But will they light up?

they better.

Timing of this is interesting, as the Chestnut Street bridge is slated to be replaced starting in 2013.  That will be sure to further snarl traffic around the station.

[...] News on Cira Center South today. It seems Brandywine, the developers of this project spoke in front of the Planning Commission last week and released informal plans to the complex. Brandywine also put on a presentation in front of employees at Cira Center in which they stated that the smaller tower could break ground as early as this fall where the taller tower would start construction after the smaller towers completion. Brandywine will be returning to the Planning Commission in two parts, once for an information only session then once to release final plans and seek approval. Cira Centre South Approaching? | NakedPhilly [...]

The Walnut St. parcel of land looks narrow to me. Is that space large enough to fit a building of this size?

I’m sad to see the size of the taller building reduced but glad it’s going to happen regardless.  

Of the tallest 100 buildings built or under construction in the US, 38 are in New York, 17 are in Chicago, 7 are in Houston, 4 are located in Philadelphia.  We’re tied with freaking Atlanta.  Our skyline needs some new blood.

I wish they’d deck-over the tracks

Would you rather see two 1,000 footers to stroke our collective ego or a bunch of 8-15 storey projects filling in gaps, increasingly walkability and keeping rents stable?

The latter is going on right now, and we’ll be a better city for it,

Two 1000 footers obviously.  I have high expectations for America’s next great city and don’t subscribe to the we-should-be-grateful-for-what-we-can-get-because-we’re-Philadelphia mentality.  

I’d like to see density so close to Center City so when the day comes that we’re fortunate enough to have a shortage of office space we’re not trying to build skyscrapers where they truly don’t belong.

I hear this argument for a lot of downtowns and in general I totally agree but in the case of Philly right now, I have to admit I’d rather see the two 1000FT towers.

Absolutely, two 1,000 footers, 100%.  Philadelphia needs skyscrapers!  Let’s get this done!

And what companies are filling those new skyscrapers, paying high market rents for new offices?

I agree that some (not all) Philadelphians are short on ambition, but we should be trying to cultivate a business climate in which building 2,000,000+ square feet will be rented by new or growing companies. Not hoping that some developer will take a if you build it… Type risk.

Right now the market can bear only new apartments, and that’s what we’re seeing being constructed. That’s why the Chestnut part of Cira is going first, it’s apartments.

[...] According to a source, Naked Philly believes that work may begin for the first (and smaller) of two towers at Cira Centre South as early as this fall. [...]

Then please, by all means, get the financing together and build a couple 1000-footers so they can sit 75% vacant and losing money. The skyline will be cool at least!

The office market is dead right now. There’s no one willing to make the commitment to be an anchor tenant, so no large office tower construction is on the way. We’re not going to see that turn around until 1) the economy shapes up and 2) the City gets it’s tax policy in order.

This isn’t some collective action problem or an aspirational deficit. Developers are building what people want, and that’s apartments and condos right now, not office skyscrapers.

Why can’t the buildings be of a different than the existing Cira?
Isn’t it better to coordinate than to copy?

I understand why they reduced the size of the building and I’m not suggesting the original plan is feasible any longer, but that doesn’t mean I can’t lament what could have been.

Everyone blames the economy for derailing large developments like this, and it has definitely been a factor over the past few years, but at this point I think it’s overblown.  New York’s economy was arguably harder hit by the financial collapse because its economy was (is) so dependent on the financial sector but there are still dozens of new high rises under construction there now, both offices and residential.

BlackRock’s consideration of the site was a signal that Philadelphia finally has the potential to poach prestigious businesses from the New York metro area.  Unfortunately the powers that be just couldn’t make it appealing enough to overcome whatever other considerations BlackRock had in making the move. I just have a feeling that had a development-minded mayor like Ed Rendell been in office during those negotiations they would have gone a little differently.

The economy right now is a given, no matter the location, but Philadelphia refuses to make the hard short term decisions that will give it an edge in attracting businesses.  Making it a more friendly tax climate to attract businesses will go a long way in bringing about a long term chance at local prosperity, but nobody can seem to see past the immediate crises the city’s facing.

i didnt realize everyone in philly had such a height complex. Why do we try
to compare ourselves to mahattan so often (or even houston and atlanta as some on this thread have done. have you ever been?…their downtowns are just glorified office parks)… nyc is one of the greatest cities (if not the greatest city) in the world but it shouldnt be a model for urban development in philly or really anywhere. We should look south to Washington, DC for advice on creating a great city by making smart, considerate planning decisions instead of trying to achieve greatness by taking the easy way out and erecting buildings as tall as possible.

tall towers can be great but not if they are standing alone surrounded by
much smaller buildings, empty lots, railroad tracks and a freeway. cities are
MUCH more than a skyline (unless you dont actually live in the city but just drive by…therefore your opinion is still valuable but not so relevant). skyscrapers should be concentrated in (and spread out from) center city and smaller 6-12 story buildings are more appropriate for university city/west philly/riverfronts.

personally i believe it is a better plan for the city to have height limits
west of the schuylkill for aesthetic reasons but also because there are tons of
vacant lots in center city and west philly that need to be filled for crime to
decrease (crime which is hinderng philly’s reputation and ability to attract business/people) and urban life to prosper. These steps will create “the next great
city” not adding random skyscrapers all over the city that might excite your eye
but dont do much to actually make the city a better place to live and work. We
need to fill vacant lots to become a more liveable, vibrant city and our
reputation will grow (or be discovered) once our core becomes more complete.

Im most interested in this because the schuykill is a tremendous asset and
opportunity. something would have to be done about the expwy but we could
easily transform it into the nicest urban river in the country (it already is
from boathouse row north). It has a good width* is centrally located and is
almost completely undeveloped. American cities are going to grow but much
slower than in earlier centuries. If philly wants to develop awesome liveable
neighborhoods along the schuykill from center city to maybe grays ferry it will
have to build modestly (5-10 stories).

*by this i mean it is not intimidating but intimate and wide enough to
accomodate water activities like kayaking and could be enhanced by cool pedestrian bridges, etc

Some people are totally against skyscrapers for legitimate reasons and not-so-legitimate reasons and others, like myself, are against skyscrapers only when theyre in the wrong place because theyre essentially irreversible. Would you agree that maybe the cira centre location is not the optimal place for a 1000ft tower based on its surrounding neighborhood? check out my post

Mr. Girard isn’t making a broad condemnation against skyscrapers. His opinion is considerate of the neighborhood and what would be in my opinion a rather obnoxious tower in the middle of low-rise buildings. There are thousands of towers as tall as the one originally proposed in in this diagram including several in philadelphia so this tower isnt ground-breaking or awe-inspiring. It should face more scrutiny then most because of its permanence. should we put these towers anywhere in the city because we can and we must assert our power and philadelphia’s greatness? is philadelphia not great if it doesnt build huge buildings?

i do agree the taller tower was more elegant, the shortened version is stumpy. but they could have chosen to do a short elegant version too bad they did not

youre exactly right. i lived in Washington, dc for a while and it’s a testament to how beautiful a city can be if developed in a height-restrictive, conscientious manner. Though there are some downsides to its success (high rent) it’s scope and vibrant street life could not have been achieved given its population if large towers ate up offices and apartments that could have been more evenly spread out

I think the skyline is majestic as is looking from the stadiums. Maybe another super tall skyscraper or two but nothing crazy. I also don’t think Philadelphians want to emulate Manhattans skyline but I do think that expanding the congested center city skyline will definitely attract more tourism to the rest of the city. I think a few strategically placed skyscrapers west, north and south will certainly build excitement and attraction for all

[...] summer, we gave you the heads up that construction would soon be underway for the first part of Cira Centre South, a new tower on Chestnut Street. At the time, it was predicted that owners Brandywine Realty [...]