PHILADELPHIA | Penn Medicine New Patient Pavilion | 343 FT | 17 FLOORS

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by City Wide

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)

That's fine. It's a rationale. But, it's like throwing in the throw in a boxing match when the opponent is down on the score card but not knocked out. I just don't buy it. These people are the best in what they do. Look at Fosters and Partners website. A lot of great designed in his portfolio across the globe-worthy of his status. And, to say this is the best they can do with the design of the building based on the whatever parameters you pick is ridiculous. They are held to a higher standard based on their reputation. If they can't deliver on a creative and noteworthy design that we can see as part of the skyline or on street level, that's on them and not on any of us trying to justify their 'meh' design of the current rendering.

[mja]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

^^ Suggests a total redesign of the building.

Indeed, it does.

I don't know that I'd pin the most recent render on Foster. It rather looks like some heartless hack took his original design, which was just 'meh' - and set about trying to make as awful a design out of it as possible.

[McBane]

Although....the article that was posted indicates that the rendering, the one we all panned was the one that was presented to the Planning Commission. Also, the new floor plate is narrower and that aligns with the new, taller building height described in the article.

Of course, the article does state that the plans are still preliminary, which doesn't really make sense to me because why would Penn present only preliminary plans to the City?

In any case, can we really expect a total re-do at this point? Perhaps some minor cosmetic changes but I really, really, really hope to be wrong. That rendering from the article looks straight out of the 1970's with it's ugly beige brick and narrow bands of windows.

With the appointment of Lord Foster, we had really high hopes for an iconic building. Instead, it appears we're getting a dud that even PMC would be ashamed of. Again, I really hope that there is another rendering out there.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by McBane

Although....the article that was posted indicates that the rendering, the one we all panned was the one that was presented to the Planning Commission. Also, the new floor plate is narrower and that aligns with the new, taller building height described in the article.

Of course, the article does state that the plans are still preliminary, which doesn't really make sense to me because why would Penn present only preliminary plans to the City?

In any case, can we really expect a total re-do at this point? Perhaps some minor cosmetic changes but I really, really, really hope to be wrong. That rendering from the article looks straight out of the 1970's with it's ugly beige brick and narrow bands of windows.

The Planning Commission only looks at site planning and general building design and configuration--e.g., stormwater and runoff control, overall footprint, traffic issues, lot subdivision and configuration, overall zoning plans and issues, density, effects on pedestrian and street-level experience, etc. It's not really involved in evaluating the specific design and architecture of a building, except as it affects these overall land-use issues. Civic Design Review, L&I, etc. would be the agencies/processes that would look at the actual final design of the building itself, and Penn hasn't sought those reviews yet. In fact, the final design and budget has not yet been approved by the Penn Trustees, which generally would be the final internal step before building approvals and permits are sought.

[McBane]

Okay then, thanks for clarifying!

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by McBane

Okay then, thanks for clarifying!

[summersm343]

Check Out Penn Museum's New Look Post-Penn Tower Demo





Article from Curbed Philly:
http://philly.curbed.com/2016/5/26/1...ster-rendering

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Check Out Penn Museum's New Look Post-Penn Tower Demo

Article from Curbed Philly:
http://philly.curbed.com/2016/5/26/1...ster-rendering

From that article:

The plans were approved ahead of the Civic Design Review (CDR). When questioned by design committee chair Nancy Rogo Trainer why the plans were being presented without the committee's input, presenter Martin Gregorski said they were waiting until final plans were approved by Penn before bringing it to the CDR.

A spokesperson for Penn told the Philadelphia Inquirer that those plans are still "in the early stages."

So again, more to come (apparently).

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Check Out Penn Museum's New Look Post-Penn Tower Demo

That would appear to be yesterday's garbage.

[hammersklavier]

It looks like it's trying too hard to look like a Penn Museum annex.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

It looks like it's trying too hard to look like a Penn Museum annex.

If it did a better job, that might help.

[Human Scale]

Those narrow Windows! They hurt my eyes! If I didn't see the original render with the floor-to-ceiling Windows I might not be so disappointed. But then I hear a board room meeting in my head where they say "we need to cut 80 million. The Windows! Ah ha!"

[SJPhillyBoy]

That is really a dog of a building. (This is not a compliment). I did not think it was possible to continue on a short sighted path with bad architecture and functionality design like PCAM, but Penn is doing it.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

I did not think it was possible to continue on a short sighted path with bad architecture and functionality design like PCAM, but Penn is doing it.

Not yet (hopefully). Apparently, that is NOT the final design, and major changes to the design--including the shape and size of the floor plates/footprint--are in the works. In other words, hold your fire until you see the whites of this design's eyes.

[summersm343]

6/15/16

[christof]

So they will start digging before the end of the month?

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by christof

So they will start digging before the end of the month?

The plans--and most importantly, the budget--for the new building have not yet been formally approved by Penn's full Board of Trustees, a prerequisite for construction to begin. However, their annual Spring Meeting is today and tomorrow, so maybe that's on the agenda.

[im88]

Any more updates on the design/timeline since the Trustees meeting a few weeks ago?

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by im88

Any more updates on the design/timeline since the Trustees meeting a few weeks ago?

As far as I know, nothing yet in the media or on Penn's web site about that meeting.

[summersm343]

7/12/2016