PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Wally G

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.

The existing building at the corner is old, and IMHO merits preservation, particularly because the back side is an uninterrupted group of rowhouses.

It will admittedly look massively out of scale when there is a giant residential tower next to it, but IMHO that's the sort of eclecticism which will help the Strip maintain charm.

[themaguffin]

It is unlikely that Oxford would more into a new building just to get it started and to start a "new era"

They are not a big national brand. I just don't see that happening.

Now putting their name on a building....

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The existing building at the corner is old, and IMHO merits preservation, particularly because the back side is an uninterrupted group of rowhouses.

It will admittedly look massively out of scale when there is a giant residential tower next to it, but IMHO that's the sort of eclecticism which will help the Strip maintain charm.

I just noticed those little rowhouses for the first time recently. I'd love to see them preserved but I don't have a lot of confidence that anyone else would care.

[Minivan Werner]

I agree that a 16 story tower might look a little out of place in that spot but I think the idea is that the Strip will get a handful of towers of similar height between 27th and downtown over the next 10-15 years and it won't look as out of place. It'll just be a continuation of the downtown skyline.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The existing building at the corner is old, and IMHO merits preservation, particularly because the back side is an uninterrupted group of rowhouses. It will admittedly look massively out of scale when there is a giant residential tower next to it, but IMHO that's the sort of eclecticism which will help the Strip maintain charm.

Agreed all around. It is a cool little complex, and I think it will actually look fine if they go with the planned design. The width is actually similar to the adjacent section, and that same-width-but-one-tall-one-short effect is actually something I associate with older commercial areas.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'd love to see them preserved but I don't have a lot of confidence that anyone else would care.

I doubt they would get official historic protection, but if the planned project goes through they will probably be protected merely by the fact it would be tough to do anything major with just that narrow parcel.

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

It is unlikely that Oxford would more into a new building just to get it started and to start a "new era"

They are not a big national brand. I just don't see that happening.

Now putting their name on a building....

I get you about the whole new era concept but technically Oxford is big enough company to move in a new tower. There existing one is forty five stories tall and the proposed new one is suppose to be twenty nine stories and there actually growing as a company. Will see what they do.

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

It is unlikely that Oxford would more into a new building just to get it started and to start a "new era"

They are not a big national brand. I just don't see that happening.

Now putting their name on a building....

Plus they don't have to take up the whole building just enough to justify building new with smaller tenants,which are easier to find.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Urbana

To clarify, I am all for height and density in the area - hell, I wish it were even taller. The design is just plain junk, though. I was hoping Desmone could pull it off for a high profile project like this, but apparently not.

What am I looking at here? Are those two separate buildings?

[themaguffin]

There existing one is forty five stories tall and the proposed new one is suppose to be twenty nine stories and there actually growing as a company. Will see what they do.

The height and size of the Oxford Center building and the amount of space that
the Oxford company occupies in the building are 2 different things though.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

What am I looking at here? Are those two separate buildings?

I believe it is all one building.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by 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.

I love the brick road.

[BrianTH]

The ill-fated former Edge Restaurant site is still looking for a buyer/developer:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...the-market-for-5-5M/stories/201511180089

Personally, I'd still like to see that site tied into the new phase of Station Square redevelopment (what I think of as the "Upper Station Square" concept).

[gg1]

I think this would be great.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...-former-Hunt-Armory/stories/201511180038

[eschaton]

Enough of the McCleary School Condos were finally pre-sold for construction to begin it seems.

Originally Posted by gg1

I think this would be great.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...-former-Hunt-Armory/stories/201511180038

Some of the quotes from Shadyside residents are cringe-inducing NIMBYism at its best. I mean, I can understand why local residents would prefer the ice rink, but arguing that the area has "too many apartments" is embarrassing. Not to mention the redevelopment of the Hunt Armory isn't for just Shadyside residents, but the entire city.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Some of the quotes from Shadyside residents are cringe-inducing NIMBYism at its best. I mean, I can understand why local residents would prefer the ice rink, but arguing that the area has "too many apartments" is embarrassing. Not to mention the redevelopment of the Hunt Armory isn't for just Shadyside residents, but the entire city.

Agreed. I think you can make a strong positive case for the ice rink without engaging in anti-development NIMBYism, and that would be smarter politics as well.

Love to see the McCleary School project moving forward. That is a cool building. I've heard the roof treatment is a little controversial, but the flat roof isn't original either:

Current:



Planned:




Historic:

[gg1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Love to see the McCleary School project moving forward. That is a cool building. I've heard the roof treatment is a little controversial, but the flat roof isn't original either...

I hate that roof treatment. Flat or returned to original would be much better. That is super ugly, but of course it adds square footage and in the end more money. Still UGLY comes to mind.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by gg1

I hate that roof treatment. Flat or returned to original would be much better. That is super ugly, but of course it adds square footage and in the end more money. Still UGLY comes to mind.

The only thing I find really disagreeable is a couple window masses pop out of the original building dimensions a bit. It would be better if the entire third story was recessed and the original structure remaining was not mutilated further.

[markson33]

I think the ice rink concept for the Hunt Armory is a bad idea - solely based upon the parking issues. It could create a real mess in that part of Shadyside when there are multiple events.

[BrianTH]

I must have a higher tolerance for old-on-the-bottom-new-on-the-top projects than some other people--I actually tend to like them. Maybe it is because I spent time in DC where this is pretty common, or maybe it is just because in general I don't mind things that look a little funky.