PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by qwho

Having worked in that building I'm torn on if it should be completely leveled or not... The front facade is kindof historic-looking. Inside I can absolutely say it has no 'charm' or anything. It has been completely transformed into a cubicle wasteland. When I worked there, the consensus was that it was a repair center for trucks. The historic maps of Pittsburgh someone posted here one time seem to show it was a location of The White Company, which would make sense. Anything earlier than 1923 shows Luna Park.

While I certainly don't have an issue with three new steel-framed apartment building going on a single block of Melwood within a few years, I do think the location isn't ideal for high-density housing, student or otherwise. The incentive to build there basically just comes down to Pittsburgh's antiquated zoning system.

The core of Oakland (along Fifth/Forbes) is now effectively barred from having any new apartment buildings due to asinine decisions involving rezoning.

The core of the North Oakland apartment district theoretically allows for high-density apartments, but due to the crazy antiquated, it's pretty hard to build new apartments. Zoning requires 25 foot setbacks on all sides other than interior sideyards (which is crazy), but the biggest issue is the minimum of 400 square feet per unit. This means that if you had a full acre of land, you couldn't build more than 109 units of housing by right. This is why One on Centre was done with spot zoning via a SP district.

In contrast, the area north of Baum is zoned UI, similar to much of the Strip. The city loosened UI zoning about 25 years ago, making it one of the easiest zones in the city to build new multifamily.

[dfiler]

‘Massive win’: Tiny Sharpsburg gets $25 million federal grant to provide access to a riverfront brownfield redevelopment
https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/0...redevelopment/

Looks like the Allegheny Shores development might actually happen. Though I'm not sure if all the details are correct in the article. I think the trail funding is only for within the development and it won't actually connect to the main part of the 3 rivers heritage trail.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by dfiler

‘Massive win’: Tiny Sharpsburg gets $25 million federal grant to provide access to a riverfront brownfield redevelopment
https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/0...redevelopment/

Looks like the Allegheny Shores development might actually happen. Though I'm not sure if all the details are correct in the article. I think the trail funding is only for within the development and it won't actually connect to the main part of the 3 rivers heritage trail.

They could have at least featured a pic of Sharpsburg! This is of the Aspinwall and O'Hara riverfronts (and looks to be decades old).

[xdv8]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I wonder if it would be possible to preserve just the cooler eastern side of the building. It would still be out on the planned wide sidewalk but could be a cool historic feature.

I hope they keep it because the other old East Liberty post offices have been demolished. I think the one before this relic was where Jamil's/Subway is now. I could be wrong.

The Subdistricts in the Bakery Connector presentation show districts C and D splitting the post office and when questioned about it per the PBT article Walnut committed to keeping the building but seemed to have added a big "we'll see how the market speaks" asterisk.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by xdv8

The Subdistricts in the Bakery Connector presentation show districts C and D splitting the post office and when questioned about it per the PBT article Walnut committed to keeping the building but seemed to have added a big "we'll see how the market speaks" asterisk.

I actually watched the Planning Commission livestream yesterday, and they seemed to confirm that Trader Joes was not moving in the short-to-medium term. There was also some questions about the continued depiction of surface parking around the Trader Joes, which one of them confirmed was interim, and then the second kind of qualified it, with an expectation of some limited surface parking (similar to Bakery Square proper) in the future.

Regardless, it sounds like they like the revenue stream from Trader Joes, and don't see a reason to mess with the building any time soon. At least the smaller lot will be better screened from the street, and it opens up a possibility of adaptive reuse later.

[dfiler]

The planning commission has approved the 334 appartment complex bewtween 38th and 39th in Lawrencevice. It's a Dalian Development project.

It's great to see the pedestrian/bike trail included in the plans. It will extend the trail for the 40th street bridge underpass one more block. One block at a time is slow but at least there is progress!

The trail easement is shown on page 9:
https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtai...2024-06-11.pdf

[shantyside]

these two bakery square expansion buildings are totally out of scale - the project needs to step down in height as it extends from the nabisco building if it wants to fit in with the area and not look ridiculous

[themaguffin]

The buildings are fine. They are not "big."

There are plenty of examples of this in many cities.

[shantyside]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

The buildings are fine. They are not "big."

There are plenty of examples of this in many cities.

i get what you're saying - not sure why "big" is in quotes since I didn't use that word in my post - it's always good to read things twice

the word I used is scale - the is a term your learn in architecture school - like you don't build a skyscraper on walnut street because it would be completely out of scale

what's going on is they're messing with the zoning to build higher in that area than they're allowed under current laws - to build an office park in shadyside