PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[daviderik]

Market Square Gardens....Has a nice ring to it.

[Wheelingman04]

That vacant land looks terrible. I just walked by the site last week. I really hope they move on the construction here quickly because this is going to look great!

Buncher has no idea what an urban project looks like. He has no business messing up the Produce Terminal. Plus his Cranberry Township style development within such an urban city doesn't look right at all but I guess we are going to have it eventually. Point Park University is making me sick. Sometimes I will they were a suburban school. There have been so many gems lost in this city already. It is hard to stomach.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

It's about time that lot got developed. It's been a bare strip of ground ever since I moved here.

It wasn't much better before it was a bare strip of ground. The crummiest block Downtown other than the Goodyear between Penn and Ft. Duquesne.

[photoLith]

There weren't any good looking buildings there?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

There weren't any good looking buildings there?

For now you can still see what it looked like on Google Streetview:

http://goo.gl/maps/z9g28

There were some historic buildings, but they had been extensively renovated over the years and were pretty much a mess. The only one I thought was even worth thinking about saving was the one right next to the ASDA building, the one with the Foto Hut.

http://goo.gl/maps/EfNvM

The thing is, it was a real frankenstein building--you can see from the side it was a blend of different additions over the years, and so you couldn't really target anything in particular for historic preservation.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by photoLith

There weren't any good looking buildings there?

A few. There was a beautiful three story building that housed a National Record Mart. It was badly maintained but could have been restored. It was torn down sometime after I moved out of town. The George Aiken building was one of the last to be torn down but no great loss---if it was older and once attractive, all attributes were lost when it was reclad in white tile. And there was an independent bookstore on that stretch of Forbes (the name sounded like Schleeter's or a variation of that sound) that was housed in a wonderful old building. Not sure when that was demolished. That said, my memory of that block of Forbes was always includes a large amount of surface parking.

[DKNewYork]

[QUOTE=BrianTH;6198307]There were some historic buildings, but they had been extensively renovated over the years and were pretty much a mess. The only one I thought was even worth thinking about saving was the one right next to the ASDA building, the one with the Foto Hut.QUOTE]

Great pics. Any idea how recent?

[markson33]

Agreed - there wasn't much there worth saving.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Great pics. Any idea how recent?

The second Streetview link is to pretty recent pictures, from not long at all before the site was cleared, which I know from the fact the orange siding has been removed from the ASDA Building, and you can see down the street that the PNC Tower site has been cleared.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Wheelingman04

Point Park University is making me sick. Sometimes I will they were a suburban school. There have been so many gems lost in this city already. It is hard to stomach.

I think Point Park is taking more hits than it deserves. They haven't done everything right but I think that the school has done far more good than harm, particularly on the preservation front:

• The university has bought/restored a number of buildings (I think about eight) south of the Blvd of the Allies, and the restorations have been competently done;
• The university sought out assistance from PHLF to restore the lower two floors of its main building, Lawrence Hall (formerly the Keystone Hotel) and did an excellent job;
• The university has purchased and done preliminary preservation on the terra cotta exterior of the West Penn building (Wood at First), with a full exterior restoration to be done eventually;
• The PPU agreement to lease the upper floors of six historic buildings on Wood Street north of Blvd of the Allies (the three cast-iron buildings and three on the west side of the street) is precisely what set in motion the renovation of those six properties;
• The school purchased its current University Center knowing that PHLF was putting in place easements that permanently preserve both the exterior and the major components of the lobby interiors; and
• On the playhouse site, the school did guarantee the preservation/restoration/reuse of the former Pittsburgh Stock Exchange Building (the entire building, not just the façade).

All in all, not a bad record.

I even think that there is a upside to the one big architectural mistake that the university made, which is the parklet at Wood and the Blvd. I find the space ill-conceived, badly designed and located at an intersection where there absolutely should not be open space. I dislike the end product quite a bit. But it was suggested to me recently that the school sees the parklet merely as a preferable way to warehouse the property while deciding how it is to be developed. If that is the case and the parklet eventually gives way to a building properly scaled for the intersection, I would applaud the school's logic. Better a little park than an abandoned gas station or a surface parking lot.

I am not shilling for the university. I have no connection to or affiliation with Point Park. I just don't think the school deserves the hits that it has been taking on the thread. That said, if the Playhouse design turns out to be something average or ordinary, I will be carping along with everyone else.

[BrianTH]

The Penguins are closing in on a developer (or developers) for the first phase of the Lower Hill project, which will be mostly residential:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...ormer-civic-arena-developer-soon-695617/

I view this part as good news:

Mr. Williams said the Penguins intend to start the redevelopment of the site with housing. While many believe that will begin as an extension of Crawford Square, Mr. Williams wouldn't commit to that. "We don't have a set vision yet for the residential piece. Once a developer is selected, we'll be able to describe the vision a little more clearly," he said.

The Penguins' original plan for the residential portion is quite dated at this point (mid-2000s), and I think market conditions have changed enough in that time to dictate a different plan, one with a lot more multi-unit buildings, and more units in general.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I think Point Park is taking more hits than it deserves. They haven't done everything right but I think that the school has done far more good than harm, particularly on the preservation front:

• The university has bought/restored a number of buildings (I think about eight) south of the Blvd of the Allies, and the restorations have been competently done;
• The university sought out assistance from PHLF to restore the lower two floors of its main building, Lawrence Hall (formerly the Keystone Hotel) and did an excellent job;
• The university has purchased and done preliminary preservation on the terra cotta exterior of the West Penn building (Wood at First), with a full exterior restoration to be done eventually;
• The PPU agreement to lease the upper floors of six historic buildings on Wood Street north of Blvd of the Allies (the three cast-iron buildings and three on the west side of the street) is precisely what set in motion the renovation of those six properties;
• The school purchased its current University Center knowing that PHLF was putting in place easements that permanently preserve both the exterior and the major components of the lobby interiors; and
• On the playhouse site, the school did guarantee the preservation/restoration/reuse of the former Pittsburgh Stock Exchange Building (the entire building, not just the façade).

All in all, not a bad record.

I even think that there is a upside to the one big architectural mistake that the university made, which is the parklet at Wood and the Blvd. I find the space ill-conceived, badly designed and located at an intersection where there absolutely should not be open space. I dislike the end product quite a bit. But it was suggested to me recently that the school sees the parklet merely as a preferable way to warehouse the property while deciding how it is to be developed. If that is the case and the parklet eventually gives way to a building properly scaled for the intersection, I would applaud the school's logic. Better a little park than an abandoned gas station or a surface parking lot.

I am not shilling for the university. I have no connection to or affiliation with Point Park. I just don't think the school deserves the hits that it has been taking on the thread. That said, it the Playhouse design turns out to be something average or ordinary, I will be carping along with everyone else.

I completely agree with this. I know I was berated and attacked for daring to say that Point Park has done a lot of good in their area of Downtown and that they should be given a little bit of slack when it comes to the Playhouse as a result, but I still feel the same way I did previously. Point Park has done much good for the area on and just below Blvd. of the Allies and they deserve a hell of a lot of credit for it. Their preservation efforts have been quite successful overall, probably second or third only to PNC and, more recently, PMC.

It's still pretty amazing to see the amount of buildings downtown undergoing restoration right now. There's a minimum of a dozen, likely quite a few more than that! Quite frankly, Pittsburgh needs some new buildings, though. Great to renovate and restore, but sometimes some new blood is really needed as well!

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: I also agree with BrianTH that it seems like a positive sign that the Penguins seem to be considering their original, somewhat dated plans for the residential component of the Civic Arena redevelopment site a work in progress and not set in stone. I would agree that additional units are justified, and also contained in more midrise buildings as opposed to the standard 4-5 story blocks that seem to be the norm in most cities nowadays.

[photoLith]

There is plenty of new stuff downtown, and plenty of vacant lots to develop first before ripping apart more history. So much has been lost in this city, and every city. Europe is rebuilding a lot of its historic city cores that were bombed out after ww2. We bombed our own cities out and are still in some cases doing this today. Just in the past couple years a whole ton of historic buildings have been torn down in downtown pittsburgh, not to mention even more in the metro area. It's time to preserve what this city has left and not needlessly tear down more for heartless modern crap. I am still deeply disappointed in what point park plans on doing.

On another note, I really hope they don't screw up the former civic arena site. Some of those developers are responsible for the non dense ranch style crap up on the hill. I don't have high hopes for this project seeing as a lot of the new development up on the hill is quite atrocious. But maybe it will be nice and urban with mid rises instead of ugly faux second empire "row homes".

[BrianTH]

I think it is possible to recognize that Point Park in the past has done a lot of good work Downtown and at the same time point out there are a lot of shenanigans going on with this project in particular. And no matter what you feel about that, you don't have to find their current proposal acceptable.

In that sense, I personally don't think there should be some sort of balancing of accounts where if some prior projects by an entity have been good, that means that entity is entitled to approval for some crappy projects. Rather, we should insist on every project being justifiable on its own terms. That said, you don't necessarily have to get nasty about it.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by photoLith

There is plenty of new stuff downtown, and plenty of vacant lots to develop first before ripping apart more history. So much has been lost in this city, and every city. Europe is rebuilding a lot of its historic city cores that were bombed out after ww2. We bombed our own cities out and are still in some cases doing this today. Just in the past couple years a whole ton of historic buildings have been torn down in downtown pittsburgh, not to mention even more in the metro area. It's time to preserve what this city has left and not needlessly tear down more for heartless modern crap. I am still deeply disappointed in what point park plans on doing.

On another note, I really hope they don't screw up the former civic arena site. Some of those developers are responsible for the non dense ranch style crap up on the hill. I don't have high hopes for this project seeing as a lot of the new development up on the hill is quite atrocious. But maybe it will be nice and urban with mid rises instead of ugly faux second empire "row homes".

I'm not just talking about downtown when I talk about Pittsburgh needing something new as well as preserving/renovating/restoring historic structures. Downtown certainly has had a number of historic structures demolished, but there are far more being restored than those being demolished. Several times as many, at least from what I've seen over the last 2+ years. As for the Hill District, I don't think super-dense housing is going to fly there. Moderate densities will work best, especially in areas that have essentially already been bombed-out and/or depopulated, if you will. The Lower Hill is the best chance for denser development, and I hope that whichever developer(s) the Penguins choose will end up building fairly dense residential on much of the Civic Arena site.

And again, I will leave this thread for a while now that I've said my peace. It's obvious that the vast, vast majority here don't agree with a single word I'm typing here, and while that's everyone's right of course, it means I'll be staying out of this thread.

As everyone knows here, I'm a fan of moderation in general. I'm not a hard-core preservationist, I'm not a hard-core demolish old buildings guy.

Tah tah for a while...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think it is possible to recognize that Point Park in the past has done a lot of good work Downtown and at the same time point out there are a lot of shenanigans going on with this project in particular. And no matter what you feel about that, you don't have to find their current proposal acceptable.

In that sense, I personally don't think there should be some sort of balancing of accounts where if some prior projects by an entity have been good, that means that entity is entitled to approval for some crappy projects. Rather, we should insist on every project being justifiable on its own terms. That said, you don't necessarily have to get nasty about it.

I agree with you. Point Park's track record w/r/t historic preservation does not, nor should it, give the school a free pass. But I'm not sure that there are shenanigans going on. Rather, I think the school is going through the usual steps involved in the development of a big project. It's a process usually takes place out of the eyes of the public.

Personally, I have spent a few years assuming that the new Playhouse would look like the 2008 renderings that LDA prepared for the school. My bad. I'm a bright guy---I should have realized that it was a concept rendering. At that point, the university did not yet own all the properties that would form the footprint of their proposed new Playhouse. Nor, from what I was told, did the school ever intend to retain LDA to do the final design.

At some point the plan will be public and we will know if it is crappy or not. But for now the school has earned, from me at least, the benefit of the doubt.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by glowrock

And again, I will leave this thread for a while now that I've said my peace. It's obvious that the vast, vast majority here don't agree with a single word I'm typing here, and while that's everyone's right of course, it means I'll be staying out of this thread.

...

Tah tah for a while...

Aaron (Glowrock)

This may be of interest to you.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...07/financing-comes-together-for-new.html

Jul 16, 2013, 11:52am EDT

Financing comes together for new Southpointe project



The money has come together to build a new development at Southpointe II called Zenith Ridge, and the Pittsburgh office of HFF Inc. helped bring it together.

The company, which works as a financial intermediary that helps bring together financing for real estate, announced Monday that it has arranged a $53.7 million construction loan for the development project, which is being pursued by Quattro Investment Group, an affiliate of Green Tree-based Burns & Scalo Real Estate Services.

Zenith Ridge will be a two-building project totaling 336,000 square feet of office space, to be anchored by a new 186,000-square-foot headquarters for Ansys along with a 150,000-square-foot speculative office building.

The three-year construction loan was made by three banks, led by Wheeling, W.Va.-based WesBanco Bank (Nasdaq: WSBC), with Indiana, Pa.-based First Commonwealth Bank (NYSE: FCF) and First National Bank also participating. The HFF team on the assignment was led by senior managing director Mark Popovich, who works in the Pittsburgh office, and managing director Matt Kafka, based in Houston.

The project is expected to be completed in October 2014.

[photoLith]

I think they sure tear down all the remaining historic buildings in downtown pittsburgh and replace them with projects like that.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

But I'm not sure that there are shenanigans going on.

Well, here are some well-established facts:

(1) The project as originally presented to the public involved a new residential hall. That plan has been removed from the proposal;

(2) The project as originally presented to the public involved keeping the facades in situ. That plan has also been removed from the proposal;

(3) Point Park is seeking permission to demolish the existing buildings without ever releasing its full project proposal to the Planning Commission or the public;

(4) Although Point Park has suggested it will try to recycle some of the facade materials in some way as part of the project, it has not actually committed itself to any concrete plans to do so.

I call shenanigans.

Rather, I think the school is going through the usual steps involved in the development of a big project. It's a process usually takes place out of the eyes of the public.

OK, but the "usual steps involved in the development of a big project," particularly although not exclusively around here, often involve public interests like historic preservation getting sold out during backroom deals. So you can't say on the one hand there are no shenanigans, and on the other hand this is business as usual, because business as usual often involves a lot of shenanigans.

At some point the plan will be public and we will know if it is crappy or not. But for now the school has earned, from me at least, the benefit of the doubt.

But you just said: "Point Park's track record w/r/t historic preservation does not, nor should it, give the school a free pass."

Allowing them to destroy the buildings without even seeing their actual plan first, or in general getting any sort of concrete commitments from them with respect to the facades, is the very definition of giving them a free pass.

[Evergrey]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...n-housing-development-in-larimer-695640/

Pittsburgh considers $100 million housing development in Larimer.

July 16, 2013 1:28 pm



By Timothy McNulty / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Plans were submitted to Pittsburgh City Council today for more than $100 million in housing redevelopment in Larimer, boosted by a hoped-for $30 million federal grant, $16.5 million in city funds and private support.

Legislation introduced today by city Councilman Ricky Burgess would authorize the city to apply for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant with hopes of building some 350 units of mixed-income housing in the struggling neighborhood, and support jobs, parks and businesses similar to those in neighboring East Liberty.

The redevelopment would largely center around Larimer Avenue and East Liberty Boulevard but include neighboring side streets. The plans have been discussed for years, Mr. Burgess said, and include stakeholders such as the city Housing Authority, the Urban Redevelopment Authority, developers McCormack Baron Salazar, the Kingsley Association and East Liberty Development Inc.

If approved by city council, the application for HUD's Choice Neighborhoods Initiative funding must be submitted by Sept. 10. Grants will be awarded next spring. The city's $16.5 million largely would come from federal block grant money and the city's long-term capital budget, though Mr. Burgess said it also could come from Regional Asset District money that comes free in 2015.

The RAD money is currently used to pay off borrowing on the $100 million Pittsburgh Development Fund dating to the Murphy administration.