PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II - Page 489

eschaton · #**9761** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, just my two cents, but at max heights this is not horrible, although I would agree there should be no height limits anywhere in the western half (or more). At minimum heights though--that sucks.

I'd argue that the context of Washington Plaza being right across the street basically requires much higher (even unlimited) height allowances on the building furthest up on Centre. The next one down should ideally be higher scale as well.

photoLith · #**9762** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 2:12 AM**

Im not getting my hopes up for this development so then I wont get let down by how much it will probably suck.

designer3d712 · #**9763** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 3:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

latest on the Penguins development... many disappointing details... the giant video screen makes me throw up in my mouth a little

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...r-former-arena-site/stories/201409200091

That giant video screen has been in almost every rendering that I've seen. With the success that the portable screen has been for the playoffs, are you really surprised that they included it in the design? You guys always bitch about NIMBY's, but you guys are not any better.. lol I hope they add a Toby Keith's in the development..

Found5dollar · #**9764** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 4:25 AM**

you guys arguing over the building height are missing the biggest news in that article. The penguins are paying for the deck over cross town boulevard. It is not just a hope, it is now officially part of the plan. That park will do more for the connectivity and vibrancy of the lower hill than any tall building or led screen will.

Austinlee · #**9765** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 4:38 AM**

Pawnsylvania!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeY0mIn1K0&feature=share

WillyC · #**9766** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

you guys arguing over the building height are missing the biggest news in that article. The penguins are paying for the deck over cross town boulevard. It is not just a hope, it is now officially part of the plan. That park will do more for the connectivity and vibrancy of the lower hill than any tall building or led screen will.

I didn't see that anywhere in the article, just that it is in the plans. Nothing about who is paying for it.

BrianTH · #**9767** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 5:56 AM**

Yeah, last I knew they were still looking for a federal grant for the deck-park.

Jonboy1983 · #**9768** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 2:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, same content, but new illustrations of the height elements:

The top image and the bottom right image represent building up to the max heights. Note again those two tall buildings back along Bedford are actually unlimited in height.

The bottom left image is at minimum heights.

Again, just my two cents, but at max heights this is not horrible, although I would agree there should be no height limits anywhere in the western half (or more). At minimum heights though--that sucks.

I actually counted the number of floors in that tall building in the top image, and I counted 27 floors! I'd be ok with that.

They need to push the maximum heights for this development, and I agree that the buildings near Washington Plaza need to be taller as well.

Minimum height, requiring all the buildings to be between 3 and 6 floors, would be a waste of a development.

Regarding the deck over the Crosstown Blvd, the last I heard was that they were trying to secure funding for that. Apparently someone is going to pay for that. If that's the case, then awesome! The Lower Hill and Downtown will be officially linked. Given that, the sky really should be the limit here.

BrianTH · #**9769** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

They need to push the maximum heights for this development, and I agree that the buildings near Washington Plaza need to be taller as well.

At one point that building across from Washington Plaza was supposed to be up to 20 stories (or something like that). On the same page from which I got those images, there is now this line:

Quote:

Key view corridors and landmarks, such as St.Benedict the Moor Church were important considerations when establishing this height envelope.

So at a guess, someone objected to a building that tall across from the church.

This is going to be a constant struggle (approval of a PLDP is not the last step--each individual phase needs to submit a Final Land Development Plan for the relevant blocks that will specify the exact heights and such). We here tend to be proponents of higher heights and higher densities, and I think there are solid public policy grounds for those preferences. But there are an awful lot of people out there who have the opposite preferences, and even more who just don't care. I think Peduto is kinda on our side, but overall I think the best we can realistically hope for is compromises that are not horrible, but not all we would want either.

Evergrey · #**9770** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

But I'd expect that in part the lower density is due to demands of stakeholders within the Hill District themselves.

It looks like the Hill District 'leadership' would like for the Penguins' plan to be even less dense than what was detailed in the PLDP submission.

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6831461-74/hill-plan-community#axzz3DpQHBLZx

Quote:

Hill District leaders irked as Penguins submit former Civic Arena site plan to city

...

She's (Marimba Milliones) concerned, for instance, about building heights at the corners of Crawford Street at Bedford and Center avenues and Bedford “blocking residential views and dwarfing Freedom Corner and the historic St. Benedict the Moor church.”

...

BrianTH · #**9771** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 6:23 PM**

That dynamic is really frustrating. A bunch of us have made variations on the point that there should be no view problem if Downtown basically leaps Crosstown and moves up the site. But my experience is then many of the same people will complain this was supposed to be part of the Hill, not part of Downtown.

Basically, they want Crawford Square all the way down. Which sucks.

Evergrey · #**9772** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 7:03 PM**

A rather poorly written article on new Census numbers reinforcing the narrative of growth in the Pittsburgh region.

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6779393-74/community-job-workers#axzz3DpQHBLZx

Quote:

Job prospects drawing workers to Western Pennsylvania

By Brian Bowling
Saturday, Sept. 20, 2014, 7:56 p.m.
Updated 16 hours ago

Western Pennsylvania gained about 11,000 more workers than it lost to other parts of the country during a five-year period, according to Census Bureau figures.

...

By 2012, only two metro areas with more than 1 million employees reached job numbers equal to their pre-recession peaks: Houston and Pittsburgh.

...

Top 5 states for net in-migration of employed people into Pittsburgh region:
New York 1,159
Ohio 888
West Virginia 833
New Jersey 743
Virginia 627

Quite impressed we've been on the plus side with Virginia... NoVa has long been a major destination for young, educated Pittsburghers.

Top 5 states for net out-migration (notice the numbers are much smaller):
Oregon -239
Massachusetts -159
Arizona -67
Maryland -46
Rhode Island -13

Surprised at Oregon as it's a low population state on the opposite side of the country that has a long-term job creation problem. Perhaps there's a lot of young hipsters from here moving out there for barista and beekeeping jobs.

BrianTH · #**9773** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 7:33 PM**

There is a real "people in the region moving to the big(gest) city" vibe to those numbers--but that is fine! It is a new world when the mobile young adults in the region are moving to Pittsburgh rather than heading off to other regions entirely.

themaguffin · #**9774** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 8:32 PM**

As an extension of downtown, the height should not matter too much. I'm ok with the eastmost part being lowish, and IF nothing else, the edges could be taller on the north, south and west.

Found5dollar · #**9775** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 9:03 PM**

Hotel Indigo is now accepting reservations starting on January 11, 2015.

http://www.ihg.com/hotelindigo/hotels/us/en/pittsburgh/pithb/hoteldetail

Urbana · #**9776** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 9:09 PM**

Some of those building closest to downtown seem to be between 400 and 500 feet - it is good to see that they are at least considering something of that scale.

Jonboy1983 · #**9777** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

At one point that building across from Washington Plaza was supposed to be up to 20 stories (or something like that). On the same page from which I got those images, there is now this line:

So at a guess, someone objected to a building that tall across from the church.

This is going to be a constant struggle (approval of a PLDP is not the last step--each individual phase needs to submit a Final Land Development Plan for the relevant blocks that will specify the exact heights and such). We here tend to be proponents of higher heights and higher densities, and I think there are solid public policy grounds for those preferences. But there are an awful lot of people out there who have the opposite preferences, and even more who just don't care. I think Peduto is kinda on our side, but overall I think the best we can realistically hope for is compromises that are not horrible, but not all we would want either.

You know what I say to those objections? Tough...

I may be somewhat abrasive, but I don't want to settle for less or low-ball the development potential of any given of any piece of land, especially the way demand is trending in not only this city but the entire region. If you're only going to put squat-style buildings designed with suburban characteristics on your most valuable land, then something is not kosher...

To put it into another prospective, I think eventually you're going to see a lot more high-density development going up in and around Cranberry. In fact, we're already seeing it with that apartment complex proposed along Rt. 228. They're planning for more growth, and the city itself should be doing the same. Pittsburgh's population is heading for a boom here in the near future, and the city needs to plan for it. Having these squat residential buildings isn't exactly planning for it IMHO. At the rate things are going, there's going to be a housing shortage, particularly in apartments and condos...

WillyC · #**9778** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It looks like the Hill District 'leadership' would like for the Penguins' plan to be even less dense than what was detailed in the PLDP submission.

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6831461-74/hill-plan-community#axzz3DpQHBLZx

I used to feel awful for the hill district and what happened with the Civic arena. I understood many of their complaints and had no problem when they wanted some mixed income allowances when development of the site was first talked about... but they've completely lost me now. They are coming across as whining children and the only way I know how to deal with a whining child is take the toys they have now from them.

It's hard to move on, I get that, but the lower Hill is not coming back. The CBD is going to jump across crosstown in the future, whether they like it or not. By fighting that tooth and nail rather than embracing it and looking for their best opportunity in such a development, they are making enemies rather than friends.

pghaedesign · #**9779** Posted **Sep 22, 2014, 12:40 AM**

I don't understand the complaint that a 7-10 story building would be overshadowing St. Benedict The Moor and when the majority of the block is limited to 50 feet. Especially considering Washington Plaza is over 20 stories. I could understand if the proposal called for basically walling it in with 200+ foot tall buildings, but it doesn't.

If they go for 80-90% of the maximum, but push the Bedford side as high as possible, I would think it would be easier to get past local groups. If these folks want townhouses or single family homes, there are plenty of streets that could be rebuilt within the hill.

eschaton · #**9780** Posted **Sep 22, 2014, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That dynamic is really frustrating. A bunch of us have made variations on the point that there should be no view problem if Downtown basically leaps Crosstown and moves up the site. But my experience is then many of the same people will complain this was supposed to be part of the Hill, not part of Downtown.

Basically, they want Crawford Square all the way down. Which sucks.

I think it's worth mentioning that every unit in Crawford Square which fronts on Crawford Street is a rental. North of Wylie, homeowner-occupied housing starts on Protectory Place, but south of Wylie it doesn't start until Arthur Street.

I suppose it's possible that there are some long-term renters who really care about their view, as they are not uncommon in mixed-income developments. But I would hazard a guess that to the extent "Crawford Square" is complaining it's more the property owner than the residents. I also expect there's an aspect of community activists being outraged for the residents in the immediate area regarding the Lower Hill being structurally annexed to downtown.

As I said though upthread, I care more personally about the Lower Hill development being urban than it being tall. If it was mostly townhouses, but built out like the Federal Street infill in the North Side, with a storefront-based commercial strip along Wylie, I'd consider it a pretty dramatic triumph for modern urban design. The sad thing is judging by the history of what was built so far in the Lower Hill (which has advanced since the split-levels on Linton, but can only be described as "soft urban"), we're not going to get much in the way of height, structural density, or urban feel.

Indeed, I would not be surprised that if it came down to a vote of the current residents of the Hill District, the majority would actually prefer it if not only the Arena site was redone Crawford Square style, but all remaining 19th century housing in the area (there's still quite a bit around Bedford Avenue) was razed for (lower-density) new construction as well, provided it resulted in affordable units.