HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


    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
     
     
  #1241  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2014, 11:02 PM
Late1's Avatar
Late1 Late1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia Metro (Chesco)
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
What IS the highest occupiable floor of CITC? Subtract a 2-5 ft for where someone's eyes will see out. That's all I was getting at...
Funny you should ask that, because we were just discussing this at the top of that page. Here are my estimates:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Late1 View Post
Assuming the PDF's scale is accurate, I'd say about 830' for the hotel lobby, 860' for the sky garden, and 880' for the 2nd level within the sky garden
So add 5 or 6 feet or whatever to the 880' estimate if you want to know at what height the average person will be looking out when standing on the 2nd level of the highest floor.

My guesses are based upon this diagram drawn up by Foster/Liberty, which I posted at the bottom of the previous page:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Late1 View Post
For what it's worth, I agree with you that there's a certain "cheat" factor when it comes to spires, but that's no different from the current holder of the title of "Tallest US Building Outside NYC/Chicago", BofA Atlanta - which has a giant spire standing on a giant pyramidal netting on top of a 55-storey tower. At least CITC's "cheat" is a bit more honest, with structural cooling tower supporting the spire/blade, which the architect calls an ornamental lantern and which is a bona fide box structure rising to 1,121 feet
__________________
pretty, pretty pictures

Last edited by Late1; Oct 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM. Reason: New page
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1242  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2014, 11:47 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
Your point? What IS the highest occupiable floor of CITC? Subtract a 2-5 ft for where someone's eyes will see out. That's all I was getting at. We can look at "percentage" cheat that way - the delta between top floor and the structural height.

1 WTC - 40% (1,268' to 1,776')
Bank of America Tower NYC - 36% (769' to 1,200')
NYT Tower - 31% (721' to 1,046')
BofA Atlanta - 28% (750' to 1,040')
Wilshire Grand - 22% (~860'? to 1,100')
CITC - 20% (~900' to 1,121')
Salesforce Tower - 15% (912' to 1,070')


By official roof rather than top floor, things still shake out relatively the same way:

NYT Tower - 28% (748' to 1,046')
1 WTC - 23% (1,368' to 1,776')
BofA NYC - 21% (945' to 1,200')
CITC - 18%? (~915'? to 1,121')
Wilshire Grand - 15% (934' to 1,100')
BofA Atlanta - 10% (933' to 1,040')...disclosure though, if triangle thing in Atlanta is considered "roof", then roof of SF Tower is 1,070' and there is no height "leakage"
Salesforce Tower - 9% (970' to 1,070')

Anyway, long story short...lots of cheaters, mostly the new guys. Older towers are truly taller and more imposing because they go all the way up. It doesn't feel "right" to lay all these claims down because of spires and what not. SF Tower above is the only one without a "spire" and I'm calling it a cheater mainly to appease you Philly posters, but also because there is a discrepancy between top floor and overall height that is roughly equivalent to having a spire.
Lol salty are we? It's not just CITC, it's nearly every building around the world that is "cheating" for height. Look at the tallest building in the world where the top 500 feet or so are ornamental. Look at One World trade with a 500 foot spire.

How is CITC any different than Salesforce? Your numbers are wrong. The roof of CITC will top out at 911 feet. Salesforce roof will top out at 912 feet. CITC will then have cooling towers which will take the height to 996 feet. Salesforce will have mesh screening to cover the cooling towers and ornamental crown up to 1,070. CITC will have a 126 foot spire to 1,121 feet. These towers are not much different at all in their "cheat" factor. But how the Council of Tall Buildings judges, puts the CITC as the tallest building in the US outside of NYC and Chicago. It's official. No point on arguing it.

PS - told you CITC would rise before Salesforce Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1243  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 4:57 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
^^^Well it's not "obvious" that it will rise faster and at best you and I are just guessing, not experts. CITC still has to drill the caissons, which take a lot longer than excavation (good thing they don't have to be 280' deep like those at SF and good thing CITC doesn't have to spend forever earthquake proofing and working around/stabilizing against a 60' pit next door). Salesforce still has to excavate and has all the machinery on-site, just hasn't started really digging yet. Plus the contractor will have install a complex waler system to stabilize against an open pit next door.

Also, the roof of Salesforce will be 970' before the mesh screens take it to 1,070'. 912' is the ceiling of the top floor, which is mechanical. It's still structural above that. The 996' roof for CITC will appear more like a fat pedestal for the spire on one side whereas SF will appear structurally even to the top (similar to a shorter 2 IFC in Hong Kong). The "equivalent" roofline for CITC is 912', the same height as the top floor in SF.

They're all cheaters, which was my point. It's stupid for anyone to say either of these buildings is really the "tallest" outside of NYC/Chi when 3 cities have buildings with floors higher up than either of these towers will have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1244  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 5:38 PM
Philly Fan Philly Fan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
They're all cheaters, which was my point. It's stupid for anyone to say either of these buildings is really the "tallest" outside of NYC/Chi when 3 cities have buildings with floors higher up than either of these towers will have.
Tell it to THESE guys:

Quote:
1. Height to Architectural Top
Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment. This measurement is the most widely utilized and is employed to define the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat rankings of the "World's Tallest Buildings."
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/H...S/Default.aspx [emphasis added]

You personally may not like it, but it's hardly "cheating" or "stupid" if it's according to the measurement that is "the most widely utilized," and is "employed to define the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat rankings of the 'World's Tallest Buildings.'"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1245  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 5:39 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
^^^Well it's not "obvious" that it will rise faster and at best you and I are just guessing, not experts. CITC still has to drill the caissons, which take a lot longer than excavation (good thing they don't have to be 280' deep like those at SF and good thing CITC doesn't have to spend forever earthquake proofing and working around/stabilizing against a 60' pit next door). Salesforce still has to excavate and has all the machinery on-site, just hasn't started really digging yet. Plus the contractor will have install a complex waler system to stabilize against an open pit next door.

Also, the roof of Salesforce will be 970' before the mesh screens take it to 1,070'. 912' is the ceiling of the top floor, which is mechanical. It's still structural above that. The 996' roof for CITC will appear more like a fat pedestal for the spire on one side whereas SF will appear structurally even to the top (similar to a shorter 2 IFC in Hong Kong). The "equivalent" roofline for CITC is 912', the same height as the top floor in SF.

They're all cheaters, which was my point. It's stupid for anyone to say either of these buildings is really the "tallest" outside of NYC/Chi when 3 cities have buildings with floors higher up than either of these towers will have.
Look at Empire State Building and Chrysler Building though! Spires! Also cheaters, lol. Chicago Trump Tower has a spire. NYC BOA Tower is a cheater. Chicago John Hancock and Willis Towers have spires. NYT Building has a spire. Atlanta BOA Tower has a spire.

Even the tallest buildings in the world, practically all of them cheat. It really has nothing to do with floor count or new construction.

The reason new office tower construction has lower floor counts is because of LEED Certification requirements. So the floor to ceiling ratio is higher than older buildings. That's the way it is! Floor count is sort of meaningless honestly.

And I think CITC will start rising just before Salesforce but they'll rise at a very similar time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1246  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 5:56 PM
Philly Fan Philly Fan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Look at Empire State Building and Chrysler Building though! Spires! Also cheaters, lol.
I thought about bringing up those two buildings in response to these earlier comments from our Bay Area friend:

Quote:
Anyway, long story short...lots of cheaters, mostly the new guys. Older towers are truly taller and more imposing because they go all the way up. It doesn't feel "right" to lay all these claims down because of spires and what not.
Not to mention that the tallest building in this country has historically been determined by the height of a spire, as evidenced by Philly's own Christ Church having been the tallest from 1754 (before this was even a country!) until 1810 (scroll down to "Timeline of tallest buildings" at the bottom):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

So perhaps our friend needs to brush up a bit on his architectural history before calling something "stupid" and "cheating."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1247  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 6:37 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
^^^Well maybe it's an East Coast thing. Between NYC, Atlanta, and now Philly, nearly every single supertall on the East Coast has some sort of spire (except for the 2 latest resi towers in NYC). Aside from Trump Chicago, the supertalls there and in Houston, and the supertall and "near supertalls" on the West Coast that have already been built are relative monoliths. Could have been an era thing, as well. Everything built west of the E Coast that is tall has been a product, more or less, of the 70s and 80s.

Trump Chicago is a "cheater" too, but the thing has 98 floors that exceed 1,100' in height (basically to the tip of the spire for CITC). There are just so many taller buildings out there, it rubs me wrong when a basic 850-900' building is all of a sudden the "tallest."

As a skyscraper nerd, I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.


If you type in the Diagrams tallest buildings in US and Canada and search by "roof height" as criteria, you can see how many buildings there are in NA that are basically the same height - that is, once you get outside of NYC/Chi, there really isn't a clear "tallest" (going off of pages 1/2). By straight up appearance, it could very well be the Salesforce Tower since it will maintain its exterior structure straight up to 1,070' and the next guy is US Bank in Los Angeles. By top floor, it's US Bank in Los Angeles and there are a ton of buildings with top floors >900' but less than 1,000' (iffy if CITC/Salesforce are really included in that or if the former is somewhere between 850-900 and the latter is right at 900). By technicality it's CITC.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65825205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1248  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:35 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
^^^Well maybe it's an East Coast thing. Between NYC, Atlanta, and now Philly, nearly every single supertall on the East Coast has some sort of spire (except for the 2 latest resi towers in NYC). Aside from Trump Chicago, the supertalls there and in Houston, and the supertall and "near supertalls" on the West Coast that have already been built are relative monoliths. Could have been an era thing, as well. Everything built west of the E Coast that is tall has been a product, more or less, of the 70s and 80s.

Trump Chicago is a "cheater" too, but the thing has 98 floors that exceed 1,100' in height (basically to the tip of the spire for CITC). There are just so many taller buildings out there, it rubs me wrong when a basic 850-900' building is all of a sudden the "tallest."

As a skyscraper nerd, I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.


If you type in the Diagrams tallest buildings in US and Canada and search by "roof height" as criteria, you can see how many buildings there are in NA that are basically the same height - that is, once you get outside of NYC/Chi, there really isn't a clear "tallest" (going off of pages 1/2). By straight up appearance, it could very well be the Salesforce Tower since it will maintain its exterior structure straight up to 1,070' and the next guy is US Bank in Los Angeles. By top floor, it's US Bank in Los Angeles and there are a ton of buildings with top floors >900' but less than 1,000' (iffy if CITC/Salesforce are really included in that or if the former is somewhere between 850-900 and the latter is right at 900). By technicality it's CITC.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65825205
I hear what you're saying, but since the Council of Tall Buildings (the end all be all in the say of the height of buildings) defines the height of a structure by the very top of it, whether it absolute roof height, decorative crown or ornamental spire, and NOT radio antenna.

So we'll continue to go by how the officials define it! Lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1249  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:41 PM
Kidphilly Kidphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 923
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1250  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:44 PM
Kidphilly Kidphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 923
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1251  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:48 PM
Kidphilly Kidphilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 923
Now Philly on official height (they need to update the FMC tower its 100 feet lower in the diagram) is sort of interesting in that visually it really may not stand out so-to-speak

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=65827999
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1252  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:51 PM
Plokoon11 Plokoon11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,698
Honestly if CTIC didn't have that cooling tower setback I would be disappointed with the design, I feel like that part adds a nice step up to the spire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1253  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:22 AM
GarCastle GarCastle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plokoon11 View Post
Honestly if CTIC didn't have that cooling tower setback I would be disappointed with the design, I feel like that part adds a nice step up to the spire.
Aye, it's also a nice ode to the industrial past of Philly while giving a nod to the NBC building in NYC.

I think a real "cheat" would be a large helium balloon on a really long tether.

Cheers,
G.
__________________
"I don't need the city, it never cared for me." - Neuroticfish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1254  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:59 AM
toxteth o'grady's Avatar
toxteth o'grady toxteth o'grady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,408
Just what was needed - a gigantic monument to bad cable service.
__________________
"This will be good for the city"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1255  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 1:02 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarCastle View Post
Aye, it's also a nice ode to the industrial past of Philly while giving a nod to the NBC building in NYC.

I think a real "cheat" would be a large helium balloon on a really long tether.

Cheers,
G.
It is not "giving a nod" to the NBC building in NYC. that's ridiculous. that is postmodern crap talk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1256  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 1:57 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Whether or not it is giving a nod to RCA or smokestacks (I think not), the notion of architects thinking they are being clever by "giving a nod" to something is annoying. To do so is distinctly not clever and totally pointless. I don't worship Foster, but i think he is beyond such nods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1257  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:07 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caruso975 View Post
The increase in square footage reported is simply the result of the building design being more fully resolved and the specific size of vertical shafts etc. (which can either add or subtract rentable square footage) being determined. No floors were added or hotel floors reduced. Remember, when the project and lease with Comcast were announced in January the design was still very schematic.

As to adding floors, at such a late date, even adding 3 floors to a building not designed to accommodate vertical expansion (and CITC is not) would require shutting down the project for close to a year. The structural design, wind tunnel testing, elevatoring, construction contracts, leases with the tenant and agreements with the Four Seasons would have to be completely redone. In addition, yes, the project would have to go through some degree of re-entitlement if, in fact, a larger building would even be permitted under the current planning code (which it would not be). So, I think we just need to enjoy what we have.
Good post. And don't forget the empty grass lot next to the Comcast Center where 2 Penn Plaza was supposed to go. Comcast owns the option to build a small tower here. I'd prefer Comcast/LPT develop that lot over having floors added to the CITC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1258  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:10 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham View Post
Whether or not it is giving a nod to RCA or smokestacks (I think not), the notion of architects thinking they are being clever by "giving a nod" to something is annoying. To do so is distinctly not clever and totally pointless. I don't worship Foster, but i think he is beyond such nods.
agreed. as I said, the notion of "nods" or referencing other buildings is all post modern crap, which Foster is above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1259  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:15 PM
Insoluble Insoluble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 655
It's been fairly well established that the spire is intended to be a reflection of the industrial past among other things. If this wasn't mentioned with official documentation about the building, it's certainly been brought up by architecture critics. Philadelphia's industrial past is part of the ethos of the entire building, and the visual appearance reflects that in many ways.

It's a also been noted that the spire/fin ties together the building architecturally by continuing the progression from offset core/glass elevators to cooling tower together while continuing the setbacks established in the change from office floors to hotel floors. It's quite brilliant actually.

Simply dismissing it as "postmodern crap" is a bit ignorant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1260  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2014, 2:43 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insoluble View Post
It's been fairly well established that the spire is intended to be a reflection of the industrial past among other things. If this wasn't mentioned with official documentation about the building, it's certainly been brought up by architecture critics. Philadelphia's industrial past is part of the ethos of the entire building, and the visual appearance reflects that in many ways.

It's a also been noted that the spire/fin ties together the building architecturally by continuing the progression from offset core/glass elevators to cooling tower together while continuing the setbacks established in the change from office floors to hotel floors. It's quite brilliant actually.

Simply dismissing it as "postmodern crap" is a bit ignorant.
I am not dismissing the design as postmodern crap. I am dismissing the idea that it is a "nod" to the NBC building as a postmodern crap notion. the design is great, I like it a lot. but I wish people would stop trying to assign these notions to it like that. the design is what it is because that's what the building demands, not because it might make it look a little like the NBC building.
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 12:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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