FMC. Normally whether or not a building looks like its neighbors is of no consequence but because these buildings were all initially proposed together to share similar design elements, the EVO stands out a bit not only because it went in a different direction but also because it is situated in the middle of the Cira Center and FMC.

So while I can understand the desire that the EVO looked similar to its sisters, I really don't get the complaint that it's an ugly building or any kind of disappointment. I think the EVO looks great in person and is a great addition to the skyline. Could it have been better? Theoretically anything could be better but that hardly means we should complain about everything. We're talking about a beautiful 400 plus foot building here with a very unique and interesting look. I also think that despite its differences, the EVO plays off its neighbors very well. The fact that some here are disappointed by the building's very existence sort of blows me away.

[summersm343]

Update from Building Philly



More photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly

[McBane]

Originally Posted by philatonian

Are you thinking of the JFK Bridge? The Market Street Bridge is the historic one with the illuminated stone arches. It's kind of ironic (or maybe deliberate?) that you referenced Foster's Millennium Bridge in London considering the Market Street Bridge in Philadelphia looks like it was modeled after the bridge London sold to Arizona. London Bridge in London, OTOH, looks more like JFK.

JFK is the meh one, as are Walnut and Chestnut Streets. If the city ever wants to replace a bridge with a Foster (I'd prefer a Zaha Hadid), there are plenty of bridges to replace before tearing out Market Street.

And I wouldn't sell Philadelphia short. Sure, we cut corners (most cities do), but the city has made some great investments in the last ten years, particularly on the Schuylkill.

I'll admit the South Street Bridge is lackluster, but I think that was out of imminent need, not from being cheap. The bridge was about to collapse. With enough foresight, I could see the city investing in something pretty astounding, and that doesn't always need to come from a starchitect like Foster. We have plenty of homegrown architecture firms that could (IMO) blow Foster out of the water (heh, I made a pun).

But all of that's kind of moot where Cira Centre and FMC are concerned. Commuters are going to be wowed by the buildings, not the bridges. Still, compared to a lot of cities, Philadelphia has a very handsome collection of bridges.

Okay, here's where we differ. The bridges over the Schuylkill have two vantage points. On the river level, you see nice stone arches. But on the street level and above, it's just a boring roadway. To me, the latter is more visible which is why I'm so ambivalent about those bridges.

Now, if the far west end of Arch-Chestnut can fix itself up and we have a near continuous string of buildings tying together CC and UC, no one would care about the bridge (although a fancy modernist bridge would still be a nice to have).

[mmikeyphilly]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Update from Building Philly



More photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly

Very impressive^ At the rate the core and the steel is rising, it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't "topped out" by years' end. (At least the core.)

Thanks for all of the updates on ALL of the projects. "Building Philly" is on my "favorites".

[mmikeyphilly]

"I'll admit the South Street Bridge is lackluster, but I think that was out of imminent need, not from being cheap. The bridge was about to collapse. With enough foresight, I could see the city investing in something pretty astounding, and that doesn't always need to come from a starchitect like Foster. We have plenty of homegrown architecture firms that could (IMO) blow Foster out of the water (heh, I made a pun). "

Sorry for jumping in to the conversation, but when the discussion of the "Bridges" came about, I immediately thought of the "South St." replacement bridge. Yes, it is lackluster, to say the least. BUT, also like you said, it was in dire need of replacement because of all the safety reasons. The city isn't equipped financially to spend excessive money on design, but with just some neat lighting ideas, would be cool. Maybe like lighting the bridges in different color LED lighting schemes, maybe like "rainbow" bridge lighting. Look at "Ave. of the Arts" with their cool lighting. Just an idea.





[

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by philatonian

I'll admit the South Street Bridge is lackluster, but I think that was out of imminent need, not from being cheap. The bridge was about to collapse. With enough foresight, I could see the city investing in something pretty astounding, and that doesn't always need to come from a starchitect like Foster. We have plenty of homegrown architecture firms that could (IMO) blow Foster out of the water (heh, I made a pun).

I don’t think that’s really it. It was treated by the powers that be as a highway bridge. I think they even hired a highway bridge/overpass design firm to do their design. It was only after a huge uprising from the community that we even got the marginal product we currently have in place.

I think if it was up to the City, we would have had a redux of the Chestnut Street bridge.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by philatonian

Are you thinking of the JFK Bridge? The Market Street Bridge is the historic one with the illuminated stone arches. It's kind of ironic (or maybe deliberate?) that you referenced Foster's Millennium Bridge in London considering the Market Street Bridge in Philadelphia looks like it was modeled after the bridge London sold to Arizona. London Bridge in London, OTOH, looks more like JFK.

I was talking about what I was thinking about: the Light Pillars of the South Street bridge.

From VisitPhilly.com


Which I think are pretty cool.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by McBane

Okay, here's where we differ. The bridges over the Schuylkill have two vantage points. On the river level, you see nice stone arches. But on the street level and above, it's just a boring roadway. To me, the latter is more visible which is why I'm so ambivalent about those bridges.

Now, if the far west end of Arch-Chestnut can fix itself up and we have a near continuous string of buildings tying together CC and UC, no one would care about the bridge (although a fancy modernist bridge would still be a nice to have).

Oh, I gotcha. I was thinking of the bridges from the Schuylkill Banks, you're talking street-level. Yeah, that's a different story but street-level is definitely easier to fix.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I was talking about what I was thinking about: the Light Pillars of the South Street bridge.

From VisitPhilly.com

Which I think are pretty cool.

I think they're really cool too. Like I said to McBane, I think I was misunderstanding your vantage point. From the Schuylkill Banks the Market Street Bridge is beautiful, but from the street it's nothing special.

And while I said South Street was lackluster, I meant architecturally. I do love what they did with the lighting, and I think the pedestrianization is going to get better when CHoP expands east of the river. It will have to get better.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by jjv007

I agree Londonee, I think exactly the same thing. Evo sticks out like a sore thumb and doesn't even seem close to completed at all. Every time I look at UCity I think how beautiful Cira Centre is but it's marred by Evo. I wish they could do something to change it. Really excited about FMC but at the same time disappointed about the building right next to it.

I actually like that Evo strayed from the original Cira Centre South design. I think it looks fine in isolation, which is how I like to look at it. If Cira Centre were a master complex of similar Cesar Pelli crystalline towers it wouldn't blend as well with the eclecticism of the entire skyline, east and west. It would be pretty on its own. But having massive complexes of similar buildings can create skylines that look like Detroit, which is essentially downtown Detroit next to Renaissance Center instead of an integrated skyline. That's just my opinion. Honestly, I would have been happy either way. I just love that University City is rising.