Design & Innovation

First of all, let me preface my words with a few facts:

1. The Cira Centre was completed in late 2005 and is a 434-foot tall skyscraper in University City (30th and Arch, to be exact)
2. I lived directly across from the Cira Centre for almost three years, and both of my windows faced directly toward it.
3. All night long until about 4:30 AM, the Cira Center lights up with either a solid color or a pattern of colors. Sometimes the patterns undulate and wave, inducing nausea and sometimes triggering epileptic seizures.
4. Despite this, I actually like it…

I imagine the Cira Centre (henceforth referred to as “CC”) represents a significant building design for Philadelphia, often evoking strong reactions for its asymmetrical shape and over-the-top light show. Its design, however, isn’t its most remarkable aspect. I was thinking a lot about Maya Lin’s emphasis on the natural landscape as a provider of context for her work. It seems to me that a similar force may have come into play as plans for the CC took shape. Virtually marooned on an island of mid- to low-rise buildings, the CC dominates the West Philadelphia skyline, and perhaps needed to be an all-out attention-getter rather than a stately granite tower.

But that led me to wonder - does an urban landscape affect architectural design in the same way a natural one does? Urban landscapes represent the design of countless individuals over hundreds of years, each of which helps to create the context for a given structure. Nature, on the other hand, is distinctly not designed, and therefore represents only natural forces. This is probably a question for my architect friends, but I thought I’d pose it here anyway.

I’m continually intrigued by cities’ ever changing skylines. Before One Liberty Place opened in 1987, Philadelphia had an unremarkable skyline topped off with an aging William Penn. With the addition of the Cira Center, the Comcast Center (dubbed the “Memory Stick” by the Philadelphia media), and eventually, the American Commerce Center, Philadelphia finally has a skyline worthy of a worldclass metropolis. However, are the architects of Philadelphia’s future skyline simply following status quo? In comparison to other major urban structures, Philadelphia’s skyline is kind of…blah.

Take Chicago, for example. Although Chicago has always had an enviable urban landscape, its architecture and outdoor art has gotten exponentially cooler in recent years, and subsequently, so has the city itself. One of my favorite urban outdoor artworks is Anish Kapoor’s Cloud Gate in Grant Park. What makes this piece so accessible and iconic is the fact that it is a familiar shape; as I call it, “the bean.” Cloud Gate is similar to Frank Gehry’s fish designs in that it is undeniably modern yet takes its shape from the most basic, organic forms.

The trap that Philadelphia architects have fallen into is assuming that “modern” means “Jetson-esque.” Just because a skyscraper is modern doesn’t mean that it must be metallic, angular, space-like.

In addition to being cliche, Philadelphia’s skyscrapers are also recycled ideas. Take a look at Shanghai’s World Financial Center and New York’s Freedom Tower. Look familiar? Like I said, blah.

Philadelphia should take a page from Chicago’s and Taipei’s books and design architecture that is both modern and timeless. Chicago’s Spire is futuristic, yes, but it doesn’t feel trite, because nothing like the spiral skyscraper has been done before. Taipei’s Taipei 101 is also wonderfully designed because it is a modern twist on ancient structures like Incan and Mayan temples.