Talk:Comcast Technology Center

Wording of notable height rankings

The lead paragraph mentions this building's height ranking on three lists:

1. It's the tallest building in Philadelphia.
2. It's the eight-tallest building in the U.S.
3. It's the tallest building in the U.S. that isn't in either Manhattan or Chicago.

The third fact implies the first, so some care is needed in presenting these facts. (We wouldn't want to say, for example, that "it's the tallest U.S. building outside of Manhattan and Chicago, and it's also the tallest in Philadelphia.") The previous wording was mine, and it acknowledged the linkage in this way:

The 59 floor building, with a height of 1,121 feet (342 m), will be the eighth-tallest U.S. building, and the tallest in Philadelphia (in fact, the tallest outside of Manhattan and Chicago).

[User talk:Castncoot] changed that to a simple list:

The 59 floor building, with a height of 1,121 feet (342 m), will be the eighth-tallest U.S. building, the tallest building in Philadelphia, and the tallest U.S. building outside of Manhattan and Chicago.

I like my version better (unsurprisingly). But I don't want to be stubborn about this. Is the distinction I'm making an unimportant one that I should let go? TypoBoy (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor recently edited the statement that the new building is "the tallest in the Western Hemisphere outside Manhattan and Chicago", changing "Manhattan" to "New York City". This is a weaker statement, since New York City is a proper superset of Manhattan. (If don't see why this is true, consider that it's easier to be the hundredth-greatest chess player outside Europe than it is to be the hundredth-greatest chess player outside Norway. The latter ranking still spares you comparison with Magnus Carlsson but puts you in competition with all the grand masters of, for instance, Russia.)

The same edit linked the name "New York City" to the List of tallest buildings in New York City article. I consider that a worthwhile addition. So I intend to keep the link, but go back to the stronger statement. Note that the article List of tallest buildings in Manhattan is a redirect to List of tallest buildings in New York City, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. That doesn't make it the wrong thing to link to here.

If anybody has differing ideas about this, let's discuss them here. TypoBoy (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It is likewise a stronger statement to say that the CTC is the tallest building in Pennsylvania than to say that it is the tallest building in Philadelphia. Since Philadelphia is a subset of Pennsylvania, any building in Philadelphia that can lay claim to the title of "tallest in Pennsylvania" must necessarily be the tallest in Philadelphia. TypoBoy (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Domain of ninth rank

The lede currently calls CTC "the ninth-tallest building in the United States and the tallest outside Manhattan and Chicago". That appears to be an understatement; isn't it actually the ninth-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere and the tallest outside Manhattan and Chicago? There's no taller building on the lists of tallest buildings in Canada (306 m), Mexico (a 300 m building under construction), South America (300 m), Central America (284 m), or Latin America (300 m).

The tricky thing is, what's a source for this? The list of tallest buildings in the world only goes down to 350m because of the Old World's architectural forest.

Is there an authoritative ranking of all buildings anywhere whose height exceeds 311 meters? TypoBoy (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat is the apparent authority, and they state 9th tallest in NA (& US) but their world list & US/NA "completed" lists seem to be missing the Aon Center (Chicago) (see graph), so CTC appears to be the 8th tallest in NA/US in those lists, incorrectly. Anyway, 30 Hudson Yards topped out in July and is almost complete, along with many others, so CTC is technically already 10th and will be out of the top ten soon enough. Better hurry... :) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Aon Center is apparently having an observation deck installed, so its height will go up a bit. CTBUH oddly lists it only as a "proposed" building. Why not just update its height when done? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Section reorganization

The article would benefit from a gallery. The building has a Wikimedia Commons category. I encourage editors to add to it, and change the selection of photos displayed and their order.

Also, the "Use" and "Floors" sections are doing the same job, and "Floors" isn't very good at it. I intend to combine them. I'll keep the name "Use" for now, for want of a better one. (Change it if you have a better one.) TypoBoy (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed WP:MOVE to Comcast Technology Center

The powers that be here at Wikipedia may want to properly move this page, based on recent news. I would do it myself, but I'd probably make a mistake and maybe insult someone in the process. - 2001:558:1404:102:0:0:0:11D4 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as unopposed. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Comcast Innovation and Technology Center → Comcast Technology Center – Comcast, the building's owner, which came up with the name "Comcast Innovation and Technology Center" (the current article title) now uses the name "Comcast Technology Center". TypoBoy (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

photos are great; ads not so much

The article has been improved today by the addition of photos like this drone shot. Unfortunately, the pictures are emblazoned with ads for a real-estate photography business. This seems like a problem; I recall hearing something about Wikipedia not allowing ads.

The images are released with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Does that mean that anybody can chop the ad off the bottom and post the result? TypoBoy (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Topped out?

Looks like it may have topped out but not officially announced yet ... philly.curbed.com article Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Still not sure as nothing on Comcast site about it and these quotes from Curbed Philly make it seem a bit doubtful - "Liberty Property Trust did not confirm an official topping off, but said in a statement provided to Curbed Philly, “We are now above the 1,050 feet” (not up to 1,121 feet?) and ... “We will be continuing our work at the top of the building through the end of December.” Maybe the tree seen in the video was just hoisted up early and is set aside up there till it's really topped out. Anyway, time will tell. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What is there to be "not sure" about? That Curbed article does not say that the Comcast Technology Center has been topped out. It says only that it's now the tallest building in Philadelphia.

The building does seem to have reached its full height, or nearly so. Maybe Comcast and Liberty are delaying so they can make the topping-out ceremony a surprise.

But we shouldn't say it has been topped out until a reliable source has reported it. TypoBoy (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, what is there to be "not sure" about... lots of stuff:

• "Christmas tree perched on top of the spire" (strongly suggests it was topped out)
• "The tree typically commemorates the topping off of a building..." (so, it's def topped out then?)
• "...if one squints hard enough one can see that there’s a tree on top" (maybe so, maybe just something else...)
• "Developer Liberty Property Trust did not confirm an official topping off" (so maybe not...)
• video is dated Nov.21st (so maybe as early as sometime last week...)
• photo, possibly showing a tree, is undated (27th? 28th?...)
• article dated the 28th but text is added here on the 27th, w/o a ref, then re-added next day w/ref (the one previously copied above on same day)
• editor sets date to the day before article, though that's not stated in the article (this is the electronic age, not the print age, so we shouldn't assume the report and photos are already a day old, should we?)

Readers should feel 100% confident w/all that? Maybe they're just delaying announcement for whatever reason, but maybe it's still not really topped out. That's why this editor is "officially unsure". ;) To be properly encyclopedic, at the moment, the article should say something like "Video and photographic records indicate that the tower may have topped out sometime between the 21st and the 28th of November, but no official statement has been released." Brian W. Schaller (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is abundantly unclear whether they're finished hanging structural steel. I misunderstood your previous comment; I thought you were saying you weren't sure whether this Wikipedia article should say that the building has been topped out. It seems clear that, since we don't know whether it has been topped out, we shouldn't state as a fact that it has.

Yet the article is currently making that claim. What's up with that? It's wrong, isn't it? TypoBoy (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In this discussion of "topping out" the building, we haven't been clear on whether the term means the completion of the steel structure of the building or the little ceremony that often accompanies it. Looking at the topping out article, I see that it says it's the latter. We may well wonder whether the steel structure is complete. There's no doubt there hasn't yet been a ceremony, since they would publicize it.

The Curbed article says that the building is now taller than its older brother, and speculates that the topping out is about to happen. I edited the article to jibe with that. TypoBoy (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the statement was too definitive at this point, based on that sole reference. Brensalsa was the editor who added the text, using the ref above, which I later formatted a bit more & archived. Maybe they witnessed the tree hoisting or later placement, or have some additional evidence or inside info, as the ref was posted the day after the first 'topping out' edit. OK, I see you re-worded it to match ref. Thx. It was reported on the 28th though, not the 27th. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The building has been topped out in terms of it reaching it's height of 1,121 feet. Although there has been no ceremony, the Wikipedia article for Topping out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topping_out) states that "topping off is a builders' rite traditionally held when the last beam (or its equivalent) is placed atop a structure during its construction." A ceremony doesn't necessarily need to be held for a building to be topped out. Pictures such as this one and this one show the crane moving the final piece of steel into place. I personally think the article should say that the building has been topped out. The pictures I linked were taken on November 27th 2017. Brensalsa (talk)

"Topping out" is the ceremony, not the completion of the structure. The quote you pasted from the topping out article explains that. ("Rite" and "ceremony" are synonyms.) It's obvious that they're going to have the topping out in the next few days. Then the article can say it has been topped out without being wrong. I'll leave it to another editor to make that change. I hope you get to do it. TypoBoy (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's topped out, as evidenced by the philly.com article which basically shows the "builders' rite" occurring as the tree and mini statue were placed on Monday. Having a later 2nd ceremony with company officials to commemorate that occurrence won't make it any more real. The Wikipedia article on topping out may be misleading as the ref for it doesn't seem to state that an official ceremony must take place for topping out to have occurred, just that the builder has placed the last structural steel piece, at which point they usually also place a tree on top. So, 'ga head' Brensalsa and say it's been topped out. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The Eagles' season will end some time in the next three weeks. I'm guessing that that's what they've been waiting for, and that they'll have a topping out ceremony shortly afterwards. We'll see. TypoBoy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Outside Manhattan and Chicago, it's the tallest building for quite a ways

The lede included the fun fact that the CTC is the tallest building in the United States outside of Manhattan and Chicago. I just changed that to "tallest in North America outside of Manhattan and Chicago", backing it up with a link to the list of tallest buildings in North America article.

The thing is, it's actually the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere outside of M&C. There are articles listing the tallest buildings in South America, Latin America and Central America, and the tallest building on each is shorter than CTC's 342 meters. So where we were saying "the United States" and we're now saying "North America", we could (and should) be saying "the Western Hemisphere". But, you know, . TypoBoy (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)