PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

There is a ton of free space around the Produce Terminal for higher construction. So I don't have a problem preserving its relatively unique shape.

[guyFROMtheBURGH]

On a very different topic, National Geographic has a feature out showing 9 Cities That Love Their Trees and each city on the list has a map showing where all tree cover is, including the overall percentage. Pittsburgh, with many of its parks, valleys and hillsides completely covered, tops out at 42%!

http://http://www.nationalgeographic.com/news-features/urban-tree-canopy/

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There is a ton of free space around the Produce Terminal for higher construction. So I don't have a problem preserving its relatively unique shape.

Too bad Buncher will use most of that for surface parking lots and cookie cutter buildings.

[Urbana]

Saving the full terminal is beyond comprehension. The whole riverfront between 16th and 21st streets dead, cut off from the urban fabric, for what? To preserve 500 "historic" feet of an already absurd building.

Damn shame.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Urbana

Saving the full terminal is beyond comprehension. The whole riverfront between 16th and 21st streets dead, cut off from the urban fabric, for what? To preserve 500 "historic" feet of an already absurd building.

Damn shame.

Most of the proposals include putting portals through the building at cross-streets so the grid wouldn't actually be cut off.

[DBR96A]

The outer metropolitan counties (except one) are the ones that took a hard right turn in 2008. It's also worth noting that the two metropolitan counties that didn't take a hard right turn -- Allegheny and Butler -- are the only ones that gained population between 2012 and 2013, per Census estimates.

And here's the population growth breakdown by race between 2010 and 2012, with projections for 2020:


Total population (2012)

19,160,024 - New York
9,522,434 - Chicago
6,018,800 - Philadelphia
5,804,975 - Washington DC
4,640,802 - Boston
4,292,060 - Detroit
3,353,724 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
2,820,889 - St. Louis
2,753,149 - Baltimore
2,360,733 - Pittsburgh
2,144,210 - Cincinnati
2,064,630 - Kansas City
2,063,535 - Cleveland
1,878,714 - Columbus
1,798,634 - Indianapolis
1,601,374 - Providence
1,566,981 - Milwaukee
1,214,400 - Hartford
1,134,210 - Buffalo
1,056,940 - Rochester

Numeric change (2010-2012)

+262,904 - New York
+222,938 - Washington DC
+88,400 - Boston
+73,891 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+61,329 - Chicago
+53,459 - Philadelphia
+42,660 - Baltimore
+42,393 - Indianapolis
+42,187 - Columbus
+29,296 - Kansas City
+14,059 - Cincinnati
+11,073 - Milwaukee
+7,998 - St. Louis
+4,448 - Pittsburgh
+2,617 - Rochester
+2,016 - Hartford
+502 - Providence
-1,301 - Buffalo
-4,187 - Detroit
-13,705 - Cleveland

Percent change (2010-2012)

+4.0% - Washington DC
+2.4% - Indianapolis
+2.3% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+2.3% - Columbus
+1.9% - Boston
+1.6% - Baltimore
+1.4% - Kansas City
+1.4% - New York
+0.9% - Philadelphia
+0.7% - Cincinnati
+0.7% - Milwaukee
+0.6% - Chicago
+0.3% - St. Louis
+0.2% - Hartford
+0.2% - Pittsburgh
+0.2% - Rochester
+0.0% - Providence
-0.1% - Buffalo
-0.1% - Detroit
-0.7% - Cleveland

Projected population (2020)

20,211,640 - New York
9,767,750 - Chicago
6,696,727 - Washington DC
6,232,636 - Philadelphia
4,994,402 - Boston
4,275,312 - Detroit
3,649,288 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
2,923,789 - Baltimore
2,852,881 - St. Louis
2,378,525 - Pittsburgh
2,200,446 - Cincinnati
2,181,814 - Kansas City
2,047,462 - Columbus
2,008,715 - Cleveland
1,968,206 - Indianapolis
1,611,273 - Milwaukee
1,603,382 - Providence
1,222,464 - Hartford
1,129,006 - Buffalo
1,067,408 - Rochester

White population (2012)

9,208,715 - New York
5,183,365 - Chicago
3,866,427 - Philadelphia
3,457,630 - Boston
2,899,179 - Detroit
2,778,032 - Washington DC
2,612,893 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
2,112,625 - St. Louis
2,046,439 - Pittsburgh
1,742,938 - Cincinnati
1,631,879 - Baltimore
1,528,916 - Kansas City
1,472,832 - Cleveland
1,415,313 - Columbus
1,330,945 - Indianapolis
1,272,030 - Providence
1,070,829 - Milwaukee
896,918 - Buffalo
856,821 - Hartford
821,219 - Rochester

White numeric change (2010-2012)

+55,910 - Washington DC
+30,487 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+18,195 - Indianapolis
+18,118 - Columbus
+11,922 - Boston
+11,679 - Kansas City
+2,472 - Baltimore
+1,411 - Cincinnati
-2,866 - St. Louis
-3,622 - Milwaukee
-4,374 - Rochester
-7,221 - Buffalo
-7,273 - Pittsburgh
-13,504 - Hartford
-15,132 - Providence
-17,807 - Philadelphia
-19,541 - Cleveland
-21,306 - Detroit
-32,307 - Chicago
-76,325 - New York

White percent change (2010-2012)

+2.1% - Washington DC
+1.4% - Indianapolis
+1.3% - Columbus
+1.2% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+0.8% - Kansas City
+0.3% - Boston
+0.2% - Baltimore
+0.1% - Cincinnati
-0.1% - St. Louis
-0.3% - Milwaukee
-0.4% - Pittsburgh
-0.5% - Philadelphia
-0.5% - Rochester
-0.6% - Chicago
-0.7% - Detroit
-0.8% - Buffalo
-0.8% - New York
-1.2% - Providence
-1.3% - Cleveland
-1.6% - Hartford

Projected white population (2020)

8,903,415 - New York
5,054,137 - Chicago
3,795,199 - Philadelphia
3,505,318 - Boston
3,001,672 - Washington DC
2,813,955 - Detroit
2,734,841 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
2,101,161 - St. Louis
2,017,347 - Pittsburgh
1,748,582 - Cincinnati
1,641,767 - Baltimore
1,575,632 - Kansas City
1,487,785 - Columbus
1,403,725 - Indianapolis
1,394,668 - Cleveland
1,211,502 - Providence
1,056,341 - Milwaukee
868,034 - Buffalo
803,723 - Rochester
802,805 - Hartford

Black population (2012)

3,113,158 - New York
1,608,085 - Chicago
1,458,770 - Washington DC
1,221,648 - Philadelphia
970,519 - Detroit
784,366 - Baltimore
514,708 - St. Louis
407,601 - Cleveland
334,783 - Boston
282,244 - Columbus
271,087 - Indianapolis
258,138 - Milwaukee
257,763 - Cincinnati
254,988 - Kansas City
253,292 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
196,731 - Pittsburgh
135,043 - Buffalo
125,139 - Hartford
117,977 - Rochester
77,108 - Providence

Black numeric change (2010-2012)

+41,884 - Washington DC
+23,555 - New York
+12,904 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+12,271 - Boston
+12,258 - Baltimore
+12,178 - Philadelphia
+10,650 - Columbus
+9,401 - Indianapolis
+3,347 - Kansas City
+2,862 - Cincinnati
+1,948 - Hartford
+1,728 - Milwaukee
+1,492 - Providence
+1,342 - Pittsburgh
+1,073 - Rochester
+46 - Buffalo
-298 - St. Louis
-3,089 - Cleveland
-4,924 - Detroit
-10,990 - Chicago

Black percent change (2010-2012)

+5.4% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+3.9% - Columbus
+3.8% - Boston
+3.6% - Indianapolis
+3.0% - Washington DC
+2.0% - Providence
+1.6% - Baltimore
+1.6% - Hartford
+1.3% - Kansas City
+1.1% - Cincinnati
+1.0% - Philadelphia
+0.9% - Rochester
+0.8% - New York
+0.7% - Milwaukee
+0.7% - Pittsburgh
+0.0% - Buffalo
-0.1% - St. Louis
-0.5% - Detroit
-0.7% - Chicago
-0.8% - Cleveland

Projected black population (2020)

3,207,378 - New York
1,626,306 - Washington DC
1,564,125 - Chicago
1,270,360 - Philadelphia
950,823 - Detroit
833,398 - Baltimore
513,516 - St. Louis
395,245 - Cleveland
383,867 - Boston
324,844 - Columbus
308,691 - Indianapolis
304,908 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
269,211 - Cincinnati
268,376 - Kansas City
265,050 - Milwaukee
202,099 - Pittsburgh
135,227 - Buffalo
132,931 - Hartford
122,269 - Rochester
83,076 - Providence

Asian population (2012)

2,032,880 - New York
566,987 - Washington DC
566,245 - Chicago
324,562 - Boston
319,765 - Philadelphia
205,402 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
153,561 - Detroit
137,246 - Baltimore
64,873 - St. Louis
63,993 - Columbus
53,295 - Kansas City
51,155 - Hartford
49,417 - Milwaukee
45,806 - Pittsburgh
45,451 - Cincinnati
45,048 - Indianapolis
44,563 - Providence
43,525 - Cleveland
27,978 - Rochester
27,845 - Buffalo

Asian numeric change (2010-2012)

+115,638 - New York
+42,936 - Washington DC
+28,918 - Chicago
+24,263 - Boston
+19,892 - Philadelphia
+15,159 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+12,121 - Baltimore
+10,199 - Detroit
+5,389 - Columbus
+4,539 - Indianapolis
+3,898 - Kansas City
+3,720 - Pittsburgh
+3,523 - St. Louis
+3,449 - Cincinnati
+2,979 - Hartford
+2,798 - Milwaukee
+2,668 - Providence
+2,377 - Cleveland
+1,810 - Buffalo
+800 - Rochester

Asian percent change (2010-2012)

+11.2% - Indianapolis
+9.7% - Baltimore
+9.2% - Columbus
+8.8% - Pittsburgh
+8.2% - Cincinnati
+8.2% - Washington DC
+8.1% - Boston
+8.0% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+7.9% - Kansas City
+7.1% - Detroit
+7.0% - Buffalo
+6.6% - Philadelphia
+6.4% - Providence
+6.2% - Hartford
+6.0% - Milwaukee
+6.0% - New York
+5.8% - Cleveland
+5.7% - St. Louis
+5.4% - Chicago
+2.9% - Rochester

Projected Asian population (2020)

2,495,432 - New York
738,731 - Washington DC
681,917 - Chicago
421,614 - Boston
399,333 - Philadelphia
266,038 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
194,357 - Detroit
185,730 - Baltimore
85,549 - Columbus
78,965 - St. Louis
68,887 - Kansas City
63,204 - Indianapolis
63,071 - Hartford
60,686 - Pittsburgh
60,609 - Milwaukee
59,247 - Cincinnati
55,235 - Providence
53,033 - Cleveland
35,085 - Buffalo
31,178 - Rochester

Multiracial population (2012)

262,352 - New York
147,273 - Washington DC
126,402 - Chicago
100,279 - Philadelphia
80,813 - Detroit
76,681 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
72,283 - Boston
57,341 - Baltimore
45,907 - St. Louis
44,731 - Kansas City
42,166 - Columbus
35,658 - Cincinnati
34,975 - Pittsburgh
33,493 - Cleveland
32,263 - Indianapolis
28,109 - Providence
26,178 - Milwaukee
18,591 - Hartford
18,538 - Rochester
17,795 - Buffalo

Multiracial numeric change (2010-2012)

+18,741 - New York
+11,613 - Washington DC
+7,457 - Chicago
+6,429 - Philadelphia
+5,806 - Boston
+5,427 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+4,511 - Detroit
+4,131 - Baltimore
+3,072 - Columbus
+2,839 - Kansas City
+2,752 - Indianapolis
+2,675 - St. Louis
+2,361 - Cincinnati
+2,351 - Pittsburgh
+1,885 - Milwaukee
+1,807 - Cleveland
+1,313 - Providence
+1,244 - Buffalo
+1,017 - Rochester
+882 - Hartford

Multiracial percent change (2010-2012)

+9.3% - Indianapolis
+8.7% - Boston
+8.6% - Washington DC
+7.9% - Columbus
+7.8% - Baltimore
+7.8% - Milwaukee
+7.7% - New York
+7.6% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+7.5% - Buffalo
+7.2% - Pittsburgh
+7.1% - Cincinnati
+6.9% - Philadelphia
+6.8% - Kansas City
+6.3% - Chicago
+6.2% - St. Louis
+5.9% - Detroit
+5.8% - Rochester
+5.7% - Cleveland
+5.0% - Hartford
+4.9% - Providence

Projected multiracial population (2020)

337,316 - New York
193,725 - Washington DC
156,230 - Chicago
125,995 - Philadelphia
98,857 - Detroit
98,389 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
95,507 - Boston
73,955 - Baltimore
56,607 - St. Louis
56,087 - Kansas City
54,454 - Columbus
45,102 - Cincinnati
44,379 - Pittsburgh
43,271 - Indianapolis
40,721 - Cleveland
33,718 - Milwaukee
33,361 - Providence
22,771 - Buffalo
22,606 - Rochester
22,119 - Hartford

Hispanic population (2012)

4,508,478 - New York
2,025,319 - Chicago
840,855 - Washington DC
501,036 - Philadelphia
444,516 - Boston
185,806 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
175,271 - Detroit
173,912 - Providence
174,067 - Kansas City
160,738 - Hartford
155,503 - Milwaukee
135,415 - Baltimore
115,759 - Indianapolis
102,921 - Cleveland
76,811 - St. Louis
71,333 - Columbus
68,755 - Rochester
59,035 - Cincinnati
49,295 - Buffalo
34,145 - Pittsburgh

Hispanic numeric change (2010-2012)

+180,912 - New York
+70,063 - Washington DC
+68,239 - Chicago
+34,000 - Boston
+32,868 - Philadelphia
+11,661 - Baltimore
+10,237 - Providence
+9,523 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+9,519 - Hartford
+8,000 - Milwaukee
+7,500 - Indianapolis
+7,384 - Kansas City
+7,206 - Detroit
+4,877 - Columbus
+4,792 - St. Louis
+4,788 - Cleveland
+4,176 - Pittsburgh
+4,036 - Rochester
+3,915 - Cincinnati
+2,870 - Buffalo

Hispanic percent change (2010-2012)

+13.9% - Pittsburgh
+9.4% - Baltimore
+9.1% - Washington DC
+8.3% - Boston
+7.3% - Columbus
+7.1% - Cincinnati
+7.0% - Philadelphia
+6.9% - Indianapolis
+6.7% - St. Louis
+6.3% - Hartford
+6.3% - Providence
+6.2% - Buffalo
+6.2% - Rochester
+5.4% - Milwaukee
+5.4% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+4.9% - Cleveland
+4.4% - Kansas City
+4.3% - Detroit
+4.2% - New York
+3.5% - Chicago

Projected Hispanic population (2020)

5,232,126 - New York
2,298,275 - Chicago
1,121,107 - Washington DC
632,508 - Philadelphia
580,516 - Boston
223,898 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
214,860 - Providence
204,095 - Detroit
203,603 - Kansas City
198,814 - Hartford
187,503 - Milwaukee
182,059 - Baltimore
145,759 - Indianapolis
122,073 - Cleveland
95,979 - St. Louis
90,841 - Columbus
84,899 - Rochester
74,695 - Cincinnati
60,775 - Buffalo
50,849 - Pittsburgh

It's worth noting that Allegheny County has 52% of the metropolitan area's total population, but 60% of its college-educated population, and 76% of its non-white population. And most of the college-educated and non-white growth is occurring in Allegheny County as well.

Basically, the Pittsburgh metropolitan area is an increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan Allegheny County surrounded by lily-white outer counties. To put it another way, it's becoming like the Twin Cities, but with a less progressive white population in the outer counties.

[Private Dick]

^ REALLY displays how non-Latino the Pittsburgh metro is. Wow... I've always known that, but the numbers really put it in perspective.

To put it another way, it's becoming like the Twin Cities, but with a less progressive white population in the outer counties."[/I]

That may be the understatement of the year

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by guyFROMtheBURGH

On a very different topic, National Geographic has a feature out showing 9 Cities That Love Their Trees and each city on the list has a map showing where all tree cover is, including the overall percentage. Pittsburgh, with many of its parks, valleys and hillsides completely covered, tops out at 42%!

http://http://www.nationalgeographic.com/news-features/urban-tree-canopy/

That's the thing with Pittsburgh and its tree canopy though... it is primarily the hillsides, parks, and the undeveloped Hays Woods that make the percentage that high. The 42% is very misleading when looking at it from a "city" standpoint.

Pittsburgh is actually one of the least treed cities when it comes to core urban neighborhoods, and having "street trees" (largely due to historical space constraints -- simply not being enough room in flat areas of the city for the planting and growth of large shade trees). Downtown, Southside, Northside, Uptown, The Strip, Lawrenceville, Oakland, Bloomfield, and Hazelwood are largely treeless. This fact is one of the primary motivations of Tree Pittsburgh's efforts to plant in the city's urban neighborhoods.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Urbana

Saving the full terminal is beyond comprehension. The whole riverfront between 16th and 21st streets dead, cut off from the urban fabric, for what? To preserve 500 "historic" feet of an already absurd building.

Damn shame.

I couldn't agree more.

[Brentsters]

True, it's a dead zone. But how much of that is because there is absolutely nothing between 16th and 21st along the riverfront? You could knock down the whole terminal and it would still be a dead zone. Because there is no reason at all to visit 5 blocks of parking lot.

Also, why place "historic" in quotations? That it is historic is not questioned. All parties involved agree it is historic. The question is how to best utilize this historic building.

If the parking lots get developed into something worthwhile, I think appropriately placed pass throughs could serve well to connect the urban fabric. And lining the terminal with apartments, making it more pedestrian friendly, would immediately improve upon the dead zone.

If nothing else, I'm glad this RFP is being made public since all these ideas are being discussed.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Most of the proposals include putting portals through the building at cross-streets so the grid wouldn't actually be cut off.

The only time I recall seeing that is in Pfaffmann's hypothetical.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Urbana

The only time I recall seeing that is in Pfaffmann's hypothetical.

From the story about Ferchill's plan...

"While Buncher is proposing to demolish the western third of the building to extend 17th Street to the river, the Ferchill Group has "no interest in tearing any part of the terminal down," she said.

Instead, it would create portals through the building at 17th and 18th streets to give its residents and Buncher, which is planning a $450 million office and residential development on the riverfront, access to the water. The portals would not affect the terminal's roof, which would remain intact."


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...minal/stories/201404250095#ixzz300tavF2V

The developer that Pfaffmann is working with proposes the same.


If an experienced developer, with tried and true success in historic reuse/adaptation, is proposing viable reuse as apartments and a market while preserving the full length, why is their plan "beyond comprehension"?

Ferchill is top-notch. I trust they know what they're doing.

[Brentsters]

The Ferchill plan just released includes two portals.

[Urbana]

True, it's a dead zone. But how much of that is because there is absolutely nothing between 16th and 21st along the riverfront? You could knock down the whole terminal and it would still be a dead zone. Because there is no reason at all to visit 5 blocks of parking lot.

Right, the full length terminal doesn't matter NOW. But when something is put on the land it will be cut off from the heart of the Strip and Downtown by the 16th street bridge and Produce Terminal. Not to mention the amazing opportunity to connect 17th street and Penn Ave. business district to the river that is now likely gone.

Also, why place "historic" in quotations? That it is historic is not questioned. All parties involved agree it is historic. The question is how to best utilize this historic building.

Wasn't the portion of the terminal in question built much more recently than the rest of it?

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Urbana

Right, the full length terminal doesn't matter NOW. But when something is put on the land it will be cut off from the heart of the Strip and Downtown by the 16th street bridge and Produce Terminal. Not to mention the amazing opportunity to connect 17th street and Penn Ave. business district to the river that is now likely gone.

The 16th Street Bridge doesn't cut anything off from downtown though -- it's the mass acreage of surface parking lots to the west of the bridge that most definitely do. Buchner's planned development of those lots will hopefully be sound enough to address the issue.

With the portals through the terminal at both 17th and 18th streets, there is no disconnect between the riverfront and the commercial heart of the Strip.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Brentsters

Also, why place "historic" in quotations? That it is historic is not questioned. All parties involved agree it is historic. The question is how to best utilize this historic building.

Becasue "historic" is a hollow term. Merriam Webster has 3 definitions for it, 1) famous or important in history, 2)having great and lasting importance, 3) happening or existing in the past.

"Historic" has no actual weight and is used as a weasel word to make someones claim seem more right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). I can say absolutely anything is historic and it is a true statement. The Fort Pitt Block house is historic, The US Steel Tower is historic, the Gates center at CMU is historic, the crumbs still on my table from breakfast are historic. Just like the word "organic" the term "historic" has no absolute truth behind it, only opinion. Instead of saying "the historic produce terminal" which makes it incredibly obvious what your opinion on tearing it down is from the get go, a more truthful statement would be, "The original 1926 portion of the produce terminal."

It is important to differentiate between something just begin "historic" a.k.a. created before right now, and things worth being preserved. None of us would sit here saying that the crumbling road surfaces in East Liberty need to be preserved in their current state, but they are "historic", they were made in the past and were important in the failed, but "historic," urban planning of East Liberty.

"Historic" is meaningless. Using it in an argument for preservation, to me, devalues the whole argument. If you can not name and defend specific reasons for a structure to be preserved beyond "It is historic," they you have no argument. Is it one of the last of a specific type of building? Did something significant happen there? Was it designed in an unusual way or for an unusual purpose? Does it add to the community that lives and works near it? Does it add to the current urban fabric of the area? These are the questions that should me asked, not "Is it historic," because the answer to that question will always be "yes."

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

With the portals through the terminal at both 17th and 18th streets, there is no disconnect between the riverfront and the commercial heart of the Strip.

I still fear that the portals will be too much of a mental barrier for foot traffic a la the railroad separating Homestead and the Waterfront (though admittedly less extreme).

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Urbana

I still fear that the portals will be too much of a mental barrier for foot traffic a la the railroad separating Homestead and the Waterfront (though admittedly less extreme).

And it also destroys the one thing that makes the building unique, the unobstructed length of the building. The "Portals" turns it into 3 separate buildings with covered roads between.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

Too bad Buncher will use most of that for surface parking lots and cookie cutter buildings.

The maximum heights allowed in the Special Plan are pretty generous. So we should be agitating for something close (or at least closer) to the maximums.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Urbana

I still fear that the portals will be too much of a mental barrier for foot traffic

Europe is full of variations on the theme of a plaza with portals through the surrounding buildings. Many of them are extremely popular. Done right, they add a lot of interest and charm.