PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Weak effort.

Don't bother Oxford. The originally proposed tower design sucked and now this one is a non-offensive, but certainly uninspiring, short glassy box.

If these are their two best cracks at it, then it tells me their capabilities as a developer are certainly not what they used to be. Their best effort remains the renovation.

And are they kidding with that video?

The web site and video make no mention of the building's architect. Anyone else find a firm name?

[AaronPGH]

I bet it's Gensler.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Virtually all of the vacant lots are owned by Buncher (who also owns two warehouses in the area). The assessor's site shows that many of these parcels had houses on them relatively recently. I'm guessing Buncher has had a long-term process of buying out and knocking down buildings here - for what reason I'm not sure. Is it pure land-banking, or is it plans for some future project? If it's the latter, I'm guessing they're going to wait until they get full control over all the blocks in this zone (excluding the block of the Heinz complex on the west side of Heinz Street) - which probably means that everything historic remaining in the area they don't own yet (maybe seven buildings) will get demolished and they'll start with a clean slate.

Regardless, I know when I saw the Allegheny Riverfront Vision plan, there was a riverfront view which showed new construction filling these blocks. Was this merely "aspirational" or has anything actually ever publicly been discussed?

So I don't really know all the answers to your questions, but interestingly, it appears to me the new expansion of Heinz Lofts is going into a building and adjacent lot that Buncher bought back in 1996, then sold in April of this year:

http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/R...24P00216000000

http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/R...24P00210000000

And I have heard (although don't recall any verification) that Buncher itself had talked in the past about eventually doing development in that area, but my impression was that it would be phased after they did the Strip. It might be a promising sign, then, if they are starting to sell off some of those properties instead as developers approach them with opportunities.

Edit: I just checked, and it looks like Buncher acquired around the same time, and also still owns, every other parcel between Heinz Street and Chestnut, River Ave and Canal St, except for the one corner lot northwest of the wall, southeast of Heinz St, next to River Ave, with the old tracks. That is still listed as owned by Heinz, although Buncher gets the tax bills. It sure would be cool if all that was freed up for a brand new development expanding on Heinz Lofts.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is sort of off the current topic, but the mentioning of the expansion of Heinz Lofts (and how I've been dropping my daughter off at the Sarah Heinz House every day) made me think about the former location of the neighborhood of Schweitzer Lock. What's going on here that such prime land - positioned in-between the North Shore and Heinz Lofts - remains a dump?

The portion between Morgan at North Shore and 579 isn't horrible. Too many parking lots/office buildings, and no residential component however. There's that nice abandoned Victorian apartment/storefront rotting away, with an rowhouse next door, and a huge overgrown URA parcel. I'm shocked no one has wanted to put something in.

Still, the area looks like Shadyside compared to the area betwen 579 and Heinz Street. These blocks contain some of the worst urban blight in the city, with some blocks completely and totally empty. They nominally have parking on them in some cases, - the one at the corner of Heinz and S Canal is chained off and has grass growing out of it.

Virtually all of the vacant lots are owned by Buncher (who also owns two warehouses in the area). The assessor's site shows that many of these parcels had houses on them relatively recently. I'm guessing Buncher has had a long-term process of buying out and knocking down buildings here - for what reason I'm not sure. Is it pure land-banking, or is it plans for some future project? If it's the latter, I'm guessing they're going to wait until they get full control over all the blocks in this zone (excluding the block of the Heinz complex on the west side of Heinz Street) - which probably means that everything historic remaining in the area they don't own yet (maybe seven buildings) will get demolished and they'll start with a clean slate.

Regardless, I know when I saw the Allegheny Riverfront Vision plan, there was a riverfront view which showed new construction filling these blocks. Was this merely "aspirational" or has anything actually ever publicly been discussed?

Very interesting... I did not know Buncher owned most of that area... though it certainly makes sense. It's a shame such a large centrally located riverfront area continues to sit as a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

There is definitely some detail work up by the roof that looks pretty cool, but all in all I'm not super attached to it as a whole.

The other thing I would note is it fits into the progression of historic buildings down Smithfield, including on both sides in that block.

That said, I understand why some people were willing to let it go in return for a really nice and substantial new highrise. However, the less impressive the replacement proposal, logically the more people who will decide the balance tips the other way.

[BrianTH]

Here is the Riverfront Vision, incidentally:





Generally speaking I would like the new residential buildings to be at least a bit taller, at least in the same range as the existing industrial-residential conversions like the Cork Factory and Heinz Lofts. Otherwise, though, I think that is a pretty compelling vision, and still broadly achievable.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That said, I understand why some people were willing to let it go in return for a really nice and substantial new highrise. However, the less impressive the replacement proposal, logically the more people who will decide the balance tips the other way.

Exactly

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Here is the Riverfront Vision, incidentally:

Of course those were just very vague massing drawings;
I would love to see the riverfronts redeveloped so comprehensively in my lifetime though...

[photoLith]

Buncher seems to be holding this city back from progress. Too bad that company bought up so much land around the city and that their mindset is still stuck in the 1980's, like a lot of the people in this city coincidentally enough.

[eschaton]

I did a little rendering of the "Buncher Blight" core of Schweitzer Lock in Inkscape. Here it is...



In terms of color coding, orange are three remaining houses along S Canal. The middle is condemned, IIRC, so soon there will be two. Gold is one three-unit apartment which is still standing. It actually looks to be in good shape, and I hope it survives. Grey are other buildings - mostly warehouses, but also a decaying hunk of a church, something with a ruined facade, the Worhola scrapyard, and Mullin's Diner. Everything besides the scrapyard building, diner, and maybe one of the warehouses should be preserved if possible.

I outlined in red everything Buncher owns. As you can see, it's most of this area - and until they sold the building BrianTH noted, they owned even more. Outlined in green are a few parcels owned directly by the URA. While Buncher does own two of the old warehouses (and the one by the river is in seemingly great shape) for the most part they're land banking empty lots, and the remaining buildings are concentrated on the properties they don't own.

Edit: I'm not 100% opposed to something like what Allegheny Riverfront Vision outlined. I do think it would be a shame if some of the buildings still standing were demolished - both the ones I already linked to and this and this building, as both have potential for reuse (is the first being used as an office now?) But there's a pretty unique chance here to build an entirely new mini-neighborhood from the ground up, if not fucked up. Thus I'd be willing to trade off the buildings if something dense and mixed use took their place.

[BrianTH]

I agree the remaining historic buildings should be incorporated into redeveloping that area if at all possible. I would think that is doable with the larger structures and maybe the church. Not sure about all the houses.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree the remaining historic buildings should be incorporated into redeveloping that area if at all possible. I would think that is doable with the larger structures and maybe the church. Not sure about all the houses.

I biked by most of the buildings today on the way to pick up my daughter at the Sarah Heinz House (I normally stick more to the trail). They were all in what I would say is salvageable condition still. All of the buildings (including the house I thought was condemned) seem to be occupied and in use, with the possible exception of the church.

On the other hand, this rowhouse is just about done. Everything not brick is falling off now, and it looks like the roof is totally caved in. I'm guessing the only reason it hasn't been condemned is because it shares a parcel with the storefront next door, which still seems salvageable. I don't think Pittsburgh has a method to just condemn some, but not all, of the houses on a parcel.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

for those too lazy to click through here are the 350 Fith renders

You know where this building would look great?

In the lower hill in the civic arena development.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

You know where this building would look great?

In the lower hill in the civic arena development.

Yep. I would also have accepted in the office portion of the Buncher developments in the Strip (west of 16th).

[PGHFan]

Its sort of fruitless argument taste, but the F & S building is as nondescript as today's Target buildings. I wonder if 80 years from now we will be clamoring to save the big box building in East Liberty. That aside, if Oxford owns the land, has the financing and tenants, and is not keeping something else from being built (and given my thought that the F & S building is nondescript) then good on them and I like the sleek glass design- admittedly a matter of taste. But I am curious, with the office market being so "hot" in Pittsburgh, I am wondering why a city like Omaha manages to be putting up several large new high-rises, as well as high-rise apartments along the river, when it seems a struggle in Pittsburgh. And given the red state nature of Nebraska, its not because of government money.

[TBone7281]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

However, the less impressive the replacement proposal, logically the more people who will decide the balance tips the other way.

Yeah, no arguments there.

[Gee Whiz]

If the market supposedly is not yet ripe for a 50 story office tower, despite high occupancy rates, maybe we will instead see a proposal in the not too distant future for a 25-30 story residential tower. The occupancy rate for housing is high Downtown and the housing market works differently. Is that realistic?

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by Gee Whiz

If the market supposedly is not yet ripe for a 50 story office tower, despite high occupancy rates, maybe we will instead see a proposal in the not too distant future for a 25-30 story residential tower. The occupancy rate for housing is high Downtown and the housing market works differently. Is that realistic?

Pittsburgh currently has a 30 story residential tower under re construction. The former Alcoa building will become residential units shortly. Does that count?

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by PGHFan

Its sort of fruitless argument taste, but the F & S building is as nondescript as today's Target buildings. I wonder if 80 years from now we will be clamoring to save the big box building in East Liberty. That aside, if Oxford owns the land, has the financing and tenants, and is not keeping something else from being built (and given my thought that the F & S building is nondescript) then good on them and I like the sleek glass design- admittedly a matter of taste. But I am curious, with the office market being so "hot" in Pittsburgh, I am wondering why a city like Omaha manages to be putting up several large new high-rises, as well as high-rise apartments along the river, when it seems a struggle in Pittsburgh. And given the red state nature of Nebraska, its not because of government money.

I don't find a classic stone early 20th century building to be nondescript. Comparing a building of its quality with a "ready-to-disassemble" big box store is is just really stupid. What you pose cannot even be taken seriously.

[Gee Whiz]

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

Pittsburgh currently has a 30 story residential tower under re construction. The former Alcoa building will become residential units shortly. Does that count?

I guess that counts Pip. But I as hoping for something out of the ground for a new residential high rise.