PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[eschaton]

This seems like a good place to put this.

I put together a map trying to show where remaining downtown historic structures are. Here's a low res PNG. Here's the SVG file for download.

Key is

Orange - 2-4 stories
Yellow-Brown - 5-9 stories
Blue - 10 stories plus
Purple - special structures like churches where it's hard to count external stories.

I made this mostly by eyeballing buildings. I excluded buildings so remuddled you cannot see any historical features any longer, along with some small scale buildings (like much of the last block of Liberty in the Cultural District) which really don't have any architectural character).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

If you have a fix for that, I'm all ears.

Sure. One fix is to designate the property as historic pursuant to the City code, and then have the HRC not allow destruction of the building unless the exterior is preserved. The same fix would have worked for PNC Tower and would also work for the Playhouse project.

Those entities would then have a choice: proceed with the proposed development at those locations with a design that preserves the exteriors, or use another location where there are no historic structures.

Government can and should establish historic districts---I am very much in favor of those efforts and generally have little sympathy for the building owners who fight such designation. Some of those downtown districts are in the process of being expanded (and with those districts come not only some protections but tax credits that can help with the restoration costs that were discussed yesterday).

We should be clear here that there are different types of designation that have different implications. The National Register recently expanded the Fourth Avenue Historic District to include the buildings the Playhouse would destroy and also the Wood Street buildings across from PNC Tower. I think it is very likely it also would have included the buildings PNC Tower destroyed if they had still been around (the case for them would have been identical to the case for the buildings across the street and around the corner).

That National Register designation allows for some tax credits related to preservation projects, but it comes with no protections against destruction. To get that sort of protection, you need there to be a City historic designation, which has not yet occurred. Which is why I noted the "fix" here would be to provide a City historic designation for these various buildings.

I am assuming that the restored buildings on Wood, Forbes, Fifth and Market will be around for many decades rather than be gobbled up in the next development wave. Wishful thinking? Maybe.

There is a basic investment/disinvestment/investment cycle in urban areas (areas get hot and lots of new money is invested, then they cool off as other areas get hot instead, depreciation sets in and the area comes to be seen as outdated and shabby, then they get hot again and the cycle repeats). If during every up-part of the cycle some historic buildings get preserved and some get destroyed, the total stock of historic buildings will exponentially decay over time until virtually none are left.

To prevent that result you have to break the cycle and stop the "some live and some die" approach during the up-parts. So here we are--are we going to do anything about it, or just let it happen again?

But let's insure that by putting in place any protections necessary.

OK, so then let's get a City designation for the Point Park buildings and the Frank & Seder building.

[dfiler]

The southside works area is going to be even more dense. I'm really impressed with how this area managed to remain walkable despite all new development that involves significant parking.

Oxford looking to break ground on Hot Metal Flats this spring
http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/...ats022614.aspx

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Where will the PNC Tower loading dock and parking garage entrance be located?

It looks to me like the entrance will be on Fifth, all the way in the back next to the aforementioned Footlockers, under a relatively low-rise section:



By the way, that Forbes side is so "integral" to the design that they haven't even bothered to start building it yet.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

I don't know how such a prime site for development can sit as empty for so long, I really hope they get the money and at least start some road construction, that site is such an eyesore.

Part of what is going on is the Penguins are struggling to get approval for their master plan for the site (in fact they haven't even submitted it yet after running into community opposition).

Another part of what is going on is the Penguins want public funds to pay for as much of the infrastructure work as possible.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This seems like a good place to put this.

Doesn't seem to be working for me.

[DKNewYork]

Saving a the façade of a historic or significant building while demolishing the rest of the building so a new building can be constructed behind has a name: Façade-ectomy. And it is somewhat controversial within the historic preservation community.

Below are links to the definition as well as a couple articles that discuss projects involving façade-ectomies. Not saying its good or bad (I actually think is can be both).

http://www.waywordradio.org/facade_ectomy_1/

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...e-more-public/

http://www.placemakers.com/2012/07/1...n-of-the-past/

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by dfiler

The southside works area is going to be even more dense. I'm really impressed with how this area managed to remain walkable despite all new development that involves significant parking.

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.

[BrianTH]

By the way, wasn't there another project called Hot Metal Flats along the river and upstream a bit? See here starting around Page 18:

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/sch...ion-31-277.pdf

I wonder how they sorted out the naming.

[eschaton]

I hate how you can't attach images directly here. Oh well, here it is from Photobucket.



Edit: I notice I didn't take the recent demolition of another three buildings by Market Square for the Gardens into account. I can re-upload if you guys like.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by photoLith

The oh don't worry there's plenty of historic buildings left so destroying some now is ok argument.

I can think of 16 historic buildings that have been torn down downtown in the past ten years. And with point park and that new tower possibly going up that number will be 20 soon. 20 facades is not a small number.

No, that's not exactly what I said, photoLith. I DID say that downtown Pittsburgh still has many dozens of historic structures left, probably well over a hundred. The loss of a few of the less architecturally-significant ones, as long as the replacements are actually dense, sized properly for being downtown and have a decent street presence, isn't such a huge deal in my mind. Will I take a large tower over a couple of small-scale buildings that were in sad states of disrepair? Yes, absolutely. Will I take a suburban-styled building over the loss of said structures? Absolutely not!

Look, you full well know that I hope Pittsburgh keeps as much of its historical building stock as possible, but sometimes modernizing of the city and a good economy resulting in lack of office/retail/residential space requires new buildings/towers. In a downtown like Pittsburgh's there aren't really that many surface lots available to use for building sites. Yes, there are a few of them here and there, but they're pretty much on the periphery of the Golden Triangle, not necessarily the best sites for building "signature" buildings.

All I'm really saying is that I think you're still looking at Pittsburgh as if it's advocating the wholesale destruction of its historic building stock, much like Houston has done. Pittsburgh, thankfully, is not Houston. The number of buildings preserved and renovated in Pittsburgh is sky-high, especially in terms of residential/hotel conversions from Class B/C office buildings. I'd say Pittsburgh has done remarkably well, so far at least, in terms of balancing historic preservation with the modernization and new construction requirements of a relatively thriving city.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[designer3d712]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Where will the PNC Tower loading dock and parking garage entrance be located? I had always assumed they would face Forbes but this rendering from BrianTH seems to suggest otherwise. Anyone know?

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, we can't have that, can we? Let's pick up the pace of destroying them, so we can get as close as possible to a generic post-WWII-growth American city as soon as possible!

Brian, that is such a ridiculous, over the top statement to my assertion that Pittsburgh still has a higher percentage of its historic building stock downtown than most, if not all other major city's downtowns as to make it simply ridiculous! If you actually have construed my statements about BALANCING historic preservation with the needs of an economically-growing region then you have absolutely no concept of my thoughts to begin with. It's basically a complete and total insult to people's intelligence, not to mention a total lie. I don't want to pick up the pace of demolition, good lord what a lie! I don't want Pittsburgh to be some generic, post WWII city. Again, a complete and total lie!

Seriously, cut the crap, please.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So you "understand the issue," but you are also fine with all those structures being destroyed one project at a time as developers express a preference for doing so. In other words, you "understand," but don't want to do anything about it, just like DKNY.

Again, this is incorrect. I am most definitely NOT fine with destruction for no legitimate reason. However, unlike you apparently, I DO sometimes believe there are legitimate reasons for demolition for the right projects.

Also, this will be my last comment in this thread. Obviously I'm persona non grata around here at this point because I no longer live in Pittsburgh and don't necessarily agree lock-step with the most fervent historic preservation advocates. I guess that makes my opinions about an overall balance of historic preservation and new construction moot. Goodbye.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Saving a the façade of a historic or significant building while demolishing the rest of the building so a new building can be constructed behind has a name: Façade-ectomy. And it is somewhat controversial within the historic preservation community.

I think it all depends on the context and what, if anything, of historic significance is being lost if the rest of the building is demolished.

[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!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

The loss of a few of the less architecturally-significant ones, as long as the replacements are actually dense, sized properly for being downtown and have a decent street presence, isn't such a huge deal in my mind.

What you are failing to acknowledge is that repeating that decision many times over results in a huge cumulative loss of historic structures.

In a downtown like Pittsburgh's there aren't really that many surface lots available to use for building sites. Yes, there are a few of them here and there, but they're pretty much on the periphery of the Golden Triangle, not necessarily the best sites for building "signature" buildings.

So first, there are in fact still several core area sites where there are either surface parking lots or depreciated buildings with no historic value. Until those sites are actually exhausted, that is not an excuse for destroying historic buildings.

Second, this is a sort of circular logic--"signature" buildings most go into the heart of the Golden Triangle because that is where "signature" buildings go.

The truth is that the Golden Triangle is itself quite tiny by normal city standards, and you are further defining an even tinier area not including its "periphery". But the historic pattern of cities is that when space gets tight in their historic "downtown" area, their "downtown" expands. So, in places like New York, Chicago, and so on, new areas for high rises opened up when demand surged, and then those new areas became places new "signature" buildings could go because that is where the new "signature" buildings were in fact going.

There is no reason we should conceive of a growing Pittsburgh as being inherently different such that the Golden Triangle will forever define where "signature" buildings in Pittsburgh must go. In particular, the North Shore, Lower Hill, and near Strip are all great opportunities for a downtown expansion, or "new downtowns" if you prefer, and I believe the "South Shore" could be as well down the road. That's how we should be thinking--how to get the "signature" area to expand, not assuming we are forever stuck with just some tiny subpart of the already-tiny Golden Triangle.

I'd say Pittsburgh has done remarkably well, so far at least, in terms of balancing historic preservation with the modernization and new construction requirements of a relatively thriving city.

I'd say whenever developers have actually come calling in Pittsburgh, they usually have gotten their way, and that most of the reason we still have a relatively large share of historic buildings is that we had a very long boom followed by a very long period of stagnation-to-decline, which meant developers just weren't coming around as much.

And so if it is in fact true that Pittsburgh has started to get onto a better economic track for the indefinite future, it will in fact allow its historic stock to continue to be destroyed until this is no longer a distinctive feature of Pittsburgh, unless we put in place policies and practices to keep that from happening. And those practices necessarily must take the form of being able to say "no" to a developer even when they have in hand a well-funded rendering.

And to be blunt, people like you and DKNY are showing no indication of truly understanding the need to be able to say "no" to such developers, let alone laying out the specific criteria and procedures you will use to say "no". So unless and until you do start articulating how and when you intend to say "no", all the lip service you pay to importance of old buildings and historic preservation is in practice just empty words.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Brian, that is such a ridiculous, over the top statement to my assertion that Pittsburgh still has a higher percentage of its historic building stock downtown than most, if not all other major city's downtowns as to make it simply ridiculous!

No, it is a necessary consequence of your logic. You are just refusing to see that.

If it is OK for more historic structures to be destroyed because Pittsburgh still has a higher percentage of historic structures than most cities, then your logic will only stop applying once Pittsburgh no longer has a higher percentage of historic structures than most cities. So, you are in fact advocating for a policy of allowing historic structures to be destroyed until Pittsburgh no longer is distinctive in this way.

The only way to escape this logic is to provide some additional meaningful explanation of how you would draw the line on historic demolitions short of that point. And to my knowledge, you have not yet offered any such explanation on where and how to draw such a line.

If you actually have construed my statements about BALANCING historic preservation with the needs of an economically-growing region then you have absolutely no concept of my thoughts to begin with.

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.

In other words, you keep saying things like, "I understand the issue with the reduction in small-scale, more pedestrian-oriented historic structures, I really do. But . . . ."

And then after the "but" comes nothing but arguments in favor of allowing developers to destroy more historic buildings. The bottom line is the stuff you say before your "buts" is just empty words if it doesn't have any material influence on what you say after your "buts".

I realize your self-image is not of someone who wants to let developers destroy Pittsburgh's historic legacy and thereby homogenize it. But all you are doing here is providing rationalizations for just such an outcome, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, and in fact if you want to avoid being that person you are going to have to start doing something different.

I am most definitely NOT fine with destruction for no legitimate reason.

No one is, that is silly. The problem is "a developer must have legitimate reasons for wanting to destroy a historic structure" turns out to provide no meaningful protection whatsoever to historic structures. For there to actually be any "preservation" in "historic preservation," you have to have policies and practices that allow you to say "no" even to developers who have "legitimate reasons" for their preferences.

However, unlike you apparently, I DO sometimes believe there are legitimate reasons for demolition for the right projects.

But of course I am not always in favor of preservation. Heck, I had internet battles for years over the Civic Arena, which I recognized was not a proper candidate for preservation despite its various historic merits. Even in these cases, I am suggesting compromises where only the facades would be preserved, which as was just pointed out is in fact a real compromise.

I could go into more detail if you would like. The City's historic preservation code is a pretty decent place to start--it lays out criteria for determining whether a structure or district does merit protection, and so I would start by applying those criteria (in a faithful way). Then as the code goes on to provide, 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.

All that is how you could go about establishing a real balance of interests. And that is all I am suggesting.

Obviously I'm persona non grata around here at this point because I no longer live in Pittsburgh and don't necessarily agree lock-step with the most fervent historic preservation advocates. I guess that makes my opinions about an overall balance of historic preservation and new construction moot.

For what it is worth, none of that personal stuff matters to me (in this case, I didn't even know where you lived). I'm just responding to the substance of the things you are writing here.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by designer3d712

Thanks, very helpful!

I guess I can see the entrances on the Forbes side now, but what are those green Ls in the sidewalk that appear to be blocking the parking garage entrance?



Anyway, this just means the streetscape on Forbes is going to suck even worse than I was imagining.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think it all depends on the context and what, if anything, of historic significance is being lost if the rest of the building is demolished.

As I understand it, that is part of the controversy. If the interior of the building is intact and capable of being restored, to destroy it and retain only the façade might well mitigate the loss for some but exaggerate it for others. 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). He goes on in a different article to talk about the experience of architecture being "only skin deep" when viewing these buildings with different façades. It's as if we have lost faith in ourselves to create by automatically---by edit---saving every old building façade. I know that will sound like claptrap to some. I don't fully embrace it but it does resonate a bit. I would not want to tie the hands of our architects so that every downtown building is a skyscraper with an old-but-lovely two-story façade attached. That doesn't seem desirable to me.

Whether one loves or hates PPG Place---or, like me, like some aspects and dislike others---it is a piece, reflective (no pun intended) of its time and showing an early first step toward corporate America embracing the post-Modern movement. There were a number of lovely old buildings lost to allow it's construction. To save those facades in place would have disrupted the uniformity of Johnson's pleated curtain wall, ruining the effect.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by designer3d712

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...

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