PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[DBR96A]

Upon closer inspection, the segment of PA 51 from the Mon-Fayette Expressway up to Lebanon Church Road could be somewhat easily upgraded to an Interstate-grade, limited-access highway.

There's little residential development along the road itself (maybe two dozen houses at most), and the closest anybody's backyard in a subdivision gets to the right-of-way is about 100'. In other words, most of the property that'd be acquired and demolished would be commercial property. I estimate that about 120 full properties, and parts of about 80 more, would have to be acquired.

I also measured the distance between buildings located immediately along the road, and there's enough room to build a highway up to six lanes wide, although four lanes would more than likely be adequate for this segment. Sound walls would only be necessary for the northernmost mile-and-a-half.

Only two new interchanges would be required: one at Coal Valley Road, which is about a mile north of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, and one at Century III Mall, which is about a mile and a half north of Coal Valley Road. The existing interchange for Lebanon Church Road is about a mile north of where I envision the Century III Mall interchange going, and it could be easily converted to a SPUI as I said before.

If that segment of PA 51 was upgraded to an Interstate-grade highway, then the rest of PA 51 from Lebanon Church Road to the Liberty Tunnels could be redesigned as a four-lane boulevard with a tree-lined median and a design speed of 45 MPH, like I mentioned in the previous post. Eliminate the intersections with minor streets that have other ways nearby to get to the boulevard, and traffic would flow more smoothly even if the intersections remained signalized. The boulevard segment would be approximately six miles long.

Also, upgrade PA 51 to an Interstate-grade highway from the Liberty Tunnel to the West End Circle. There's no residential anywhere near that segment as it is, and only sporadic commercial space.

[BrianTH]

I don't see how the cost of upgrading various pieces of 51 to Interstate-grade highway could possibly be justified in light of all the many more pressing transportation infrastructure needs we have in the region, nor would that be good for land-use policy.

Limited-access highways are just the wrong technology to use for local surface transportation in urbanized areas. We should stop compounding that mistake and start being smarter.

[GeneW]

I'm with Brian, I'd like to see fewer limited access highways around here rather than more.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'd like to see fewer limited access highways around here rather than more.

Me too. If I had big money to spend specifically on highway projects, I'd start with things like converting the North Shore highways from at least the West End Bridge to the Veterans Bridge into a boulevard (and maybe take it out as far as Marshall-Shadeland), reconfiguring the Mon Wharf highways and putting a deck park over a long stretch of them, putting deck parks over stretches of the 10th Street Bypass, I-279, and Crosstown--this sort of project would have a high payoff in terms of increased land value.

That's not to say something like the Citizen's Plan I previously linked should not be pursued in order to upgrade transportation in the South Hills and Mon Valley. But the focus should be on boulevards and transit, not limited access highways.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Me too. If I had big money to spend specifically on highway projects, I'd start with things like converting the North Shore highways from at least the West End Bridge to the Veterans Bridge into a boulevard (and maybe take it out as far as Marshall-Shadeland), reconfiguring the Mon Wharf highways and putting a deck park over a long stretch of them, putting deck parks over stretches of the 10th Street Bypass, I-279, and Crosstown--this sort of project would have a high payoff in terms of increased land value.

That's not to say something like the Citizen's Plan I previously linked should not be pursued in order to upgrade transportation in the South Hills and Mon Valley. But the focus should be on boulevards and transit, not limited access highways.

I too stand with Brian.

It is my dream that someday the North Side will no longer be strangled by a web of limited-access highways.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I too stand with Brian.

It is my dream that someday the North Side will no longer be strangled by a web of limited-access highways.

It's my dream that we can all work inside of our homes, never have to do anything to get anywhere besides walk and perhaps teleport, maybe occasionally take a bullet train to Philly at 500 mph too!

Of course that will never happen. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some changes happen with respect to the tangled mess in the North Side, but given the bridges, their access points, etc., I'm not sure I see much happening in the forseable future.

With regards to the tangled mess of no highways down in the South Hills, I agree that 51 and 88 shouldn't become full expressways, but being made into boulevards with select interchanges at the busiest intersections would make a lot of sense. I'd throw Washington Street/Liberty Ave. through Dormont and Mt. Lebanon into that as well, but there's absolutely no room whatsoever to do anything with that street through either Dormont or Mt. Lebanon, unfortunately. That area will pretty much forever be a traffic-choked nightmare, at least until traffic planners actually pull their heads out of their asses and understand the use of properly timed traffic signals!

It's truly my biggest pet peeve of mine around the Pittsburgh area, and ESPECIALLY downtown. Traffic lights that are not only poorly-timed, but seem to be PURPOSELY TIMED to where you literally cannot drive more than one or two blocks without hitting a red light with absolutely no cross traffic whatsoever. Can't we have some better timing, especially downtown? Can't we have some freaking weight sensors put into some of the roads so we can get rid of some of the ancient art of traffic signal timing to begin with? Same goes for Carson St.. I swear, the only reason traffic is backed up to a standstill during the afternoons at least is simply because the traffic lights are timed so horrendously that you literally can't move cars through one intersection without being backed up at the next one. It's ridiculous, and it's a CHEAP fix!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some changes happen with respect to the tangled mess in the North Side, but given the bridges, their access points, etc., I'm not sure I see much happening in the forseable future.

I'm not an engineer so obviously this has to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but I've eyeballed the bridges and their ramps quite a bit and I don't see any inherent reason they could not be reconfigured to work with a boulevard. With the Fort Duquesne Bridge in particular, it is fortunate it is basically landing opposite Monument Hill and so there are not many complications in terms of possible through streets into the North Side. And then the Veteran's Bridge doesn't have any elevated ramps coming down on that side.

That's not to say it would be cheap. But long runs of new limited-access highway would also be very expensive, and my point was this would be a better use of such funds. And in fact this sort of replacement of urban highways with boulevards is not unprecedented, and lots of cities are making plans to do more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal

http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/September/SpivakTopTenHighway

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/death-row-urban-highways/411/#slide8

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not an engineer so obviously this has to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but I've eyeballed the bridges and their ramps quite a bit and I don't see any inherent reason they could not be reconfigured to work with a boulevard. With the Fort Duquesne Bridge in particular, it is fortunate it is basically landing opposite Monument Hill and so there are not many complications in terms of possible through streets into the North Side. And then the Veteran's Bridge doesn't have any elevated ramps coming down on that side.

That's not to say it would be cheap. But long runs of new limited-access highway would also be very expensive, and my point was this would be a better use of such funds. And in fact this sort of removal of urban highways is not unprecedented, and lots of cities are making plans to do more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/death-row-urban-highways/411/#slide8

If you look at the transportation plan map for PLANPGH, you do at least see a plan for converting Rt. 65 through Manchester/Chateau from a highway back into a boulevard and reconnecting Manchester with the waterfront.

Project Name: Highway 65 Removal
Project Ranking: 2
Project Type: Road Diet
Description: Removal of above grade highway; reconfiguration of West End Bridge intersection; introduction of median running light rail; reconnecting Manchester neighborhood to the river
HOOD: Manchester
SECTORS: Sector 3

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

If you look at the transportation plan map for PLANPGH, you do at least see a plan for converting Rt. 65 through Manchester/Chateau from a highway back into a boulevard and reconnecting Manchester with the waterfront.

Cool! So that part, at least, seems doable.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm with Brian, I'd like to see fewer limited access highways around here rather than more.

I am of the same sentiment. For years we have blindly just built more road capacity without acknowledging that it is an expensive temporary fix.

Rather than encouraging low density sprawl through outlying areas that makes transportation expensive, we should encourage urban density with public transit, pedestrian and bicycle centric design. Pittsburgh was founded on that kind of urban design and the city is flourishing everywhere where it has been restored.

For large transportation projects, I would like to see street cars or light rail linking the neighborhoods as they once did.

Many cities in the united states are coming to the same conclusion, they are no longer looking at highways as the solution but rather as the problem.

[Evergrey]

BrianTH has already provided information on this development.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...-across-from-target-in-e-liberty-696544/

Developer plans 6-story building across from Target in E. Liberty

July 23, 2013 2:24 pm



By Mark Belko / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A new six-story office building is in the works across the street from the Target department store in East Liberty.

Developer Alphabet City briefed the city planning commission today on the proposed 60,000-square-foot structure, which will feature at least one floor of retail and as many as five floors of office.

Anthony Dolan, president of Alphabet City, said he is talking to one office tenant and two national retailers about occupying the space. He said there is potential for two stories of retail.

While Mr. Dolan would not name the retailers with whom he is negotiating, he said both would complement the existing retail in East Liberty.

"I think the neighborhood will be pleased when we make those announcements," he said.

...

[Evergrey]

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/4409031-74/buildings-park-facades#axzz2ZnISnK6x

Pittsburgh OKs demolition for Point Park Playhouse project



Published: Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 4:18 p.m.
Updated 17 minutes ago

The Pittsburgh Planning Commission on Tuesday approved Point Park University's planned demolition of three buildings on Forbes Avenue in Downtown, which the university says is necessary for its $53 million Playhouse project.

The upper-floor facades of the three buildings, including the former Honus Wagner Sporting Goods store, will be catalogued, disassembled and eventually re-used in parts of the finished performing arts center, said Elmer Burger, Point Park's architect and planner. Since the university wants to build a theater where the three buildings stand, there was no way to keep them or their facades in place, he said.

“The individual building size, masonry bearing walls and building conditions are not compatible with our desire to build a large, column-free performance venue,” Burger said.

Final plans for the Playhouse are still being developed, Burger said, but the plan for now is to reassemble the ornate terra-cotta upper floors of the Honus Wagner façade to serve as one wall of a courtyard visible from the street. Another historic building, the former Stock Exchange on Fourth Avenue, will be restored as a café and scenery shop for the performing arts center. Two other facades that are currently part of the University Center will also be restored, while decorative portions of the other two buildings will be integrated elsewhere in the playhouse.

Ellis Schmidlapp, president of Landmarks Design Associates and consultant to Point Park on the project, said the lower floors and first-floor facades of the buildings had been renovated and modified beyond recognition. The 244 pieces of the Honus Wagner building's façade were “more than wedding-cake in their complexity,” and one building had a painted plaster ceiling that was notable, but the buildings otherwise lacked distinguishing features.

“They're otherwise utterly derelict,” he said.

The commission received two letters in opposition to the demolition, but representatives of PNC Financial Services Group, the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership and the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation all spoke in favor of Point Park's plan, citing their history of saving buildings Downtown and development.

“We all tried our best to save everything, then just to save the facades themselves,” Ziegler said.

Planning Commission member Page Thomas had some doubts about approving the demolition without knowing exactly what Point Park had planned for the re-use of the facades, but the commission made retaining and re-using them a condition of their approval, which was then a unanimous vote.

Demolition will not occur right away, as Point Park is still working on the fundraising for the construction and needs to award a contract for the demolition.

Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5625 or [email protected].

[photoLith]

What a load of shit.

[KINGPIN]

Skyline-defiling signs targeted by council chief Darlene Harris
Bob Bauder
Staff Reporter
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

By Bob Bauder

Published: Monday, July 22, 2013, 11:06 p.m.
Updated 7 hours ago

Pittsburgh City Council President Darlene Harris wants to stop Downtown building owners from erecting signs on top of their properties.

Harris said the signs, including company names and logos, clutter the city skyline and detract from its aesthetic splendor. The lifelong North Side resident proposed legislation that would prohibit signs erected 40 feet or higher on Downtown buildings.

Real estate brokers say the legislation is discriminatory and could hurt building marketability. But one developer said he understands Harris' concerns.

“I don't, as a developer, feel at all worried about having to conform to a reasonably crafted signage requirement that limits signs to something that doesn't disrupt the continuity of the visible landscape,” said Mark Minnerly, director of real estate development for Downtown-based Mosites Co.

Harris said signs are destroying the city skyline and do not mesh with historic city architecture.

“Architects did not intend their artful creations to be pylons for billboards,” she said. “This is the city's artwork. It shouldn't be a bunch of advertising.” Existing signs would be grand-fathered under the legislation, which amends an ordinance. Council has scheduled a preliminary vote for Wednesday.


Read more: http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/4388901-74/signs-downtown-harris#ixzz2ZuDjMIG2
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[BrianTH]

Pittsburgh OKs demolition for Point Park Playhouse project

Well that sucks, but I am not surprised with PNC, the PDP, and the PHLF (ugh) all being in favor.

I think the next step is to try to work through the HRC. I'm still hoping Preservation Pittsburgh or some other heavyweight will step up, but if not I am still game for organizing something here.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I am of the same sentiment. For years we have blindly just built more road capacity without acknowledging that it is an expensive temporary fix.

Rather than encouraging low density sprawl through outlying areas that makes transportation expensive, we should encourage urban density with public transit, pedestrian and bicycle centric design. Pittsburgh was founded on that kind of urban design and the city is flourishing everywhere where it has been restored.

For large transportation projects, I would like to see street cars or light rail linking the neighborhoods as they once did.

Many cities in the united states are coming to the same conclusion, they are no longer looking at highways as the solution but rather as the problem.

Okay here. Let me get this straight. Somehow adding some level of capacity (even if it just means making a few intersections interchanges, perhaps adding some left or right-turn lanes, etc., is going to encourage sprawl along 88 and 51? Really? You'd rather have people stuck in literal gridlock for hours each day, wasting fuel and polluting the air as they idle their vehicles? How about just implementing better signal timing? Will that encourage sprawl as well?

Look, I take issue with the notion of making 88 and 51 interstate-standard highways, in fact I think it's pure nonsense. But there's got to be a middle ground between making poorly-conceived roads something more workable for today's congestion levels and doing absolutely nothing at all. I'm all for additional transit, I'm all for adding to our light rail network, I'm all for adding bus service, but if those buses are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else is then it's not going to do a damned thing, unfortunately.

This isn't Houston or Atlanta, home to 10-16 lane ribbons of concrete all over the freaking place. This is Pittsburgh, where our road infrastructure is just as old as the rest of our infrastructure and simply was never, ever built to handle the number of vehicles we have. And this is the same Pittsburgh which still has a majority of metro area jobs located downtown or within just a few miles of downtown in the Oakland area. This isn't a sprawling pit of suburban hell, and I'm glad it's not. But to somehow just cover your eyes and ears and say "No!", it's not going to help our lousy road network. Our highways are woefully outdated and lacking in general, our roads are generally very narrow with limited to no shoulders, our interchanges are outdated with almost no acceleration/deceleration lanes. There's not a lot we can feasibly do about adding additional through lanes to our roads, but we can at least add some well-placed left and right turn lanes, make a few busy intersections grade-separated interchanges, that kind of thing. Time our signals better, even. Adds substantial capacity and improves traffic flow without destroying the surrounding neighborhoods. What the hell is wrong with that?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[popstar]

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

[themaguffin]

Okay here. Let me get this straight. Somehow adding some level of capacity (even if it just means making a few intersections interchanges, perhaps adding some left or right-turn lanes, etc., is going to encourage sprawl along 88 and 51? Really? You'd rather have people stuck in literal gridlock for hours each day, wasting fuel and polluting the air as they idle their vehicles? How about just implementing better signal timing? Will that encourage sprawl as well?

Look, I take issue with the notion of making 88 and 51 interstate-standard highways, in fact I think it's pure nonsense. But there's got to be a middle ground between making poorly-conceived roads something more workable for today's congestion levels and doing absolutely nothing at all. I'm all for additional transit, I'm all for adding to our light rail network, I'm all for adding bus service, but if those buses are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else is then it's not going to do a damned thing, unfortunately.

This isn't Houston or Atlanta, home to 10-16 lane ribbons of concrete all over the freaking place. This is Pittsburgh, where our road infrastructure is just as old as the rest of our infrastructure and simply was never, ever built to handle the number of vehicles we have. And this is the same Pittsburgh which still has a majority of metro area jobs located downtown or within just a few miles of downtown in the Oakland area. This isn't a sprawling pit of suburban hell, and I'm glad it's not. But to somehow just cover your eyes and ears and say "No!", it's not going to help our lousy road network. Our highways are woefully outdated and lacking in general, our roads are generally very narrow with limited to no shoulders, our interchanges are outdated with almost no acceleration/deceleration lanes. There's not a lot we can feasibly do about adding additional through lanes to our roads, but we can at least add some well-placed left and right turn lanes, make a few busy intersections grade-separated interchanges, that kind of thing. Time our signals better, even. Adds substantial capacity and improves traffic flow without destroying the surrounding neighborhoods. What the hell is wrong with that?

I totally agree, especially when it comes to the South Hills. additionally those stretches of road are ugggllleee, tired and just awful. Improved, attractive blvd's with improved key intersection improvements (like they did to 51 at W Liberty in the 90s) would be very helpful.

Also, a connector from 79 to the South Hills to allow more direct access rather than the awkward paths one must travel would be beneficial too.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I totally agree, especially when it comes to the South Hills. additionally those stretches of road are ugggllleee, tired and just awful. Improved, attractive blvd's with improved key intersection improvements (like they did to 51 at W Liberty in the 90s) would be very helpful.

Also, a connector from 79 to the South Hills to allow more direct access rather than the awkward paths one must travel would be beneficial too.

Agreed and agreed. Making those roads nicer looking and improving them at the same time is nothing but a very good thing. And yes, having a legitimate connector from 79 to somewhere in the South Hills would be a great time-saver. Right now there's literally no decent way to get from 79 to somewhere like South Hills Village without going through 4-5 miles of tangled, jumbled insanity...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[DBR96A]

I was just brainstorming about PA 51 last night. I still think it should be redesigned as an attractive boulevard with interchanges at the busiest intersections at the very least. I'm also in favor of turning PA 65 back into a boulevard eventually, and doing a "cut and cover" of I-279 between Federal Street and Anderson Street on the North Side. I oppose eliminating that segment of I-279 because there is no direct interchange between I-376 and I-579, and it's pretty much impossible to build one. If one could be built, then I-279 could take the old I-579 alignment, and the segment on the North Side could be eliminated, but cutting and covering I-279 for a quarter of a mile on the North Side is an acceptable alternative to me. As for downtown, I'd propose eliminating the 10th Street Bypass and turning that into a riverfront park/marina. I-376 must stay, though.

Not only must I-376 stay, but it must be upgraded to modern Interstate standards as well, starting with the interchanges. I think SPUIs would be perfect for the Green Tree/Mt. Lebanon, Edgewood/Swissvale, Forest Hills/Wilkinsburg, Churchill and Monroeville/Plum interchanges. They'd take up less space than the existing interchanges, and have a much simpler design as well. The Carnegie/Heidelberg and West End interchanges could be made into "directional T's" pretty easily in their existing footprints as well. The Penn Hills interchange can be left as is. The downtown interchanges have no choice but to be left as is. The Parkway Center Drive and Greensburg Pike interchanges can be eliminated. The Bates Street/Oakland interchange doesn't need to be split into westbound "A-B" exits, and ought to have a westbound on-ramp. An eastbound off-ramp would be tricky there, but might not even be needed. The only truly tricky interchange is Squirrel Hill/Homestead, but that stupid eastbound on-ramp needs to go regardless. Interchange reconfiguration alone would make I-376 a much more pleasant drive.