Quote:
Originally Posted by DKNewYork
Not sure these well-established facts are facts. Granted, the original proposal mentioned a residential component and the one rendering showed what Forbes Avenue might look like after the Playhouse was built. But was it a plan?
|
That's semantics. My point is about how the project was presented to the public.
Quote:
|
I can't see how the university should be bound by an idea which was never fleshed out or submitted for approval.
|
Recall this is about whether or not Point Park has been engaged in shenanigans when it comes to this project. When you build up public support for one plan (or concept, or whatever word you prefer), then seek approval for something else which lacks some of the key elements of what you originally presented to the public, you have engaged in the sort of shenanigans I would call a "bait-and-switch".
Ultimately their request for demolition should be rejected not because they engaged in this bait-and-switch, but rather because their proposal for demolition is insufficiently justified and generally lacks merit. But to the extent people are arguing, "Hey, we like what Point Park has done in the past, maybe we should just trust them and let them destroy these buildings," then the fact that they have engaged in this bait-and-switch should give us pause about placing such blind trust in them.
And we are under no obligation to approve an "evolved" plan, particularly without actually seeing it first.
Look, I am fine with just ignoring the history of this project and looking at it with fresh eyes. From that perspective, it is ludicrous that we would approve their proposal for demolition. It is only when you start asking for special treatment for Point Park and suggesting we should blindly trust them that I think it becomes necessary to look at the history of this project, simply as an antidote to such suggestions.
Quote:
|
Maybe the unversity reasoned that a really good arts center is better than doing the arts center plus dorm on the cheap.
|
Or maybe their funding still hasn't recovered from the recession and they now just want to do the whole thing on the cheap.
Who knows? At the end of the day, I don't care what motivations they might have to do a crappy project (for this location). I just care about denying them the approvals they will need to do a crappy project.
Quote:
|
I think it will eventually come out that the buildings are too far gone to be renovated.
|
I think that is incredibly unlikely, if you mean that to include just saving the facades in situ. I've watched what they are doing in Homewood to save a similar facade in situ, and studied a little how this is done in general. The Homewood facade project is typical: you build a new steel framework to support the facade, then cut away the rest of the building. Given the way these old low-rise brick commercial buildings were constructed, that is almost always going to work, because the facades are not being supported in any way that a steel framework can't replace.
So I'd say the burden of proof is on Point Park to show that somehow these facades are an exception. Just looking at the facades, which seem completely stable, I doubt that is true, and they haven't even tried to make that showing. So unless something changes, I think it is safe to assume they are doing this by choice, not because it would be impossible, or even particularly challenging.
Quote:
|
Point Park is on record saying that they want to save the facades of the "Forbes Three" and will, at least, salvage architectural components to be incorporated into the project. I believe them.
|
Again, this is where pointing out the history of this project apparently becomes necessary. You were just arguing that "I can't see how the university should be bound by an idea which was never fleshed out or submitted for approval." Now they are just saying something "conceptual" about recycling some materials from the facades, but refusing to commit to any detailed plans prior to approval of demolition. But now you say we should trust them.
So what happens down the road when Point Park "evolves" its plan again, and all the material from the facades gets sent to Construction Junction or the dump? You've explained to us that when that happens, we will just have to roll over and accept it, because they will not have bound themselves to do anything else.
Quote:
|
Mark Belko's article in the P-G and the recent floor plan strongly suggest that the Royal facade will end up further up Forbes as the eastern entrance to the Playhouse. Fully preserved but moved up the street.
|
The renderings Point Park STILL has on its website "strongly suggest" all three facades will be preserved in situ. You say we are not entitled to rely on that, but we should rely on your speculation?
I think I have more than made my point. You can't have it both ways: if your view is that Point Park really hasn't committed to anything until it has submitted detailed plans for approval, then by your own standards it has currently committed to exactly nothing when it comes to the facades.
Quote:
|
But why would the school lie?
|
Plans evolve.
Quote:
|
Since you seem to know alot about city procedures, can you explain how the demolition petition process work? I have assumed that nothing will be forthcoming until the Planning Commission hears more. Isn't the first presentation to give the commission members information so that follow up questions can be asked?
|
The procedure is first the Planning Commission gets the informal presentation. At their next meeting two weeks later (in this case July 23), they do the formal hearing, at which point they can approve (or reject) the application. So, right now I think we should be lobbying the Planning Commission to deny Point Park's application for demolition at their upcoming meeting.
Prev
Pittsburgh, baby!
Linear Mode
