PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

This is why I respect the bikers more than the idiot entitled drivers like yourself, at least the bikers are choosing a mode of transportation that can't realistically kill others, therefore their presence on the road should be respected.

No, you're an idiot!!!!!!!111

If you think bikers can't realistically kill someone, then you are wrong and I am going to assume you don't know what you are talking about.

I saw a biker run through a red light downtown and take out a pedestrian. The guy didn't die, but he sure as hell got messed up.

I myself almost got taken out by a biker that came flying down the hill on Baynard and blew through the red light at Craig St. It wasn't dark, he could clearly see myself and other pedestrians crossing. The walk sign was clearly lit on all four corners but he didn't care about anyone but himself and blew through the light endangering all of us. If he had hit me, I would have been in the hospital for awhile.

[BrianTH]

I for one know I have been involved in some heated discussions, and I will indeed try to tone it down a couple notches.

[Jonboy1983]

Yep, I'm guilty as well for posting things without thinking them through.

That aside, I too think that bike lane discussion is relevant to this forum. We are discussing some developments that will have parking and other facilities to accommodate cyclists. I think having bike lanes along some of the busier corridors from Downtown to some of the development hot spot neighborhoods is necessary to further facilitate further growth and lead to an increasingly sustainable neighborhood.

[Muckk]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I think there are a lot of great arguments made on both sides that get mucked up by weird attitude.

Feel free to leave the mucking to me. *nudge nudge

I say more bike lanes, less cars and less idiots piloting both.

[Jonboy1983]

while somewhat on the subject of transportation, I was looking at the Veterans Bridge. I started wondering if a tunnel under the Allegheny River was ever considered or it was just determined right off the bat that it would have been too costly to build a Holland or Lincoln-esque tube under the river...

Had that been done instead, it would have left some additional land to develop/redevelop. Plus, they woudn't have had to remove the canopy over the tracks at the Amtrak station...

[BrianTH]

How amazing (in a bad way) is it that the Veterans Bridge/I-579 cut THROUGH the North Side without even providing access TO the North Side?

Anyway, I believe the basic outline for Crosstown and the bridge dates back to the 1930s Moses Plan, even though it wasn't completed until the 1980s. I don't know for sure they they never contemplated a tunnel, but it wouldn't surprise me--Moses loved elevated highways and bridges, and his plan for Pittsburgh was all about bridges and highways as a result.

Edit: See here for a discussion of Moses often favoring bridges over tunnels (albeit unsuccessfully in many cases) in New York:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses#Brooklyn_Battery_Bridge

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

How amazing (in a bad way) is it that the Veterans Bridge/I-579 cut THROUGH the North Side without even providing access TO the North Side?

Anyway, I believe the basic outline for Crosstown and the bridge dates back to the 1930s Moses Plan, even though it wasn't completed until the 1980s. I don't know for sure they they never contemplated a tunnel, but it wouldn't surprise me--Moses loved elevated highways and bridges, and his plan for Pittsburgh was all about bridges and highways as a result.

Edit: See here for a discussion of Moses often favoring bridges over tunnels (albeit unsuccessfully in many cases) in New York:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses#Brooklyn_Battery_Bridge

I believe Moses's original plan was to part the river drive on dry ground...HAHA. I apologize.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by ShooFlyPie

I take it you don't cycle, obviously.......

Anyways, please understand that many cyclist must take the middle of lane for their safety. Riding in door zones can be detrimental. I cycle daily and take the middle of the lane. The grid lock is caused by other people who need a giant hunk of metal sitting behind other giant hunks of metal, not bikes. Getting around anywhere in this city is gridlock because of every overweight American needing a giant cage to haul themselves around stuck behind other cages. Typically people's large cages are stopping me from moving forward. This ideology of a cyclists taking the lane for his safety causes grid lock is so outdated and only used by those who can't use logic.

The ones who obviously never cycle can always be easily identified by their ignorance of it.

This is the kind of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 I'm sick and freaking tired of!!! So someone who doesn't bicycle everywhere is always some overweight tub of lard needing a giant cage to get themselves around. Give me a goddamned break!

Fact of the matter is that BOTH cyclists and drivers can coexist, but there has to be some freaking respect given by both! Unfortunately, a lot of drivers are 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and a LOT of cyclists are douchebags. And guess what? Lack of respect on both sides contributes to the kind of insanity seen on the roads!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[eschaton]

Speaking personally, I'm someone who walks, rides the bus, drives, and rides my bike for transportation. Occasionally all in the same day. So I'm not sure I understand the lines in the sand being drawn here.

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Speaking personally, I'm someone who walks, rides the bus, drives, and rides my bike for transportation. Occasionally all in the same day. So I'm not sure I understand the lines in the sand being drawn here.

I'm the same, but somehow me stating that I don't like cyclist that are lazy or unintelligent in their riding, of whom the numbers in my opinion have boomed in the East End the past few years, means ALL CYCLIST ARE HORRIBLE AND MUST DIE!

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by WillyC

I'm the same, but somehow me stating that I don't like cyclist that are lazy or unintelligent in their riding, of whom the numbers in my opinion have boomed in the East End the past few years, means ALL CYCLIST ARE HORRIBLE AND MUST DIE!

Think about it this way... regardless if the cyclists are lazy or unintelligent, an increasing number of people riding bicycles for transportation and/or leisure on city streets confers positive economic development attributes. We are seeing this occur in the East End currently. As the numbers of cyclists on the streets in the East End have boomed in the past few years, we are also seeing the East End itself boom in the past few years.

An increasingly less auto-dependent/focused, more pedestrian-friendly (and yes, bike-friendly) urban environment goes hand in hand -- and develops concurrently -- with economic development and overall construction and property value. This is proven time and time again in cities everywhere.

So, next time you're driving in the East End, instead of getting mad at that lazy or unintelligent biker who is causes you to arrive 28 seconds later at your destination, thank them for helping to make the East End a more prosperous and cool area of the city.

[TBone7281]

I hate to interrupt, but here is my semi-weekly update.


First off, someone suggested a few pages back that instead of full on roads cutting through the Terminal Building, it might be better just to allow pedestrian traffic to help maintain the overall feel of an unbroken building. I tend to agree. It's a very impressive building and if a fair portion of it is going to be used for retail, people are going to want an easy way to get from point A to point B without walking 1/2 mile around the building (or even through it, if you have to go inside). A way to pass through while staying outside could really help foot traffic, IMO.




Also, here is a better view of the lot between Consumers Produce and the Cork Factory that they are talking about developing.

[TBone7281]

2500 Smallman

4/27 & 4/28

[TBone7281]

Oxford Office Building

4/27 & 4/28

[TBone7281]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Anyway, I went down Railroad Street for a change today, since I've been heading in on Penn/Smallman mostly. The construction at The Yards/Three Crossings has really come along since the last pictures posted. There is a lot of foundation laid, and several elevator cores seem to be nearing full height.

I haven't posted anything in a while because honestly, there wasn't much to show up until recently. The core shot up in like a week.

4/23




4/30






It isn't exactly massive, but it will certainly be the tallest building in a few blocks.

[TBone7281]

Just a shot down Smallman.

2500 Smallman on the left, Oxford office building on the right, Tower at PNC dead ahead.

[Brentsters]

Thanks for all the updates. Keep them coming.

[BrianTH]

Awesome update, as always.

I am really happy with how 2500 Smallman is looking--it looks better than I originally expected and I think will both add some variety while remaining contextually appropriate.

The scale of Three Crossings is fine with me in that spot, and that one picture is a great illustration of why--it will definitely be significantly increasing the density/scale of the Strip in that zone.

One bikes and such--I do tend to agree that if we want bikes to become a much bigger share of local transportation (which is a worthy goal), we need to show some patience as "non-elite" bikers (newbies, less fit people, and so on) take to the roads.

Which is not to say we should excuse all bad road behavior by bicyclists, any more than we should excuse all car drivers. But rather than "get off the streets!," I think the dominant attitude has to be "learn to do better!" And in fact I think BikePGH and others are doing a lot to help train new bikers.

The same applies to infrastructure--if in fact more bikes are causing real problems for cars in some area (by real, I mean substantial increases in terms of net driving time, not just occasional slowdowns that maybe be frustrating to some drivers but ultimately are not very consequential, or serious repeating high-risk situations, not just occasional stupid people being stupid), then we need to think about how to improve our infrastructure to help make both types of use safer and more convenient.

The good news is there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there because of the large number of poorly-designed streets and intersections that are not working all that well for cars to begin with. So in the course of adding bike lanes and such you can often also rework things to make it better for everyone. In that sense the number of real, fundamental, unavoidable conflicts between bikes and cars tends to be very low. And that again is the attitude I think we should keep in mind--there are so many win-win opportunities here that we should not get bogged down in us-them conflicts.

[Minivan Werner]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

while somewhat on the subject of transportation, I was looking at the Veterans Bridge. I started wondering if a tunnel under the Allegheny River was ever considered or it was just determined right off the bat that it would have been too costly to build a Holland or Lincoln-esque tube under the river...

Had that been done instead, it would have left some additional land to develop/redevelop. Plus, they woudn't have had to remove the canopy over the tracks at the Amtrak station...

A compromise would've been stacking the inbound lanes over top of the outbound lanes like the Pitt & Duquesne bridges. Not sure why that wasn't done. It's probably the most expensive bridge in the city, and easily the ugliest and least efficient.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

First off, someone suggested a few pages back that instead of full on roads cutting through the Terminal Building, it might be better just to allow pedestrian traffic to help maintain the overall feel of an unbroken building. I tend to agree. It's a very impressive building and if a fair portion of it is going to be used for retail, people are going to want an easy way to get from point A to point B without walking 1/2 mile around the building (or even through it, if you have to go inside). A way to pass through while staying outside could really help foot traffic, IMO.

I posted that a few pages back. Full disclosure: It’s not my idea. PHLF suggested this years ago and has pitched it (unsuccessfully) to the URA, then to Buncher, then to the three firms that replied to the latest RFP.