PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[East Edge]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...ucture-in-bid-to-halt-demolition-689515/

Ok..I consider myself a preservationist but really? Doe we really need to keep this underutilized barrier to the river 100% intact? Yes there are some really cool architectural features to this that could be celebrated but feel that if done in the right way a clean cross section through the building done in a glass curtain wall on each end with lighting and landscaping on each side could be so dynamic as a gateway to the river. People arent thinking. I wonder if they are just looking for some level of control so that the building doesnt completely go away...that would be a crime. At least if it is designated a landmark there could be some compromise / input into its future.

[Evergrey]

Thanks for the construction pics, $5.

[DBR96A]

Is that Aldi on Baum Boulevard in the building where Baum Boulevard Dodge used to be?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by East Edge

I wonder if they are just looking for some level of control so that the building doesnt completely go away...that would be a crime. At least if it is designated a landmark there could be some compromise / input into its future.

That could be true. If it ended up being designated, the HRC would have to approve any changes to the exterior (including demolitions). But perhaps the HRC would be willing to endorse a compromise. Still, that is all a very uncertain process.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by DBR96A

Is that Aldi on Baum Boulevard in the building where Baum Boulevard Dodge used to be?

I believe so, yes.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by glowrock

And this is a huge mistake. Preservationists are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to this one. Reducing a gigantic, ugly, one-story behemoth from roughly 1500' to roughly 1000' is not exactly what I'd call a full demolition. Why in the hell is this being so bitterly fought? I understand the issues against Buncher in general, but they don't even seem to be related to their proposals for the Riverfront property at all. They seem far more due to their past developments, period.

The Produce Terminal is definitely NOT worthy of such actions. Focus on the real issue of demolitions involving historic structures, of which there are many around Pittsburgh. The Produce Terminal is about as historic as a 1950's office building around here. It's not even remotely old by Pittsburgh standards!

Aaron (Glowrock)

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...last-move-to-raze-strip-terminal-689679/

Pittsburgh officials blast move to raze Strip produce terminal

May 30, 2013 12:27 am



...


While a local preservation group has moved to block the western third of the building from being demolished, two city council members, including Democratic mayoral nominee Bill Peduto, blasted the Buncher Co. on Wednesday for filing for a permit to raze it without first owning it.

Mr. Peduto said it was "wrong-headed" for Buncher to try to move ahead with the partial demolition before it had purchased the building for $1.8 million under an option agreement with the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported last week that a notice of intent to demolish, dated April 29, had been posted on the building after Buncher filed an application for a permit to raze 535 feet -- equal to nearly two football fields -- of it as part of a proposed $400 million residential and office development on the Allegheny riverfront.

Mr. Peduto said he plans to meet with URA and Buncher officials next week to discuss the project.

"I think this development can occur, but there needs to be sensible compromise on all sides," he said.

City Councilman Patrick Dowd, questioned whether Buncher even had the right to file for a permit to demolish part of the terminal when it didn't hold title to it. While the URA is listed as owner of the building on the application, the paperwork was signed by Michael Kutzer, Buncher's vice president of real estate.

Mr. Dowd charged that the application was "prematurely and inappropriately filed," equating it to a potential buyer of a house seeking a permit to demolish it before he formally completed the purchase.

"I don't see how they possibly could consider it," he said of the city's Bureau of Building Inspection. "If I'm the proper owner and apply, that's one thing. If I'm not the property owner, I don't believe I would have that right."

...


Mr. Dowd, who is holding up a $50 million tax increment financing plan for the proposed Buncher development because of concerns about the project, said he "wholeheartedly" supports Mr. Peduto's efforts to fashion a compromise.

"We worked on this together last fall. I think he has good vision on how we can do development in the Strip," he said.

...

[chiaroscuro]

Consultant takes blame after Anthony Weiner campaign site shows Pittsburgh skyline, not NYC's

[themaguffin]

I wish the city would be as passionately concerned with what Buncher wants to construct (and others really) as much as they are demonstrating with keeping 100% of a cartoonishly long building in a prime location.

I think we all agree that a significant portion of the building should be preserved, but I don't think it's either practical from a use stand point or even a preservation stand point to keep the entire structure as is.

[BrianTH]

I sometimes wonder how those still stuck in old ways of thinking about Pittsburgh react to things like this:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/news/economy/expat-hotspots/

The graphic alone must be very disconcerting:

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I wish the city would be as passionately concerned with what Buncher wants to construct (and others really) as much as they are demonstrating with keeping 100% of a cartoonishly long building in a prime location.

I think we all agree that a significant portion of the building should be preserved, but I don't think it's either practical from a use stand point or even a preservation stand point to keep the entire structure as is.

Its cartoonish length is exactly why that building is so awesome.

[AaronPGH]

Started this thread in the transportation section about the new "5 Ways" Strip District transit plan that was released today by the city. Lots of renderings and eye candy in the video!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=6146821#post6146821

The plan: http://www.youtube.com/embed/tcGfVGaVYPs

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Its cartoonish length is exactly why that building is so awesome.

No, it's why that freaking building is such an impediment to any extension of the street grid onto the riverfront development site...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[themaguffin]

Its cartoonish length is exactly why that building is so awesome

You don't think a smaller, but still very long version is not also awesome. The building is big. A smaller version would still be pretty damn big.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

This is an incredibly undervalued property.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2013/05/29/koppers-building-is-up-for-sale.html

Hmmmm a 475 foot historic, 356,000+ sq ft art deco skyscraper that sold for $13 million; ORRR you could purchase a nice lakefront house in Cleveland for $13 million instead!

This came into my email yesterday....

[Austinlee]

I cannot find the exact length of the Produce Terminal but it is said in the Post-Gazette that it is nearly 1,500 ft long. I decided to put that into perspective if that were a ship, it would be the second longest vessel in the history of the world. The longest ever was the 1,504 ft Seawise Giant supertanker which was decommissioned in 2009.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_longest_ships


http://www.aukevisser.nl/supertankers/id44.htm

The next closest was the supertanker Pierre Guillaumat at 1,359 ft and decommissioned in 1983.

They are much longer than any aircraft carrier or cruise ships ever built.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Its cartoonish length is exactly why that building is so awesome.

I kinda agree. Four blocks would still be an impressive length, though.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

No, it's why that freaking building is such an impediment to any extension of the street grid onto the riverfront development site...

Of course both things are true.

One possible solution would be to do the pass-through approach but actually keep the roof and uppermost part of the facade continuous (call it a "tunnel" plan). This might work best if the "tunnels" were just for pedestrians/bikes, although to my eye, given the elevated platform, you could do tunnels with pretty good clearance (edit: in fact Austinlee's picture pretty much shows where you could put the tunnel roofs while still allowing clearance for trucks).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I cannot find the exact length of the Produce Terminal but it is said in the Post-Gazette that it is nearly 1,500 ft long.

Just measuring on Google's satellite map and applying the scale marker, I get it right around 1480 feet.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Started this thread in the transportation section about the new "5 Ways" Strip District transit plan that was released today by the city. Lots of renderings and eye candy in the video!

Very slick video, and the basic approach they outline seems right. Of course any sort of streetcar or commuter rail remains uncertain at this point, but there isn't much downside to planning for the possibility.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Its cartoonish length is exactly why that building is so awesome.

Exactly. The building is one of the most unique buildings I've seen, it's length is what makes it so bad ass.