PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

To me it looks like the sort of platform you would put around a billboard:

[Private Dick]

It's beautiful metalwork to distract from the golden-brown yellow gray poopiness of the building's mass on the corner.

You mean to tell me that you don't think the finely-wrought, artisan metalwork is beautiful?

[Muckk]

I suppose it could disperse sunlight from the entrance for a whopping 4 minutes/day when the sun is highest in the sky. Ornament for the sake of ornament is more likely.

[Evergrey]

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/w...uce-better-buildings/Content?oid=1824154

Why can't Pittsburgh's building boom produce better buildings?


By Charles Rosenblum


Artist's rendering courtesy of Workshop/APD
One done right: The Vitmore, on Baum Boulevard, in Friendship

Pittsburgh is about to get a very nice mixed-use building for multi-unit housing and retail on Baum Boulevard, in Friendship. The Vitmore (whose developer is Vitmore LLC) is a seven-story, 103-unit project, designed by Workshop/APD architects of New York. Its combination of community support, sustainable amenities and high-quality architectural design is making it an exception among Pittsburgh real-estate developments, many of which have lacked some or all of these attributes.

Please, everybody, try to act normal.

For its part, the city's Planning Commission reacted effusively, full of praise and unexpected pleasure. Commission head Christine Mondor commented, "The architects laid out very clearly both private amenities and public benefits. It went beyond what was laid out in the criteria" of the Baum Centre Overlay District Guidelines, which provide minimum standards for the area. Such overachieving designs should appear all the time — not leave us thinking that the commission had never really seen a decent building design before. Maybe they haven't.

Pittsburgh is experiencing a building boom, but so much of it is bad. The Yards, in the Strip, by Oxford Development, is all cheap materials and grudgingly small fenestration in an underdeveloped façade. Whatever the landscape amenities might be, the architecture is just awful. Likewise, the apartments called Skyvue 3333 Forbes, in Oakland, are some of the worst architecture the city has seen in recent memory. This frantic agglomeration of hackneyed and mishandled motifs is a desperate but failed effort to make this beast look somehow less monstrous than it really is. For this we lost the Allegheny County Health Department, a building whose admirable restraint and dignity clearly made no impression on the architects of Skyvue. How this thing passed the Planning Commission is a mystery. Meanwhile, the housing at Bakery Square is by turns too large, too cheap and too unimaginative.

...

[BrianTH]

Rosenbaum's complaints about some of these buildings being too large strike me as pretty wrong-headed. And while I agree the Vitmore is one of the best designs we have seen lately, I think Skyvue is pretty good too--and very much welcome precisely because of its scale.

[BrianTH]

A big(ish) (nine-story) Ferris Wheel is coming to the Point--but just for the regatta:

http://triblive.com/aande/moreaande/8307909-74/regatta-ferris-wheel

Maybe it will be such a hit that a permanent version will gain support.

[DKNewYork]

Next Monday morning the Mayor and PHLF have an outdoor press conference on Forbes to showcase the restoration of the facades (well, the upper floor facades) of the Roberts and Skinny buildings. I am hoping that the Mayor announces the sale of the buildings. Haven’t heard that it is to happen but I know that the URA declined at least one offer on the buildings, so there is interest. It is great that the buildings are saved and mostly restored. But even better would be to put the two buildings to fuller use than as a convenience store. Plus, a sale of the buildings would trigger an early end to the 7/11 lease and will allow the first floor facades to be restored. And they would be back on the tax rolls.

[Evergrey]

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...rivers-for-projects/stories/201505130101

Developer makes Trek across Pittsburgh rivers for projects

May 13, 2015 12:00 AM

By Mark Belko / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Downtown developer is not shy about crossing the rivers.

Trek Development Group is ready to undertake significant new projects in the Garden Theater block of the North Side and at the Duquesne Brewing Company building on the South Side.

Regarding the North Side, city Urban Redevelopment Authority board members are expected to act Thursday on a proposal to sell nine parcels of land on Reddour and Federal streets and W. North Avenue to Trek for $140,000 for a new mixed-use development near the Garden Theater.

Trek is teaming with Q Development to reuse and restore existing buildings in the block and replace others lost to neglect and deterioration. The developers are planning 84 units of market rate and “workforce” apartments at the site as well as ground level retail space.

The development is “respectful of the historic structures, but also there’s new construction that will provide a modern twist to the residential that is there,” said William Gatti, Trek president and CEO.

Mr. Gatti said the $22 million redevelopment is still in the schematic stages, with variances still to be obtained and detailed design work still to be done. Trek hopes to break ground in March.

“We’re excited and we’re proceeding aggressively, but this is just the next step,” he said.

The plan is one of two the URA board intends to act on Thursday relating to the Garden Theater block, with hopes of jump-starting the long-stalled redevelopment of the stretch.

...

[photoLith]

That makes me real nervous about them saying replacing others lost to neglect, how many buildings are they tearing down and what schlock will replace them? No building is too far gone, especially in a place as historic as The Mexican War Streets.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Rosenbaum's complaints about some of these buildings being too large strike me as pretty wrong-headed. And while I agree the Vitmore is one of the best designs we have seen lately, I think Skyvue is pretty good too--and very much welcome precisely because of its scale.

I didn't get the sense that Rosenblum was against the scale of Skyvue, just the design. My sense is that he is all about good design, scale be damned. While you---correct me if I am wrong---include density as a vital component of quality.

[BrianTH]

Rosenblum called Skyvue a "monstrous" "beast". Those sound like scale complaints to me, and of course he was explicit about the housing at Bakery Square being "too large" in his view.

I'm not sure I would identify density or scale as a "quality" issue for me in any simple sense. What I would say is that land use policy in general is very important because it intersects with a lot of other important policy areas--transportation, housing, economic mobility, energy, environment, public health, legacy costs, and so on. And in certain locations, aside from spaces reserved for public parks or plazas, higher density of use is typically going to result in better outcomes on most or all of those policy dimensions. And in turn, larger scale is typically conducive to higher density of use (although not always--sports arenas and other entertainment venues, for example, can be very large in scale and yet relatively low in actual use).

I would further say that aesthetic design issues should largely be orthogonal to these issues. By that I mean we should first figure out an acceptable range of density/scale, and then also seek good design within that range. But we generally shouldn't trade off density/scale for the sake of design aesthetics, because you can design good-looking buildings at any scale, and there are too many vitally important policy concerns at stake to make it a good idea to sacrifice land use for aesthetics.

That said, there are a few situations in which I think it is rationale to discuss scale as a design issue. One example is when talking about something like your central skyline, where there really can be a special relationship between scale and the aesthetic impact. Another might be infill projects in historic neighborhoods, where going below the ideal scale range might be warranted so as to not overshadow the existing historic buildings (although as an aside, I think this argument can be overused--it is one thing when you are talking infill into an otherwise largely intact row, another when you are talking the next block over from the nearest historic properties, such that I think you need to be careful that you define "infill" very narrowly).

However, in my view, in most cases, there really shouldn't be any conflict or tradeoff: again, acceptable scale ranges should be determined by land-use policy, and then design requirements should be applied within those ranges. Collapsing them into one "quality" measure implies a tradeoff might regularly be possible, and that is a notion I would generally resist.

[BrianTH]

A developer is looking at doing a $40M, 270-unit, apartment complex near the airport:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...ld-40m-apartment-community.html?page=all

[BrianTH]

A pub is replacing Station Street Hot Dogs:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...-to-open-new-fire-side-pub.html?page=all

Nice (and a good sign) that the space did not stay vacant for long.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by photoLith

That makes me real nervous about them saying replacing others lost to neglect, how many buildings are they tearing down and what schlock will replace them? No building is too far gone, especially in a place as historic as The Mexican War Streets.

I wouldn't worry too much. There will be no additional demolitions. The smaller, not particularly historic, building that sat directly on the corner of Federal and North was demolished more than a year ago. They've got room to build new along Federal Street.

Don't forget, the Garden Theater block was added to the historic district at the outset of the redevelopment. Additionally, I can assure you that the community stakeholders are all at the table and Trek wouldn't be allowed to muck too much with the fabric of the block.

I think the greater neighborhood is more concerned about the definition of "workforce" housing that Trek is utilizing and whether, as some fear, the block might be able to "devolve" into Section 8 if the market doesn't support rentals. Personally I think that concern is largely misplaced but the Allegheny Commons East complex is an oft cited example.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I wouldn't worry too much. There will be no additional demolitions. The smaller, not particularly historic, building that sat directly on the corner of Federal and North was demolished more than a year ago. They've got room to build new along Federal Street.

Don't forget, the Garden Theater block was added to the historic district at the outset of the redevelopment. Additionally, I can assure you that the community stakeholders are all at the table and Trek wouldn't be allowed to muck too much with the fabric of the block.

I think the greater neighborhood is more concerned about the definition of "workforce" housing that Trek is utilizing and whether, as some fear, the block might be able to "devolve" into Section 8 if the market doesn't support rentals. Personally I think that concern is largely misplaced but the Allegheny Commons East complex is an oft cited example.

The worst damage has already been done by ripping the actually theater part of the Garden Theater off the back to make room for parking.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Rosenbaum's complaints about some of these buildings being too large strike me as pretty wrong-headed. And while I agree the Vitmore is one of the best designs we have seen lately, I think Skyvue is pretty good too--and very much welcome precisely because of its scale.

Yeah stupid complaint. I love the scale of Skyvue and the housing at Bakery Square is definitely not too big.

[Evergrey]

HealthyRide still doesn't have an official start date...

http://www.pittnews.com/news/article_f5bd5e90-f9d7-11e4-91c6-133362637371.html

Bike sharing program expected to launch soon



Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:24 pm | Updated: 9:29 pm, Wed May 13, 2015.
Dale Shoemaker / News Editor | 0 comments

With one foot already on the pedal, Pittsburgh will soon gain another way to get around.

In the next few weeks, Pittsburgh Bike Share, an organization that will rent bicycles ride by ride, will launch a city-wide bike sharing program to provide students and residents another way to get around the city. David White, executive director for Pittsburgh Bike Share, expects the program, called Healthy Ride, to launch by late May or early June.

White said he was still finalizing plans for the launch with Pittsburgh Bike Share’s partners on Wednesday, which include Highmark, Allegheny Health Network and Walnut Capital. He could not give an official start date for the program.

Pittsburgh Bike Share has installed 10 bike dockingstations in Oakland, with one on Atwood Street and one on South Bouquet Street — none have bikes available for rent yet.

When the program does launch, riders can rent bikes with either a monthly membership or for a single use via the Healthy Ride mobile app, which is live now. Riders can rent a bike an unlimited number of times for 60 minutes a ride for $20 a month, or for about $4 an hour for the first four hours of a single use. It costs $24 to rent a bike for 24 hours.

Nextbike, a German company, will provide the bikes for the program and is powering the mobile app. On the app, users can view a map showing local docking stations.

...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

HealthyRide still doesn't have an official start date...

Seen them setting up one of these in the Strip District. You know though what Pittsburgh really needs to become a more bike-friendly city? A bike supply shop in Downtown.

There have been numerous occasions where I've busted an inner tube or punctured a tire Downtown. If I don't have a spare tube on me, and I can't patch it, I'm just shit out of luck. There's nowhere closer than South Side (or the upper Strip District now) to get basic bike supplies. Golden Triangle Rentals will fix flats for you, but you have to pay for the service - they aren't a retail bike swag store.

I don't think biking to Downtown will ever be as popular as biking within the East End though. Biking back from Downtown up to Morningside now isn't really fun with the hill I need to get over. South Side, the North Side, and Lawrenceville are the only flat, easy commutes to Downtown on a bicycle. Maybe if the Copenhagen wheel becomes a big thing we'll see more people using bikes for Downtown commutes - I'd certainly use it for the more brutal uphill rides.

[qwho]

Final product will look like this supposedly...



Source of image: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/bus...anned-in-Bloomfield/stories/201211300187

Maybe it is just the different angle, or the style of the drawing, but it doesn't look quite as horrible in that picture.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I don't think biking to Downtown will ever be as popular as biking within the East End though. Biking back from Downtown up to Morningside now isn't really fun with the hill I need to get over. South Side, the North Side, and Lawrenceville are the only flat, easy commutes to Downtown on a bicycle. Maybe if the Copenhagen wheel becomes a big thing we'll see more people using bikes for Downtown commutes - I'd certainly use it for the more brutal uphill rides.

For East Enders, perhaps. I live in Deutschtown. The great thing about living here is that it is a flat, easy bike ride to reach all of the Lower North Side, Downtown, Strip, Lawrenceville, and South Side... basically everywhere I want to go EXCEPT for the East End.

Anyone who lives in the flat, central, riverfront-ish areas of the city enjoys gentle bike routes to Downtown and throughout the network of the most exciting urban neighborhoods in the city.