PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by evergrey

it's a beloved yinzer cultural touchstone. Yinzers go nuts about this sort of thing or the "igloo"... Or weep tears about how three rivers was so much more intimidating... Or claim the city is going to hell due to the closure of tired old crap restaurants like tambellini's and gullifty's...

lol

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by GeneW

On the Desmone website with the renderings for that Wholey's site, I noticed plans for the Reedsdale Street Apartments, anyone know anything about this project? Reedsdale is the street that runs across Allegheny past Heinz Field and the T station and ends at the Casino. Looks like a neat project on a derelict building but I'm not sure about housing across the street from Heinz Field.

Hey! If they are gonna do that building then I want the "Sliver Hotel" built in downtown also on their page....

I love the idea of Sliver buildings taking up boring, unused small parcels but the small floorplates I guess make them pretty uneconomical to build.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Well I can't see it being too hard to make a permanent fish on the building.

You obviously could, but at that point it wouldn't really be historical, it would be an homage. And I guess that might be the idea behind the wavy lighting design at the top in the one nighttime rendering (meaning I could see that being a sort of abstract homage to the dearly-departed fish).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ShooFlyPie

The comment was more directed to the silliness of nostalgia of a string of LED lights wrapped in the shape of a fish on a large ugly concrete block building.

I actually completely understand the nostalgia. It may not be all that old in general historic terms, but it does represent an era in Pittsburgh and the Strip.

So if it was an actual sign, I'd be all in favor of doing something with it, even if not in situ (say moving it over to part of the Heinz History Museum complex).

[Steel City Scotty]

Originally Posted by ShooFlyPie

I was hoping for a more exciting development for this space. The same goes for Gullifity's. Not that I have anything wrong against the Friendship Circle or a new housing unit for special needs residents, but the development proposed before that fell through would have been awesome for this site. Maybe there is a chance with the theater.

These are my sentiments as well.

I don't think anyone would be heartless enough to say that they don't want to see the development of new volunteer programs or housing for people with special needs, and I certainly support anything that will help better the community and its citizens.

But, being that most of us are fortunate enough to not have a need for these types of services, news of their creation certainly doesn't sound as "sexy" as a hotel, condos, retail or new restaurants.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

New dorm at Pitt. I dont understand why they made the building look like a 1920s building and then put that horrendous staircase in the middle of the building, breaking up its continuity and ruining its faux historic feel. Doesnt make much sense to me architecturally.

At a guess, that was supposed to represent the sort of courtyard created by the typical U- or W-shaped floorplates of the highrises of that era. I agree that even if that was the thinking, it wasn't a huge success, but I still like how it creates a nice gateway into the central part of Oakland.

[ShooFlyPie]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Now I'm no expert, but I have a feeling the Wholey's fish could probably be made again and put up on another building.

A large Jesus fish stung up with LEDs on the St. Stanislaus Kostka Church?

Or too tacky?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

It's not really fair to put the Civic Arena in that list. I agree that misplaced nostalgia for places like Tambellinis can get annoying but lumping that in with sincere efforts for historic preservation is wrong.

The Civic Arena was an interesting case because while I agree it was an historically-significant building and there were serious (if in my view ultimately insufficient) arguments in favor of preserving it, there were also a lot of people who spoke in favor of saving it for less worthy reasons (of the sort we are discussing).

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by photoLith;6255477
url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/photolitherland/9676950757/

[/url]
New dorm at Pitt. I dont understand why they made the building look like a 1920s building and then put that horrendous staircase in the middle of the building, breaking up its continuity and ruining its faux historic feel. Doesnt make much sense to me architecturally. Kinda lazy if you ask me. But its better than a parking lot and it will have ground floor retail it seems.

I don't think it historically inaccurate to have a staircase run past a window or wall of windows (the Hornbostel buildings at CMU and around town have a few examples) but I will admit that that's alot of staircase in the new Pitt dorm and it does detract from building's nighttime appearance. Maybe it would be less bothersome if the architect had centered the staircase within the window wall... That said, I'm okay with the building. Not usually a fan of faux-historical projects but this one seems appropriate given its location. Now we need to get something appropriate built on the Syria Mosque site.

As to a possible rationale for the placement of the staircase: A while back I attended a lecture by a Columbia professor of architecture who is also a partner at a prominent firm here. He has become an advocate of putting staircases into more visible/more attractive locations to encourage their use. His thinking is that typical staircases, hard to find and encased in concrete block walls, are not used for one and two story "trips" because of their unattractive environment. His firm's residential and commercial buildings are making the staircases more central (and, theoretically, more frequently used) by placing them in the front of the building and flooding them with natural light. He argues it is both "green" and promotes cardiovascular activity. Interestingly, I had noticed the trend toward these "front and center" staircases before I heard the lecture.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Looks like a neat project on a derelict building but I'm not sure about housing across the street from Heinz Field.

99% of the time (or whatever) it will just be near the T station et al. It does take a certain sort to want to live near a stadium, but it can definitely work (see, eg, Wrigleyville in Chicago).

[Private Dick]

I think the glass exposed staircase is one of the best parts of the building. It lends some airiness to a very solid, plain block.

And the views are great from the steps.

[Evergrey]

[QUOTE=GeneW;6255520]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It's a beloved Yinzer cultural touchstone. Yinzers go nuts about this sort of thing or the "Igloo"... or weep tears about how Three Rivers was so much more intimidating... or claim the city is going to hell due to the closure of tired old crap restaurants like Tambellini's and Gullifty's...


It's not really fair to put the Civic Arena in that list. I agree that misplaced nostalgia for places like Tambellinis can get annoying but lumping that in with sincere efforts for historic preservation is wrong.

The point is... that the Igloo... a mid-century monstrosity that destroyed an entire neighborhood and had no economic usefulness going forward... generated a groundswell of angry Yinzer "preservation" support. The type of people who don't give a damn about "historic preservation" or "architecture" at any other time... but lamented the impending demise of the vacant Igloo because they used to watch Ulf Samuellson play hockey there... or they saw Styx in '78 there.

[dfiler]

I really like the new dorm at Pitt, even the staircase in question. Although I do agree it isn't great looking from the outside.

The upside is that less electricity is used for lighting and elevators. Also, people tend to use exposed staircases more often than the bomb shelter windowless versions found in many buildings. Walking up and down becomes a desirable experience. You get amazing views that changes with each floor. It provides a nice diversion when walking to or from your destination.

Better yet, the building is the perfect design for Oakland. The height and size is great for the pedestrian culture of urban college students. Combined with retail on the first floor, it couldn't get much better in terms of impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

there were also a lot of people who spoke in favor of saving it for less worthy reasons (of the sort we are discussing).

Exactly.

[Topher51]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Good catch to realize that both projects are from Desmone. Initially I thought the connection to be inconsequential. Afterall, an actor can deliver a great performance in one film then be unimpressive in the next. But after further thought, maybe this sheds some light on my question about One Grandview: Is the problem a bad architect or a bad client? Could the developer of the Mt Washington site be the villain here and Desmone the hostage? Just saying...

Wholey must be a bitch of a building to redevelop---check out the Buffalo thread for some truly bad warehouse-to-residential conversions---but the concept and renderings of the Wholey project are really impressive. So why not the same with Grandview? The client?

I've worked with the architects at Desmone on several projects and think they do good work. Often times when you see the creativity sucked out of a project going from concept to design its because certain non-essential items were value engineered out by the owner and contractor. Often times, those are the architectural frills we all know and love. For Grandview in particular, once the hotel aspect was scrapper, it made sense to eliminate the tower. Most of the residential in the original concept was not in the tower anyway. That likely was a client decision, but over the course of several years and with different investors getting involved, changes like that are bound to happen.

I also know the structural engineer designing Wholey and I can confirm your suspicions. He told me that building has been a bitch to design.

[GeneW]

[QUOTE=Evergrey;6255676]

Originally Posted by GeneW

The point is... that the Igloo... a mid-century monstrosity that destroyed an entire neighborhood and had no economic usefulness going forward... generated a groundswell of angry Yinzer "preservation" support. The type of people who don't give a damn about "historic preservation" or "architecture" at any other time... but lamented the impending demise of the vacant Igloo because they used to watch Ulf Samuellson play hockey there... or they saw Styx in '78 there.

I happen to be a big fan of mid-century monstrosities but I do get your point that a good number of people didn't actually care about the architecture itself.

For what it's worth, words like "monstrosity" were exactly the kind of language used to describe victorian architecture during the mid-twentieth century when so much of it was torn down.

[themaguffin]

I think that Pitt dorm looks quite nice. Simple, but nice, and think the visible staircase is fine and allows from break of a solid side that might be a tad more boring.

[BrianTH]

Although I am still not sure I like it on a purely aesthetic level, I find myself persuaded by the arguments above that a staircase like that is an excellent idea in this context.

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Although I am still not sure I like it on a purely aesthetic level, I find myself persuaded by the arguments above that a staircase like that is an excellent idea in this context.

^^^This. Also, I think it is more likely to have regular maintenance and cleanup than the usual hidden-away, poorly-lit staircases.

[photoLith]

[QUOTE=GeneW;6255767]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I happen to be a big fan of mid-century monstrosities but I do get your point that a good number of people didn't actually care about the architecture itself.

For what it's worth, words like "monstrosity" were exactly the kind of language used to describe victorian architecture during the mid-twentieth century when so much of it was torn down.

The difference being is that most crap built after ww2 was and is car centric. They are soulless and lack a human touch that pre ww2 buildings have. Yes they said the same thing in the 50s about victorian architecture. But now victorian era buildings are prized for their human scale and detail. I do not believe anyone in 100 years will be lamenting the loss of brutalism or post modern to modernist structures. Projects like the igloo destroyed entire historic neighborhoods. That's something to mourne, not a bland piece of junk surrounded by a sea of parking lots in a downtown area.