PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Yawn. I'd prefer they either renovate the existing building, or reuse it as part of the new building ala Hearst Tower.

[photoLith]

I vote they restore the current building and built the tower on a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 parking lot.

[BrianTH]

Chloe Sevigny loves Pittsburgh (or is just a lot more savvy than Sienna Miller):

http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity-lifestyle/chloe-sevigny-pittsburgh-favorite-spots

[Minivan Werner]

Originally Posted by photoLith

I vote they restore the current building and built the tower on a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 parking lot.

Agreed. There are plenty of places elsewhere in downtown for a 30 story tower without removing anything historically significant. And Oxford should have the capital to buy the land.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

Agreed. There are plenty of places elsewhere in downtown for a 30 story tower without removing anything historically significant. And Oxford should have the capital to buy the land.

I was assuming that Oxford owned the parking lot across from the City-County Building since that's where the second tower of Oxford center would have gone but it looks like they sold it back in '97 and it's currently owned by Urban Growth Property. It seems so dumb to have a tiny surface lot right there on Grant.

[AaronPGH]

Glad to see that Gensler is behind the latest version of that tower, but I'm with the rest of you. It should go on a surface parking lot instead.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Glad to see that Gensler is behind the latest version of that tower, but I'm with the rest of you. It should go on a surface parking lot instead.

I nominate the fugly Grant Street parking lot, why there is such a hideous parking lot on such a otherwise magnificent street, I have no clue.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

I nominate the fugly Grant Street parking lot, why there is such a hideous parking lot on such a otherwise magnificent street, I have no clue.

With a Assessed Value of $4.7million, that is not a cheap piece of land for anyone to buy. However, even if the owner nets a very conservative $1000 a day in parking revenue (A number I'm making up), that is almost four times what they pay in property taxes.

So, depending upon how things are structured owning a surface parking lot in that location is either a tax shelter or a lot like owning a cash machine.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

I nominate the fugly Grant Street parking lot, why there is such a hideous parking lot on such a otherwise magnificent street, I have no clue.

While a tower would fit in that site quite nicely, it wouldn't have nearly the same skyline impact on an already crowded Grant Street.

The best option here IMO, is to just move it a block closer to the Mon on Smithfield. You have a block that is fronted by two extremely crappy post-war structures, CVS and an ugly parking garage. Street View

This location would keep the same impact on the skyline that the current spot has from Mt. Washington while at the same time saving a historic pre-war building.

[DKNewYork]

It would be great to preserve the Frank & Seder building in some form, but I suspect that the slab-to-slab heights of only eight feet will be a problem. That seems pretty low by contemporary office standards. Not even sure how that provides plenum space for ducts and lighting. It seems to be yet another reason for Oxford to build new rather than renovate. Or maybe do a superficial renovation on the cheap while waiting to build high...

As for building inside the existing façade, there are some differences between the F&S and the Hearst projects. The original 1920s Hearst building was constructed with the footings and foundation for fifty-story building. The '29 crash caused Hearst to halt construction after the building base was completed, deferring the tower until the economy improved. But the required foundation was always there. As F&S was never intended to be a high rise, I assume that the building would need to have a different foundation constructed. Any engineers or architects out there who would know if its feasible to build such a foundation within a preserved seven story façade? I'm guessing it is possible but wonder how much it would add to the cost.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

It would be great to preserve the Frank & Seder building in some form, but I suspect that the slab-to-slab heights of only eight feet will be a problem. That seems pretty low by contemporary office standards. Not even sure how that provides plenum space for ducts and lighting.

Oxford officially announced renovation was a possibility, with renderings and such, so I assume they know what they are talking about.

As for building inside the existing façade, there are some differences between the F&S and the Hearst projects. . . . Any engineers or architects out there who would know if its feasible to build such a foundation within a preserved seven story façade? I'm guessing it is possible but wonder how much it would add to the cost.

I'm neither of those things, but I know the Hearst Tower is only one of many examples.

For example, the 2010 proposal for the Chelsea Market expansion (which ran into trouble for NIMBY/design issues) was over what looks to me like a similar sort of building. Note the High Line passing through and the cantilever over the neighboring building--I would think if anything all that would increase the degree of difficulty, although it would be kinda cool to cantilever something at least partially over the Warner Center:

[BrianTH]

Another broadly similar project in Vancouver (with more, albeit milder, cantilevering--seems like a thing with these proposals):

http://news.buzzbuzzhome.com/2013/08/vancouver-exchange-canada-tallest-sustainable-tower.html

[BrianTH]

By the way, I have no actual knowledge of the details, but just to look at it, it doesn't seem to me like Hearst Tower actually made much use of the original structure for support:

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oxford officially announced renovation was a possibility, with renderings and such, so I assume they know what they are talking about.

I don't disagree. Oxford must know its market and what can/cannot be done w/r/t renovation. I am sure that the building can be renovated into usuable office space. I guess my point is that the eight foot span would seem to limit the type of renovation possible...or the type of tenant that could be attracted. And maybe that will be one more reason for Oxford to opt for new construction. But that is all conjecture on my part.

For example, the 2010 proposal for the Chelsea Market expansion (which ran into trouble for NIMBY/design issues) was over what looks to me like a similar sort of building. Note the High Line passing through and the cantilever over the neighboring building--I would think if anything all that would increase the degree of difficulty, although it would be kinda cool to cantilever something at least partially over the Warner Center:

I agree that there are probably lots of possible means of saving the F&S façade while constructing a high rise inside and above. Or cantilevered above the Warner Centre, assuming those air rights can be obtained. Let's hope that some alternative ideas are explored. I just wonder about the effect of special engineering solutions on the cost of the project, because, that ultimately is what will drive Oxford's decision.

Chelsea Market is the old Nabisco factory (it's our Bakery Square), so as a former industrial building it might be more strongly built that a former Pittsburgh department store. The High Line, afterall, was a freight railroad. But you're right---the problem can be engineered away. But will Oxford pay that? I ask because in New York, where landlords can command some of the highest rents in the world, the default mindset is to build to maximize profits, not to build attractively or creatively. We have our own Bunchers up here.

It's funny that you would reference the Chelsea Market expansion as an example. I live a few blocks north of the complex and was one of the NIMBYs at the 2010 and 2011 Community Board meetings that addressed the expansion. Your photo shows the proposed expansion on the Tenth Avenue end of Chelsea Market---I have no issue with that, although many people argued that with the cantilever is should be lower. But the project also included a second office building on the Ninth Avenue end of the block. That building was simply too tall for the site's footprint. Rather than cantilever (which involves no air rights purchase as the Market owns the entire block), the building shot straight up. The developer eventually promised to reduce the height when he saw the amount of opposition. I heard that the developers are proposing a ten story building, which should not elicit too much negative reaction. Not sure where things stand now.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, I have no actual knowledge of the details, but just to look at it, it doesn't seem to me like Hearst Tower actually made much use of the original structure for support

While the original Hearst building was hollowed out in terms of usable floor space, the foundation that was built in the 1920s was utilized for the tower.

But I get your point: The F&S building would lend itself to this type of conversion (or some other creative idea) beautifully. But Hearst is privately-owned and stated publicly that it had hired Richard Rodgers to design one of best buildings in New York. I doubt Oxford would be so noble, unless its marketing analysis said such a plan would result in more profit.

An aside: The reason for all those diagonal supports inside the atrium at Hearst Tower is kind of interesting. There is a 50-story apartment building built right to the property line on Hearst's west side. Rodgers did not want offices looking that direction so he placed the service/elevator core on the western side of the building, which apparently created some engineering challenges w/r/t stiffening the entire structure. Those diagonal supports, plus the way cool pleating of the exterior curtain wall, were the solution. The local public television station recently showed a documentary about the building...

[BrianTH]

To be clear, I don't think Oxford has even hinted that re-using the existing building in the base for a new tower is on the table. In that sense, this possibility is only useful to think about at this point to illustrate that there is no fundamental reason you can't both preserve the historical layer at this level and also build new towers. Realistically, though, likely the only path to that happening with this particular building is either that Oxford does a cheapo renovation first or that it does nothing at all for quite a while.

[BrianTH]

Here is a side-by-side of the old version and the newer version designed to address community concerns:



To my eye the newer version isn't a success--it doesn't really look any more harmonious than the older version, and so is just less interesting overall.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, they were still getting criticized by the community, although I don't know how that breaks down by the different parts of the proposal.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

To be clear, I don't think Oxford has even hinted that re-using the existing building in the base for a new tower is on the table. In that sense, this possibility is only useful to think about at this point to illustrate that there is no fundamental reason you can't both preserve the historical layer at this level and also build new towers. Realistically, though, likely the only path to that happening with this particular building is either that Oxford does a cheapo renovation first or that it does nothing at all for quite a while.

Agreed---Oxford has never, to my knowledge, suggested building atop the old building or within the old façade. It's an option, albeit one that Oxford would probably never consider on its own or even imagine. However, it never hurts that this forum makes public suggestions and ideas that might somehow find their way to Oxford or some organization that might deal with Oxford.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Build the tower!

Hear Hear!





I loved the first rendering... buuuut the Gensler one is not bad either.
I would really love to see two 500+ ft high towers going up on the same block at the same time. Skyscraper 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[Austinlee]

^Looks like the rendering is about the same as Three Mellon Center or the Grant Building which would put it just about exactly at 500 ft tall.