PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Evergrey]

While I will admit to supporting the Oxford tower and PNC's campus of towers, I must also admit you are making some excellent arguments, BrianTH. What I first regarded as extremism is actually principled pragmatism... a cautious long-term conception of the cityscape and the recognition that what is lost... will never return.

I do wish Pittsburgh would re-imagine the limits of Downtown beyond the puny 0.68 sq miles that presently confine the Golden Triangle. Unfortunately, suburbia-inspired proposals by Buncher and the Penguins do little-to-nothing in acheiving such a vision... and as conceived will permenantly deny Downtown's geographic expansion. (The North Shore has already been lost to Toby Keith's I Love This Bar.)

The geographic drama of Downtown also makes if function like an island... surrounded by rivers on three sides... but also surrounded by vast parking lots owned by Buncher, Forest City, Continental Real Estate and the Penguins. City-obliterating highways like the Crosstown Blvd and the web on the North Shore squander valuable centrally located real estate and wall Downtown off from the neighborhoods. Uptown, what could've been the dynamic link between Downtown and Oakland... has been eviscerated by an endless series of hospital employee parking lots. Downtown's lack of cohesion with the surrounding cityscape severely limits its potential as anything beyond a vertical office park.

Peduto and Co. should vocalize a new approach to "Central City" development... where Pittsburgh stops acting like a small town... where suburban detached housing and giant redneck bars are the only desperate strategy to get people to live in and visit the city. The city needs to proactively engage seemingly disinterested and myopic development lords like Forest City about building "urban"... about seizing upon the evolving demographic that is transforming Pittsburgh. 0.68 sq miles is a ridiculous spatial constraint for a major city Downtown... it's had the positive side effect of dictacting high density and verticality, but continued growth could see the loss of everything that makes Downtown Pittsburgh distinctive as small-scale buildings yield to corporate towers. It's time to expand Downtown.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm sorry, but giving lip service to the desirability of historic preservation doesn't constitute a meaningful balance in practice when all you are actually advocating for is allowing more historical destruction whenever developers want to do it.

But wait. You are pointing at people who disagree with you over the PNC or Point Park façades issues and accusing them of compromises...but then you admit to making compromises of your own. Surely you grasp that a very strident preservationist (photoLith) might view your entire history on preservation matters through a lens that only captures your "unacceptable" (his word) stand on the demolition of a third of the Produce Terminal. Couldn't he make the same accusation?

There surely is a continuum of opinion on historic preservation, ranging from "tear it all down" to "don't touch anything". I would prefer most people, particularly those who actually impact policy, to be closer to the latter. But I don't want them all the way to that end of the continuum, just closer to it than not.

...I would suggest the HRC and developers work on reasonable compromises, although I do understand that some developers would then prefer to just go to an unencumbered site instead.

Great idea. If developers know in advance what expectations the HRC has, the ones who will be unwilling to adhere might well look to the vacant lots. It would not solve all the issues out there but perhaps many.

[Wiz Khalifa]

I could not agree any more with BrianTH than I already do on this topic.

I have not seen a single good argument in this thread so far that justifies the destruction of any historically significant facades. I could care less about the buildings behind the facades in most cases, and like many people in favor of preservation, I could easily compromise on their demolition as long as the facades are preserved.

When it comes to the destruction of any historic façades, it’s not just about what is lost, but also what is not gained back. For whatever reason, architects and developers today care very little about the pedestrian street-level interaction of their buildings. Therefore, the historic building’s loss is amplified even further by a soul-less design that goes up in its wake. Pnc, Point Park playhouse and Oxford tower all have absolutely pitiful street-level interaction compared to what is/was there. The truth is, all of these projects could have been easily designed to incorporate the facades without compromising much space in or the design of the new buildings.

It’s obvious that the real problem here is money (surprise!). So it seems like a solution would involve drafting a policy that will lead to developers/architects actually wanting to include historic facades into their design. This means probably offering new tax incentives and some other monetary benefits to developers that end up offsetting the cost/inconveniences of preserving and building around any historic facades.

This is a win-win for everyone involved and would make this whole argument and picking of sides irrelevant pretty quickly.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by CF Lion

Hey all...first time poster, long time lurker. I'm originally from western PA currently living in the Philly burbs. I check out the Philly and Pittsburgh city compilation threads often.

I am very interested in residential development in Pittsburgh, as I am starting to think about the eventual scale-down to retirement (still a decade or so away). Looking to make an eventual move to a more walkable, urban area and Pittsburgh is high on my list.

Several months ago (maybe longer), there was a post showing the rendering of a proposed mixed use development downtown, along the Allegheny River that would have been somewhere near the convention center. I searched for it yesterday but could not find it. I wish I could be more specific about it, but that's all I can remember. Does this ring a bell with anyone that could point me to a rendering somewhere?

Thanks!

Hi! Welcome to the forum.
You may be thinking about the "Buncher" development along the backside of the Produce Terminal. You can look at the proposed development here: http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/distric...color)_001.jpg and the coordinates can be found here: https://www.google.com.au/maps?q=40....istri&t=m&z=16

If not, I'm not really sure, it might be the new Homewood Inn and Suites hotel which is near Wholeys, or, it might be the Wholeys Cold Storage Building Re-Development.

Thanks, I look forward to having you on this forum!

[designer3d712]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Thanks. So freight entrance on Fifth and parking garage entrance on Forbes. I thought both would be put on Forbes, so that side will be less busy. I'm still a bit surprised that the freight entrance will be facing Fifth Avenue...

Truck entrance is on the Forbes side, and exits on Fifth.

To BrianTH: I was also curious about those green L-shaped designs along Forbes. Planters?

The rendering is different than the drawings. Those are sidewalk grates.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

But another dimension is admittedly more abstract and is explained better by others than me. There are a lot of essays out there about the issue. That writer from Chicago, whose name I cannot recall at the moment, seems to argue that always saving an old façade and building behind it will inhibit, or at least slow down, the development of progressive, contemporary architecture (which, if the design is well-conceived and well-executed, will be the prized older buildings our grandkids admire).

There are several clearly BS elements to this argument.

First, there is not exactly a shortage of opportunities to build on a blank slate. Even in my wildest dreams, projects like this would only make up a small fraction of overall projects, so is it really true architects ALSO need that last small fraction of sites to develop "progressive, contemporary architecture"? That makes no sense.

Second, creative re-use IS "progressive and contemporary". Again, it is not like I am asking for 100% of all projects to involve creative re-use, so if just some fraction of them do, then it is expanding, not limiting, the field in which progressive and contemporary architecture can develop.

Third, and admittedly this is a bit more subjective, but "progressive and contemporary" architects have had many, many decades in which to try to figure out how to do a good job with the street-level portions of their highrises, and they are still routinely screwing them up. PNC Tower is a great example--a wonderful and progressive design in so many ways, and a total trainwreck in the relevant portion of the base (maybe we can call it "Brutalism in Glass with a Tree on Top").

So, no, this argument rings extremely hollow. I am sorry people keep hating on your crappy street-level designs, star architects, but you don't need to paint over many more existing canvases to have enough new canvases to practice with.

To save those facades in place would have disrupted the uniformity of Johnson's pleated curtain wall, ruining the effect.

PPG Place is also a great example of a building which is lovely and interesting in many ways and pretty much sucks in terms of street-level design.

But anyway, if someone wants to build something like that in Pittsburgh, do it in the Lower Hill, or on the North Shore, or in the near Strip, or so on. There is plenty of room to experiment at will in those areas.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Unfortunately, suburbia-inspired proposals by Buncher and the Penguins do little-to-nothing in acheiving such a vision... and as conceived will permenantly deny Downtown's geographic expansion. (The North Shore has already been lost to Toby Keith's I Love This Bar.)

So here at least I would hope we can all make common cause. These three prime locations (North Shore, Lower Hill, and Near Strip) have each fallen into the hands of monolithic developers who lack the ambition and incentives to do them justice.

But it is not necessarily too late. The City can still uses various regulatory devices to require more ambitious plans. And in the cases of the North Shore and Lower Hill, it is even possible there could be a forfeiture of the development rights.

These inherent powers were not well-used by the Ravenstahl Administration, but as you suggested, maybe things will change with the new management.

[eschaton]

Here's a brief picture of downtown I just whipped up, noting the places I think demolition would be okay in red.



Basically, dark red are empty lots/parking. Medium red are ruined/nonhistoric structures. And in a seven cases (like this) I marked a small-scale historic building in pink. I wouldn't want said places demolished, but because they're 2-3 stories, small square footage, and surrounded by empty lots or buildings which have lost all historical merit, I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were gone.

Many of the city's downtown parking structures are labeled in red, but not all. Basically I think any time we have a 3-6 story parking structure taking up a large footprint, it's under utilized space. Obviously surface parking is worse, but I don't think these are sacrosanct.

Obviously historic structures are in gold. Grey are the remaining non-historic structures which I don't see a point in redeveloping - in most cases because they are high rise structures already and it wouldn't be worth it in demolition costs, even if in a few cases they are looking a bit dated.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm definitely pleased with how they are using parking structures to maintain density, which should be a model in all our big development sites (Lower Hill, North Shore, Strip, and so on).

That said, I believe this is the project Oxford scaled back from 175 units and 8 stories to 115 units and 5 stories, which is a bit disappointing.

Current Oxford picture:


I believe this was the former design:


On the plus side, only having a one-story base (with common spaces and parking it appears) is a little more street-level-friendly than the old design with a two-story base.

Wow that is so horribly frustrating, why does this always have to happen to all the great development proposals? Oxford is not giving me much confidence that they know what they are doing as developers if they actually believe for a second that the original proposal would not be 100% rented out by the time it's completed, because it would be.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

But wait. You are pointing at people who disagree with you over the PNC or Point Park façades issues and accusing them of compromises.

No, actually. If I am accusing them of something, it is just giving the developers in those cases whatever they want. There is no compromise in that.

Surely you grasp that a very strident preservationist (photoLith) might view your entire history on preservation matters through a lens that only captures your "unacceptable" (his word) stand on the demolition of a third of the Produce Terminal. Couldn't he make the same accusation?

There is no doubt that some preservationists would consider me far too compromising on some of these issues. I don't think that necessarily means I am right and they are wrong, but it certainly means that I am not advocating a maximalist position on these issues.

I hope it is clear that overall, I think you do need to approach these issues case by case, but also with some sense of the long run implications of certain sorts of repeat scenarios.

There surely is a continuum of opinion on historic preservation, ranging from "tear it all down" to "don't touch anything". I would prefer most people, particularly those who actually impact policy, to be closer to the latter. But I don't want them all the way to that end of the continuum, just closer to it than not.

OK, that sounds fine in the abstract, but being a pragmatist, my next question is how to put such notions into practice. As you note, I've suggested one possible answer to that question: let's actually use the City's historic designation process, which really embeds that very notion of a need for balance in its criteria and procedures.

[Austinlee]

Any tears shed for the "Lidia's building" on Smallman in the strip?


http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...=image_gallery

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by CF Lion

Hey all...first time poster, long time lurker. I'm originally from western PA currently living in the Philly burbs. I check out the Philly and Pittsburgh city compilation threads often.

I am very interested in residential development in Pittsburgh, as I am starting to think about the eventual scale-down to retirement (still a decade or so away). Looking to make an eventual move to a more walkable, urban area and Pittsburgh is high on my list.

Several months ago (maybe longer), there was a post showing the rendering of a proposed mixed use development downtown, along the Allegheny River that would have been somewhere near the convention center. I searched for it yesterday but could not find it. I wish I could be more specific about it, but that's all I can remember. Does this ring a bell with anyone that could point me to a rendering somewhere?

Thanks!

Riverparc, perhaps?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

Hi! Welcome to the forum. You may be thinking about the "Buncher" development along the backside of the Produce Terminal.

The other possibility is the Cultural Trust's Riverparc project:

http://behnisch.com/projects/285

Unfortunately, that one may be dead.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

This means probably offering new tax incentives and some other monetary benefits to developers that end up offsetting the cost/inconveniences of preserving and building around any historic facades. This is a win-win for everyone involved and would make this whole argument and picking of sides irrelevant pretty quickly.

I'm completely on board with finding more carrots to offer (not just sticks) to support more historic preservation.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by designer3d712

The rendering is different than the drawings. Those are sidewalk grates.

I think that solves it. Thanks again!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Here's a brief picture of downtown I just whipped up, noting the places I think demolition would be okay in red.

Very interesting, and I may have some more specific thoughts later. One general thought, though--I really wish we could see through a lot of the crappy added facades on some of these buildings, because I suspect at least a few could be restored to something worth saving.

Edit: In fact, I think you have the ISDA building at the corner of Forbes and Wood in red. Once the orange siding was taken off, it turned out that building was a gem.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The other possibility is the Cultural Trust's Riverparc project:

http://behnisch.com/projects/285

Unfortunately, that one may be dead.

That whole area needs some serious work, but I think with the surge in demand for residential units downtown, RiverParc may rear it's head again.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Any tears shed for the "Lydia's building" on Smallman in the strip?

We actually just discussed that a few pages ago. It is a building of recent vintage and they are re-using a good chunk of it, so I am fine with that project.

Edit: See here and then the next few posts:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...82#post6462482

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

That whole area needs some serious work, but I think with the surge in demand for residential units downtown, RiverParc may rear it's head again.

You'd think something will happen, but who knows with the Cultural Trust.

I think Riverparc specifically may be dead in any event, largely just because all the parties to that version of the project had a nasty falling-out.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You'd think something will happen, but who knows with the Cultural Trust.

Yet another one of these monolithic developers whose priorities may not necessarily coincide with the greater good of the city.