Will Philly's skyline ever catch up to Chicago or NYC? (Philadelphia: apartment, condo)

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

True. I know that the downtown itself is much bigger. It's just from the normal views Philly's skyline doesn't look very big. It's definitely gotten better in the past 30 years, but still isn't as impressive as New York or Chicago. It reminds more of downtown L.A.

Philadelphia's skyline kills downtown LA, easily.

I suggest you check out this thread

Ignore the at-times ridiculous back and forth and just look at the pictures. It's not even close, really.

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Kind of reminds me of the Jamaican Bobsled team

Except Philadelphia doesn't really even want to be in the "race".

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by UDResident

Except Philadelphia doesn't really even want to be in the "race".

If all of "Philadelphia" had your (or my) opinion on the issue, this would be true.
But it seems like many people, as evidenced by this thread, are into the skyline competition and a desire to "catch up".

I think people should remember that Chicago was an absolute explosion(!).
That city went from a tiny town to 3 million people in less than a hundred years. And when the early skyscrapers were being innovated and built there, it was during the period when Chicago was gaining a million people in a 20 year span. Auspicious tall modern buildings almost seem like a natural expression of how that city came into being, and it's identity.

But that's not Philly. Philly is something different. Skyscapers aren't really in Philly's soul in the same way (even though it does have some great and important ones).

I always wonder why so many people are so eager to see a place they claim to love change into something else?

[Cnote11]

I keep worried when it comes to this skyscraper business. I don't enjoy the modern Canadian skyscrapers whatsoever. I feel that way in part about Minneapolis. On the other hand, Chicago's is very well done, despite a lot of criticism about some of the modernist architecture. I think they are all great pieces and avoid the blandness that takes over places like Toronto.

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by rotodome

If all of "Philadelphia" had your (or my) opinion on the issue, this would be true.
But it seems like many people, as evidenced by this thread, are into the skyline competition and a desire to "catch up".

I think people should remember that Chicago was an absolute explosion(!).
That city went from a tiny town to 3 million people in less than a hundred years. And when the early skyscrapers were being innovated and built there, it was during the period when Chicago was gaining a million people in a 20 year span. Auspicious tall modern buildings almost seem like a natural expression of how that city came into being, and it's identity.

But that's not Philly. Philly is something different. Skyscapers aren't really in Philly's soul in the same way (even though it does have some great and important ones).

I always wonder why so many people are so eager to see a place they claim to love change into something else?

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. I meant the city's mindset, not so much that of everybody within it.

Philadelphia has always seemed to be "above" that sort of showy, non-subtle crap. That's why I respect the city more than I will ever respect anywhere else in the world. Boston can claim to be European all they like but Philadelphia is the only city that actually has that mindset.

I would hate to ever see that change.

[john_starks]

i don't see many cities coming close to ny & chicago. miami,atl,houston come the closest with the height (not quite density) and they're not really close. philly has had a ton of tall/supertall proposals in the last 10 yrs, but they never materialized or got scaled down like 50%. honestly, i'd be happy with 2 more talls/supertalls in my lifetime. can ny or chi donate any ; )

anyone remember the bridgeman's tower proposal by the ben franklin bridge? wasn't that supposed to be 900+ ft.
i get depressed thinking about it. i love the idea of supertalls mixed in with high density mid/low-rises (which philly has plenty of)

[Ant$]

Originally Posted by Cnote11

I keep worried when it comes to this skyscraper business. I don't enjoy the modern Canadian skyscrapers whatsoever. I feel that way in part about Minneapolis. On the other hand, Chicago's is very well done, despite a lot of criticism about some of the modernist architecture. I think they are all great pieces and avoid the blandness that takes over places like Toronto.

what do you think about Dubai?

[Cnote11]

Originally Posted by Ant$

what do you think about Dubai?

Dubai has the great benefit of having the waterway layout it does, which makes it rather attractive. The lights are also very pretty and there are some very nice and interesting buildings over there which rounds things up rather nicely. They've made a nice effort, even though they have a bit of a height obsession. Could use more density, but I like the ideas.

[Lenses & Lights.]

Originally Posted by UDResident

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. I meant the city's mindset, not so much that of everybody within it.

Philadelphia has always seemed to be "above" that sort of showy, non-subtle crap. That's why I respect the city more than I will ever respect anywhere else in the world. Boston can claim to be European all they like but Philadelphia is the only city that actually has that mindset.

I would hate to ever see that change.

Well..... I don't know about everyone else, but people like highrises. I love tall buildings and do not feel in any way that it makes a city want to BE ANOTHER. I think Philly's quaint Quaker mindsets from the past will "probably" continue to be a part of the city's fabric but it needs to continue to slack off. If you look at old photos of Philadelphia you'll see HUGE NEON SIGNS on theaters, department stores, restaurants, night clubs,etc. Then somewhere along the lines that was stopped and Philly had a bill passed that business had an limitation on neon lights. Remember the huge red on yellow tower records sign on South Street that HAD TO COME DOWN because of "Light & Height" Restrictions?
I'm glad to see the bridges lit in neon around the city as well as many of the buildings on South & North Broad Street. I'm looking forward to seeing more 750' to 900' footers as well as the Constitution Center or something similar rising to 1200-1500' Feet.

[Lenses & Lights.]

Originally Posted by john_starks

i don't see many cities coming close to ny & chicago. miami,atl,houston come the closest with the height (not quite density) and they're not really close. philly has had a ton of tall/supertall proposals in the last 10 yrs, but they never materialized or got scaled down like 50%. honestly, i'd be happy with 2 more talls/supertalls in my lifetime. can ny or chi donate any ; )

anyone remember the bridgeman's tower proposal by the ben franklin bridge? wasn't that supposed to be 900+ ft.
i get depressed thinking about it. i love the idea of supertalls mixed in with high density mid/low-rises (which philly has plenty of)

What building is that and what street is it located on?

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by BillyJacc

Well..... I don't know about everyone else, but people like highrises. I love tall buildings and do not feel in any way that it makes a city want to BE ANOTHER. I think Philly's quaint Quaker mindsets from the past will "probably" continue to be a part of the city's fabric but it needs to continue to slack off. If you look at old photos of Philadelphia you'll see HUGE NEON SIGNS on theaters, department stores, restaurants, night clubs,etc. Then somewhere along the lines that was stopped and Philly had a bill passed that business had an limitation on neon lights. Remember the huge red on yellow tower records sign on South Street that HAD TO COME DOWN because of "Light & Height" Restrictions?
I'm glad to see the bridges lit in neon around the city as well as many of the buildings on South & North Broad Street. I'm looking forward to seeing more 750' to 900' footers as well as the Constitution Center or something similar rising to 1200-1500' Feet.

I'm speaking specifically about "catching up" to Chicago and New York. Believe me, I am all for having as many highrises and skyscrapers as possible. I just don't think they need to be oversized or ugly like so many of the skyscrapers in Chicago or New York are. Look at examples like IBX, Commerce Square, Residences at the Ritz, the St. James, 1706 Rittenhouse, Penn Medicine, Jefferson, the new Chestnut street residential building, etc. They are large, imposing buildings that don't take away from or even show up in the skyline pictures from the Camden side of the Delaware river (the main skyline vantage point). New York and Chicago let anybody build anything wherever and however they want, and as a result they have more than a few of the kind of buildings that should never be allowed in Philadelphia. In my opinion, the Gentlemen's agreement was a good thing because it put the city in a mindset that if something was to be built high enough, it better be worthy of being that prominent a feature of the skyline. The focus is more on design and tastefulness than money and development.

What I'm saying is that it's definitely possible to have Manhattan's street-level "skyscraper canyon" effect without having many of those buildings (or even any) have to be tall enough to affect the skyline. That's the balance that I want to see the city maintain throughout its future.

I would guess that the getting rid of "flashy" things was a part of the whole suburbanization and dulling down of many of the city's unique, eccentric buildings. They did the same thing with Upper Darby's 69th St in the late '80s-early '90s.

Originally Posted by BillyJacc

What building is that and what street is it located on?

It's the view from the street if the proposed Bridgeman's tower had been built.