6ABC tears down its iconographic circular headquarters

[Phillyurban8]

Construction recently finished on 6ABC's new bland TV station headquarters on Monument Blvd and City Ave. I had no idea that they'd tear down their old iconic circular studio adjacent to it. What a shame. It was a nice piece of modern architecture and very distinct.

6ABC's new building is a discombobulated mass of parallel rectangular solids clad in various materials. Very look de jour among contemporary architects.

[DCnPhilly]

Seems to be a lot of demolition, relocation, and reconstruction going on for such a bad economy. Why not find creative ways to update and reuse these cool buildings.

Construction recently finished on 6ABC's new bland TV station headquarters on Monument Blvd and City Ave. I had no idea that they'd tear down their old iconic circular studio adjacent to it. What a shame. It was a nice piece of modern architecture and very distinct.

6ABC's new building is a discombobulated mass of parallel rectangular solids clad in various materials. Very look de jour among contemporary architects.

[mixiboi]

For the most part is because they want a new building there, so they can do so much more...


But keeping the old building was not apart of the idea, as it is nice, but it is also outdated for use in the 21 century media...

[Phillyurban8]

The "roundhouse" was cool. I wish they had reclad it and then created an adjunct on adjacent area if they needed more square footage. They had a lot of visibility from City Ave and now that's gone.

What if they had applied a curved, mesh curtain wall with projected images from some of their broadcasts as a form of advertisement? So many possibilities . . . .

The new building is similar to 10NBC's but not as good.

[DCnPhilly]

What if they had applied a curved, mesh curtain wall with projected images from some of their broadcasts as a form of advertisement? So many possibilities . . . .

That sounds hot.

It kind of looks like the Hirshorn Gallery in DC.

[desolate]

Cool isn't "functional"

It's something preservationists forget ALL the time.

Just because something is cool or historic looking doesn't mean it's functional, usable, profitable, safe, etc.

Example, a stone home from the 19th Century lacks modern insulation. plumbing, windows, roofing.

TO salvage it would be more expensive than building a much larger modern homes, hence why they are normally converted to museums than livable residences.

Modern structures like ABC or City of Phila's Police HQ were designed by architects normally for looks and not function.

Many AIA award winning buildings are hard for the people to actually use in Philadelphia (Like Richards Labs and Skirkanich Hall which is a disaster as a functional building but revered and protected by architects)

Or the building was designed for a purpose that's no longer needed and requires a massive expense to renovate (30th Post Office, the failed JFK conversion at the base of South St)

[Phillyurban8]

^And that's the same attitude which allowed all of those great buildings on North Broad to be torn down in the 60s and 70s!

[Scoats]

First the weird prototype ARCO station now this.

[DCnPhilly]

First the weird prototype ARCO station now this.

What's the prototype ARCO station?

[markedixon]

Example, a stone home from the 19th Century lacks modern insulation. plumbing, windows, roofing.

I own and live in a house whose earliest section is built of stone, built in 1816. It has modern plumbing and a 20-year-old roof.

The windows are from the 1940s, with much newer triple-track storm windows that -- according to an energy audit -- are nearly as efficient as new windows.

And stone is a great insulator.

[DCnPhilly]

I own and live in a house whose earliest section is built of stone, built in 1816. It has modern plumbing and a 20-year-old roof.

The windows are from the 1940s, with much newer triple-track storm windows that -- according to an energy audit -- are nearly as efficient as new windows.

And stone is a great insulator.

Also, not too many people are renovating 19th century houses that have not been improved since the 19th century. Like you say, you have modern plumbing, a roof from the 80's, windows from the 40's, and stone from 1816. This is the case with most old houses. Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically given the city's history, a lot of Philadelphians have this aversion to anything old and if it's not clad in vinyl siding and doesn't have central air it might as well be a shell.

[guinsu]

Also, not too many people are renovating 19th century houses that have not been improved since the 19th century. Like you say, you have modern plumbing, a roof from the 80's, windows from the 40's, and stone from 1816. This is the case with most old houses. Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically given the city's history, a lot of Philadelphians have this aversion to anything old and if it's not clad in vinyl siding and doesn't have central air it might as well be a shell.

I live in a building from the 1820s, it was renovated in the 90s (as well as before I am sure) so I have new plumbing, electric and (some) drywall. Windows and doors are pretty old but I just had the weather striping and such redone and since the panes were replaced with double pane the are efficient enough. Plus the old owner put in central air. I think I have a great combination of old and new and I can't imagine a new house of this quality being that much cheaper, if at all. I wouldn't have the cool facade or the 100+ year old hardwood floors either. Frankly a little more work tightening this place up and my utility bills should be pretty low.

[desolate]

That's "maintaining" a home over time.


Very different than renovating this.



or trying to convert say an old Navy Yard warehouse for reuse.

Urban Outfitters paid $110,000,000.00 for an open warehouse conversion.



Channel 6 most likely needed the same thing. A purpose built building.

[thunda]

or trying to convert say an old Navy Yard warehouse for reuse.

Urban Outfitters paid $110,000,000.00 for an open warehouse conversion.

As el pointed out on the other thread, it's only slightly higher than the kind of schlocky, suburban new construction you seem to favor. And the employees love the buildings, as do the the employees of the converted power station in Chester. Working in a nice space increases morale and productivity.

[markedixon]

Very different than renovating this.

Based solely on the photo...

What I see are two houses that need new windows and some junk "modern" siding removed. Inside, probably plumbing and electrical work. I have no reason to believe that those houses aren't solidly built. Their side walls weren't meant to be exposed, but if fixed up properly, they might inspire some developer to attach something new.

Whether this makes financial sense depends on the zip code -- and, perhaps, both civic action and policies that encourage preservation over demolition.

[DCnPhilly]

Sadly what happened to those rowhouses can happen to any building after less than a decade of neglect. I was referring to razing maintained but outdated buildings in lieu of rehabilitation.

There's rarely any integrity in modern office design short of its technology. I agree with thunda. Buildings with history and great architecture inspire their tenants.

[hammersklavier]

I agree with that too.

That's one of the reasons I wonder why we've got such nice big abandoned warehouses in Callowhill which can be renovated into nice office buildings (and they're a lot closer to Penn Center, too!)

[DCnPhilly]

I agree with that too.

That's one of the reasons I wonder why we've got such nice big abandoned warehouses in Callowhill which can be renovated into nice office buildings (and they're a lot closer to Penn Center, too!)

My office moved from Penn Center into one of those big Callowhill warehouses. Most of them are actually occupied. Perfect examples of why old buildings that have been maintained over the years don't need a $20M overhaul to be practical.

I'm not sure, but I have gotten the impression that the problem with rehabbing the city's large abandoned buildings is that no one knows who owns them and the city is too unorganized to auction them off. So buildings that had been maintained over the years sit and rot for decades until they are beyond repair, save for the rare altruist like Urban Outfitters.

[desolate]

As el pointed out on the other thread, it's only slightly higher than the kind of schlocky, suburban new construction you seem to favor. And the employees love the buildings, as do the the employees of the converted power station in Chester. Working in a nice space increases morale and productivity.

Er not really.

It's cheaper to build new than to bring an old building up to code.

Please remember things like asbestos removal, lead removal, roofing replacement, plumbing codes, electrical codes, fire codes.

Some buildings are easier than others. It's a case by case but officially as far as all the projects I've priced it's cheaper to start over than rehab.

Specialties required for the needed rehab such as Abatement, Masonry Repair, Survey and Engineering needed to not only located interior conduit and routing but how to salvage/merge it over general new construction techniques is an easy one to point to for increased cost.

It's not as simple as "let's just re-occupy this building"


Much of it is increased labor-material costs.



Don't any of you watch this Old House?

[johnnie]

Don't any of you watch this Old House?

Great show.
Usually they save the "old" house though!