Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take a look at all the comments when the CITC was announced with renderings, it was universally booed.
Salesforce is sleek and timeless in design. I think what bothers me about some Philly folk, is when this building was announced they acted like wow, this vaults us to the 3rd best skyline in the US. First San Francisco, LA, Houston and Miami all have more buildings than Philly does. Houston has two building with higher rooftops than either of the Comcasts. Miami has far more buildings, SF has far more buildings and greater density downtown.
Its great to have a tall building going up in Philly, but we know its place as tallest outside NY & Chi is a farce. Between SF, LA and Houston there are 5 buildings with rooftops taller than CITC, and yes Comcast Center will still visually be the tallest in Philly. Same goes for US Bank in LA over Wilshire Grand.
Buildings are not monuments they have purpose ,Comcast came to Foster with An Idea of building a innovation and technology center which would foster* innovation and collaboration , no pun intended . Lord Foster was given the required sq. ft. and other particulars that Comcast wanted ; like a vertical campus , unobstructed sight to the out side . I'm sure the building was designed from the inside out ,taking psychological factors to insure innovation and creativity such as three story atrium's and sight through floor plans with minimal obstructions .
I think this building will set new standards for office and labs space and win architectural design awards when completed and occupied .
Inevitably someone from the Bay Area uses the fact that real estate is expensive there in every thread to "prove" that SF is better than anywhere else. This is not a thread about the most expensive high rises or real estate. The price that 555 California sold for is 100% irrelevant when it comes to determining which of these downtowns is better. It's just a way for SF homers to feel "special" and adds literally no value to most threads. For this thread, I don't care if the high rise I walk by every day sold for $1tril or $0.01. If the downtown around it sucks, the downtown sucks. The plaza at the base of 555 California detracts greatly from the surrounding density too. It's not something to be proud of when discussing which downtown is better.
The fact it's more valuable does say something about the downtown. Whether it's more in demand, more popular, higher rents, higher occupancies of course it means something.
The fact it's more valuable does say something about the downtown. Whether it's more in demand, more popular, higher rents, higher occupancies of course it means something.
Being more expensive does not mean it's a better downtown. Look at this list. Do you REALLY think Melo Park is the #1 downtown in the US? Better than Manhattan, better than SF, better than DC? Avenue of the Stars in LA is the epitome of an urban office park with literally no vibrancy. 10 most expensive US streets for office space
Being more expensive does not mean it's a better downtown. Look at this list. Do you REALLY think Melo Park is the #1 downtown in the US? Better than Manhattan, better than SF, better than DC? Avenue of the Stars in LA is the epitome of an urban office park with literally no vibrancy. 10 most expensive US streets for office space
Now you're really going off on a tangent. The list didn't claim to be about downtowns just high rents. But ok 3 of those locations were Bay Area one of them downtown San Francisco. I didn't see center city on the list.
Now you're really going off on a tangent. The list didn't claim to be about downtowns just high rents. But ok 3 of those locations were Bay Area one of them downtown San Francisco. I didn't see center city on the list.
Pretty sure the argument that the cost of real estate equating to something being better is not going to be coming from the Philadelphia side of the argument.
Both are honestly really close and oddly reminiscent of each other in a lot of ways, though after this trip to SF, I'm still siding with Center City. SF's downtown area does seem to wind down quite a bit earlier and more so than Philadelphia's except for the aforementioned transient population which is a lot more visible and seemingly numerous. There's no area that seems anywhere near as sketch as the Tenderloin in or around Center City, nor does Center City honestly have you running into homeless of sometimes the raving psychotic kind in seemingly any corner of downtown as in downtown SF. The hills are wonderfully interesting though, and even though the bay waterfront is mostly a tourist trap, the fairly open access to the waterfront is nice.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-15-2016 at 08:09 AM..
Pretty sure the argument that the cost of real estate equating to something being better is not going to be coming from the Philadelphia side of the argument.
It would if that was a point for Philadelphia but its not... Why is real estate more expensive in Manhattan?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,144 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318
It would if that was a point for Philadelphia but its not... Why is real estate more expensive in Manhattan?
Why is real estate more expensive in San Francisco than Manhattan? Why is Luanda, Angola the most expensive city in the world? As these two examples illustrate, more expensive does not always equate to better.
It would if that was a point for Philadelphia but its not... Why is real estate more expensive in Manhattan?
Combination of land constraints and colocation of many major corporate headquarters. Wouldn't say that's the reason Manhattan's downtown is much better in regards to all the criteria the OP listed though. Chicago's easily the second best downtown in the US after NYC and gets its price per square feet taken down a bit, despite having all those major corporate headquarters, because it isn't as constrained by land and is a bit less precious in preserving historic buildings. Anyhow, you seem to agree with the sentiment, so it's not you really felt like the guy was going on a tangent--just annoyed when the tangent doesn't end up a glowing endorsement for whatever side you're on. Right?
Pretty sure the argument that the cost of real estate equating to something being better is not going to be coming from the Philadelphia side of the argument.
Both are honestly really close and oddly reminiscent of each other in a lot of ways, though after this trip to SF, I'm still siding with Center City. SF's downtown area does seem to wind down quite a bit earlier and more so than Philadelphia's except for the aforementioned transient population which is a lot more visible and seemingly numerous. There's no area that seems anywhere near as sketch as the Tenderloin in or around Center City, nor does Center City honestly have you running into homeless of sometimes the raving psychotic kind in seemingly any corner of downtown as in downtown SF. The hills are wonderfully interesting though, and even though the bay waterfront is mostly a tourist trap, the fairly open access to the waterfront is nice.
Yeah, I love when the sea lions are around on the docks. That's one thing CC can't meet. Although our Spruce Street Harbor Park is pretty great!
Pretty sure the argument that the cost of real estate equating to something being better is not going to be coming from the Philadelphia side of the argument.
Both are honestly really close and oddly reminiscent of each other in a lot of ways, though after this trip to SF, I'm still siding with Center City. SF's downtown area does seem to wind down quite a bit earlier and more so than Philadelphia's except for the aforementioned transient population which is a lot more visible and seemingly numerous. There's no area that seems anywhere near as sketch as the Tenderloin in or around Center City, nor does Center City honestly have you running into homeless of sometimes the raving psychotic kind in seemingly any corner of downtown as in downtown SF. The hills are wonderfully interesting though, and even though the bay waterfront is mostly a tourist trap, the fairly open access to the waterfront is nice.
Blasphemy to any of the Bay faithful how could it be with the hallowed city by the bay
and agree to me Philly, Boston, and SF all are so much closer to each then different in terms of quality of the DT. Philly is the laggard in main line retail, not barren but not as much as the other two yet to me it actually stays active in the core moreso then the other two which may be there is more mixed residential and nightlife which extends while Boston and SF may have greater peaks during the day into early evening, the later it gets may be where Philly stays more active but on the whole I see these three all as more similar then different...
I am also enjoying the dialogue on the 555 CA building, while interesting not sure is an architectural dream
so to me rank these three in any order behind NYC and Chicago and I wont really argue as they are more similar then different
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
