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

[xdv8]

Originally Posted by shantyside

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

It's not out of scale when it hasn't been built yet. This is to ensure they have future options to correct poor zoning. Compared to other buildings along Penn in East Liberty and Larimer the scale is fine. Also, this isn't an office park nor is it in Shadyside. Please try harder to not show you understand the project so we can take your criticism more seriously.

[eschaton]

They want the right to build up to those heights, but the massing is very speculative. I'm doubtful, provided that Phase 1 remains an office building, they would ever get the demand needed for that height.

Regardless, the proposed Bakery Square expansion is in East Liberty, not Shadyside, though there are nearby office buildings (like the Philips Building) in Shadyside.

I do agree it's not allowed under current zoning - which is why they're asking for a rezone!

Building tall buildings anywhere outside of Downtown and some sections of Oakland is essentially precluded by zoning without a SP district being created.

[shantyside]

Originally Posted by xdv8

It's not out of scale when it hasn't been built yet. This is to ensure they have future options to correct poor zoning. Compared to other buildings along Penn in East Liberty and Larimer the scale is fine. Also, this isn't an office park nor is it in Shadyside. Please try harder to not show you understand the project so we can take your criticism more seriously.

I have an accurate neighborhood map of the area and know where they begin and end, and I don't care how you take my criticism because it's obvious most of the people on this forum didn't go to architecture school and if they did they've learned to become apologists for the hand that feeds them - the developers

if i'm sitting on a crit in architecture school and a student presents that design and asks me to critique it, what i'm going to say is you need to reduce the height of the buildings as they extend down Penn avenue so the project fits in within the surrounding urban context - as it's drawn now it looks like a goddamn suburban office park

architecture sucks today because architects have no balls - they'll draw whatever the developer tells them to draw

the fictional hero howard roarke knew how to deal with clients - that spirit no longer exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 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

Based on the design and information shared at public meetings, this planned next phase is designed to be the main node of mixed-used activity in the neighborhood, thus creating the scale of the area that the surrounding 5 to 9 story buildings ramp up to... and it's not like we're talking about proposed 40 story buildings or anything near that height.

These buildings don't need to "fit in with the area" because the area is currently an outdated shopping plaza and large surface parking lot. The development is begin designed as the "hub" that the surroundings build up to, so the project certainly does not "need to step down in height".

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by shantyside

I have an accurate neighborhood map of the area and know where they begin and end, and I don't care how you take my criticism because it's obvious most of the people on this forum didn't go to architecture school and if they did they've learned to become apologists for the hand that feeds them - the developers

if i'm sitting on a crit in architecture school and a student presents that design and asks me to critique it, what i'm going to say is you need to reduce the height of the buildings as they extend down Penn avenue so the project fits in within the surrounding urban context - as it's drawn now it looks like a goddamn suburban office park

architecture sucks today because architects have no balls - they'll draw whatever the developer tells them to draw

the fictional hero howard roarke knew how to deal with clients - that spirit no longer exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk

This isn't a design, though - it's just a schematic showing the maximum allowable massing/height limits under zoning. Pretty much the exact thing that Pitt or CMU does when they update their 10-year development plan but don't even have buildings roughed out yet. They're just showing under that proposal they could build up to that height level. And again, unless they go residential, they won't build that tall. And we already know they don't plan on residential there, as they have a commercial tenant in mind for Phase 1 building. Hence, it's not gonna be 12 stories tall (the Philips building is like eight, and has issues with vacancy).

[themaguffin]

Originally Posted by shantyside

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

I know what scale means and have discussed scale in this forum.

You're implying that they are too big in context to what is there (hence out of scale).

I'm saying that isn't accurate.

[qwho]

the village of shadyside buildings are totally out of scale - the neighborhood needs to up the height and density if it wants to fit in with the area and not look ridiculous

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by qwho

the village of shadyside buildings are totally out of scale - the neighborhood needs to up the height and density if it wants to fit in with the area and not look ridiculous

And tear down the wall.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by shantyside

I have an accurate neighborhood map of the area and know where they begin and end, and I don't care how you take my criticism because it's obvious most of the people on this forum didn't go to architecture school and if they did they've learned to become apologists for the hand that feeds them - the developers

if i'm sitting on a crit in architecture school and a student presents that design and asks me to critique it, what i'm going to say is you need to reduce the height of the buildings as they extend down Penn avenue so the project fits in within the surrounding urban context - as it's drawn now it looks like a goddamn suburban office park

architecture sucks today because architects have no balls - they'll draw whatever the developer tells them to draw

the fictional hero howard roarke knew how to deal with clients - that spirit no longer exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk

I'm not buying your appeal to authority argument which boils down to: I went to architecture school so my opinion is correct and nobody is allowed to disagree. Well, allow me to retort!

My opinion is that this development should not be height-limited. The goal shouldn't be to match existing buildings heights. Instead, the goal should be to reinstate density.

This site was previously a strip mall and it is across the street from another former strip mall, currently being redeveloped into a mixed-use complex. That neighboring complex will be 6-stories tall with a 38000 sq ft grocery, 230 apartments, and 400 parking spaces.

It is directly across the tracks from a big box store with a massive parking garage.

And most importantly, this is in a TOD zone, across from the $158 million Eastside Transit Oriented Development. The transit center includes 360 multifamily housing units, a 554-space shared-use parking garage, a 120-space bike garage, and 43,000 square feet of retail space.

So in my opinion, this is precisely the location for tall buildings at high density. That's the entire purpose of transit-oriented development, density in close proximity to transit. If anything the zoning needs to be changed. Matching pre-existing building heights needs to take a backseat to proper urban design. Density and height belong next to transit. This is an important part of the solution to our housing affordability crisis.

While the proposal isn't exactly what I would design. I do appreciate the density and adherence to good urban design practices. It maintains a streetwall along Penn and eliminates almost all of the surface parking.

Was it the glass facades that set off the suburban office park rant? In Pittsburgh, glass might be interpreted as suburban since we haven't seen much new development in the city. But elsewhere, it's quite common in downtowns. My take is that the density, minimal parking and proximity to transit make this precisely NOT a suburban office park.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I'm not buying your appeal to authority argument which boils down to: I went to architecture school so my opinion is correct and nobody is allowed to disagree. Well, allow me to retort!

My opinion is that this development should not be height-limited. The goal shouldn't be to match existing buildings heights. Instead, the goal should be to reinstate density.

This site was previously a strip mall and it is across the street from another former strip mall, currently being redeveloped into a mixed-use complex. That neighboring complex will be 6-stories tall with a 38000 sq ft grocery, 230 apartments, and 400 parking spaces.

It is directly across the tracks from a big box store with a massive parking garage.


And most importantly, this is in a TOD zone, across from the $158 million Eastside Transit Oriented Development. The transit center includes 360 multifamily housing units, a 554-space shared-use parking garage, a 120-space bike garage, and 43,000 square feet of retail space.

So in my opinion, this is precisely the location for tall buildings at high density. That's the entire purpose of transit-oriented development, density in close proximity to transit. If anything the zoning needs to be changed. Matching pre-existing building heights needs to take a backseat to proper urban design. Density and height belong next to transit. This is an important part of the solution to our housing affordability crisis.

While the proposal isn't exactly what I would design. I do appreciate the density and adherence to good urban design practices. It maintains a streetwall along Penn and eliminates almost all of the surface parking.

Was it the glass facades that set off the suburban office park rant? In Pittsburgh, glass might be interpreted as suburban since we haven't seen much new development in the city. But elsewhere, it's quite common in downtowns. My take is that the density, minimal parking and proximity to transit make this precisely NOT a suburban office park.

Pittsburgh missed out on the glass district expansion that occurred in major US cities over the last decade. Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Nashville and of course Austin have examples of glass districts in or near downtown. Pittsburgh's development was scattered and not concentrated in one area. The glass and new street infrastructure is very pleasing to the eye. I would hope that the Lower Hill District, Strip District or East Liberty would develop a mini district in the future.