From the article:

So apparently, we haven't yet seen the final design.

I believe she may be referring to additional needs surrounding the project, such as raising Convention Ave and construction of a tunnel or bridge to the train station.

Perhaps, given that the article is about the Planning Commission's having "voted last week to permit changes to the University of Pennsylvania master plan needed for construction of the building," which sounds more like the types of things to which you're referring (and the kinds of things that are under the purview of the Planning Commission). But the article is kind of ambiguous about the "additional details about the plans" to which she was referring, and I read her statement to mean details about the building design itself. Also note that the caption for the rendering in the article refers to it as a "draft" rendering, further indicating that it's not the final design (and in fact, I've rarely seen the word "draft" used in media coverage of a building design or rendering). Not to mention that the Penn trustees have not yet given their formal approval of the design (among the "university officials" whose approval she cites as still being required). So unless you have inside information to the contrary (which you might ;)), I think we've yet to see the final design and rendering.

The article says 500 rooms. Internally the number 700 is more often discussed. Or 700 more "beds." This could mean only 500 more rooms, but private rooms are the only thing Penn and patients care about anymore these days.

Was this previously listed tentatively as 305 feet?

343 feet is a pretty nice. And that's about it. To those who think Lord Foster can do no wrong, I present Exhibit A. I'm surprised that someone as talented as him would put his name on this. Reminds me of when the Philadelphia Orchestra announced Rafael Viñoly as the architect and then the building ended up being a major flop.

I don't think you can call the Kimmel Center a major flop. It has its issues but overall the building is pretty successful.

I have to agree. I'll reserve judgment on the new hospital until we have a final rendering, but between the Kimmel and the glass cube at Penn, I don't think much of Vinoly these days.

I think it's a bit premature to judge this design, we only have very preliminary renderings.

My first thought when I saw this design was Turin University, which wouldn't be a bad thing. The exterior treatment and interior spaces of that campus are amazing. Time will tell...

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-conte...of-Turin-5.jpg

I do find it funny though, I've been coming to this site for almost 15 years when Swinefeld and Volgus were the big Philly posters here, and if you told us then that we would have 2 Norman Foster buildings being built here (one super-tall), everyone would have lost their minds.

I remember when the "St. James" building going up was big news... Oh, have the times changed. ;)

Really? Four years after it opened, the Kimmel Center took Vinoly to court over his shoddy work. A few years after that, Verizon Hall's acoustics had to be fixed (which I acknowledge is not an architectural issue). And in 2011, barely 10 years after its original construction, the building had to be re-designed - at a cost of $15 million - to correct Vinoly's failures. You call that pretty successful? After all that, the Kimmel Center is decent enough, but it's not something I would associate with a superstar architect. Which brings us back to this 'meh' hospital design. I really hope they ditch the ugly beige brick.

they will put their name on anything if they are getting the commission. I doubt all these starchitects' buildings are really great. After a while your rep becomes bigger and better than your actual work. Or you produce a few high profile, highly acclaimed buildings and then you get free passes on everything else.

We could probably split hairs over what are construction failures and what are design failures. The "whole building" was not redesigned, otherwise there would be an entirely different building there, and the cost would be way more than $15 million.
As I said, it has its issues, can't deny that. But in the end it's a good building.
Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings were notorious for roof leaks, and other such failures. Doesn't mean they weren't successful or good buildings. They were sometimes construction problems, sometimes design problems, but they were fixed and are still on the whole regarded as beautiful buildings.

I was just in Cleveland a couple of weeks ago (insert photo thread plug here), and Vinoly was responsible for the modern expansion of their art museum. From the outside, the addition is a disaster from about 90% of angles. Worse than the Kimmel Center, but better than Penn Medicine. However, I found that inside, the addition meshed rather well with the existing structure, and created a pleasant and logically planned out overall museum experience. The main atrium also contained many of the interior design elements that are found in the Kimmel Center. It seems that what Vinoly is good at is creating public spaces, but only for the public that is inside. I wouldn't say his works are generally bad, just incomplete from an exterior standpoint.

I'm not sure how Kimmel works on the interior either. The rooftop garden never worked well and the narrow space between the two internal venues never has worked as a public space. Flow is abysmal. It's not easy to get where you're going around the crowds.

In most cases, (but not the glass cube!) the architect has a program that needs to be fulfilled, building so big, cost so much money, on a certain site, to hold "X" and maybe "Y" and sometimes they are also told details like 'build it out of brick/glass/stone/wood etc. and they have zoning and building code issues to keep in mind. But the part of their job that most people can see and judge them on is how the building looks.
So you can have a very successful building, even an outstanding one in terms of how the building 'works' but it can look like cat crap. Likewise the other way around, a building can look incredible but be a complete failure. Imagine a museum who's galleries are too small to hold the painting that are suppose to be hung in them.
This is what can make the job of an architect, not that its ever just one person, challenging. I think its also why there are so few really good buildings. Its so much easier to build "trash for cash" then it is to start to finish work and sweat the whole process.
Also, generally for an architect to do a truly successful building they need to have an informed client, someone who pushes the architect, but knows when to stop pushing.
(I am not a architect; I sometimes do work for them and its great to work with an good architect, but its often like working with mud if the architect has stopped caring)

The footprint of this project is oddly shaped and they need to use most of it to maximize its size. Penn tower did not use the whole footprint as the Hospital will. The design with the split level seems to be playing towards that. With the skinnier shorter tower in the front and the larger tower portion in the back.

Foster's design may be subdued on the outside but I have seen renderings of the rooms inside and what they are trying to accomplish. Many of the rooms will have awesome views of the city and be quite accommodating to the patient and visitors.

True. But at the Kimmel Center it's not like they were fixing things that were in ill repair like a leaky roof, they fundamentally changed how much of the building interacted with the city around it. They had to do this because the original design was a total failure in this regard. I wouldn't call the entire Kimmel Center a failure, it serves its purpose and some aspects of it are quite nice. But based on how much the Kimmel Center cost and the hiring of Vinoly, people were expecting an iconic building. The kimmel Center certainly falls severely short of that goal in the very least.

As far as the Penn Patient Pavilion, I think I grant a lot more leeway for a hospital in terms of design. You expect the symphony to be in a building making an architectural statement. A hospital is just so much more utilitarian. I like the new rendering better than the two that preceded it... certainly far more than the last design, but this is still really underwhelming, even for a hospital. Hopefully the final render will be even better.

Personally I would have liked to see the true two tower approach come to life more, but it seems they shot that down pretty quick. It would have been taller than the current design to make up the difference in sq. feet.

Here is the floor plan layout for the building you sent me:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...96&oe=57C69152

^^ Suggests a total redesign of the building.