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

[Elevator1]

Construction hoist coming down today. Interesting to see how the lantern is extended.

[Inquizative]

Originally Posted by donnie

If you need a spire to claim you're the tallest then you're really not the tallest!

You can build a two story building and slap a 2000 ft. Spire and claim it's the tallest! Is that fair?

I'm sure you mean a 200 ft spire, but...who said life was fair, but it sure is nice. However on that premise...you can greatly reduce the height of the Empire State, Chrysler Building and the 1776 ft "Freedom Tower," reduced to 1268 ft, without its spire. The Council on Tall buildings ruled that if the spire is part of the structure and not serve a utility purpose like a TV antennae, then it's part of the total height of the building.

[spidey7312]

Originally Posted by Inquizative

However on that premise...you can greatly reduce the height of the Empire State, Chrysler Building and the 1776 ft "Freedom Tower," reduced to 1268 ft, without its spire.

The One World trade Center is 1368 feet to its roof... 1268 feet is the height of the observatory

[MikeNigh]

The lobby in this building looks amazing

[gw04]

Is that some glass starting to sneak in there between the cooling tower sections?

[PHL10]

^^^Looks like it! Nice shot BTW.


This morning:

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by donnie

If you need a spire to claim you're the tallest then you're really not the tallest!

You can build a two story building and slap a 2000 ft. Spire and claim it's the tallest! Is that fair?

I've always been opposed to most spires counting as building height as well, particularly the ones that look like an antenna (most recent example being the WG in LA). But, it is what it is from a definition standpoint thus it all counts.

As related to CTC I'll say this, now that the cladding is on the cooling towers, from my daily vantage point (Media PA which gives a perfect side by side view of the south faces of CTC & Comcast from perhaps 15-20 miles as the crow flies) CTC, lantern aside, appears taller in height to roof. The lantern/spire, whatever you want to call it just puts it way over the top

[JohnIII]

I'm listening to the debate about lanterns and spires and its intriguing; I think my feelings on it has something to do with the structure of the building itself.

Some spires look like antennas an its because the elements of the buildings they stand on don't accentuate spire as a structure. Wilshire Grand in LA sort of fits this; but I really had a problem with Bank of America Tower in New York which was designed like a crystal and out of no where; almost as an after thought it looks like someone just stuck a spire on it for the sake of making it taller then it was intended to be. I can't say that was the thought process because I never met the architect but it gives off that appearance.

All spires however aren't the same and if a spire is accentuated by the architecture of the building then it doesn't appear as if the architect is cheating to get height because then the spire fits for example the Chrysler Building in New York City or Liberty One in Philly; the spires fit well.

To me, I can only speak for myself on the issue of course; a lantern is different; a lantern is ornamentation of course but depending on the width of the structure I suppose it can have a purpose. In a lantern you have steps, maybe a small elevator if its wide enough, you have floors for possible storage or electronics; it can have a purpose; what makes me reflect on this is the Empire State Building and CTC. Take the Empire State Building for example; everything above the 86th floor are actual floors; its apart of the lantern on the building but they count it as floors up to the 103rd floor. (The 103rd isn't open to the public; and only the 86th and 102nd are open for observation).

To me it makes sense to call a lantern as being apart of the building; but a spire as far as appearance goes can go either way; by appearance it should depend on the architecture of the building itself. Is the spire apart of the buildings design; does the design of the building fit the spire or was it just put there for some motive only the architect knows.

[iheartphilly]

CTC's spire/latern was built piece by piece using the main crane and ironworkers bolting and welding it together. As earlier photos show, it looks to have dual functions. One is the "exhuast" from the heating/cooling units that sits below it and the other is the architectural feature of the latern as previously stated. I don't consider this to be a cheat on the height for these reasons.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

CTC's spire/latern was built piece by piece using the main crane and ironworkers bolting and welding it together. As earlier photos show, it looks to have dual functions. One is the "exhuast" from the heating/cooling units that sits below it and the other is the architectural feature of the latern as previously stated. I don't consider this to be a cheat on the height for these reasons.

completely agree, & I'd go one step further & say it's really not even a 'spire'. I'm not an architect or expert of any kind so all I can do is look at the definition of a spire which the CTC lantern doesn't seem to fit ("a tapering conical or pyramidal structure on the top of a building, typically a church tower"). As you said, it's actually functional in nature for one & when you look at its size/shape, it appears much larger footprint-wise than more typical spires. Take a look at the photo of the guys standing in & on top of the WG spire (I think 4 or 5 crammed very close together), awesome photo it is but it shows the relatively tiny diameter of that far more traditional spire when compared to the top of CTC's lantern which looks large enough to comfortably stand maybe 25 or so people drinking egg nog while enjoying the tree . I find it hard to categorize these two above-roof structures as being one and the same.

[summersm343]

Update from Building Philly



https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly

[summersm343]

Update from Building Philly



https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly

[donnie]

0

Originally Posted by JohnIII

I'm listening to the debate about lanterns and spires and its intriguing; I think my feelings on it has something to do with the structure of the building itself.

Some spires look like antennas an its because the elements of the buildings they stand on don't accentuate spire as a structure. Wilshire Grand in LA sort of fits this; but I really had a problem with Bank of America Tower in New York which was designed like a crystal and out of no where; almost as an after thought it looks like someone just stuck a spire on it for the sake of making it taller then it was intended to be. I can't say that was the thought process because I never met the architect but it gives off that appearance.

All spires however aren't the same and if a spire is accentuated by the architecture of the building then it doesn't appear as if the architect is cheating to get height because then the spire fits for example the Chrysler Building in New York City or Liberty One in Philly; the spires fit well.

To me, I can only speak for myself on the issue of course; a lantern is different; a lantern is ornamentation of course but depending on the width of the structure I suppose it can have a purpose. In a lantern you have steps, maybe a small elevator if its wide enough, you have floors for possible storage or electronics; it can have a purpose; what makes me reflect on this is the Empire State Building and CTC. Take the Empire State Building for example; everything above the 86th floor are actual floors; its apart of the lantern on the building but they count it as floors up to the 103rd floor. (The 103rd isn't open to the public; and only the 86th and 102nd are open for observation).

To me it makes sense to call a lantern as being apart of the building; but a spire as far as appearance goes can go either way; by appearance it should depend on the architecture of the building itself. Is the spire apart of the buildings design; does the design of the building fit the spire or was it just put there for some motive only the architect knows.

Could not agree more, i just looked up Bank of America tower and wow does that take away from the form and uniqueness of the tower!

[summersm343]

12/18/2017

[TK2001]

Originally Posted by gw04

Is that some glass starting to sneak in there between the cooling tower sections?

Yes it is!

[Plokoon11]

Anyone notice how the cooling tower shaft to the cooling tower end echoes the cc1s shape? Nice touch!

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

Anyone notice how the cooling tower shaft to the cooling tower end echoes the cc1s shape? Nice touch!

why is "echoing" a good thing?

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

why is "echoing" a good thing?

[R5Ryder]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

Anyone notice how the cooling tower shaft to the cooling tower end echoes the cc1s shape? Nice touch!

Not sure how it echos the shape since CC is pyramidal on the inside and parallel on the perifary. I’m sure I not using right words but eh.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by PHL10

lol, not trying to be debbie downer. just wondering why people think it's a good idea to copy things instead of being original. it's a post modern mentality, to "offer a nod" or "pay tribute" to another building just diminishes the building.
FWIW, I don't see it in the two Comcast towers, just asking as a general question. There may be a legitimate reason for it, I just haven't found it. Someone enlighten me please (not being ironic or sarcastic, I'd really like to understand the thinking.)