HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3101  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 4:08 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Someone make a thread for that new FNB Tower!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3102  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 4:10 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmust71 View Post
I would love to see this site look like a mini Hudson Yards with a cluster of 4-5 buildings in the 250-400 ft. range if zoning allows it. I know the plans don't suggest that but there has been mention of a few companies (Dollar Bank, K&L, People's Gas, EQT) moving their offices to this site.
We've been through so many iterations of the Lower Hill plan (I think the most recent is the fourth), but AFAIK all of them identified that corner as being the only one with a substantive building.

Oh, and interestingly, I found this picture online:



It seems like the new shot is identical to one of the renderings shown from the March 2019 presentation, just with the FNB building plopped down. You can even see Gensler didn't bother fixing the shadow on the building behind to match the new building profile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3103  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 4:21 PM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,094
400ft would blend into obscurity downtown but in that high elevation, it should be visible from a lot of interesting vantage points. And now that the highway cap is well under construction (the supports are mostly complete from what i can tell), the lower hill is finally turning into the downtown extension we all have talked about endlessly for years. Exciting time!
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3104  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 5:07 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,070
Great news! I agree with the elevation boost from being up the Hill a bit, plus just having some space around it, it will have more skyline impact than you would expect from a similar scale building in the middle of the Golden Triangle.

I wish it was the first of many in that site, but I highly doubt it. The whole masterplan was carefully negotiated with various stakeholders who very much wanted that scooped out plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3105  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 5:29 PM
BenM BenM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
We've been through so many iterations of the Lower Hill plan (I think the most recent is the fourth), but AFAIK all of them identified that corner as being the only one with a substantive building.
I can't find it online any more, but one of the BIG presentations explained that the preservation of sight lines for residents of the Lower Hill was a political concession that governed the profile of the sight. Mid rise on Centre Ave. Low rise in the middle (views), mid rise along Bedford and a couple of parcels for high rise near the cap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3106  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 5:46 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenM View Post
I can't find it online any more, but one of the BIG presentations explained that the preservation of sight lines for residents of the Lower Hill was a political concession that governed the profile of the sight. Mid rise on Centre Ave. Low rise in the middle (views), mid rise along Bedford and a couple of parcels for high rise near the cap.
Here is the 2014 PLDP that I believe still more or less governs the site:

http://www.pgh-sea.com/images/Lower_...al_12.2.14.pdf

Pages 28-30 explain about the "view corridor" and how it determined building height maximums.

This particular project is for Zone L, and it is the one zone where you could theoretically go up to 700'. Every other Zone is 180' or less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3107  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2019, 9:42 PM
BenM BenM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
For those that know the economic development climate better than me, could the Civic Arena site have supported a more dense (taller) development?

I'm a fan of builder taller, but would it make sense here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3108  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2019, 4:07 PM
East Edge's Avatar
East Edge East Edge is offline
World Class City
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 144
I have heard this argument before and i think its the most ridiculous I have ever heard. New skyscrapers will only ADD to the skyline's appeal and Hill residents will have the best view of the city's skyline's expansion in that area. Not to mention they will be able to walk right into and enjoy amenities, retail, dining, shops, jobs, and public spaces a lot closer than they were ever able to do before. Lets build it up there dammit! I'm tired of placating to these groups that have stalled development there for nearly a decade. Pittsburgh needs to grow!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenM View Post
I can't find it online any more, but one of the BIG presentations explained that the preservation of sight lines for residents of the Lower Hill was a political concession that governed the profile of the sight. Mid rise on Centre Ave. Low rise in the middle (views), mid rise along Bedford and a couple of parcels for high rise near the cap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3109  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2019, 10:13 PM
BenM BenM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge View Post
I have heard this argument before and i think its the most ridiculous I have ever heard. New skyscrapers will only ADD to the skyline's appeal and Hill residents will have the best view of the city's skyline's expansion in that area. Not to mention they will be able to walk right into and enjoy amenities, retail, dining, shops, jobs, and public spaces a lot closer than they were ever able to do before. Lets build it up there dammit! I'm tired of placating to these groups that have stalled development there for nearly a decade. Pittsburgh needs to grow!
I agree with the NIMBYism argument, but you can't blame residents of the Hill for the delay in development. They negotiated minority business involvement, affordable housing (which the Penguins screwed up on and had to reduce) and zoning years ago. That's why, as mentioned earlier, all of the renderings, regardless of developer or architect look similar.

The delay is all on the Penguins. Who never should have been given development rights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3110  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2019, 11:06 PM
BenM BenM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 95
nm

Last edited by BenM; Dec 15, 2019 at 12:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3111  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2019, 5:52 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,070
Personally I agree with East Edge, but that battle was lost long ago. It was hard enough just getting an allowance for ANY decent-sized buildings, and the compromise was this view corridor stuff with the higher buildings along the perimeter and lower down.

And while, again, I personally agree the Hill incumbents would likely be better off with a generally denser Lower Hill development, that's not how too many of them saw (and see) it. In their way of thinking, the prize is "re-connecting" the Hill to the Golden Triangle, and they see dense development of the Lower Hill as walling them off instead. I think that reflects a lack of imagination as to what would happen with a densely-developed Lower Hill, but it is always harder to sell people on something speculative (the benefits of proximity to a Lower Hill that doesn't yet exist) versus something more concrete (the benefits of connection to a Golden Triangle that already does exist).

And then there is the history--the story told over and over is how the Lower Hill was plowed down, and Crosstown was added, and it cut the Hill off from Downtown. Once again, there are different ways of telling a new ending to that story. But I think simply undoing that history has a certain natural appeal to many. Which, again, to them means developing the Lower Hill more along the lines of what it used to be, versus as something entirely new.

ETA:

So this is the sort of historic image I think many people who are very conscious of the history of the Lower Hill have in mind:



Compare that with this vintage 2012 rendering, and you can see where they are coming from at least:



OK, so now the 2019 plan looks something like this:



And yeah, I would go denser still. But that's a long way from the historic Lower Hill, and a long way from what a lot of people were thinking would happen circa 2012.

Last edited by BrianTH; Dec 15, 2019 at 6:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3112  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 3:19 PM
East Edge's Avatar
East Edge East Edge is offline
World Class City
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 144
Thanks for the back up but I am sure this statement wont have popular opinion...Looking back at that old picture I'm glad that Pittsburgh leaders at the time had the vision to expand our downtown and have an innovative performance venue to compete on the world stage. I wasnt around then but it looks pretty run down to me...Where else was downtown supposed to expand? Makes sense to just keep the triangle going backwards. I'm tired of hearing the rhetoric that it was just to eliminate certain demographic groups from the city. That may have been what happened but I highly doubt that was the whole reason behind expanding the city center. They just happened to be the population living in the most obvious and strategic area to expand our growing city at the time. Further more the population that was displaced then are probably not even still around or even care what happens there at this point. To me the street grid has been restored to create a stronger link to downtown and a commemorative park for just one of the demographic groups that were living in the Hill at the time is being implemented as we speak. The only park in the city commemorating one particular demographic group i will add! When is enough enough? What happened in the past is in the past. Lets move forward and thrive. There are endless opportunities to create quality low income housing all over the city in neighborhoods that all but disintegrated. Lets attract the top developers that specialize in innovative low income housing solutions to be the center piece of those neighborhoods' revitalization and let this Penguins site explode to become a worthy addition to our treasured skyline! What happened on this site over 60 years ago is no different that what happened in major cities all over the world that started out as small towns. Please lets move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Personally I agree with East Edge, but that battle was lost long ago. It was hard enough just getting an allowance for ANY decent-sized buildings, and the compromise was this view corridor stuff with the higher buildings along the perimeter and lower down.

And while, again, I personally agree the Hill incumbents would likely be better off with a generally denser Lower Hill development, that's not how too many of them saw (and see) it. In their way of thinking, the prize is "re-connecting" the Hill to the Golden Triangle, and they see dense development of the Lower Hill as walling them off instead. I think that reflects a lack of imagination as to what would happen with a densely-developed Lower Hill, but it is always harder to sell people on something speculative (the benefits of proximity to a Lower Hill that doesn't yet exist) versus something more concrete (the benefits of connection to a Golden Triangle that already does exist).

And then there is the history--the story told over and over is how the Lower Hill was plowed down, and Crosstown was added, and it cut the Hill off from Downtown. Once again, there are different ways of telling a new ending to that story. But I think simply undoing that history has a certain natural appeal to many. Which, again, to them means developing the Lower Hill more along the lines of what it used to be, versus as something entirely new.

ETA:

So this is the sort of historic image I think many people who are very conscious of the history of the Lower Hill have in mind:



Compare that with this vintage 2012 rendering, and you can see where they are coming from at least:



OK, so now the 2019 plan looks something like this:



And yeah, I would go denser still. But that's a long way from the historic Lower Hill, and a long way from what a lot of people were thinking would happen circa 2012.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3113  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 3:24 PM
Bricktrimble Bricktrimble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Someone make a thread for that new FNB Tower!
Where is that? I couldn't find it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3114  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 3:29 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
A city-contracted design firm presented their ideas on how to fix traffic and parking issues in the Strip District in draft form with around a dozen stakeholders last Wednesday. It looks like they included:

1. Conversion of Penn Avenue back into a two-way street.

2. Raising of street parking rates in the core of the Strip District to incentivize drivers to park 10 minutes away from their location and walk.

3. A localized reduction in the city's commercial parking tax rate to allow some private lots to be opened up to public use during peak hours.

4. Construction of a new parking garage in the immediate vicinity of the most active retail portion of the Strip District.

Point two is something which apparently went over like a ton of bricks with the local businesses who attended. They really want to maintain cheap streetside parking directly in front of their businesses, and are convinced wholesale customers will stop coming to The Strip if they have to schlepp big bags of groceries for multiple blocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3115  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 3:37 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge View Post
Thanks for the back up but I am sure this statement wont have popular opinion...Looking back at that old picture I'm glad that Pittsburgh leaders at the time had the vision to expand our downtown and have an innovative performance venue to compete on the world stage. I wasnt around then but it looks pretty run down to me...Where else was downtown supposed to expand? Makes sense to just keep the triangle going backwards. I'm tired of hearing the rhetoric that it was just to eliminate certain demographic groups from the city. That may have been what happened but I highly doubt that was the whole reason behind expanding the city center. They just happened to be the population living in the most obvious and strategic area to expand our growing city at the time. Further more the population that was displaced then are probably not even still around or even care what happens there at this point. To me the street grid has been restored to create a stronger link to downtown and a commemorative park for just one of the demographic groups that were living in the Hill at the time is being implemented as we speak. The only park in the city commemorating one particular demographic group i will add! When is enough enough? What happened in the past is in the past. Lets move forward and thrive. There are endless opportunities to create quality low income housing all over the city in neighborhoods that all but disintegrated. Lets attract the top developers that specialize in innovative low income housing solutions to be the center piece of those neighborhoods' revitalization and let this Penguins site explode to become a worthy addition to our treasured skyline! What happened on this site over 60 years ago is no different that what happened in major cities all over the world that started out as small towns. Please lets move on.
The portion of the Lower Hill closest to Downtown was actually a white neighborhood. IIRC it was a mixture of Jewish, Greek, Christian Arab. Most of the white residents of the Lower Hill landed on their feet in neighborhoods like Brookline, though the dislocation of the black population directly led to the white flight that destroyed Homewood (and arguably Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, East Hills, Wilkinsburg, Larimer, etc).

If the Lower Hill was not destroyed, it would almost certainly be among the most expensive real estate in the city today. The houses were modest, but solidly built (a few examples survive in Uptown) but most importantly they were within walking distance of Grant Street. Generally speaking nationwide the neighborhoods closest to Downtown were the first to experience gentrification in the 20th century. Think Beacon Hill in Boston, or Rittenhouse Square in Philly. Unfortunately Pittsburgh systematically destroyed all of its own examples, as the Lower Hill, western Uptown, the Strip District, and the North Shore were all basically completely denuded of rowhouses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3116  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 4:06 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,070
Yeah, it was PARTLY a black thing, but also a Jewish thing, and an "ethnic" white immigrant thing. But if you read the documentation back then, displacing those populations as a whole was very much one of the goals. And by 1956, when the razing of the Lower Hill actually happened, we were long past the actual boom period of Downtown Pittsburgh. Indeed, that is part of why the original, more ambitious, plans for the site never happened, and we just got the Civic Arena plus a sea of surface parking.

And in other cities where Downtown-adjacent neighborhoods like that were not destroyed, they eventually ended up being very valuable, cool neighborhoods.

So, that was all quite bad, and it was definitely a mistake, driven at least in part by bigotry, and in part by just a horribly wrong conception of urban development.

That said, it is true we can't really turn back the clock, and that the best thing for all concerned would be just to apply current urban development best practices to the site.

But we know the politics of urban development is more complex than that, and the urban policy wonks sometimes have to make compromises for political reasons.

And in this case, my two cents is the current compromises are ultimately acceptable, assuming the current plan is actually executed on. And in fact I am more interested in focusing on making it actually happen, versus trying to undo the deal that got us this far.

Incidentally, among the reasons I think that deal is acceptable is that I do doubt there is a lot of near-term demand for a lot more skyscrapers. Indeed, there are still sites in the Golden Triangle where skyscraper projects were either backburnered or shelved, usually because the developers could not find an "anchor tenant" like FNB. And given the current rental market and financing requirements, spec development of skyscrapers without such an anchor tenant isn't going to happen in Pittsburgh.

Someday that may change, of course. And it looks likely we will have plenty of sites left in or near Downtown if it does, even if the Lower Hill gets built out before then with "only" one new skyscraper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3117  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 5:30 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
So, that was all quite bad, and it was definitely a mistake, driven at least in part by bigotry, and in part by just a horribly wrong conception of urban development.
I mean, the systematic destruction of downtown-adjacent neighborhoods was normal for a Rust Belt city. Cincinnatti's Over-The-Rhine is probably the only example of one which survived. Pittsburgh was lucky though, because we were a bit older than our peers and built better that we had a wide swathe of second-ring traditionally urban neighborhoods which survived, even as the first ring were gutted.

Still, we dodged bullets few people realize today. Like the plan to demolish the Mexican War Streets and replace them with "towers in the park" Or the plan to turn East Carson Street into a highway, demolishing everything on the river side of the neighborhood to make a Chateau-style industrial park.

Last edited by eschaton; Dec 16, 2019 at 5:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3118  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 6:48 PM
MarkMyWords MarkMyWords is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 63
"So, that was all quite bad, and it was definitely a mistake, driven at least in part by bigotry, and in part by just a horribly wrong conception of urban development."

IMHO, Pittsburgh could probably be used as a textbook example of most of the wrong-headed ideas about urban renewal that the 60's and 70's came up with. Between the destructions of the Lower Hill, East Liberty, the North Side/Allegheny, etc., the city implemented almost every cockamamie urban renewal idea that came down the pike. Most were not peculiar to Pittsburgh; e.g., the destruction of the trolley network (which if it still existed could be easily recast as trams) swept aside these networks in almost every other American city. And I would argue that the elimination of this network exacerbated suburban flight.

I'm old enough to remember the Lower Hill as was. (For years there was a woman who marched around downtown holding a sign emblazoned, "Save St. Peter's Church".) While some areas were definitely pretty "slummy" and needed to go, I can easily see that area having become gentrified long before the Strip and Lawrenceville became "in" places to live.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3119  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 6:57 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge View Post
Thanks for the back up but I am sure this statement wont have popular opinion...Looking back at that old picture I'm glad that Pittsburgh leaders at the time had the vision to expand our downtown and have an innovative performance venue to compete on the world stage. I wasnt around then but it looks pretty run down to me
Well, it doesn't have popular opinion because your statement is predicated on 1) something that never actually happened and 2) a highly-skewed view of what is "run down" (i.e., requiring large-scale demolition).

Meaning... 1) while the concerted effort by city administration and business leaders at the time to fully level the Lower Hill in favor of supposedly paving the way to extend downtown to Oakland was the stated policy, it obviously never actually happened. Downtown never even expanded to the Lower Hill in practical terms, much less all the way to Oakland.

The Civic Arena and its parking lots did nothing to enhance downtown Pittsburgh, only served to further isolate it, and limited any expansion (the exact opposite of the public purpose of the redevelopment). Like what happened in numerous postwar modernization schemes, it was an abject policy failure. We've witnessed the problems that those misguided decisions caused, and that's why those mistakes are trying to be corrected in cities everywhere.

And 2) if you found the Lower Hill to be "pretty run down" enough to favor its complete leveling, then you should have been supportive of the complete leveling of the Southside Flats and Central Northside in the 1970s/80s. Also, you should currently support the complete leveling of the Strip District for downtown expansion. And much of Bloomfield and Lawrenceville should also be flattened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge View Post
...Where else was downtown supposed to expand? Makes sense to just keep the triangle going backwards.
Again, downtown never did expand. It was a completely counterproductive "redevelopment" policy... which was a hallmark of postwar urban planning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3120  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2019, 7:12 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The portion of the Lower Hill closest to Downtown was actually a white neighborhood. IIRC it was a mixture of Jewish, Greek, Christian Arab. Most of the white residents of the Lower Hill landed on their feet in neighborhoods like Brookline, though the dislocation of the black population directly led to the white flight that destroyed Homewood (and arguably Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, East Hills, Wilkinsburg, Larimer, etc).
At one time it was. But not by the mid-late 1950s when decisions were made to demo the Lower Hill. It was mostly Black by then (around 75%).

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
If the Lower Hill was not destroyed, it would almost certainly be among the most expensive real estate in the city today. The houses were modest, but solidly built (a few examples survive in Uptown) but most importantly they were within walking distance of Grant Street. Generally speaking nationwide the neighborhoods closest to Downtown were the first to experience gentrification in the 20th century. Think Beacon Hill in Boston, or Rittenhouse Square in Philly. Unfortunately Pittsburgh systematically destroyed all of its own examples, as the Lower Hill, western Uptown, the Strip District, and the North Shore were all basically completely denuded of rowhouses.
Yeah, the massive demolition of the Lower hill neighborhood/Crosstown Blvd. (to go along with downtown Pittsburgh's situation with water on its other two sides) is a major reason why downtown Pittsburgh will never have the vibrant urban environment like Philly, Boston, etc... where residential neighborhoods scale up and link rather seamlessly into the central business district. Pittsburgh destroyed all of that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.