PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by photoLith

DSC_4641 by photolitherland, on Flickr

This is my favorite.

PS those wires need to be buried! Visual clutter everywhere.

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by Steel City Scotty

That demolition of the Methodist church in Lower Lawrenceville is a real bummer.

I looked it up on Google Earth (images from October of 2012), and it looked really nice (though abandoned) while it was still standing.

I know. It really upset me!! The rest of the news is pretty good. Point Park does need to wise up and realize they are downtown and not the suburbs. They need to make sure they incorporate urban design with regard to history into their future plans.

[Wheelingman04]

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. That is a good argument overall for the city.

[Evergrey]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...-upmc-penguins-joint-development-695672/

New site in Cranberry chosen for UPMC-Penguins joint development

July 17, 2013 12:23 am





By Mark Belko / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Pittsburgh Penguins and UPMC have made the development equivalent of a goalie change in their quest to build a $70 million sports performance center and practice rink in Cranberry.

After working with developer Don Rodgers for nearly a year to build the complex on a 35-acre site on Route 228, they have abandoned the property for another location less than half a mile away but closer to Interstate 79.

Travis Williams, the Penguins' chief operating officer, said Tuesday the team and UPMC have signed a letter of intent with developer Gary Sippel to build the 180,000-square-foot facility on a parcel adjacent to the interstate.

The move comes only two weeks after a UPMC official appeared before the Cranberry planning commission to detail plans for the complex at Mr. Rodgers' Village of Cranberry Woods development.

But Albert L. Wright Jr., a vice president who oversees UPMC's sports medicine programs and facilities, said the site was never set in stone. He said UPMC and the Penguins have been concurrently examining the Sippel property for the last six months and decided that it "made the most sense" for the project based on cost, feasibility and timetable.

"When you put all of the factors together, at the end of the day, what both UPMC and the Penguins concluded was that the Sippel site was a better site for us," Mr. Williams said.

The new site is located on the northeast side of Route 228 at I-79. Mr. Williams and Mr. Wright said it offers greater visibility from the interstate than the Cranberry Woods site as well as good access.

...

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Eightball

This is my favorite.

PS those wires need to be buried! Visual clutter everywhere.

Getting wires buries seems to be impossible. My neighborhood group in Allegheny West tried to have the wires on Western Ave. buried but the best that we could get was to have them moved to the back of the buildings running along the alleyway.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Getting wires buries seems to be impossible. My neighborhood group in Allegheny West tried to have the wires on Western Ave. buried but the best that we could get was to have them moved to the back of the buildings running along the alleyway.

In urban areas it is typically very expensive, and the non-aesthetic benefits are somewhat dubious (you might get fewer storm-related blackouts, but general repair and maintenance costs can be higher, there can be higher costs related to floods, and so forth).

Fortunately this is one of those things where, for most people, if they aren't specifically looking for the wires, they will tend to stop seeing them much.

[photoLith]

I don't even notice wires, hell historically electrical wires and shit were all over the place. Way worse than they are today.

[BrianMM111]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Heres a bunch of new restorations in lower Lville from yesterday and other random stuff going on down there.


DSC_4694 by photolitherland, on Flickr
Disgusting shameful teardown of a beautiful 1899 German Methodist church on 40th street, to be turned into a parking lot, YAY


A shameful teardown of a completely usefull block of buildings from the same developer whose building Bakery Square, this lot is located on S Aiken Ave and 380.

-Do you know what the condition of these buildings were prior to demolition?

-Were there any structural issues?

-Was there a feasibility study done pertaining to the reuse/renovation of these buildings?

I would think these would be wise questions to get answered before calling the demolitions "shameful" and "disgusting". at least in my opinion... some buildings are just too far gone to be saved in a way that would be economical. (im thinking northside a few years ago)

Also,

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.

From a quick search on google earth, there are roughly 5 (7 if you demolish a few buildings) vacant lots suitable for a decent sized skyscraper... All of which are owned by people either profiting from parking fees, or holding the land for future development (such as burns & scalo)... How do you know if the current owners would even consider selling the land?

in all reality, its probably cheaper for the developers to buy parcels of land from 11 separate owners AND pay for the demolition of all the buildings associated then it would be to persuade one of these stingy parking lot owners to sell their land...

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In urban areas it is typically very expensive, and the non-aesthetic benefits are somewhat dubious (you might get fewer storm-related blackouts, but general repair and maintenance costs can be higher, there can be higher costs related to floods, and so forth).

I disagree. In New Orleans and DC recently after lengthy (i.e. a week) power outages the debate has been renewed, because the neighborhoods with buried power lines in both cities had almost no outages and the elevated power wire nhoods were in a disastrous state.

Yes, it is expensive to bury the lines, but its not cheap to lose economic power (not to mention groceries etc and ppl potentially dying in the heat) either. Anyway, just a segway and back to beautiful Pittsburgh

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

HDR shot of fireworks after a recent Pirates game!


Credit - Dave DiCello http://hdrexposed.zenfolio.com/pittsburgh/h65578337#h65578337

A couple more crazy good 4th of July shots from Dave DiCello. These keep coming up on my FB feed and I CAN'T stop myself from wanting to share them in this thread. You're welcome!!







Visual overload!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Yes, it is expensive to bury the lines, but its not cheap to lose economic power (not to mention groceries etc and ppl potentially dying in the heat) either.

Right, blackouts from storms are a real cost to overhead lines. But you are apparently not accounting for higher repair/maintenance costs, flooding problems, and other downsides to buried lines. In fact although blackouts with overhead lines tend to be more common, when they occur with underground lines they can last much longer, wiping out a lot of the claimed benefits of underground lines even when it comes to blackouts in isolation.

Some of this depends on exactly what sort of situation you are talking about--e.g., it is cheaper to bury lines in rural areas, or to install buried lines in greenfield developments, or so on. But generally when people have done rigorous cost-benefit studies, the costs of burying existing overhead lines are greatly outweighed by the benefits.

So it is understandable there is a continuing debate, particularly right after a storm has caused a lot of blackouts. But at the end of the day it is very difficult to actually justify burying existing lines in most cases.

[Grego43]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In urban areas it is typically very expensive, and the non-aesthetic benefits are somewhat dubious (you might get fewer storm-related blackouts, but general repair and maintenance costs can be higher, there can be higher costs related to floods, and so forth).

Non-aesthetic benefits are somewhat dubious?

The German power grid has outages at an average rate of 21 minutes per year.
There's no Teutonic engineering magic to this impressive record. It's achieved by a very simple decision: Germany buries almost all of its low-voltage and medium-voltage power lines, the lines that serve individual homes and apartments. Americans could do the same. They have chosen not to.

-CNN, July 12,2012

[Jonboy1983]

After reading through the Larimer vision plan, I made another update to my blog.

Generally, I like the idea. It looks modified from the one a few years back. I like the increased retail/residential development along Larimer Avenue. I think before it was proposed as open space. In any event, here's the link to my update:
http://urbandesigneggshell.blogspot.com/2013/07/pittsburghs-larimer-neighborhood-master.html

[Steel City Scotty]

Thanks for the images, Austin.

I've spent two Independence Days in Pittsburgh, and I've attended several Pirates' games on Saturday nights, and I can honestly say that the city knows how to put on a good fireworks show.

I live in a small town in Central PA where I grew up watching the same small show every year, but after experiencing fireworks in Pittsburgh, I've realized they can be quite impressive and enjoyable.

[Wave]

The second photo is of the former Don Allen Chevrolet building. It is not being developed by the same developers as Bakery Square. It's slated to be a Hyatt. The building being demolished was a serviceable but uninspired commercial/industrial type building dating from the 1920's and housed an auto dealership, auto storage and former auto repair shop. The building had been renovated and partially clad in pretty awful 1970's aluminum siding which was a complete eyesore.

The location is a highly visible important intersection in the Baum/Centre corridor on Aiken and Baum across from the newly renovated Morrow Park which itself is surrounded by several gorgeous historical buildings and a large Marriott.

The six story Hyatt slated for the site will easily be an improvement in density, design and pedestrian activity for that location.

That demolition was a no-brainer. and a previous development that went south would've also demolished that structure. There was never any question of the future of that car dealership structure as the location absolutely called for something better.

Originally Posted by BrianMM111

-Do you know what the condition of these buildings were prior to demolition?

-Were there any structural issues?

-Was there a feasibility study done pertaining to the reuse/renovation of these buildings?

I would think these would be wise questions to get answered before calling the demolitions "shameful" and "disgusting". at least in my opinion... some buildings are just too far gone to be saved in a way that would be economical. (im thinking northside a few years ago)

Also,


From a quick search on google earth, there are roughly 5 (7 if you demolish a few buildings) vacant lots suitable for a decent sized skyscraper... All of which are owned by people either profiting from parking fees, or holding the land for future development (such as burns & scalo)... How do you know if the current owners would even consider selling the land?

in all reality, its probably cheaper for the developers to buy parcels of land from 11 separate owners AND pay for the demolition of all the buildings associated then it would be to persuade one of these stingy parking lot owners to sell their land...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Grego43

Non-aesthetic benefits are somewhat dubious?

Yes. If you are interested, here is a link to a document with references to a bunch of relevant studies:

http://www.entergy.com/2008_hurricanes/Underground-lines.pdf

Some excerpts:

A 2004 study by the Virginia Corporation Commission calculated the annual cost of a statewide undergrounding initiative at approximately $3,500 per customer. Based on the projected costs and benefits for undergrounding much of its state’s electric system, the Virginia commission calculated that the benefits would offset only about 38 percent of total costs and concluded that a comprehensive statewide effort to bury the state’s electric distribution system appears “unreasonable.”

In 1998 Australian officials completed what may be the most comprehensive research to date to quantify the benefits and costs related to undergrounding. The Australian study reached a conclusion similar to the Virginia study and estimated that the benefits of undergrounding would offset only about 11 percent of the costs.

A five-year survey (1998-2002) of underground and overhead reliability comparisons for North Carolina’s investor-owned electric utilities – Duke Energy, Progress Energy Carolinas and Dominion North Carolina Power – indicated that the frequency of outages on underground systems was 50 percent less than for overhead systems, but that the average duration of an underground outage was 58 percent longer than for an overhead outage.

A 2000 study by the Maryland Public Service Commission looked at the reliability of “comparable” overhead and underground feeders and concluded that the impact of undergrounding the lines was, at best, “unclear.” As underground cables approach their end of life, the Maryland report showed, failures increase significantly and are extremely difficult to locate and repair. Maryland utilities say their underground cables become unreliable after 15 to 20 years and reach their end of life after 25 to 35 years.

The linked document explains in some detail the issues underlying results like this. In fact they specifically discussed a case arising after storm-related blackouts peaked public interest in undergrounding:

December 2002, a major ice storm blanketed much of North Carolina with up to one inch of ice, causing an unprecedented power outage to approximately two million electric utility customers. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, the public expressed considerable interest in burying all overhead power lines in the state. A special Natural Disaster Preparedness Task Force investigated the issue for the North Carolina Utilities Commission and unequivocally recommended against the step.

The task force study “determined that replacing the existing overhead distribution lines of the (state’s investor-owned) utilities with underground lines would be prohibitively expensive. Such an undertaking would cost approximately $41 billion, nearly six times the net book value of the utilities’ current distribution assets, and would require approximately 25 years to complete. The ultimate impact of the capital costs alone on an average residential customer’s monthly electric bill would be an increase of more than 125 percent.”

Rates would also be impacted by the higher operating and maintenance costs associated with direct-buried underground systems, particularly in urban areas, where underground conductors are four times more costly to maintain than overhead facilities, the task force found. “In addition to the impact on the cost of providing utility service, conversion to underground would impose costs on individual customers, municipalities, and other utilities,” it added. “While these costs have not been quantified, they could be significant.”

The report also determined that “underground facilities are not without their disadvantages. Although underground systems are more reliable than overhead systems under normal weather conditions, they are not impervious to damage, and the repair time for underground systems is almost 60 percent longer than for overhead systems when damage does occur. Consequently, the [Task Force] does not recommend that the utilities undertake the wholesale conversion of their overhead distribution systems to underground.”

Again, it is really a case by case sort of problem, but if you are looking specifically at putting existing overhead lines in an urban area underground instead, it is typically going to end up very difficult to justify on non-aesthetic grounds.

[Evergrey]

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/4372290-74/cultural-riverparc-development#axzz2Z9KOQBVQ

$460M RiverParc project in Cultural District still has potential


RiverParc would cover 14 square blocks roughly between Seventh and Ninth streets and Fort Duquesne Boulevard and Penn Avenue. The glitzy development was to boast a four-star hotel, shops, restaurants, condominiums and townhouses. About 3,000 people would live or work there.


By Bill Zlatos

Published: Thursday, July 18, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
Updated 8 hours ago

A $460 million Downtown development might be built even though a dispute between two partners is headed to court.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James scheduled a trial between the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust and developer Concord Eastridge Inc. for February. The exact date is not determined.

“We would still love to develop the property,” said Susan Eastridge, CEO and founder of the Washington-based company. “Every time I come to Pittsburgh, I look wistfully at it.”

The project, called RiverParc, debuted in 2006 amid hoopla when the Cultural Trust announced the hiring of Concord Eastridge from among more than 100 developers, architects, artists and design professionals.

Covering 14 square blocks, roughly between Seventh and Ninth streets, and Fort Duquesne Boulevard and Penn Avenue, the glitzy development was to boast a four-star hotel, shops, restaurants, condominiums and townhouses. About 3,000 people would live or work there, officials said.

In 2008, the Cultural Trust indefinitely postponed the project, citing the volatile economy, especially in the housing and mortgage industry. Since then, the market rebounded, and the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership reports an occupancy rate for Downtown rental units at nearly 96 percent.

“The last time I was in Pittsburgh, there was a two-and-a-half-year waiting list for housing in Downtown,” Eastridge said.

Her company sued the Cultural Trust in 2009, seeking damages of at least $5.2million. It alleges breach of contract and negligent or intentional misrepresentation caused by the Cultural Trust's failure to continue with the project and to sell the developer parcels of land for $5.9 million.

J. Kevin McMahon, president and CEO of the Cultural Trust, said the development isn't dead. He declined to say whether the Cultural Trust would let Concord Eastridge develop the land but said work would start when the market and investors are ready.

“We'd like to have this come to a resolution,” McMahon said.

RiverParc is an ambitious plan: seven residential “green” buildings, parks, winter gardens, roof terraces and a gallery that could include a floating stage.

Assisting on the project were experts from around the world — among them, Behnisch Architekten and climate engineer Transsolar, both of Stuttgart, Germany; architectsAlliance of Toronto; and master planner Gehl Architects of Copenhagen. Merrill Lynch of New York was helping to supply cash.


...

[photoLith]

^
That project looks awesome, but yet again they will be tearing down a whole shit load of historic buildings for that, ugh. Unless, of course they incorporate them and I cant really tell from that rendering, but either way, I dont ever see that project happening.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
That project looks awesome, but yet again they will be tearing down a whole shit load of historic buildings for that, ugh. Unless, of course they incorporate them and I cant really tell from that rendering, but either way, I dont ever see that project happening.

Most of this site is occupied by Goodyear and parking lots. It's as blank a slate as they come Downtown.

[photoLith]

^
That Goodyear is absolutely atrocious, but there are about 5 really good looking buildings on that plot of land, especially on Penn Ave between 7th and 8th street.