PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I've developed a thick skin (or strong stomach) when it comes to newspaper comment sections, but yes, some of the comments were disappointing. On the other hand, I think it is valid to ask if we really need the URA to be as active in planning these days, and I think there is something to be said for them mostly just selling off the properties remaining in their portfolio to the highest bidder with a serious development proposal.

But in this case, I don't have a problem with them choosing two winners. McCaffery was the highest bidder basically, and the Rubino proposal is really for a sort of public asset, and those are an exception to that highest bid approach. To me, it is like if they had a large area to dispose, and they bid most of the parcels out but reserved a space for a public park. The firm that does the public park doesn't have to be the same as the firms doing the other parcels.



I definitely think this is an opportunity to create an indoor/outdoor public attraction that could become hugely popular while complementing, not competing with, the existing Strip retail district. I thought 100% Rubino would be too much, but with the McCaffery portion adding to the local market for new retail, I think the balance looks pretty healthy now.

As an aside, this reminds me of the hotel plan for the August Wilson Center. To me, it is such a natural idea to combine public amenities like what I think they want from the Rubino plan, or the August Wilson Center, with complementary for-profit developments like the McCaffery plan, or the proposed AWC hotel. If you choose a truly complementary use you can help build a market for the public amenity, and can help reduce the public cost of providing the public amenity, and can also get the sorts of for-profit developments you need to keep the City moving forward.

But at least in the world of comment section blowhards, those proposals tend to take fire from both ends: some people are going to complain about the public component, and others about the for-profit component, just because they always do.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Honestly it could force the project into the best possible outcome. There's a certain friendly rivalry introduced between two companies in a situation like this.

Excellent point. It already sounds like McCaffery is suggesting it can do everything Rubino can do. I would have no problem if in an effort to get the whole project, they were inspired to outshine Rubino.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

How about CityCenterDC? I've mentioned it before as a possible model for the Lower Hill, and the affordable housing component is very similar in broad outline (although those income levels are of course higher in gross terms down there):

http://citycenterdc.com/affordable-apartments









Yep. My hope was that they would solve the impasse by sticking at 20% but raise the unit count, which could mean as many or more affordable units in total as they were looking for. And hopefully it is not actually too late for that to happen, but it wasn't part of the deal.



I think they may be missing some growth--there was something really funny about the new permit counts published by Chris Briem a while back, and those are the main input into the population estimates between Censuses for local areas.

But anyway, keep in mind all the growth leading to new renters and such in hot neighborhoods is being at least partially offset by continuing gradual population decline in disfavored neighborhoods as people die or move away.

That does look like a much better development than what was initially proposed for the Lower Hill. I'd like to see something along those lines built for the lower hill. I take it the rental units would be lower income housing and the for-sale condos would target the higher-income folks.

For Pittsburgh's lower hill, though, I'd like to see a little more height than 8 or 9 floors. I think 10-14 story residential towers and 20-plus story office towers would suffice there.

Ok, so maybe the lower-income housing bit isn't my concern. The lower-density development proposed for there (i.e. the townhouses) is a huge problem for me.

I do like the idea of increasing the total number of units. A) The lower-income housing component is therefore higher as far as unit numbers are concerned, and B) the only way to reach that optimum number is to build up...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Ok, so maybe the lower-income housing bit isn't my concern. The lower-density development proposed for there (i.e. the townhouses) is a huge problem for me.

I do like the idea of increasing the total number of units. A) The lower-income housing component is therefore higher as far as unit numbers are concerned, and B) the only way to reach that optimum number is to build up...

Deal! Now someone just has to put us in charge of the development.

[BrianTH]

So I forgot there was a complete draft PLDP attached to the TIGER application:

http://www.lowerhilltiger.com/images/Attachment.5.PLDP.Draft.4.8.2014.pdf

Section 10 (starting Page 95) is particularly interesting, since that still seems to be operative.

Anyway, we got most things right above--for example, those are in fact courtyards over parking:



And this is what the public steps are supposed to look like:



I might note the amount of park space is apparently a zoning requirement (it has to be 10%, so 2.8 acres in this case I guess) But they are not including in their calculation the deck-park, except for the triangle of land between Crosstown and Washington. That is something I would potentially like to revisit if the deck-park does get done.

Similarly, they are in fact also designing around a requirement to preserve a certain view corridor from Crawford Square (see Section 2.8, starting Page 28). As previously noted, I would like that relaxed at least on the Downtown half.

Anyway, I am personally pretty excited about the potential in this plan. But in my view, it all depends on height, and maybe being able to revisit exactly what is allowed closest to Downtown. There is a huge gap between the minimum and maximum height in many places, and in that gap I think you move between Horrible Waste of Opportunity to Meh, then to OK, Pretty Good, and finally to Quite Good Indeed.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I forgot there was a complete draft PLDP attached to the TIGER application:

http://www.lowerhilltiger.com/images/Attachment.5.PLDP.Draft.4.8.2014.pdf

Lots of great information in the link. The most disappointing to me is the maximum allowable setbacks on much of the site are as much as 20 feet from the sidewalk. I know that Crawford Square already set a bad precedent here, but even with the limitations on the number of curb cuts and lack of surface parking, it's hard for me to see with the wide setbacks and relatively wide streets desired (up to 86 feet for a block of Wylie, and 64 for the smallest streets) a real urban feel to the development.

Also, referring to the hardscape which surrounds Colsol Center as "open space" is a fucking joke. I can't believe whoever wrote the master plan put section 2.10 in without strenuous objections.

Edit: It also seems clear Block G was designed with hopes of wooing U.S. Steel, what with the "corporate campus" terminology used.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I forgot there was a complete draft PLDP attached to the TIGER application:

http://www.lowerhilltiger.com/images/Attachment.5.PLDP.Draft.4.8.2014.pdf

Section 10 (starting Page 95) is particularly interesting, since that still seems to be operative.

Anyway, we got most things right above--for example, those are in fact courtyards over parking:



And this is what the public steps are supposed to look like:



I might note the amount of park space is apparently a zoning requirement (it has to be 10%, so 2.8 acres in this case I guess) But they are not including in their calculation the deck-park, except for the triangle of land between Crosstown and Washington. That is something I would potentially like to revisit if the deck-park does get done.

Similarly, they are in fact also designing around a requirement to preserve a certain view corridor from Crawford Square (see Section 2.8, starting Page 28). As previously noted, I would like that relaxed at least on the Downtown half.

Anyway, I am personally pretty excited about the potential in this plan. But in my view, it all depends on height, and maybe being able to revisit exactly what is allowed closest to Downtown. There is a huge gap between the minimum and maximum height in many places, and in that gap I think you move between Horrible Waste of Opportunity to Meh, then to OK, Pretty Good, and finally to Quite Good Indeed.

Take a look at page 32 of that document. Zone I has an unlimited height restriction! I like that a lot!

However, I think they could go a little higher than 180 feet. I think 200 to 250 in the lower portions besides the unlimited blocks would be more sufficient. What's an additional 2 to 7 stories? Everywhere else, I'm ok with. That would make for a very nice transition between Downtown and the Lower Hill IMHO.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The most disappointing to me is the maximum allowable setbacks on much of the site are as much as 20 feet from the sidewalk.

That does suck. The various renderings, diagrams, and overheads suggest they don't necessarily plan to use such setbacks, but this is an issue I would like to see addressed either before the City approves a PLDP, or during the FLDP stage.

Also, referring to the hardscape which surrounds Colsol Center as "open space" is a fucking joke. I can't believe whoever wrote the master plan put section 2.10 in without strenuous objections.

I believe this was likely drafted by the Penguins, so I'd guess they wanted it that way.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Take a look at page 32 of that document. Zone I has an unlimited height restriction! I like that a lot! However, I think they could go a little higher than 180 feet. I think 200 to 250 in the lower portions besides the unlimited blocks would be more sufficient. What's an additional 2 to 7 stories? Everywhere else, I'm ok with. That would make for a very nice transition between Downtown and the Lower Hill IMHO.

I agree. We've looked at this before, but it seems unchanged:



The max height version strikes me as frankly ridiculous. As I suggested before, if Downtown is going to leap Crosstown on the Bedford side, it might as well do so on the Centre side and in the middle.

Fortunately, this may be the last portion of the site to be developed. Hopefully in 7-8 years or so, the potential market for new office is dictating an ambitious approach to those blocks.

[Jonboy1983]

^^ Especially considering a push to commercialize the Centre Avenue corridor, I'd have to agree with you on adding more height along Centre. Again, what is another 7 stories going to hurt? Suppose they plan for a series of 3-PNC-Plazaesque buildings there; with several floors of retail/office and residential units above it? Would it look awkward if those were affordable rental units as well? Let's say you have ground-level retail, followed by 3 or 4 floors of office space, topped with 8 to 10 floors of rental units. Would that look bad? I actually don't think it will.

Also, would they pursue a hotel for this space? That dinky little hotel immediately adjacent to the Consol Energy Center was a waste of space! For what, a 6-story 120-some unit cookie-cutter construction of a hotel? THERE?!! Seriously?!!

[BrianTH]

Another hotel is definitely on the agenda. Currently it is planned for along Wylie a block from Consol and across from the Civic Open Space:



That's a good choice of location I think, but I agree a 3 PNC-type approach, or for that matter a Market Square Gardens approach, would be preferable there.

[pghaedesign]

^ Since I've been looking at this plan, I've always thought they should add a hotel portion onto that entertainment building on block F. Then use 3 PNC type buildings on G and the Bedford Ave side of E.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pghaedesign

^ Since I've been looking at this plan, I've always thought they should add a hotel portion onto that entertainment building on block F.

That was where they had the hotel in the old plan, but in a very inefficient way:



I wouldn't mind seeing F be more like G instead, and I could see there actually being two hotels if the overall density is high enough.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That does suck. The various renderings, diagrams, and overheads suggest they don't necessarily plan to use such setbacks, but this is an issue I would like to see addressed either before the City approves a PLDP, or during the FLDP stage.

While of course the issue of building height is important if we're looking at a "maximized" intensity of development in terms of having a working urban feel I believe setback is more key than vertical relief. Looking at the historic maps from 1910, essentially the entire Lower Hill was comprised of 2-3 story buildings, but given it was a zero-setback neighborhood similar to Lawrenceville or South Side, it had a dense urban feel. Almost certainly even if the setbacks are relatively limited the new Lower Hill will feel "urban light" in comparison. Not to mention the number of people per square mile (and possibly even the number of households) won't hold a candle to what the intact Lower Hill looked like.

Still, to a degree this isn't a Pittsburgh issue, this is an everywhere issue. While smaller contextual infill can be done within existing urban neighborhoods I simply think that even urban cities have to much inertia in their zoning code regarding things like setbacks and parking minimums to expect larger developments to feel as urban as old rowhouse neighborhoods. That said, the language describing the need for the setbacks is disturbing, because it seems to be coming from a POV that a "buffer" between the sidewalk and residential uses is needed for purposes of "privacy." I dunno if this was due to the pressures of the Penguins, the Hill community groups, or just UDA's own internal practices, but it is disappointing.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I believe this was likely drafted by the Penguins, so I'd guess they wanted it that way.

Obviously, but someone in administration at the Penguins didn't write the text...likely someone at UDA did. My point is they must have felt pretty shitty including such a whopper.

[markson33]

I was just perusing JMAC architectures site and came across a rendering for a building at 13th & Smallman. I don't know if this had been discussed here before or not, but attached is the link.

http://www.jmac-architects.com/#!portfolio/vstc3=commercial/-retail/vstc11=smallman-office

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

I was just perusing JMAC architectures site and came across a rendering for a building at 13th & Smallman. I don't know if this had been discussed here before or not, but attached is the link.

I believe that is the Buncher project CSC was maybe going to take:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...-to-land-major-it-firm-and.html?page=all

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/tec...ery-center-in-Strip/stories/201312200063

[markson33]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I believe that is the Buncher project CSC was maybe going to take:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...-to-land-major-it-firm-and.html?page=all

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/tec...ery-center-in-Strip/stories/201312200063

I assume so. Its good to see though what they had in mind.

I don't mind the building. It fits within the context of the existing structures and the size is pretty good.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by markson33

I assume so. Its good to see though what they had in mind.

I don't mind the building. It fits within the context of the existing structures and the size is pretty good.

It is a good design. Given its proximity to Downtown it would be nice if they went taller, but I'll take 6 stories. It's a hell of a lot better than two or three story design, courtesy of Continental!!

Although -- given the transition from Downtown to the Strip, I guess it makes sense that it's only 6 floors. The architectural design looks like a modern upgrade from the warehouse/industrial buildings that make up the bulk of the Strip.

[eschaton]

That firm has a lot of other interesting stuff listed in the works on its website locally.

1. First renderings I've seen of 3601 Butler. Not the best design, but anything filling in gaps in the street wall is welcome.

2. It's also the first I've seen of the Ross Street Fairfield Inn (I don't get over to that side of town much though - according to the site it should already be built. There's a dizzying number of hotels being built right now in Pittsburgh. Anyone have a complete list?

3. Where are the Brighton Street apartments slated to be built?

[DKNewYork]

This article is from NEXTpittsburgh. Not much especially new in it other than mention of some snide (and, apparently, now-deleted) tweets about Jim Ferlo from Rob Pfaffmann.

http://www.nextpittsburgh.com/neighborho...-hopes-merge-two-plans-produce-terminal/

Gotta love it. Pfaffmann is accusing of Ferlo of angling for a job at Buncher, while I've been told that the URA has involved Rubino in the Terminal plan as a consolation to Pfaffmann, who was at one point Peduto's choice for the head of City Planning...before the mayor changed his mind.

I'm liking the idea of incorporating a public dimension into McCaffery's plan. Not sure that Rubino needed to be involved, though. Why not simply require McCaffery to do it? Anyway, here's hoping the combined effort works. I am encouraged.