Quote:
Originally Posted by shantyside
I have an accurate neighborhood map of the area and know where they begin and end, and I don't care how you take my criticism because it's obvious most of the people on this forum didn't go to architecture school and if they did they've learned to become apologists for the hand that feeds them - the developers
if i'm sitting on a crit in architecture school and a student presents that design and asks me to critique it, what i'm going to say is you need to reduce the height of the buildings as they extend down Penn avenue so the project fits in within the surrounding urban context - as it's drawn now it looks like a goddamn suburban office park
architecture sucks today because architects have no balls - they'll draw whatever the developer tells them to draw
the fictional hero howard roarke knew how to deal with clients - that spirit no longer exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk
|
I'm not buying your appeal to authority argument which boils down to: I went to architecture school so my opinion is correct and nobody is allowed to disagree. Well, allow me to retort!
My opinion is that this development should not be height-limited. The goal shouldn't be to match existing buildings heights. Instead, the goal should be to reinstate density.
This site was previously a strip mall and it is across the street from another former strip mall, currently being redeveloped into a mixed-use complex. That neighboring complex will be 6-stories tall with a 38000 sq ft grocery, 230 apartments, and 400 parking spaces.
It is directly across the tracks from a big box store with a massive parking garage.
And most importantly, this is in a TOD zone, across from the $158 million Eastside Transit Oriented Development. The transit center includes 360 multifamily housing units, a 554-space shared-use parking garage, a 120-space bike garage, and 43,000 square feet of retail space.
So in my opinion, this is precisely the location for tall buildings at high density. That's the entire purpose of transit-oriented development, density in close proximity to transit. If anything the zoning needs to be changed. Matching pre-existing building heights needs to take a backseat to proper urban design. Density and height belong next to transit. This is an important part of the solution to our housing affordability crisis.
While the proposal isn't exactly what I would design. I do appreciate the density and adherence to good urban design practices. It maintains a streetwall along Penn and eliminates almost all of the surface parking.
Was it the glass facades that set off the suburban office park rant? In Pittsburgh, glass might be interpreted as suburban since we haven't seen much new development in the city. But elsewhere, it's quite common in downtowns. My take is that the density, minimal parking and proximity to transit make this precisely NOT a suburban office park.