PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I suspect the university would dispute your definition of "ornamental." The courtyard is not ornamental.

I'm talking about built elements, not the courtyard. The faux wall along the CVS building, the catwalk/arcade to nowhere, and the overbuilt arches on the corner of the main building. All that stuff is manifestly designed to mask how little of substance is actually going on with this plan.

That said, although I assume the courtyard is desirable to Point Park, in the same sense I assume this whole thing is desirable to Point Park, that doesn't make it any worse from a public policy standpoint. They are taking a large surface parking lot in the middle of Downtown and building an average of about one story on it. Where the historic buildings currently stand they are netting out at most about half of a story on average (nothing up front, maybe around a story on the back, minus that big corner cutout).

All that sucks, even if that is exactly what Point Park wants to do.

The arcade seems to me an ingenious way of having the outdoor space defined and the streetwall maintained.

It seems to me like a classic "folly" designed to deceive people about the actual magnitude of this proposal, and also a psychological barrier to make sure the general public knows they are not in fact welcome on campus.

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

But certainly if your goal is to try to get the political elite to sign off on destroying a bunch of historic properties just so that you can build a low-rise, low-density student theater in the middle of Downtown, all while taking massive public subsidies to help fund it, a certain amount of "ingenuity" is going to be needed to try to keep people from seeing what you are really doing.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It's a shame Pittsburgh developers don't look east to DC for top-notch examples of sensitive urban design.

No kidding.

I've been spending some time in Boston lately, and there too.

I've heard it suggested Pittsburgh can't afford it. But I think the Homewood Station project actually suggests otherwise. These things have some cost, but nothing so large as to be completely prohibitive as long as overall there is a market for what you are building.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

I still imagine on the two story structures it would be much more economical to remove the second story facade and replace it while building the new building.

I have no idea why you think that. Disassembling an ornamental facade such that it could be put back together is going to be an incredibly painstaking, labor intensive process, with no actual guarantee of success. This alternative process we are describing is really quite simple, and can work on any size older brick building up to moderate height.

I just posted Homewood Station photos. If it was actually cheaper to remove and then rebuild the facade I am sure they would have. But of course they didn't, because that is crazy.

Incidentally, I also watched PNC "recycle" the facades across the street, which they had promised to do. They hacked those things apart, with tons of damage, and there is no way they could have been reassembled.

All of which is why I think we should be highly skeptical of Point Park's claims. Bits and pieces may well end up plastered to some walls. But perfectly preserved facades? I doubt it.

Are there any examples of that? preserving the upper facade of a two story building in place without removing it first?

Right side of image in #10574.

Also in the middle of this image:



Which is the same as on the far right of this image:



Can we stop this now? This is a tried and true technique, and it works on anything from one story up to several stories, regardless of the condition of the first floor facade.

[Private Dick]

Economical from a design and construction perspective... of course this is going to be more expensive than just knocking everything down -- but that is what should be expected if there is truly value seen in historic preservation and sound urban planning. The photos from Chinatown in DC above show a 2 and mainly 3 story buildings (Radio Shack and the 2 to the left) having had just what you describe above done. There is very little left of those 3 original buildings aside from the facades (which were restored along with the first floor storefronts being completely rebuilt... and they are beautifully constructed too) remaining. Most of the structure in the interior behind these 3 fronts is new and was converted to modern uses.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Can we stop this now?

No. The radical preservationists on this board always create huge huffs whenever the threat of anything beign torndown or changed in Pittsburgh is brought up and they use hyperbole to prove their points. I am trying to prove that in this once instance the idea of preserving these three minor facades in place is not feasible for a multitude of reasons. Only one of which is the engineering involved in saving the second story facade of a 2 story building in place.

I know how saving a facade like this works, hell I've worked on a project that did it before. Homewood Station is not the same as this will be, The entire 1.5 stories of the facade were intact there, and no additional bracing had to be done to support the cornice.

before you stated that 2-3 restaurants in the current buildings are a better use of land than this theater is. If you honestly feel that way there, I don't think we will be able to see eye to eye on this development.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

I am trying to prove that in this once instance the idea of preserving these three minor facades in place is not feasible for a multitude of reasons. Only one of which is the engineering involved in saving the second story facade of a 2 story building in place.

Except originally you claimed no facade could be saved if the ground floor was altered, but that was resoundingly rebutted. Now you are making the bizarre claim that specifically two-story buildings can't be saved this way, and even so we showed you examples of it happening.

The fact is you are trying to "prove" something which you actually have no reason to believe is true, but are saying because it would be convenient for your position if it was true. That's a pointless exercise.

before you stated that 2-3 restaurants in the current buildings are a better use of land than this theater is. If you honestly feel that way there, I don't think we will be able to see eye to eye on this development.

That's fine, but for the record the numbers support me. The university is claiming they might get 60,000 non-student visitors per year. That's well less than one successful 100-seat restaurant would expect.

[BrianTH]

McCaffery and Rubino are getting a 90 day extension to continue discussing how to merge their Produce Terminal plans:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...ons-given-extension/stories/201412060058

I've got no problem with that. I liked the idea of merging those plans, and this is worth taking the time to do as well as possible.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's fine, but for the record the numbers support me. The university is claiming they might get 60,000 non-student visitors per year. That's well less than one successful 100-seat restaurant would expect.

By the way, a few more thoughts on this subject. As we all know, Market Square has taken off as a great restaurant destination. You now have restaurants creeping up that side of Forbes from Market Square--The Gardens is going to have a Burgatory and Roost 50, Hello Bistro is going into the restored ASDA building on the corner of Wood, and then on the block in question you already have Penn Avenue Fish Company and the Courthouse Tavern. Meanwhile, the City is trying to redevelop Smithfield as a grand avenue with upscale retail, bikelanes, new apartments and hotels, and such, and similarly Wood is being restored with plans for new boutiques and upper-floor apartments.

So there is a real opportunity here to create another long "restaurant row" that would serve as "spine" connecting the "ribs" of Smithfield, Wood, and Market Square. In addition to possibly putting as many as three new restaurants into these buildings, you could also redevelop the adjacent parking lot into a mixed-use building with another 2-3 ground floor restaurants. That would be awesome for day visitors, who could do things like park in one of the Smithfield garages and then take a walk along Forbes and around Market Square to pick a place to eat, or night visitors who could be directed from any of the current or future hotels nearby to do the same (including in the new hotel in the Gardens). And of course you would still have all the normal lunch-and-happy-hour office workers (supplemented by the new PNC Tower and Oxford tower), and the growing number of permanent residents.

So theater snobs may sniff at the notion that mere restaurant development could possibly be as valuable as a student theater complex. But I think the truth is that in terms of real economic development, real nightlife development, and so on, 5-6 restaurants lined along Forbes in this location would crush the value of the student theater complex by something like an order of magnitude or more.

[PGHFan]

Supporting theater and and training for theater does not make one a snob any more than supporting a proliferation of restaurants make one a food snob. I like the look of the Playhouse plans and I have been around enough to know that today's "best practice" is tomorrow's mistake (e.g., the Civic Arena). Its good to like projects that one has personal involvement and its equally good to enjoy the work of others. A city grows organically and not by certain rules that today seem so right. That's why cities, and Pittsburgh in particular, are so exciting. There are missteps, but nearly everything is not. I lived in DC for a decade, and while areas around the Arena are well done- it was clear that they wiped out another neighborhood to get there. Also, DC has some of the worse examples of old facades tacked on to wretched new buildings. Look at some of the buildings around Washington Circle and that mess that was previously posted on this thread. But should they not have been done? Not necessarily because some people may like them and we may have learned something in the process. Sometimes the creative effort informs the future, but sometimes not. Cities are great that way!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by PGHFan

Supporting theater and and training for theater does not make one a snob any more than supporting a proliferation of restaurants make one a food snob.

Agreed. However, simply assuming that a student theater is better use of land than some number of restaurants does. I've got no problem if people want to have an open-minded, fact-driven discussion on these issues.

[Minivan Werner]

It's too bad they can't build the new Playhouse on the far eastern end of the same block, because the building that houses the CVS (and the 2 smaller ones next to it) are ugly, dated and will never have any historical significance.

I guess that's the issue I have. There are insignificant buildings and even vacant lots that are ripe for development. Granted, Point Park doesn't own these buildings and lots, but they could, and the city could help them acquire it.

The eastern end of the block would also give Point Park much more visibility and accessibility, since it's at a major intersection instead of in the middle block of a narrow 1 lane street.

The same applies to Oxford's plans at 350 5th. Why tear down a building of moderate historical & architectural significance, with plenty of re-use potential, to build a tower when you can build that tower on any number of surface lots?

[East Edge]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

So why destroy very high-quality architectural details for concrete forms that attempt to mimic the lost streetwall?

Why can't this serve as a grand entrance to the theater, with the facades remaining in place, in their historical, urban context?


Why should they not be integrated into this? In historical context with the adjacent Stock Exchange building?

It would almost appear to me that the architect is attempting to create more continuity with the Stock Exchange building with many of datum lines being carried across into the new structure / height and style of arch, etc. The yellowish color they are showing for the facade now is the only thing bothering me about this rendering. My hope is that in actuality the finish selection would a stronger match to the SEB and i would like to see a cleaning of the SEB facade as well to match new materials better so this all reads as if its part of the same building and create a large mass of one style building vs the 4 smaller buildings that were there before.

Over all very impressed with these renderings. based on earlier renditions this has come a long way! I really like how they are incorporating the facades too so they are still visible from the street. It creates the illusion that this courtyard has been there a long time and is surrounded by other historic facades. I assumed they would be used on the interior in the lobby for some reason based on past quotes from PHLF. This area will really be transformed with the new PNC, Oxford tower on smithfield, market gardens, and the wood street facades being restored. Hopefully it will encourage other well needed renovations in the area of some interesting facades.

[PGHFan]

They are apparently restoring the interior to the SEB, including removing the false ceiling that was installed in the 1940's. That will make the stained glass ceiling visible again. I too hope that involves cleaning the exterior of the building and restoring some damage to the stonework. Not sure totally of the configuration, but if SEB is used as the lobby for one of the theaters, it will certainly be nice.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

I stand corrected on it not begin done before, but these two situations are hardly the same. I still imagine on the two story structures it would be much more economical to remove the second story facade and replace it while building the new building. I doubt a construction team would go through with preserving one story in place when it would need to be shored up so much. Are there any examples of that? preserving the upper facade of a two story building in place without removing it first?

You dont seem to know what youre talking about, this is done all the time in more progressive cities that actually care about their history.

[daviderik]

Obviously we have every shade of opinion on the point park design. Not sure why some take offense that others do not share their position. Anyways, I like it. Overall could it be better? yes. But Point Park wanted original architecture that make a connection to the public. And from the renderings I think they achieved that. The integration of the old facades is smart and tastefully done.

[daviderik]

Does anyone have any photos of the newly renovated Air mall? I read that it was opened to the public over the weekend. People waited in line for over an hour and went through a background check just to shop.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Not to beat a dead horse with this point park discussion, but...

It creates the illusion that this courtyard has been there a long time and is surrounded by other historic facades.

Isn't that the main issue here? Why are they going through the trouble to create an illusion when they could have just left the damn facades alone and had something actually substantive and contextual to showcase with their new development? I makes no sense. And worse, their token"excuse" for it is laughable... they needed an extra foot for their backstage theater space. Give me a break

Anyways, I like it. Overall could it be better? yes. But Point Park wanted original architecture that make a connection to the public. And from the renderings I think they achieved that. The integration of the old facades is smart and tastefully done.

They could have been integrated tastefully and smart by remaining in the exact place they are now. The rendering might be "smart" from Point Park's design perspective, but economically there is no way that deconstructing them and rebuilding them piece by piece is cheaper.

Also, ripping the facades down for no legitimate reason and then hanging them up as tacky ornaments doesn't strike me as very tasteful either.

[eschaton]

I was thinking about this today, and one of the reasons I am not 100% negative on the development - that I have mixed feelings, is in concert with several other projects going on (Gardens at Market Square, new garage/apartment at Saks building) the last of the vacant lots used for parking in the core of Downtown are now being developed.

Between Liberty and Fourth Avenue, there will only be one surface parking lot remaining in Downtown - the unfortunately giant lot near the base of Grant Street.

Obviously there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the fringes. The level of parking around where RiverParc was meant to go is unconscionable, and there's still a lot of surface parking in and around First Side. But IMHO the elimination of surface lots from downtown is almost always an unmitigated good.

As an aside, can anyone tell me what's stopping smaller-scale new construction from happening downtown unless a nonprofit is behind it? I have to think even if they wanted to go with a 4-6 story structure if you built a condo building in one of the "missing teeth" in the Cultural District or First Side the units would confer enough of a price advantage to make acquisition and construction worthwhile. Maybe I'm wrong however - maybe the parking in these few remaining lots is so lucrative that the land acquisition costs just aren't worth it. In this case, it shouldn't be surprising that we only see "megaprojects" (or things which get government funding) actually fill in the gaps.

[mhays]

Contractor here. Ok, marketing guy for one. It can be much cheaper and easier to remove a facade and then reconstruct it. The reason isn't the facade work itself, but the challenge of having the facade in the way while you're building below it and next to it. Sometimes access to the site is also compromised. If you need an external frame, that can close a sidewalk that might otherwise stay open. The smaller the site and the longer the facade the worse it is.

Why don't facades get saved more in Pittsburgh? I'm not local, but cost is probably the main part. It's generally very expensive to save a facade. Where I live (Seattle), it's done frequently, but that's mostly due to land use permit requirements, not because it pays off in rents.

Projects live and die based upon a few percentage points in overall cost. It's not just whether the developer is willing to say go, but also whether they can get financing and at what rates. When financing is "on board" they're still going to scrutinize the hell out of everything and make their actual decisions before the check is written. That last point is a common misconception on SSP.

As for the theater, based only on this thread... While it doesn't sound like high-intensity land use, I like mixing uses and theaters can be good both day and evening. Even business meetings and public meetings if they're rentable. I like the enclosed patio concept and the sense of enclosure this version brings. I also like the express-exit the other stair might bring vs. shuffling through the main crowd. Kids (and SSPers?) will probably like to go up and see the view.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But IMHO the elimination of surface lots from downtown is almost always an unmitigated good.

I don't think eliminating surface parking lots Downtown just to replace them with 1-2 story structures is an unmitigated good. I think we can afford to be more patient than that.

I have to think even if they wanted to go with a 4-6 story structure if you built a condo building in one of the "missing teeth" in the Cultural District or First Side the units would confer enough of a price advantage to make acquisition and construction worthwhile.

I think it is an opportunity cost issue. Consider the Burns & Scalo lot next to the County Health building. They want to build something like a 16-story office building there, but so far haven't been able to put that deal together. They probably could do a 4-story apartment building instead, but they are willing to hold out to see if they can do something which would ultimately make them more money.