PHILADELPHIA | Comcast Technology Center | 1,121 FT | 60 FLOORS - Page 28

Late1 · #**541** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

To clarify, Zapatan was only counting under-construction buildings, not existing ones.

Whoops - apologies to Zapatan - having just re-read his post, I'm not sure how I misunderstood it the first time!

Zapatan · #**542** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 3:02 AM**

^No worries and don't worry I was well aware the US has several cities with 300+ meter buildings with Chicago probably leading the pack.

I like the original design better too but the current is still okay.

Cro Burnham · #**543** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Was this the original design?

Wow - I kind of like this better too. certainly looks more massive on the skyline.

Onn · #**544** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 4:22 AM**

I would totally disagree, the new one is better. The top is also all wrong on that one. That version lacks the detail like the sideways bracing. It was probably the original design.

Late1 · #**545** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 4:41 AM**

I prefer the design we're getting, too. Not a fan of the open structure at the top of the above design, and I love the diagonal stainless steel accents repeated all the way up the office portion of the approved design - it's striking and helps marry the tower to the more angular Mellon and Liberty towers.

tower · #**546** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 4:58 AM**

WTF, alternate CITC rendering straight outta left field. This version is not bad at all. IMO it does a much better job of "trumping" CC...while the new design may be a little better, it's lacking the trump effect

Mappy · #**547** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 1:36 PM**

Definitely like the proposed design better! The ugly/functionless scaffolding reminds me of the Wexner Center at Ohio State, which I hate

iheartphilly · #**548** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 1:52 PM**

It appears to be the original before drastic changes were made. The design from Foster and Partners website continues to list the one that was announced with local media. I personally like the re-design with the glass tower that will be lit.

frank_pentangeli · #**549** Posted **Apr 11, 2014, 6:00 PM**

can't wait!

fastdupree · #**550** Posted **Apr 12, 2014, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Wow - I kind of like this better too. certainly looks more massive on the skyline.

This is far better than the latest design!!!! Way more expressive on the Philly skyline and does not have a spire to lie about the total height. You can see it is massive. I would like the latest design more if it were 1121 feet to the roof height.

JustSomeGuyWho · #**551** Posted **Apr 13, 2014, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastdupree

This is far better than the latest design!!!! Way more expressive on the Philly skyline and does not have a spire to lie about the total height. You can see it is massive. I would like the latest design more if it were 1121 feet to the roof height.

Except the top pick that shows it in the skyline puts the building in the wrong location.

Philly-Drew · #**552** Posted **Apr 13, 2014, 2:36 PM**

I like the proposed rendering better than the original too. I think once the building is up, it will be a masterpiece when coming into the city from the West side, and especially from the Schuykill expressway.

mmikeyphilly · #**553** Posted **Apr 13, 2014, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

I like the proposed rendering better than the original too. I think once the building is up, it will be a masterpiece when coming into the city from the West side, and especially from the Schuykill expressway.

It will be one of his masterpieces from any angle. So now, we will have Darth Vadar, and a "Transformers" style skyscraper taking over Philly! Speaking of his masterpieces, below is a link to some of his masterpieces. I can see the Foster "touch" on many, if not all of his projects. Enjoy!

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/20...iladelphia.php

Philly-Drew · #**554** Posted **Apr 13, 2014, 4:55 PM**

Good point mmikeyphilly, I jus meant that from some angles you won't even see the building. Like driving up Arch street from Old City.

philatonian · #**555** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 12:44 AM**

Is that really Foster's original design, or did Visualhouse redo his? I actually like it better. Without the stepped façade it looks taller. Plus, I think spires can be a cheesy way to claim height. Unless you're docking a blimp, they're pointless. Even as a design element, it looks like an afterthought on such a rectangular building.

Cro Burnham · #**556** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 3:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by philatonian

Is that really Foster's original design . . . . I actually like it better. Without the stepped façade it looks taller. Plus, I think spires can be a cheesy way to claim height. Unless you're docking a blimp, they're pointless. Even as a design element, it looks like an afterthought on such a rectangular building.

Totally agree on every point.

iheartphilly · #**557** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 3:56 AM**

Nah...this design looks amateurish. The current design is sophisticated and elegant.

MikeNigh · #**558** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 12:44 PM**

I think the original design captured a lot better the industrial look they wanted. Imo the original was a stroke of genius and the second was a compromise (but still an incredible foster building in philly).

brian.odonnell20 · #**559** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 2:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by philatonian

Is that really Foster's original design, or did Visualhouse redo his? I actually like it better. Without the stepped façade it looks taller. Plus, I think spires can be a cheesy way to claim height. Unless you're docking a blimp, they're pointless. Even as a design element, it looks like an afterthought on such a rectangular building.

Spires usually don't look good on rectangular topped buildings, it just doesn't have much aesthetic flow. I think this building look alright though. But look at liberty one. The spire does serve a purpose for several radio stations, and it makes it look complete and just gorgeous. So I'd say spires are not completely pointless or cheesy, they just need to be done right.

Insoluble · #**560** Posted **Apr 14, 2014, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by philatonian

Even as a design element, it looks like an afterthought on such a rectangular building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Spires usually don't look good on rectangular topped buildings, it just doesn't have much aesthetic flow.

I typically agree that spires sticking out from the dead center of a flat roof often look out of place. But this isn't really the case with CITC. The offset core on the west end of the building is incorporated into the stepped setback look in a really masterful way. The official roof (which is actually the mechanical/core roof) forms the base part of the fin, and has a much smaller floor plate than the highest occupied floor. The tallest part of the fin completes the look and I think this building would actually look a lot worse without the architectural component of the fin. The core would be jutting up enough to be noticeable but would look awkward and incomplete. I also think the fin does a good job drawing attention to one of the most intriguing architectural elements of the building (the split offset core) while giving a nod to the the broadcasting roots of NBC.

The rendering that spyguy posted is also nice, but that necessary scaffolding/lattice on top just doesn't do it for me. I guess I feel the same way about that type of roof as many others do about spires.