Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
A problem with Philadelphia, near equal construction costs with lower returns. One of the reasons why Chicago still sees a lot of A+ projects because construction costs are more relative to returns.
If the city (and state) would work harder to make Philadelphia a more business friendly city, then the construction vs. return issue wouldn't be as severe. Until then, we will see grand plans reduced to fit reality since most companies choose the suburbs. At least residential towers have more potential to be tall and attractive since the residential real estate market holds more potential.
|
Unfortunately, the state has a huge beef with the city of Philadelphia and as a result of the beef, it's a lot tougher to get not just commercial projects like SY and the 30th St air rights done, but even simpler projects like restoring rail service from Philadelphia to Allentown, Reading, Lancaster, and even West Chester. Even the rail project for South Central PA, Corridor One, which was a great transportation plan, never got off the drawing board and that project doesn't even serve Philadelphia.
People will say that it's related to money and the city and state doesn't have any money to do these projects, but in reality at one point in time it was possible to travel from Philadelphia to those latter cities via the PRR and the Reading up until the 80s.
And Philadelphia was a Top 5 American city, meaning despite it's internal problems, during much of the 20th century, we garnered a lot of respect when it came to medicine, law, education, manufacturing, logistics, and banking. Nowadays, we're currently number 6 as a major american city (when it comes to population) and the Philly MSA is currently in eighth place and the CSA is in ninth place in 2019.
When the 2020 Census estimates come sometime this year, because of the lower growth rate in comparison to other cities, I expect Philadelphia to fall to at least 7th place once San Antonio annexes land in TX and it's possible San Diego and Dallas may surpass Philly later this decade when it comes to city population. As for the MSA, it looks like Atlanta and Phoenix will knock off Philly in the Top 10 MSAs while Atlanta and Miami will do the same in the Top 10 CSAs.
Either way, a lot of the blame is shared between the city and state due to the massive corruption, high business taxes, not enough educated and qualified residents who could work in this companies, and very little incentives which would've made Philadelphia a city comparable to other cities like Boston, SF, Miami, and Atlanta. I don't even but the mantra of Philly being wedged between NYC and DC anymore, it's a victim of it's own faults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
I am also a fan of the residential projects going up.
I guess I am in the minority, but I find the CITC attractive, especially up close, the detail on the exterior façade is very well done. Its blocky from a far, but I still find it among the better looking supertalls. Of course I still want to see The American Commerce Center built, but until the city makes Philadelphia a more attractive place to do business, it won't happen...
|
You can't please everybody and it's especially true on this board. I did a little informal poll when I was a taxi driver and it seemed like people preferred the ACC over the CITC and it largely has a lot to do with mainly the design of the building as well as the height. I even asked a former mayor of SF with he preferred and even he stated the ACC was a better choice. If I made the poll public by any means, I'd wager that more people liked the ACC over the CITC due to the design as well as height.
If the CITC had the same height as the ACC and the CITC replaced the ACC, I believe a lot more people would've supported the tower and Philadelphia would've garnered a lot more respect in the architecture world, but the CITC gets slammed for it's height, it's spire and it's design while the ACC is remembered for what it could've been an architectural marvel and Philly could've been home to the first supertall in America with a hole in the middle, too.
If you like the CITC, then that's you. My beef with the CITC has a lot to do with the height, square footage, the design, the fact that it copies another building in Chicago (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Tower) while the ACC was unique in it's design from top to bottom so I never understood the comparison to the Freedom Tower in NYC, as well as the fact that Philadelphia already had the HQ for Comcast built so why build another tower for them while the ACC promised to either retain or attract a major company here meaning more revenue dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
Also, I am tired of people picking on the CITC height since the roofline is under 1000'. That building is 100% 1,121' tall. The lantern is structurally a part of the building. If any building is a cheater its the new World Trade Center which counts the 300'+ antenna in its total height (not structurally a part of the building, even though it somehow got a pass). Yet the Hancock Center in Chicago can't count its antenna?...
|
You have to live with the fact that everybody's a critic of whatever topic that comes up, whether it be sports, food, fashion, art, etc, and architecture has it's own critics. The problem with the CITC, number one has to be it's design. When the ACC was cancelled, a few years later, the former Liberty Property Trust came up with the design for the new tower, and the CITC is similar to the ACC in the fact that it incorporated a five-star hotel, had an LEED rating, and was connected to the Suburban Station concourse, as well as being on the 1800 black of Arch St.
When I first saw the plans for the CITC, it screamed copycat to the cancelled ACC and I wondered why Comcast wouldn't move to the ACC, which was $800 million and a much better design, but the CITC was $1.5 billion, but the height was shorter w/o the spire, less square footage, and a lackadaisical and uninspiring design.
The occupied height of the tower reaches 911', but the Comcast Center reaches 975', and if Comcast wanted to build a supertall, they should've slapped 25' to 50' on their original tower just to stop up the naysayers but I guess the powers that be in the city, the state, and Comcast didn't want the ACC to happen for whatever apparent reason and what really hurts is the fact that the ACC was started by a Philadelphia named Garrett Miller of Hill International and KPF designed the ACC, the same people who designed Liberty Place and the Arthaus.
The Freedom Tower isn't a cheater because of the fact that it holds a spire on top of the building and not an antenna and if you have any beef with the rules, just let the skyscraper people know that because if the Freedom Tower is considered a cheater, then the Petronas Towers are cheaters because they both have spires in relation to Sears Tower, the ACC cheated because of the 300' spire it had and the CITC is practically a cheater because of it's stubby 111' spire.
Only difference is that I'm still not impressed with the CITC because the roof only goes as high as 911' and the Comcast Center could've went as high as 1000', but for some strange reason the developers decided on the 975' instead and the ACC was killed off and in it's place was the lackadaisical and uninspiring CITC instead. And as long as the CITC stands, people from all over the country and maybe even the world are going to poo on the CITC for different reasons, everybody's a critic and you have to live with that and the bad press that the CITC gets as well as the good.
Prev
Or my view out of Towers 25 years ago!
Linear Mode
