PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Found this shot from 1927 of what is now the Bakery Square II site

Very cool. If you squint a bit, the first 2-3 floors of the new building are not really that far off:

[Minivan Werner]

speaking of parklets

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

[Private Dick]

Downtown corner "parklets" say... "this used to be a parking lot, but there's not enough interest in our city right now to build a building, so we'll throw up a few benches and saplings, a sculpture... and call it an an art parklet".

I quite enjoy small parks in a city though. New York does it right... always seem to be in just the right area for some reason.

[Steel City Scotty]

My hometown is preparing to build a "parklet" along our Main Street in the downtown district. I know a few of you are very much pro-preservation in all circumstances, but a dilapidated, condemned building will have to be demolished to make way for the project.







The rendering you see in that last picture (and from a different angle on the banner in the first one) is a rough draft. A meeting to discuss final design options is set for next week.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Don't do it. Always wondered if preservationist had a PBS fund raising type show, that we could stave off a few abominable losses like this.

[photoLith]

That building they are destroying looks to be 1840s. Pretty stupid and there aren't enough people walking around in downtown Wayne's world to even use that stupid parklet. I hate that word. Let's revitalize downtown by ripping it apart. Apparently it's still 1960 on waynesboro. That town has an incredibly intact downtown and is gaining back population and I believe has the highest population it's ever had now. Why they would tear down intact urban fabric for an idiotic park nobody will use is beyond me.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

speaking of parklets

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

Thanks---the article gave me a laugh. Since Pittsburgh is already in the competition for the world's skinniest building, maybe the city or the Cultural Trust could build a parklet even smaller than Mill Ends. Or Mill's End.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Downtown corner "parklets" say... "this used to be a parking lot, but there's not enough interest in our city right now to build a building, so we'll throw up a few benches and saplings, a sculpture... and call it an an art parklet".

I quite enjoy small parks in a city though. New York does it right... always seem to be in just the right area for some reason.

I assume you are exempting the typically barren plazas that developers used to build in order to gain a waiver to the height restrictions at their site. Those, for the most part, are uninspired.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I assume you are exempting the typically barren plazas that developers used to build in order to gain a waiver to the height restrictions at their site. Those, for the most part, are uninspired.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but I agree small parks in "found" spaces (vacant lots, odd lots, parking spaces, and so on) tend to be more fun, useful, and/or interesting than planned small public spaces like the ones you are referring to. Of course part of that is because of who is typically doing the planning, but I also think the challenge of using a found space tends to inspire more creativity and care.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but I agree small parks in "found" spaces (vacant lots, odd lots, parking spaces, and so on) tend to be more fun, useful, and/or interesting than planned small public spaces like the ones you are referring to. Of course part of that is because of who is typically doing the planning, but I also think the challenge of using a found space tends to inspire more creativity and care.

In Manhattan, the small plazas added at the base of commercial or residential buildings in exchange for additional square footage could be well-conceived and well-built. Usually, they are not. And I never quite understood why---a tenant or resident might well use the space if it were inviting. Instead, it would be barren and done on the cheap (and badly maintained) and unused. The city has thankfully stopped making such deals with developers.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by photoLith

That building they are destroying looks to be 1840s. Pretty stupid and there aren't enough people walking around in downtown Wayne's world to even use that stupid parklet. I hate that word. Let's revitalize downtown by ripping it apart. Apparently it's still 1960 on waynesboro. That town has an incredibly intact downtown and is gaining back population and I believe has the highest population it's ever had now. Why they would tear down intact urban fabric for an idiotic park nobody will use is beyond me.

Jesus. Hedge your words a bit.

That park actually looks like a well thought out design and like it is planed in such a way that programing will be very easy to create for the space. The buildings that are coming down have virtually no architectural character and a well programed park with permeable edges will grow coffee shops and restaurants beside it, as well as become a gathering point for art fairs, concerts, and other cultural events that bring people to smaller downtowns.

Are we loosing two old but architecturally insignificant buildings? yes. do the possibilities of what we are gaining in terms of an active, walkable downtown out weigh those losses? From what i see, most definitely yes.

In other news, does anyone know if on this board there is a way to keep from seeing certain members posts? I'm just sick of reading the crassness and finality of discussion a certain poster keeps on typing.

[dfiler]

I enjoy when people post opinions opposed to mine. It is actually quite beneficial to not avoid those differing opinions. It is the free flow of differing opinions that makes this one of the most active threads on this forum. Thank you everyone for the lively discussion!

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

Jesus. Hedge your words a bit.

That park actually looks like a well thought out design and like it is planed in such a way that programing will be very easy to create for the space. The buildings that are coming down have virtually no architectural character and a well programed park with permeable edges will grow coffee shops and restaurants beside it, as well as become a gathering point for art fairs, concerts, and other cultural events that bring people to smaller downtowns.

Are we loosing two old but architecturally insignificant buildings? yes. do the possibilities of what we are gaining in terms of an active, walkable downtown out weigh those losses? From what i see, most definitely yes.

In other news, does anyone know if on this board there is a way to keep from seeing certain members posts? I'm just sick of reading the crassness and finality of discussion a certain poster keeps on typing.

I'd argue a commercial street is more than the sum of its parts. For example, in Pittsburgh many of the most vibrant commercial areas (Walnut Street in Shadyside, or Forbes in Squirrel Hill) are frankly mostly ugly when it comes to individual buildings. But the continuous street wall and bustle at ground level means no one pays attention to what's happening on the upper floors.

That's not to say that a small gap in the street wall is the end of the world. If well programmed with things like farmers markets, it can be a step up. But one shouldn't argue, when making a gap, that the lack of architectural significance excuses it.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd argue a commercial street is more than the sum of its parts. For example, in Pittsburgh many of the most vibrant commercial areas (Walnut Street in Shadyside, or Forbes in Squirrel Hill) are frankly mostly ugly when it comes to individual buildings. But the continuous street wall and bustle at ground level means no one pays attention to what's happening on the upper floors.

That's not to say that a small gap in the street wall is the end of the world. If well programmed with things like farmers markets, it can be a step up. But one shouldn't argue, when making a gap, that the lack of architectural significance excuses it.

Brilliantly stated.

Cohesive streetwalls make all the difference.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Bad news for Mount Washington development:

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/g...ter-than-none-at-all/Content?oid=1724276

"When [the hotel] was proposed, it was felt that the climate was right for that, but as it turned out, the banks were not interested in loaning money for a five-star hotel in Pittsburgh," Desmone explains.

I find this statement hard to believe considering actual evidence shows the complete opposite is happening with new hotel proposals popping up all over the city. The banks sure aren't having much trouble funding any of those.

Now, they are not "5 star" hotels but some are pretty close with their conceptual uniqueness, service, architecture, and the clientele they target, (Fairmont, Ace, Indigo, ect).

If Desmone had actually said, "the banks were not interested in loaning money for a five-star hotel in Mt. Washington", then I could potentially forgive the developer for bungling the original plan since that statement could have some truth to it.

Either way, I really hate the newest proposal for 1 Grandview, instead of a premier hotel and public spaces being the exclamation point on the end of this iconic street, now they decided to go in the complete opposite direction with market rate apartments in a horrible "commie block" style development that screams Section 8. No iconic attractions, no public spaces, just a restaurant. That rendering is an insult to both Mt. Washington and the city of Pittsburgh, especially after seeing what this developer had originally promised the community.

[BrianTH]

I agree that Pittsburgh as a whole seems to be attracting a lot of hotel interest, but I also wouldn't be surprised if a resurgent Downtown, and even a resurgent East Liberty, has made a Mt Washington hotel specifically a tougher sell.

Anyway, I actually think there is a lot of disheartening NIMBYism reflected in that article. Holding aside design issues, 300 new apartments would do a lot to help spur reinvestment in Mt Washington's commercial areas, and in general it is good public policy to be allowing as many residential units as can be marketed in areas like this (meaning those with good proximity to jobs centers and public transit, and walkable amenities).

As for design--is that even purporting to be a fully-detailed rendering? Seems odd if it was. Anyway, I have no inherent problem with the basic idea of doing a cluster of buildings, but obviously they should look decent both individually and collectively.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

Either way, I really hate the newest proposal for 1 Grandview, instead of a premier hotel and public spaces being the exclamation point on the end of this iconic street, now they decided to go in the complete opposite direction with market rate apartments in a horrible "commie block" style development that screams Section 8. No iconic attractions, no public spaces, just a restaurant. That rendering is an insult to both Mt. Washington and the city of Pittsburgh, especially after seeing what this developer had originally promised the community.

Eh. Mount Washington is basically a generic Pittsburgh neighborhood with a view. Admittedly a hotel would be a natural fit, given tourists (and absentee millionaires) seem to like Grandview the most. But IMHO the neighborhood needs more improvements off of Grandview (particularly to the Virginia Avenue business district) before something like the hotel could be wildly successful.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Eh. Mount Washington is basically a generic Pittsburgh neighborhood with a view. Admittedly a hotel would be a natural fit, given tourists (and absentee millionaires) seem to like Grandview the most. But IMHO the neighborhood needs more improvements off of Grandview (particularly to the Virginia Avenue business district) before something like the hotel could be wildly successful.

You are completely right but, since the view is prized and this developer or the next one will eventually build on that lot, I think people should still voice their complaints with the current mediocre proposal. It is really bad. Really bad. It still reminds me of a prison block. With a view.

You are dead-on that one block off Grandview things head south. For such a large neighborhood, the lack of a decent business street is really surprising. The Virginia Avenue corridor could be just fine but it surely is not there now. Maybe a large, well-designed apartment project at One Grandview would prod further investment on Virginia.

Edit: The one part of the original proposal that I liked, the public extension of Grandview to the east, should be restored.

[GeneW]

Wow, that new design is, um, uninspiring. That looks like about 20 minutes work in SketchUp.

[dfiler]

Note that the proposal isn't ready to present to the public nor the city planning commission. The unveiling of a fleshed out proposal has been repeatedly delayed.

Thus it is not surprising that there isn't a pretty render that makes us oooo and ahhhh. All we've got to go on is a rough sketch.

I'll withhold judgment until the final proposal is available. A large apartment complex doesn't seem inherently good or bad for the location. No matter how good or bad, large new apartment complexes always elicit vocal NIMBY protests. When details and renders are made public we will be able to see if the NIMBYists are justified.

Or can we make that judgement already? Is an apartment building on grandview bad no matter what?