PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

The Strip is mostly industrial and office, very old and urban with hardly any trees. It is also in a valley like downtown which makes more sense for taller development since you won't be obstructing any views.

Sorry, I otherwise agree with your post, but have to take exception here.

The Strip is not "very old" by any means. The original 19th century neighborhood was mostly rowhouses, Victorian storefronts, and other small-scale structures. The big warehouses only really took off in the 1920s. Much of the industrial building stock is postwar crap - faceless concrete and metal siding buildings.

Indeed, part of the reason why building big makes sense in the strip is there's just so little of note worth preserving architecturally in the Strip. I mean, historic buildings of merit are there, but they probably comprise less than 20% of the total footprint of the neighborhood.

[themaguffin]

These NIMBYs should see what was planned for the Strip in the 1960s.

It was envisioned to be gone as a separate extension of downtown.

On the negative side, the vision was not of downtown blocks but several Geteway Center style developments almost copied and pasted (and repeated) all the way down the Strip.

[BrianTH]

I would suggest that what counts as "very old" is a bit subjective (my kids tell me things dating to the 1970s certainly count as "very old", but I would dispute that).

But I agree it is worth noting that most of the industrial buildings (with some notable exceptions) have no particular historic value.

I might also note it is really a pretty good place to locate a secondary "downtown" to help complete the chain along the East Busway/Penn Avenue corridor. Already you have Downtown, East Liberty, and Wilkinsburg, and the Upper Strip is more or less spaced evenly between Downtown and East Liberty, and roughly the same distance from East Liberty as Wilkinsburg is on the other side. So that could comprise an arc of four such higher-density "downtowns" at a good spacing.

[JVC]

Originally Posted by daviderik

The city's center will not expand into uptown.

interesting - what makes you say that?

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by JVC

what is this obsession with height and density?

obviously this is the skyscraper forum but building a skyscraper on walnut street in shadyside would be idiotic
and building a tall building like that in the strip district would also be idiotic - it's completely out of place

it's a nice looking design - put it on the civic arena site where height and density are appropriate and needed

it's called urban planning

Your argument is so full of holes i'm wondering if it went to Syria to fight for ISIS.
Walnut Street is a tiny little low rise business district a couple blocks long while The Strip is a huge, sprawling industrial area with no singular "neighborhood character" that the complaint suggests. It is 1 story warehouses with no windows, a few mid rise brick warehouses that are going residential and essentially NO single family housing. The Strip is the perfect place to extend downtown mid rises to. It's flat, on the riverfront which buyers seem to wet their panties over and has a mountain on one side so nobody's view will be ruined. It's perfect. If you can't handle 6-10 stories in the strip you really need to move to Hampton Twp.

[Austinlee]

Although the drawing is low res, I think this design would be fine for The Strip. This is the modern styling that you don't see much of in Pittsburgh. It is a perfectly fine style. It don't think it would look cheap.

I like it.

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by JVC

interesting - what makes you say that?

The city has an opportunity in a to develop the former arena site. They lack both proper investors and political will. When all said and done it will be low rise office/residential. The strip is the only natural extension left.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by daviderik

The city has an opportunity in a to develop the former arena site. They lack both proper investors and political will. When all said and done it will be low rise office/residential. The strip is the only natural extension left.

Agreed on all accounts.

[Wally G]

I am suprised no one haven't said maybe Oxford is selling their old skyscraper. To built and move in the new one therefore eliminating any dependence on finding an anchor tenant.

[BrianTH]

I still hope we can do better in the Lower Hill, but it would require several factors breaking the right way, starting with getting the Penguins out of the process.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Wally G

I am suprised no one haven't said maybe Oxford is selling their old skyscraper. To built and move in the new one therefore eliminating any dependence on finding an anchor tenant.

We've talked a little about the first point, but I am not sure we have talked about the second point--is that speculation or are there rumors or reporting to that effect? Even if it is just speculation it makes sense . . .

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Wally G

I am suprised no one haven't said maybe Oxford is selling their old skyscraper. To built and move in the new one therefore eliminating any dependence on finding an anchor tenant.

That really makes a ton of sense. They have been really determined to build that tower and this would be a good way to do it.

[JVC]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

If you can't handle 6-10 stories in the strip you really need to move to Hampton Twp.

if you can't handle counting the number of floors in a building,
then skyscraper forum might be a little too advanced for you

[eschaton]

A few items of note in the upcoming zoning commission agenda. Oxford is asking for approval for the Three Crossings parking garage with first floor retail. October Development is asking for the variances needed for the construction of the "ARC hotel." And, perhaps most interestingly, someone is building 14 infill single-family houses in far southern Oakland (around here). Oakland has seen a fair amount of residential infill over the last 10-15 years, but it tends to get lost in all the student slum.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Oxford is asking for approval for the Three Crossings parking garage with first floor retail.

Speaking of low-quality industrial buildings, this project would wipe out a few (it is all the parcels between Spruce Way and Railroad, 26th and 27th):

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4564195,-79.9790571,218m/data=!3m1!1e3

The variances requested are a 0' side setback (versus the minimum 10') and a FAR of 3.72:1 (versus the maximum 3:1). This, of course, is great--not that a parking structure is inherently exciting, but it is a necessary component of allowing dense development in this area, and the ground floor retail with no setbacks is exactly what you would want in such a project.

And, perhaps most interestingly, someone is building 14 infill single-family houses in far southern Oakland.

That is potentially a nice little project. That is right at the top of the hillside directly over the Hot Metal Bridge, and there should be good views from there, and maybe it will also be visible from over at South Side Works.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Although the drawing is low res, I think this design would be fine for The Strip. This is the modern styling that you don't see much of in Pittsburgh. It is a perfectly fine style. It don't think it would look cheap.

I like it.

Yeah, I like it too. What I particularly like is that with the two distinct masses, it looks like a pair of buildings, and I think that would actually help it fit into the Strip a bit better.

I'm also just a sucker in general for skinny residential towers. And in the blockier mass, are those perhaps two-story units? Because that would also be pretty cool.

Edit: I think so on the two-story units, based on the reported unit count of 70-80 units. It looks like maybe 8-9 units per level in the blocky par, five levels if you double up, so that is 40-45. Then it looks like two units a floor in the tower, maybe 14-15 floors (not sure what is going on in the top floor), so that is another 28-30, for a total of 68-75. I might be slightly off, but if there were 10 levels in the blocky part it would almost surely end up too many units.

[Louis Frost]

Good afternoon everyone. I just want to tell you all thank you for developing and maintaining this thread throughout the years. I have been visiting this thread for at least six years now, but never joined the community. I often visit other city threads, however; I find Pittsburgh's thread to be one of the best out there. It truly makes me proud as a former "Pittsburgher" to observe the amount of enthusiasm, professionalism (99.5% of the time) and overall passion for smart, sustainable and sophisticated urban planning from you all towards, in my opinion, one of the "greatest cities on earth." Unfortunately, due to my current job, I cannot move back. I look forward to more discussions and the unveiling of new proposals that meet the goals of true urban density, sustainability and intelligent design.

Cheers everyone and a pleasure formally (via the Internet) meeting you all.

[BrianTH]

Thanks for posting! (And I apologize for my part in the 0.5%)

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

We've talked a little about the first point, but I am not sure we have talked about the second point--is that speculation or are there rumors or reporting to that effect? Even if it is just speculation it makes sense . . .

Just speculation but seeming how they choose to built a tower the same time as Pnc Bank. Plus producing a lot of new development around the city. I think it would be a good way to start a whole new era for their company.

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

We've talked a little about the first point, but I am not sure we have talked about the second point--is that speculation or are there rumors or reporting to that effect? Even if it is just speculation it makes sense . . .

I also wish something gets done with the coner where the tower suppose to go. It would really add to all the exciting developments on that street.