PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[AaronPGH]

Probably a large ask, but it would be great if the playhouse would actually be raised up a floor, leaving the ground floor open to restaurants/retail, and the entrances/box office.

[Evergrey]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...chevron-close-to-hiring-builder-for.html

Chevron close to hiring builder for new Moon campus

Oil and gas giant Chevron Corp. is close to reaching a final decision on a construction team to build a new regional office campus on property it has under agreement in Moon Township.

I’ve received no word from Chevron (NYSE: CVX) on this yet.

But sources familiar with the process indicate the California company has narrowed a list of construction companies for the project, a campus slated for more than 60 acres near Robinson Towne Centre near the Parkway West.

The fact that the company is close to hiring a construction firm, if it hasn’t already, marks the latest sign that Chevron, which ranks as the third-largest company on the Fortune 500, is commiting to build a substantial regional office in the Pittsburgh area.

In May, Chevron remained somewhat noncomittal when the company confirmed that it had the two major properties in Moon Township under agreement. At the time, the company only described the property as a potential location and indicated that it expected to make a decision by the end of the year.

In choosing a construction team, Chevron has required the firm or firms to have worked in Allegheny County.

That means a local construction firm could be involved in building a office campus that could be upward of 500,000 square feet and come with a budget of more than $200 million in what has still been a difficult business environment for local construction.

I’m hearing that $200 million-plus budget value from my sources this week as well as Jeff Burd’s Building Pittsburgh blog and even a marketing brochure distributed by the Pittsburgh office of HFF for a piece of land in neighboring North Fayette, which points out the property’s proximity to a $250 million development site by Chevron.

...

[photoLith]

The areas a dead zone now, it's kinda ghetto, this playhouse if they preserve the facades will be a good use of that now dead area. So is there a consensus on whether or not they are actually preserving the facades?

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

So is there a consensus on whether or not they are actually preserving the facades?

Details remain murky.

[photoLith]

Well were going to find out today right?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Well were going to find out today right?

I believe off-the-record briefings are supposed to happen from 1-2pm, so now it is a question of someone reporting what happened.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by photoLith

The areas a dead zone now, it's kinda ghetto, this playhouse if they preserve the facades will be a good use of that now dead area. So is there a consensus on whether or not they are actually preserving the facades?

This was pretty much why I've been in favor of the playhouse whether or not it saves the facades. Obviously I PREFER the facades to be saved and incorporated into the design, but anything that can inject some new life into the block in question will be a huge benefit for the entire southern part of downtown!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[photoLith]

I would rather see the area be a dead zone and the buildings still there than have a modern piece of shit in its place even if it injects some life. I'm a hardcore preservationist though. I just think it's completely short sighted and moronic to tear down three very attractive and detailed buildings when the facades could easily be preserved.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

I would rather see the area be a dead zone and the buildings still there than have a modern piece of shit in its place even if it injects some life. I'm a hardcore preservationist though. I just think it's completely short sighted and moronic to tear down three very attractive and detailed buildings when the facades could easily be preserved.

I'm with photoLith. No compromise!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Obviously I PREFER the facades to be saved and incorporated into the design, but anything that can inject some new life into the block in question will be a huge benefit for the entire southern part of downtown!

I'm pretty sure we can afford to be picky at this point. With Market Square being a roaring success, PNC Tower going up across the street, Oxford doing something else across the street (renovation or a new tower), Market Square Gardens going up just down the street, Wood Street being renovated around the corner . . . this is not a location destined to remain dormant.

Instead, I am far more concerned about blowing one of the last remaining big developable spaces in the heart of Downtown on something unworthy of the space.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm pretty sure we can afford to be picky at this point. With Market Square being a roaring success, PNC Tower going up across the street, Oxford doing something else across the street (renovation or a new tower), Market Square Gardens going up just down the street, Wood Street being renovated around the corner . . . this is not a location destined to remain dormant.

Instead, I am far more concerned about blowing one of the last remaining big developable spaces in the heart of Downtown on something unworthy of the space.

Agreed on both points.

We can afford to be picky now. We are no longer a frail, desperate Rust Belt city. We must demand high-quality development that maximizes the opportunity of a site.

The reason everyone complains about this particular block being so "dormant"... is because Point Park University bought up the block five years ago, quickly evicted the tenants, and has been sitting on the vacant properties ever since... covering the ornate architecture with lame banners advertising the university.

Over time... as the rest of Downtown charged forward with its transformation, Point Park University sat idle... eliminating some of the most attractive components of its plan. Now we find out that the university had no intention of adaptive reuse of the historic structures on this block.

We Pittsburghers must demand better. If a not-for-profit university is gonna take block after block of precious Downtown real estate off the tax rolls... we must encourage them to strive for the highest standard in urban design and external benefits for the community.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm pretty sure we can afford to be picky at this point. With Market Square being a roaring success, PNC Tower going up across the street, Oxford doing something else across the street (renovation or a new tower), Market Square Gardens going up just down the street, Wood Street being renovated around the corner . . . this is not a location destined to remain dormant.

Instead, I am far more concerned about blowing one of the last remaining big developable spaces in the heart of Downtown on something unworthy of the space.

I will remain optimistic about the new Playhouse, at least until the design details are released. It will be a net plus for the neighborhood---a three-theater performing arts center can only attract people to that part of town. Westlake Reed is a competent architectural that is capable of good work and does have a significant practice in performance spaces. I think the university knows what is at stake, if only because the Heinz interests are involved and the foundation has been very insistent on high-caliber design. Do I hope that the facades will survive? Yes. But more important is that the design of the new Playhouse be exceptional. Why? Because it is going to happen.

I hadn't heard that Point Park drove out the tenants from the three Forbes buildings. Even Honus Wagner? It was reported that the sale agreement granted the store five years to vacate, more than they intended to remain in operation. Besides, are we not happy with Three PNC? The bank warehoused the buildings on that site much longer and did not pay a lot of attention to the tenant mix while waiting for the conditions conducive to the start of the project. I would not hold the university to a different standard.

Yes, the university bought up a lot of properties when they were cheap. Seems smart to me. And a vote of confidence on the part of the school in its city and its neighborhood. Can we now expect that the school alter its long range plan because the real estate market in that area has improved? Rather, what we can demand from the school is a great design that works for the students and school as well as the city as a whole. So it can't be ugly. Or even marginally attractive. The lack of restaurants and retail in the development is not a deal breaker, at least to me. There will be restaurants and retail within a minutes' walk in either direction.

Someone wrote that he is a hardcore preservationist. I admire the passion but be too hardcore and nothing gets built. I consider myself a pragmatic preservationist. I want the facades saved but will focus more intently on the design of the new construction.

Interestingly, the hardcore preservation battle that I would wage is at the other end of the block. The Frank & Seder building, while not a stellar design, is a competent attractive building, perhaps not historic but certainly worth preserving. F&S fronts on three streets, which gives it significant impact on the downtown streetscape. Plus, I have been told that there are actually interiors that can be restored.

Seems like only Glowrock and I are encouraged by the new Playhouse proposal so far. I hope that we are right. Drinks on me if we aren't.

[BrianTH]

Quality of design is one issue. Intensity of land use is another, independent issue--for a blank slate build on premium land, the scale they are talking about is way too small.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Probably a large ask, but it would be great if the playhouse would actually be raised up a floor, leaving the ground floor open to restaurants/retail, and the entrances/box office.

AaronPGH, I like your idea alot. The only hitch to me--apart from the designers going back to square one and the cost of the project increasing---is that raising the new space up a floor might prevent the old bank lobby with the vaulted stained glass ceiling from being incorporated into the new Playhouse design. I love the idea of the bank lobby being used by the Playhouse.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Quality of design is one issue. Intensity of land use is another, independent issue--for a blank slate build on premium land, the scale they are talking about is way too small.

I see your point to a degree. I would ideally want the residential component to be restored. But nothing more dense. Certainly nothing approaching a high-rise. I personally like the prospective openness of the site after construction. When developers are clamoring for large sites for high-rise construction, I would direct them to the various parking garages that line Smithfield Street.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Certainly nothing approaching a high-rise.

I completely disagree. If you are going to start with a clean 40,000 sqft parcel in the middle of Downtown, you should be thinking along the lines of PNC Tower or the Oxford Tower. If you just want to build a cute little six-story building, you should be looking out in places like the Baum-Centre corridor or East Liberty (and I think that might even be seen as a waste in East Liberty in coming decades, but for now that would be zoning-appropriate).

When developers are clamoring for large sites for high-rise construction, I would direct them to the various parking garages that line Smithfield Street.

Eventually that might be viable, but right now parking is already in short supply in the core of Downtown. So you'd somehow have to replace all that parking (I guess by digging way underground), which would add a great deal to the cost.

Again, I just don't get why that would make sense compared to using an available large parcel for a large building without the need to replace all that parking.

[Jonboy1983]

^^ I think I would have to agree. Number one, a high-rise should be pursued here in the range of at least 10 to 18 stories, and I think Point Park could conceivably do this. This leads me to my second point that the dormitory component needs to be revisited. Frankly, the university will likely need it at some point in the future anyway, am I right with this?

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I completely disagree. If you are going to start with a clean 40,000 sqft parcel in the middle of Downtown, you should be thinking along the lines of PNC Tower or the Oxford Tower. If you just want to build a cute little six-story building, you should be looking out in places like the Baum-Centre corridor or East Liberty (and I think that might even be seen as a waste in East Liberty in coming decades, but for now that would be zoning-appropriate).



Eventually that might be viable, but right now parking is already in short supply in the core of Downtown. So you'd somehow have to replace all that parking (I guess by digging way underground), which would add a great deal to the cost.

Again, I just don't get why that would make sense compared to using an available large parcel for a large building without the need to replace all that parking.

Explain further. Not sure which remarks are directed at the new Playhouse project or my off-the-cuff comment about getting rid of the parking garages on Smithfield. But I will comment on each possibility:

Re the Playhouse: I probably agree with you re density. Hell, I live in the middle of Manhattan. But I dont think that density needs to be measured in half-block increments. To do so means that no low rise building makes the cut downtown. You lose building diversity, views and light without some lower scale buildings. The Playhouse will take up about 50% of the block bounded by Forbes, Wood, Smithfield and Fourth. It will the equivalent of a four or five story building. Granted, not too high. But the block also has the Bank Tower and who's to say that the east end of the block is not eventually developed with some tall building (perhaps developed because of its proximity to the new Playhouse). Plus PNC and perhaps a new Oxford tower will be right across the street. And the older Fourth Ave buildings btwn Wood and Smithfield, while not super high, are tall and form a continuous wall of building. I don't see a density issue here. That said, I would like the dormitory restored to the plan. How unfortunate that the university's COPA students would not be brought downtown with the Playhouse. Plus, this would relieve the need for the university to continue to buy relatively small buildings in which to house students.

Re Smithfield: You're right that any parking garages removed would need the parking spaces replaced. But as the city continues to develop and there are fewer obvious lots for large scale development, wouldnt the parking structures eventually be seen as viable candidates for replacement? Perhaps with high rises having underground parking? I can't support this suggestion other than to say that I have always hated the parade of parking structures along Smithfield.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

^^ I think I would have to agree. Number one, a high-rise should be pursued here in the range of at least 10 to 18 stories, and I think Point Park could conceivably do this. This leads me to my second point that the dormitory component needs to be revisited. Frankly, the university will likely need it at some point in the future anyway, am I right with this?

I cannot think of a performing arts center that is located in the base of a skyscraper. I'm not an engineer but the large column-free spaces that the performance spaces would require might make this idea either undoable or really expensive. The dorm that was proposed and shelved was, from my understanding, to be in one corner of the footprint. Would PPU construct a building 10 to 18 stories high because they might need it later? I guess it would take more money upfront and we are not talking about a wealthy university.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I just don't get why that would make sense compared to using an available large parcel for a large building without the need to replace all that parking.

First, I just figured out how to bracket certain quotes. Duh...

Is your expression "an available large parcel" a reference to vacant downtown lots in general? If so, I would like to see the vacant lots in town developed. I think it behooves the city to encourage these surface parking lots to be developed, to the extent that the city can guide development. But if market forces suggest that a building on Smithfield would be more easily rented than one on Grant, then by all means the developer should run the numbers to tear down a parking structure, put the parking underground and construct a high-rise. Not saying that it would be feasible but it might. And if not today then maybe next year. Or in five years.

After Smithfield Street, I would set my aim on the parking structure in the northeast corner of Gateway Center with the pedestrian walkway to the old Horne's store. I hate that building!