Edit: Beaten to it! Oh well, there were some differences so I will leave my post below.
Article about the Produce Terminal proposals:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201408070227
Quote:
Under Ferchill’s $35.6 million plan, the terminal would be converted into 192 one-bedroom apartments and 17 two-bedroom units. In keeping with the building’s past, a 10,850-square-foot produce market would be built at one end. As an alternative, Ferchill is proposing additional retail space on each side of two portals through the building.
McCaffery, working with Chuck Hammel, Pitt-Ohio Express president, also is proposing residences — 104 apartments and 14 live-work units — plus 35,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of office space at a cost of $46.4 million.
|
Hopefully we can get some renderings and such, but that alternative Ferchill proposal sounds sort of what I had in mind (big market on one end, retail around the portals, residential in between). The McCaffrey proposal also sounds pretty good and some office could be useful.
By the way, the PHLF just baffles me:
Quote:
The Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation spoke against all three of the plans. Project Manager Karamagi Rujumba argued that the portals would disrupt the building’s length, one of its defining characteristics. He also said all three plans rely heavily on historic tax credits, which he maintained was “highly speculative at best.”
PHLF, he added, favored the Buncher plan, which includes a $22 million renovation that would convert the old warehouse to office and retail uses.
|
That Buncher plan, of course, involves lopping off 1/3 of the building. I think that is just SLIGHTLY more disruptive of its "defining length" than passages. Sheesh.