PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[ChipSF]

Originally Posted by Johnland

I think it's actually good that the second Oxford Tower was never built. I love the one that stands today because, as you point out Brian, it is pure 80's exuberance. Much as I like it, I think two towers would've been mundane somehow.

Also was amused at the little business bit about the Dow reaching a new 'high' of 1209! Of course, that was a 1983 article.

The Grant Plaza buildings were a competition proposal for the same lots that Oxford Centre and its unbuilt second tower occupy. The Oxford proposal was selected. If I'm not mistaken, the Grant Plaza developers (Hillman) went on to build Fifth Avenue Place with the same architect, Hugh Stubbins.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

They're about as good as you can make big gaps in the street wall look. But that's still what they are.

Really though, the overall agenda of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust needs to be taken into account here. They've sat on a huge percentage of the land between Penn, Fort Duquense, 7th, and 9th for years. They walked out of a major development deal for the area and breached a contract. They've maintained this area as one of the largest expanses of surface lots downtown. Hell, the parcel in question still had a building on it back in 2011. It wasn't great, but it could have been reskinned, and was a hell of a better use than the surface parking lot there now.

Call me cynical, but I see this as basically a way to placate people downtown who haven't been happy about the role the Cultural Trust has played. Stick another parklet in front, and maybe they'll forget there is a giant surface lot there, and that a nonprofit is allowed to continually gobble up valuable downtown property and use it for nonproductive reasons.

That block is so depressing. A chintzy parklet isn't going to change the fact that this is the most under-utilized block Downtown. It's a real shame that the wonderful street walls lining the 900 block of Penn dissipate so abruptly along the northern side of the 800 block.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

A chintzy parklet isn't going to change the fact that this is the most under-utilized block Downtown.

Exactly, so I don't see any reason to fear the parklet will "placate" anyone.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Exactly, so I don't see any reason to fear the parklet will "placate" anyone.

All it has to do is "placate" the right people... just as Point Park's demolition agenda has placated the right people.

[GeneW]

Looks like some progress is being made with the Terminal Building.

[photoLith]

I like this mayor.

[Brentsters]

He must have seen BrianTH's piazza idea.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

All it has to do is "placate" the right people... just as Point Park's demolition agenda has placated the right people.

I'm not sure what you mean. Sadly, there is no mechanism in place by which anyone can actually force the Cultural Trust to move forward with development plans for this area. That is in contrast to the Point Park issue, where at least you could try to stop their demolition plans with an historic designation nomination.

And substantively, I don't think it is really the same either. To the extent people have been "placated" with respect to Point Park's theater plans, it is because they like what they are hearing about those plans. I'm frustrated that Point Park has not yet been forced to provide a detailed description of those plans, but I have no doubt they do in fact exist. In contrast, as you have aptly pointed out, a parklet is not in fact a substitute for redeveloping a whole block, and I have seen exactly no one suggesting as much.

Honestly, this seems like an extremely far-fetched notion to me. I strongly suspect the parklet is being proposed just because they think it would be worth it on its own merits, and not because they think anyone would accept it as a substitute for a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site. And even if that was their intent, I see no reason to fear it would actually work.

[BrianTH]

It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the Produce Terminal process. Certainly it is comforting that a person at Acklin's level was tasked to oversee it.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by eschaton

They're about as good as you can make big gaps in the street wall look. But that's still what they are.

Really though, the overall agenda of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust needs to be taken into account here. They've sat on a huge percentage of the land between Penn, Fort Duquense, 7th, and 9th for years. They walked out of a major development deal for the area and breached a contract. They've maintained this area as one of the largest expanses of surface lots downtown. Hell, the parcel in question still had a building on it back in 2011. It wasn't great, but it could have been reskinned, and was a hell of a better use than the surface parking lot there now.

Call me cynical, but I see this as basically a way to placate people downtown who haven't been happy about the role the Cultural Trust has played. Stick another parklet in front, and maybe they'll forget there is a giant surface lot there, and that a nonprofit is allowed to continually gobble up valuable downtown property and use it for nonproductive reasons.

My recall of the demise of RiverParc was that the Cultural Trust decided to bail due to the economic downturn and the developer sued, either to force a resumption of the project or to recoup its out of pocket expenses. Is that right or was there more to it? Was the Trust actually found to have breached a contract and forced to pay damages?

I share your frustration with those blocks in the Cultural District, particularly given the current momentum of the downtown residential market. Even if it was prudent to delay the project in 2009 (and, arguably, it was), why is there no forward progress now? I assume that bridges between the Trust and both the developer and architect have been burned due to the law suit and thus the Trust---if it is doing anything at all---is back to square one. Hope I am wrong---I liked the RiverParc plan quite a bit. One mitigating factor to me: The Trust aimed awfully high with this project (international competition, European architect) and the plans were really impressive. That doesn't give the Trust a pass---the property needs to be developed---but the Trust does pay attention to context and design (or at least they did when Carol Brown headed up the group). From a development standpoint, the Trust is kind of the anti-Buncher. And for that reason alone, I am willing to give them a bit of slack.

I doubt anyone who pays attention to that property and wants it to be developed is going to be bought off by some trees and grass planted along the perimeter of the property. It is still a surface parking lot.

[Evergrey]

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...ilson-Center-assets/stories/201401210139

Conservator asks to liquidate August Wilson Center assets

January 21, 2014 1:56 PM


By Mark Belko / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Faced with a dire financial situation, the conservator for the August Wilson Center for African American Culture is asking for court permission to liquidate the facility's assets.

In an interim report filed today, Judith Fitzgerald, a former U.S. bankruptcy court judge, said she sees "no possibility of continued viability of [the August Wilson Center] as it currently exists."

She recommended that her appointment be converted to a liquidating receivership to sell the center and its assets.

"The conservator believes that the highest and best value for the assets of AWC can only be obtained through a sale process and bidding procedures overseen and approved by this court, in order to ensure a fair and level playing field for all bidders, to avoid any impropriety, collusion, or appearance of unfairness in the liquidation process, and to maximize the value of AWC's assets," she wrote.

...

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...ilson-Center-assets/stories/201401210139

Amazing. For a court-appointed conservator to reach this conclusion this quickly means that the financials must be worse than assumed. Still can't see the foundations riding to the rescue. What a shame.

[photoLith]

I say tear down that ugly building and rebuild what was there before, but that will never happen but I can dream.

[BrianTH]

It will be interesting to see who is interested in the building, and for what purpose.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It will be interesting to see who is interested in the building, and for what purpose.

I assume that any court-mandated asset sale would have to be done in some type of open auction process rather than a quiet sale. That could a wide range of developers, both familiar ones and some new to Pittsburgh.

Not to encourage yet more criticism of the Cultural Trust, but it struck me last week that the Trust may well be interested in the AWC building and is a more likely not-for-profit bidder than the Carnegie. The building is part of their footprint---that could be hard to resist if the price is right.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by photoLith

I say tear down that ugly building and rebuild what was there before, but that will never happen but I can dream.

Maybe the Cultural Trust can build a parklet there.

[David J Gill]

Great material, but please include the architects for each project.

Not because they deserve the credit, but because who does what, where and for whom is part of the story some in the forum would like to follow.

[BrianTH]

Interesting article about how DOT traffic projections, which in turn are derived from state and local traffic projections, have been consistently overshooting because of their failure to model the change in trends:

http://www.ssti.us/2013/12/new-travel-de...u-s-dot-will-they-be-accurate-this-time/

Great illustrative chart of the VMT projections from various years versus actual:



Why this matters:

And not only are these data being aggregated into the national report, but they also are being used in project selection and development around the country. High estimates of VMT have several negative implications, including 1) they imply a level of “needed” spending that is politically unachievable, 2) they can spur overbuilding on projects, draining resources from critical preservation multimodal investments, and conversely 3) they can discourage construction of lower-cost, lower-throughput streets that improve livability and property values.

[Jonboy1983]

Oh yeah, I can't believe I forgot about River Parc. I do hope that can re-materialize at some point. That was a good plan!

By the way, I know this doesn't pertain to Pittsburgh, but it is my latest blog post.

http://urbandesigneggshell.blogspot.com/2014/01/massive-vacant-valley-township-land.html

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Exactly, so I don't see any reason to fear the parklet will "placate" anyone.

FWIW, I didn't say I thought it was effective. But I do think it's basically window dressing on a vacant lot, and the tiny bit of landscaping in the offer doesn't change that this is sprucing up an effectively land-banked parcel.

I actually like the "eyeball park," as I think it does exactly what an urban parklet needs to do. On the other hand, I'm not really a fan of the fake magnolia park across the street from it, because despite being somewhat nice looking, it's set up in such a way that no one can sit down there - it's nothing more than a shortcut if you're going around that block, which few people do. And it's much more transparently a "missing tooth" due to the blank walls which face it on either side. It's pretty clearly just a makeshift installation until they can buy out the last two parcels they don't own on that end of block (709 Penn and the former Tambellini), level everything, and then either build a giant parking lot or hopefully something better.