PHILADELPHIA | Comcast Technology Center | 1,121 FT | 60 FLOORS

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Late1

I wish, but don't think so. Look at the actual Liberty/Comcast/Foster documents (lifted from the upthread PDF):

The roof is 911'. If the top "floor" is the last black horizontal line before you reach the trees in the Sky Garden, then the public's vantage point may reach about 850', but it won't reach 900'.

Then there will be views from the "Sky Garden" at about 900 feet haha. Either way the highest public views from the tower will be about 900 feet up.

[GarCastle]

I doubt the looking down thing is an issue. If they added floors, the execs could always insist on those additional floors being on top of the hotel - an isolated section of the buildings just for the Execs. They are leasing like 80% of the building and LPT already has a significant relationship with Comcast. I would think the Comcast Execs can do absolutely whatever they want with the project and they apparently already have options built in to take more space as is evidenced by that slight expansion so there may be other options built in as well. /shrug

It could also be that the hotel is down-sizing and LPT gave Comcast a good deal on those extra square feet.

Cheers,
G.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by GarCastle

I doubt the looking down thing is an issue.

I totally agree. I can't imagine that such an obscure emotional consideration would drive the decision-making process on such an important project.

I doubt they're planning on adding floors (though I wish they would), but only for practical reasons: the building has already been designed and is underway.

[Caruso975]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

Maybe someone with more knowledge/experience can clarify a few things for me regarding this issue. So once a building has cleared all zoning/design reviews and is given the big OK to begin with construction, if the developer than wants to change plans (such as a height increase), do they then need to submit another application and go through another round of approvals?

1800 Arch is clearly CMX-5 zoned... no height restrictions or anything.
I understand any change to a plan - from a construction/engineering point of view changes things mathematically and cost wise.

But from a zoning board perspective - what occurs, if anything? for a height increase for a pre-approved, already under construction building in a CMX-5 zoned area? (sorry should've asked this in a law school class for zoning or something).

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.

[Late1]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Then there will be views from the "Sky Garden" at about 900 feet haha. Either way the highest public views from the tower will be about 900 feet up.

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

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Caruso975

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.

Exactly. I think everyone should be happy that Philly is getting it's first Supertall Skyscraper and stop complaining for more!

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think everyone should be happy that Philly is getting it's first Supertall Skyscraper and stop complaining for more!

That's what HE said. [Ba-dump-bump.]

I'll be here all week.

[simms3_redux]

This thing will beat Salesforce Tower in SF, which has been "going on" for far longer than Comcast 2 and has about half of the SSP discussion/press. Lol Philly posters are so active! I'm placing bets on this topping off before SF...

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

This thing will beat Salesforce Tower in SF, which has been "going on" for far longer than Comcast 2 and has about half of the SSP discussion/press. Lol Philly posters are so active! I'm placing bets on this topping off before SF...

This also will be the tallest building in the US outside of NYC and Chicago, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Yea well you're going to piss off a ton of people by saying that because this building "cheats" (and might I add so does Wilshire Grand, and even SF Tower) by a lot. The older Comcast taller will actually still be structurally taller to the roof than CITC. The older Comcast Center, which I love and think is a marvelous building, is not a supertall because it doesn't have a fat ornamental spire.

CITC almost beats the John Hancock Center in Chicago for crying out loud. Are we really to believe there is only a 7' difference between the two buildings? One being 59 floors and the other 100?

So while I love the design of the CITC, and as an SF resident bet it will top out before Salesforce Tower (I'm betting against my own tower here guys), I would shut it when trying to rub these things in other people's faces who don't live in Philadelphia.

Employees in the US Bank Tower in Los Angeles, Columbia Center in Seattle (I believe at least), and 2 towers in Houston (for certain - highest occupiable floors are right below 1,000'), will have higher perches than any human can have in all 3 non-NYC/Chi supertalls currently rising right now. Let's sit on that one for a while. Employees in Salesforce Tower will have views in the 892-895' range (literally, that's where people's eyes will be) before Level 61 mechanical (which goes to 912', roof at 970', glass/metal screen walls to 1,070'). What will it be in CITC? What is it in the older Comcast Tower?

I think as skyscraper nerds, we can appreciate nuances moreso than other people? To that end, childish taunts like that are just not appreciated! I'm just happy that the tallest outside of NYC/Chi is no longer the mega cheater that is Bank of America in Atlanta, which has floors to about 750-760', a giant triangle, and a 90' gold-plated ornamental spire on top of that (well I guess we've replaced one cheater with another).

[Plokoon11]

Technically a person won't be able to work on top of the salesforce tower crown right? I mean someone can go up there, and I think the same for the CITC spire, meaning there is a ladder inside that I would think.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

To that end, childish taunts like that are just not appreciated!

A little sensitive, are we? I merely stated something that is a simple fact (as objectively determined by the organizations that make these determinations), and a justifiable source of Philly pride. THIS, on the other hand, could easily be interpreted as a "childish taunt":

This thing will beat Salesforce Tower in SF, which has been "going on" for far longer than Comcast 2 and has about half of the SSP discussion/press. Lol Philly posters are so active!

But I took your statement as good-natured ribbing, and responded accordingly. I hope you'll reconsider and take mine in the same spirit.

Just got back from SF a few weeks ago, by the way. LOVE your city (as does the rest of the world, of course).

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

Technically a person won't be able to work on top of the salesforce tower crown right? I mean someone can go up there, and I think the same for the CITC spire, meaning there is a ladder inside that I would think.

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.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

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.

Too bad Norman Foster isn't doing a super tall in SF, right?

[Plokoon11]

^ Aren't they designing the google spaceship? Which is almost the same idea as the Comcast Tower accept vertical instead of horizontal.

[GarCastle]

I believe as the Pigeon sits, CITC will be the tallest outside NYC & ChiTown. And the same for any poor bastard that has to get up there to clean it or maintain something.

The point is that Philly was the beer capital of the planet and lost it (57+ breweries more than 100 years ago). Had a huge population and lost it. Was the capital of the country (twice?) and lost it. Had a huge naval yard. Was a major industrial producer if not THE, and lost it. Has sucky sports teams that I don't bother to watch anymore. And the list goes on. So CITC may be the tallest outside NYC/ChiTown for some period of time by one legit measurement, most likely, and then it will lose that title at some point.

So that might be why some folks are so excited. It's not a my city is better than your city thing. It's more like an "oh my god, about time" thing, especially when a couple other buildings were within feet of the arbitrary height designated for a "supertall".

My big question is, where is the damn beer in this part of the forum?

Cheers,
G.

[Plokoon11]

Getting a supertall is like the eagles winning a superbowl. So its special and exciting even if the later for the team hasn't happened yet.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

^ Aren't they designing the google spaceship? Which is almost the same idea as the Comcast Tower accept vertical instead of horizontal.

Apple, not Google.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by GarCastle

My big question is, where is the damn beer in this part of the forum?

Here ya go.

Mostly imported around here, however. Very few domestic brews.

[apetrella802]

The unqualified concept of the height of a building is the highest point of the structural framing system(does not include any antennas). For example, the height of a gothic cathedral includes its spires since they are the attenuation of the framing system. Their framing system is of course all masonry. These spires are not occupied but it would be absurd not to consider them when reckoning the height of the building.