PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Sorry, didn't know we were still having that discussion from 38 pages ago. I thought we were commenting on reality.

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I still have hopes that Riverparc will be reborn. I may even live there someday if it comes back.
Anyway, I found this picture of a new development in Malmo, Sweden and thought this is probably what Riverparc would look like at pedestrian level. I love it.

Speaking of commenting on reality... wow.

Candidate for the 2014 SSP Hypocritical Post of the Year!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

My sarcastic (and not intended to be malicious) point being, the architectural details are what make buildings what they are so I don't understand this exercise.

I'm trying to distinguish between ornamental details and substantive details. Ornamental details do in fact matter if you are concerned about how a building looks. But if you are also concerned about issues like land use policy, than the substantive details also matter.

So part of my point is that while people may be reacting positively to a lot of the ornamental details--I am too, in fact, I think it looks neat--it is also important to understand that there is very little actual substance to this plan.

I also think it is worth noting that at least in some particulars, Point Park is trying to mislead people even about how the building would look. The clearest example of that is the vertical stretch they applied to the courtyard rendering. Although this is crude, I played around with different corrections until I got something that made the facades look about right in vertical to horizontal ratio (the facades being in the design were very useful in this respect). The correction ratio I ended up with was 75%, which means they applied something like a 33% vertical stretch originally.

At a minimum, even if you only care about how the building would look and don't care at all what is there in substance, you should at least be concerned that they were trying to deceive you about how it would actually look. And I personally think this is an important credibility issue in general. Personally, I don't trust them to necessarily provide all these nice ornamental details, or to actually use the facades in this way, and so on, when the final building is built. In other words, I think there are good reasons to be concerned that if this gets approved because it looks nice in renderings, we will end up the victims of a bait-and-switch.

So those are some points for your consideration. Obviously you are free to have different priorities (I take land use policy and historic preservation very seriously, for example, and others may not). You are indeed free to dispute some of my conclusions (although I think the vertical stretch thing is pretty hard to deny). But I thought, and still think, it was at least worth taking a little time to illustrate what I am suggesting, rather than just saying it with words.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

Ok, as the only theater practitioner here, and likely the only board member that has actually advised on a theater construction project before, I have to chime in to correct some of the gross mischaracterizations that are being leveled against the Point Park Playhouse.

Suppose I accept for the sake of argument that if there is going to be a student theater complex taking up these 2 acres of Downtown land, this is about as good as it is going to get.

If that is in fact true, then I have no problem concluding that a student theater complex is an inappropriate use for that land.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

Because modernism already destroyed the bottom half of those facades. There is no grand entrance left.

I'm actually not sure what is left, but a good architect could do something that tied the first floor appropriately into the upper floor facades. In fact, they could study historic photos if available to see what they used to look like.

But again, if historic preservation of these facades means Point Park can't put a student theater here, so be it. They'd make excellent restaurants and such, which would ultimately generate a lot more locational value than a student theater complex anyway.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Speaking of commenting on reality... wow.

Candidate for the 2014 SSP Hypocritical Post of the Year!

Lol. There's a difference between something that is already done and isn't coming back and the future.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Street-level storefronts change multiple times over the lifespan of an old commercial building. What you're suggesting that "to work there has to be a complete facade to save that can remain in place while another structure is built behind it" is simply false. Street-level fronts are built all the time beneath well-preserved upper floor facades (in fact, that is usually the procedure in construction since the street-level fronts do change so much over the decades). It would not be "just tacking on facade pieces to the walls". That is simply incorrect. Historical context is actually maintained with restoration and integration into the new construction. It is often done and done very well.

We are describing two different things. You are describing an "adaptive reuse" which, unfortunately, this project can not be. You can not shoehorn all of the programing Point Park is looking for into these three buildings even with reorganized space inside them. A theater needs large areas with no interior supports which structures like these three building do not provide. They must come down and be replaced by a new structure. This is not just putting new storefronts into old buildings.

The next best option is a "facadedectomy" or "facadism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facadism) where the facade of the structure is saved and a new building is built behind it. As I have stated before, this can not be done with out a fully intact facade that can support itself when the building behind is torn down.

If you know projects that have been completed where there wasn't an intact facade please share them because I can not think of any nor can I find any after searching for some.

Since the facades can not stand on their own, they have to come down. It is just a matter of where they are put back up.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

As a pedestrian we never interact with any part of a facade above the first floor of a structure, unless there is a balcony or other kind of raised area.

My lived experience as a pedestrian suggests this is not true. All it takes is walking on the sidewalk across the street, or looking down the street, or so on.

They would still be just tacking on the facade pieces to walls in the exact same way they are in the current plan, just in a different place.

There is a lot less risk involved if you don't try to move them, but the most important point is that the place they end up is HUGELY important. These are contributing structures in the newly-expanded Fourth Avenue National Historic District. To continue playing that role the facades have to be left in place, because that is how they can contribute to evoking the feel of the district at prior points at time. In contrast, once you remove them from that specific place, you destroy almost all of their value as contributing structures, and indeed they might as well end up in the British Museum for all the good they would be doing to the Fourth Avenue National Historic District.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

That's 125k more sq ft of office space than the new US Steel HQ! Go Oxford Go Oxford Go!

Excellent news. Based on the renderings a while back, I liked the apartment portion, but the office portion was pretty lame. Even assuming they could also improve the design, more scale could really help as well.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Sorry, didn't know we were still having that discussion from 38 pages ago. I thought we were commenting on reality.

The properties could still be nominated for City historic status. That would likely at least stay the process, and if ultimately approved it would likely force Point Park to do something different (or abandon the project, which would be fine with me).

Now as we know from recent experience, even if a historic property goes all the way through the administrative process, City Council can still deny historic status at the last step. So it becomes, at the end, a political question.

And maybe the political fix is in, and that is that. But you will never know unless you try.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Pittsburgh doing it's best Tokyo impression.

Awesome!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

As I have stated before, this can not be done with out a fully intact facade that can support itself when the building behind is torn down.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here, but as stated that is a false generalization. In old low-rise brick buildings like this with ornamental facades, usually you can just cut off the building back a short distance from the front, using steel supports to keep the remaining front portion from shifting. It doesn't matter at all that the ornamental facade is not intact at street level, because it is actually the brick behind (and whatever is left below on the first floor) that is supporting the remaining portion of the facade. And we know this is true because the facade has not in fact fallen down yet, and with these simple low-rise brick buildings, replacing the back part of the building with steel supports is all it takes to keep the front part of the building from falling over.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

If you know projects that have been completed where there wasn't an intact facade please share them because I can not think of any nor can I find any after searching for some.

So this is an interesting case from Beale Street in Memphis. There are a lot of photos of this project available for an interesting reason--the process was halted in the middle and never completed. In any event, you can see all the details I mentioned, with the back of the buildings being cut away and the steel supports. Note also the smaller building on the right does not appear to have an intact historic facade on the ground floor (I'm not sure the larger one on the left does either, but it is harder to know for sure). And again, there is no reason it needs one for this type of building using this method:

[Evergrey]

The Point Park student theater project is even worse than Walnut Capital's project at the Penn-Highland intersection.

While Walnut's demolition of beautiful (if neglected) historic properties is regrettable... and the rendering a bit hideous... at least from a land use perspective they are increasing the intensity by adding a 6-story building with 89 residential units plus retail space... replacing a severely underutilized block.

The Point Park student playhouse is actually reducing density and land use intensity by replacing a block of historic commercial structures (vacant because the university purchased the block 5 years ago, kicked out the retail, festooned the facades with garish PPU advertisements and removed the properties from the tax rolls) with a miniscule 92k sq ft structure on TWO ACRES of scarce Downtown land dedicated to 'student theater' (questionable impact on Downtown). A whole Downtown block wiped out for a student theater... such a minor venue could easily be incorporated into a more vertical mixed-use development.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So this is an interesting case from Beale Street in Memphis. There are a lot of photos of this project available for an interesting reason--the process was halted in the middle and never completed. In any event, you can see all the details I mentioned, with the back of the buildings being cut away and the steel supports. Note also the smaller building on the right does not appear to have an intact historic facade on the ground floor (I'm not sure the larger one on the left does either, but it is harder to know for sure). And again, there is no reason it needs one for this type of building using this method:

Yuck. Looks like Berlin after the Russians got done with it.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

We are describing two different things. You are describing an "adaptive reuse" which, unfortunately, this project can not be. You can not shoehorn all of the programing Point Park is looking for into these three buildings even with reorganized space inside them. A theater needs large areas with no interior supports which structures like these three building do not provide. They must come down and be replaced by a new structure. This is not just putting new storefronts into old buildings.

The next best option is a "facadedectomy" or "facadism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facadism) where the facade of the structure is saved and a new building is built behind it. As I have stated before, this can not be done with out a fully intact facade that can support itself when the building behind is torn down.

If you know projects that have been completed where there wasn't an intact facade please share them because I can not think of any nor can I find any after searching for some.

Since the facades can not stand on their own, they have to come down. It is just a matter of where they are put back up.

I fully understand the needs and requirement for interior use -- I'm NOT advocating for keeping all of the structural portions of the 3 buildings behind the street-facing facades.

Again, your assertions that the facades cannot be restored and integrated in place are false... even without original (or any) first floor portion of the facade. This is commonly done in DC (and I'm sure elsewhere). Here is one of the classic examples in DC... with far more substantial buildings involved than the 3 in question on this Point Park project:


You think that "They must come down and be replaced by a new structure" and "this can not be done with out a fully intact facade that can support itself when the building behind is torn down". This is false.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here, but as stated that is a false generalization. In old low-rise brick buildings like this with ornamental facades, usually you can just cut off the building back a short distance from the front, using steel supports to keep the remaining front portion from shifting. It doesn't matter at all that the ornamental facade is not intact at street level, because it is actually the brick behind (and whatever is left below on the first floor) that is supporting the remaining portion of the facade. And we know this is true because the facade has not in fact fallen down yet, and with these simple low-rise brick buildings, replacing the back part of the building with steel supports is all it takes to keep the front part of the building from falling over.

Yes

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

OK, so in this one I have done a couple things:



First, I highlighted in gray major elements that are purely ornamental. Again, you have the ornamental wall they are adding to the side of the CVS, and the ornamental arcade. This time I also included the heavy arches over empty space on the corner of the main theater complex--that is another purely ornamental element they are trying to emphasize, in order to create the illusion of a grander building than they are actually planning.

Again, the point here is just to emphasize that when you deduct all the purely ornamental stuff, and also deduct the buildings they are destroying, they are actually adding far less new substantial stuff than these images are trying to make you believe.

I suspect the university would dispute your definition of "ornamental." The courtyard is not ornamental. It is included in the design because COPA's leadership wanted a black box theatre with adjacent outdoor space that could be utilized during performances. That has been on the school's wish list for years. It might well have been the architect's vision to place the courtyard on the ground level---wasted space to you but, perhaps, to the architect and the university, a nice gesture toward both students and the general public to have a semi-private space to enjoy whenever they want. Hence, the suggestion that rehearsals could be held with the guillotine door open and that concerts could be staged there when the theatre is not in use. The arcade seems to me an ingenious way of having the outdoor space defined and the streetwall maintained.

[Private Dick]

A perfect example is DC Chinatown restoration/redevelopment (and one in which I have some limited current involvement)... where full blocks of "irreparably altered" ground floor storefronts were reconstructed with the upper floor facades fully preserved AND integrated into interior block modern uses.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

A perfect example is DC Chinatown restoration/redevelopment (and one in which I have some limited current involvement)... where full blocks of "irreparably altered" ground floor storefronts were reconstructed with the upper floor facades fully preserved AND integrated into interior block modern uses.

It's a shame Pittsburgh developers don't look east to DC for top-notch examples of sensitive urban design.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Yuck. Looks like Berlin after the Russians got done with it.

So does any construction project in the middle of it.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I am familiar with this process is I got to watch it unfold from the Busway--they used this technique to preserve the facade of an old post office they incorporated into the Homewood Station senior apartments project. I never got a good picture in progress, but you can see some of the facade and the supports in the background here:



Some of how it was tied in:

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I fully understand the needs and requirement for interior use -- I'm NOT advocating for keeping all of the structural portions of the 3 buildings behind the street-facing facades.

Again, your assertions that the facades cannot be restored and integrated in place are false... even without original (or any) first floor portion of the facade. This is commonly done in DC (and I'm sure elsewhere). Here is one of the classic examples in DC... with far more substantial buildings involved than the 3 in question on this Point Park project:


You think that "They must come down and be replaced by a new structure" and "this can not be done with out a fully intact facade that can support itself when the building behind is torn down". This is false.



Yes

I stand corrected on it not begin done before, but these two situations are hardly the same. I still imagine on the two story structures it would be much more economical to remove the second story facade and replace it while building the new building. I doubt a construction team would go through with preserving one story in place when it would need to be shored up so much. Are there any examples of that? preserving the upper facade of a two story building in place without removing it first?