PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

With the caveat that I am not an engineer, I really don't see why not. If you look around the album at the Facebook page (or do independent research), what you will find is that the simplest approach ends up with the facades essentially being self-supporting (you build what is basically a free-standing steel skeleton for the facade, which should work just fine as long as it was originally built with brick). Then the new building behind the facades can be built however you like, and therefore there should be no problem accommodating whatever sort of internal spaces you desire. It can be trickier if you actually want to use some portion of the internal space in the original buildings, but if it is just the facades then these general principles should apply.

Anyway, I gather Preservation Pittsburgh has been pushing Point Park on this issue, and so far Point Park has not supplied them with proof that it cannot be done. I'm OK with being patient, but I think that reporting does make it all the more likely that there is no such inherent obstacle.

Actually, my question was more along the lines of floor plates not matching up with windows. Based on the most recent floor plan published for the Playhouse, it appears that the main stage house will be directly behind the present location of the three facades. Given that the ceiling heights for this space will be different (surely higher than office or residential space), I figured that the facades in place would be filled-in windows rather than still functioning as windows. That floor plan also looked pretty tight, so pushing the theatre house southward to allow for the structure that would support the facades might not work. Not against the idea---just wondering if there is room for such an adjustment.

And as I wrote months ago, the facades in place with dark glass filling in the windows is not---at least to me--- a great solution as compared to a commitment to rebuild the facades in a place where the windows and doors can still serve as windows and doors. I am all for saving historic facades but have seen too many buildings (DC and Chicago come to mind) where a façade is saved but has no activity behind it's dark, reflective glass. I find that kinda sad.

Final thought: I don't think Point Park is being deliberately coy here. This project is a really big reach for a school its size. The school has to say as little as possible now so that they can offer their major foundation donor(s) maximum impact when the grant/grants are announced. So I get why the school will not guarantee that the facades will survive, but I just wish that they would so we could conclude this discussion. On the plus side, it's good that they are working with the Preservation Pittsburgh and Landmarks. And I am heartened that the arkie from PP recognizes that this project is vitally important to the school's future.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Based on the most recent floor plan published for the Playhouse, it appears that the main stage house will be directly behind the present location of the three facades. Given that the ceiling heights for this space will be different (surely higher than office or residential space), I figured that the facades in place would be filled-in windows rather than still functioning as windows.

Again if you look around the various examples, in most cases they leave the windows as transparent space (they could be left open or glazed). The facades become basically like ornamentation in such cases. This should be even easier if the interior space in question is designed to be used without windows, as is typical with a theater, and if there is not going to be multiple floor breaks cutting behind the facades. I understand what you are saying about this potentially looking a little strange relative to preserving a whole building, or at least part of a building with a functional relationship between the windows and immediately interior space, but I think it can still look good if designed thoughtfully, and I think it beats the alternative of demolishing them entirely.

That floor plan also looked pretty tight, so pushing the theatre house southward to allow for the structure that would support the facades might not work.

Again, I'd say it actually looks like a nearly ideal scenario. You only need something like a couple feet (sometimes less) for the facades once the rest is cut away. Straight behind the theater is a corridor and then a bunch of new studios and shops, and I don't see why those couldn't lose a little space. It would be different if you were running into the existing buildings they want to preserve along Fourth, but fortunately these facades are all directly opposite the existing gap along Fourth.

All this said, if they can come forward with solid evidence as to why this simply cannot be done, then we should consider that. Just speculatively, though, if anything this seems like a nearly ideal scenario for a facade-preservation project.

And as I wrote months ago, the facades in place with dark glass filling in the windows is not---at least to me--- a great solution as compared to a commitment to rebuild the facades in a place where the windows and doors can still serve as windows and doors.

As yet, for two of three facades that is not even being floated as an option. And generally, I think you are giving up way too much of the historic value of these structures if you move them off the street, because they are part of an historic district in that area.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again if you look around the various examples, in most cases they leave the windows as transparent space (they could be left open or glazed). The facades become basically like ornamentation in such cases. This should be even easier if the interior space in question is designed to be used without windows, as is typical with a theater, and if there is not going to be multiple floor breaks cutting behind the facades. I understand what you are saying about this potentially looking a little strange relative to preserving a whole building, or at least part of a building with a functional relationship between the windows and immediately interior space, but I think it can still look good if designed thoughtfully, and I think it beats the alternative of demolishing them entirely.



Again, I'd say it actually looks like a nearly ideal scenario. You only need something like a couple feet (sometimes less) for the facades once the rest is cut away. Straight behind the theater is a corridor and then a bunch of new studios and shops, and I don't see why those couldn't lose a little space. It would be different if you were running into the existing buildings they want to preserve along Fourth, but fortunately these facades are all directly opposite the existing gap along Fourth.

All this said, if they can come forward with solid evidence as to why this simply cannot be done, then we should consider that. Just speculatively, though, if anything this seems like a nearly ideal scenario for a facade-preservation project.



As yet, for two of three facades that is not even being floated as an option. And generally, I think you are giving up way too much of the historic value of these structures if you move them off the street, because they are part of an historic district in that area.

All decent points. Re the final one: We don't know where the facades would be moved. At least one, Honus Wagner, is supposed to move further east on Forbes, not off the street. The two other facades---granted, we don't know.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Looking through the facades examples, I thought this one was particularly illustrative:

Are those doors even functional or is literally "just a front"? haha

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by markson33

Evergrey - Where is that? Its ghastly!

Houston from 1970s. Today downtown has changed dramatically. Last year I lived in the Houston House, that black high rise on the left hand side. Most of those lots are getting developed or have now been developed.

[Steel City Scotty]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Are those doors even functional or is literally "just a front"? haha

I did a little Google search and found some more information about this building.

Unfortunately, the details at this link don't mention much about the facade.

http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/news-4...e-backgrounder

[East Edge]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Are those doors even functional or is literally "just a front"? haha

Excellent example!

[BrianTH]

So on the plus side, I didn't even know this hotel on Federal Street near PNC Park was in the works:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...ension-703160/

On the minus side, construction has been delayed as they try to finalize financing.

Apparently it is going here:

http://goo.gl/maps/ndhX4



Tight spot--I wonder if it is going to be on the taller side.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So on the plus side, I didn't even know this hotel on Federal Street near PNC Park was in the works:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...ension-703160/

On the minus side, construction has been delayed as they try to finalize financing.

Apparently it is going here:

http://goo.gl/maps/ndhX4



Tight spot--I wonder if it is going to be on the taller side.

I think the article mentioned it was planned to be a 10 story building, Brian. Don't remember exactly, though.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I think the article mentioned it was planned to be a 10 story building, Brian.

Under the latest extension, the developer won't have to start construction of the proposed 10-story, 135-room hotel until April 23, 2014.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz2emSFNb34

I should perhaps reconsider posting before my morning coffee has taken hold.

Anyway, that is the same number of floors as the Springhill Suites, which seems odd to me since the lot is so much smaller, but I guess they have a plan.

Edit: The Springhill Suites is 198 suites, and this is only 135 rooms, so I guess that largely explains it.

[AaronPGH]

Cleveland will soon have two groceries downtown. Pittsburgh? Still trying to get it together.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...n_clevela.html

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Cleveland will soon have two groceries downtown. Pittsburgh? Still trying to get it together.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...n_clevela.html

I remember reading that Cleveland's downtown population is significantly higher than Pittsburgh's, so no surprise that is reflected in more support services and businesses. Grocery stores and similar businesses need volume, and volume comes from density. The same issue has beset downtown Manhattan as it transitions to a residential neighborhood. My Tribeca friends have only recently gotten a choice of grocery stores, with a new Whole Foods rounding out the selection. Downtown Pittsburgh will evolve into a great residential area with all the necessary services but the evolution needs time to happen.

As for Cleveland: As there is a lot of residential development in both cities' downtowns, I doubt our downtown will reach parity with Cleveland's anytime soon. But probably more telling is that Cleveland as a whole (the city and the metro region) continue to lose population while Pittsburgh has, perhaps, turned the corner with the recent slight gain in regional population.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Cleveland will soon have two groceries downtown. Pittsburgh? Still trying to get it together.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...n_clevela.html

To be fair, Cleveland seems to have a more inclusive definition of "downtown" than we do. Looking at that map, you could include all of the Strip District and the lower Northside in that radius.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

But probably more telling is that Cleveland as a whole (the city and the metro region) continue to lose population while Pittsburgh has, perhaps, turned the corner with the recent slight gain in regional population.

I am replying to my own post: While I know Pittsburgh's regional population has grown based on the most recent numbers, anyone know if the city's population also increased?

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I am replying to my own post: While I know Pittsburgh's regional population has grown based on the most recent numbers, anyone know if the city's population also increased?

The city had a very slight up-tick in population last year. It will be interesting to see if that was statistical noise or if we're really on an upward slope.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by GeneW

To be fair, Cleveland seems to have a more inclusive definition of "downtown" than we do. Looking at that map, you could include all of the Strip District and the lower Northside in that radius.

Very true. The Strip District is well within a one-mile radius of Downtown, and there's no doubt you can get pretty much anything you'd ever need somewhere on Penn or Smallman! For a few basic staples I'd say the numerous drugstores/convenience stores downtown would do the trick.

That being said, I have no doubts that a larger urban supermarket like the one planned in downtown Cleveland would also work in Pittsburgh. Of course another option would be to put a large grocer in as part of whatever might eventually fill some of the huge surface lots around Station Square, especially given it's just a short walk across the Smithfield St. Bridge from Downtown. Plus it gives convenient access to the residents of the South Side and Mt. Washington as well.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I am replying to my own post: While I know Pittsburgh's regional population has grown based on the most recent numbers, anyone know if the city's population also increased?

It did, by a couple thousand.

The 2010 US Census had the population at roughly 305k, and the estimates from 2012 have it at about 307 or 308k...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Cleveland will soon have two groceries downtown. Pittsburgh? Still trying to get it together.

Note that article states the "downtown" population in Cleveland is in the 10-12K range, and growing. They also calculate 4300 people within 1/2 mile of the new store, 13,400 within a mile, with little competition.

Downtown Pittsburgh proper is currently way below 10,000 in population (it is probably in the 4000 or so range). You can get closer to 10,000 (but not all the way by any means) by defining a "Greater Downtown" that includes surrounding areas, but then you would have to start imagining competition with other grocery stores (and the Strip).

So it seems to me that more than anything else, this is a size-of-market problem. I am fully confident Downtown Pittsburgh will get there eventually, however.

[Evergrey]

...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

To be fair, Cleveland seems to have a more inclusive definition of "downtown" than we do. Looking at that map, you could include all of the Strip District and the lower Northside in that radius.

A lot of this goes to Pittsburgh just being very different in terms of layout from Cleveland, largely for topographic reasons.

So, here we don't consider the Cedar Avenue Giant Eagle to be a Downtown store. But of course it is well within a 1 mile radius of the heart of Downtown (as the crow flies or walking).

The Mt Washington Shop n Save is also within a 1 mile radius--only as the crow flies of course, but it would still keep people from coming to shop in a Golden Triangle store.

The new Hill Shop n Save is going to be about that distance too, and actually also in terms of walking (albeit uphill), and again, even if it didn't compete with a Golden Triangle store directly, it will definitely compete for Lower Hill/Bluff customers, which is where the bulk of the non-Golden Triangle "Greater Downtown" residents live.

Same deal with the Strip--you can include the near Strip in Greater Downtown, but then they have their own shopping options.

So it is actually pretty appropriate to define a narrow "Downtown" in Pittsburgh for the purpose of identifying the potential size of the market for a "Downtown" grocery store.