PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Where do they get their money from?

From "attracting 2 million people to the Cultural District annually to over 2000 annual events and activities." And "managing over 1 million square feet of real estate"

http://www.trustarts.org/about

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Where do they get their money from?

energy drink sales

[themaguffin]

It's a little known fact that Donnie Iris is the Cultural Trust.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

energy drink sales

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

I have always wondered why Regent Square is called Regent square. There is no square in the area, but this image may have a hint. it looks like it is almost a square in shape.

So in 1919, a developer from Brooklyn named William Harmon had a plan for the area he called "Regent Place." I've heard it speculated that name was based on Regent's Park in London, but I've seen no documentary confirmation of that. He then quickly changed the name to Regent Square. As it turns out, there is also a Regent's Square in London:

http://www.londontown.com/LondonStreets/regent_square_5b9.html/

http://goo.gl/maps/FnOZf

Anyway, I agree it makes no particular sense. That said, Regent Square is in fact vaguely rectangular. Specifically, it is an interfluvial promontary, the shape of which is vaguely rectangular given the three sides as defined by the promontary. But all that is hard to see on a normal map because the streets are at an angle to the sides of the rectangle. On a topographic map, however, things become a little more clear:

http://goo.gl/maps/uQLhw

[BrianTH]

Random sidenote: the fact that only three sides of the Regent Square "rectangle" are well-defined topographically helps explain why the eastern half of the northern border of Regent Square has always been ill-defined. That situation is compounded by the crazy street pattern there, which itself dates back to when there were actually a couple streams running into that area (since buried in underground channels). Forbes is the generally-recognized northern border on the western half, but on the eastern half? Who knows.

Here is an older map, showing the streams in question:

[Austinlee]

Regent Trapezoid

[BrianTH]

So I am going to send the following letter regarding the Playhouse project to the Planning Commission, with copies to the Director of City Planning and Acting Chair of the HRC. I'll use this email for the Commission (I understand this is the staff contact):

[email protected]

And these emails for the copies:

[email protected]

[email protected]

I'd urge interested people to do the same prior to the upcoming meeting on Tuesday. Feel free to use this letter as a form or model if you would like.

BY EMAIL

City Planning Commission:

Wrenna L. Watson, Chair
Lauren Byrne
Kirk Burkley
Jim Costello
Page Thomas
Monte Rabner
Todd E. Reidbord
John Valentine
Maelene Myers

CC:
Noor Ismail, Director of City Planning
Ernie Hogan, Acting Chair, Historic Review Commission

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to urge you to deny Point Park University’s application to demolish the buildings at 320, 322, and 330 Forbes Avenue. These buildings have recently been added to the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Fourth Avenue Historic District, and their facades in particular are wonderful examples of Pittsburgh's history of exceptional commercial architecture. The preservation and reuse of similar buildings has proven very successful in Downtown locations such as the Cultural District and around Market Square, and similarly these facades should be preserved and reused in situ, not destroyed.

In fact when Point Park originally announced its intention to move the Pittsburgh Playhouse to this location, it represented to the public that it would preserve these facades in situ. Now Point Park is seeking Planning Commission approval to destroy them instead. Although Point Park has suggested that they might try to recycle some of the materials from the facades in the new Playhouse, they have made no firm commitments on that subject, and in general are asking for approval to demolish these buildings without even presenting to the public detailed plans for their proposed construction.

At a minimum, Point Park should be required to commit to a comprehensive plan for the Playhouse project, including detailed commitments with respect to the facades, before any demolition plan is approved. Point Park should also be required to preserve the facades in situ, unless they can thoroughly document why that is not possible.

In short, Pittsburgh cannot afford to allow its valuable historic structures to be destroyed with so little justification. Accordingly, Point Park’s application for demolition should be denied.

Sincerely yours,

X

[qwho]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

It looks like steel is starting to Rise at the Tower at PNC Place! http://www.thetoweratpncplaza.com/

does anyone have eyes on it and can confirm?

live webcam:

http://www.pncsites.com/pnctower/pncWebCamVideo2.html

[Minivan Werner]

What's that building to the right with the triangular roof? Is that glass?

[AaronPGH]

Nice letter Brian!

[Jonboy1983]

I don't see why River Park could not, or should not be built. I think now is a good time to build River Parc, given the complete 180 in the housing market as a whole -- but Pittsburgh's housing market is red hot!

Blog post about this:http://urbandesigneggshell.blogspot.com/2013/07/riverparc-development-proposal-back.html

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Nice letter Brian!

Thanks!

By the way, I should make clear that even if someone has a different opinion on the Playhouse project, I would still love for that person to express their views to the Commission, either through a letter or attending the upcoming meeting. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, I think it would be great for the Commission to know there are people out here who care about these issues enough to inform themselves and then say something.

[BrianTH]

Incidentally, you can definitely see the PNC Tower steel going up from street level. I'll try to take a picture or two tomorrow if possible.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

What's that building to the right with the triangular roof? Is that glass?

I believe you are referring to University Center. It does in fact have skylights:

[BrianTH]

The new environment center in Frick Park (the old one burned down 11 years ago) is finally moving from design to construction/ In addition to the building complex itself there will be a lot of related park improvements:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...e-rebuilt-at-former-site-in-park-696005/

[BrianTH]

What it looks like walking around PNC Tower at street level (love that haze--it is going to be another humid day):

[BrianTH]

Bonus shot--you can see more of the restored facades on Wood starting to emerge:

[Found5dollar]

^ YES! thanks! I can not wait to see that tower go up!

[BrianTH]

One last random Regent Square observation:

It has sometimes been asked exactly why the Regent Square street grid appears to be at around a 45-degree angle to the promontory it is on, causing a lot of unexpected dead-ends (seen on maps as that sort of "sawtooth" pattern to the edges of the neighborhood), particularly since it doesn't line up with any of the other local street grids.

The basic answer to this puzzle is actually apparent on that older topographic map. Braddock Avenue was laid out to line up with a natural cut in the promontory on its eastern side, which allowed Braddock to go down into the Nine Mile Run valley system at a reasonable grade, then cross over the stream and head back up another cut into Swissvale and on to Braddock.

So the location and angle of that natural cut dictated the alignment of Braddock, which in turn dictated the rotated nature of the Regent Square street grid.