Originally Posted by Philly-Drew
Wanderer34, I agree with the spirit of what you are trying to say in your above post, except I think your comparisons of ACC and CITC are off base. I personally think CITC is rockin'-awesome, with or without ACC. The demise of ACC had nothing to do with CITC. I am extremely thankful that Philadelphia is getting a Norman Foster designed super tall. Just about any city in the world would be thankful.
ACC was an awesome proposal in its own right, and I think CITC has the better design of the two.
I was actually comparing the ACC with the Camden Waterfront proposal. I've compared the ACC with the CITC numerous times on this forum that I've lost count but I still say that the ACC had the better design, the better usage of land since it's taller and has many more floors and office than the CITC, the most originality, and more amenities than the CITC can combine. The CITC is nothing more than a copycat building and a cheater in it's own right!!!
But the similarities between the ACC and the Camden Waterfront proposal is that both building were slated to become the tallest buildings in their respective cities (Philadelphia and Camden), both had impeccable world-class design and architecture, both are in the Greater Philadelphia/Delaware Valley area, and both have some kind of connection with Liberty Property Trust (ACC was practically killed of partially by them while the initial Camden Waterfront project was greatly downscaled to a black box suitable for a city like Baltimore and STL).
The difference is that Philly already has a very good skyline why should've been greatly enhanced with the ACC as well as obtained another corporation
based here while Camden is trying to find it's identity besides being the home of Campbells Soup after losing RCA and NY Shipbuilding and many other manufacturing and port jobs for so long, as well as retain and attract a middle and upper class within it's city limits after losing them to nearby suburbs like Cherry Hill, Voohees, Deptford, and Washington Township. Camden is also trying to lower it's crime rates in order to attract investment and reduce it's blight, so while anything will help Camden, when it comes to it's downtown and especially it's waterfront, the initial proposal was the best. It doesn't have to be a supertall, but why did LPT first put that proposal out, then change it at the last minute just to get it finally approved (fears of gentrification, cost of materials, fears of higher taxes in the city, NIMBYism)???
I feel that any answer should do, but the fact that we don't even know the real reason why the initial project was changed for such a short period of time conflicts with the trust that nothing of high quality will be built in this region for awhile and I'm afraid that the currently proposed Schuylkill Yards may go the same route as the ACC and the Camden Waterfront project in that they're all great projects, but may never be built or may be greatly and drastically downsized. It doesn't feel like the late 80's when Liberty Place first got erected and Philly was already having a huge skyscraper boom and it's momentum, or even the 90's when our first modern skyline was completed and Rendell was already making major amends to how the city operated, in fact other than the first Comcast Center and the FMC Tower, when it comes to other projects, I personally feel this current Philly skyline expansion is sputtering!!!
Projects of the past which would've been great additions such as the Trump Tower, Bridgeman's View Tower, Penn's Point, and Mandeville Place have gone into the skyscraper graveyard. Other cities are doing worse than Philly, but for a city of our size, we should've at least had something that we can consider world-class, even if it was only one supertall in our region, just something that we can say WE FINALLY DID IT!!!!
But alas, we have to live with our decisions, good or bad! We made our bed, and we must lie in it!!!