SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 523 of 1008
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196266)

mikebarbaro Nov 28, 2014 9:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6823009)

But something like this is more likely:

http://www.junctionflats.com/Gallery.aspx



Not groundbreaking, but not bad either. You could probably rent out a building like that in that location for top-of-the-market type rates, which is presumably the goal.
I actually really like this design for Junction Flats! The outdoor furniture and design is very modern.

Jonboy1983 Nov 28, 2014 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6823009)
It looks like they are tentatively planning to step up the second row behind the first, in which case it does make sense for the first row (and first phase) to be a bit lower. That said, I'd still like it to be more like 10 and 15 than the approximately 5 and 10 shown in the rendering. But obviously Forest City is feeling out the market, and hopefully it unfolds the way you suggested in which case maybe the back row and both rows closest to the transit bridge could be a bit more ambitious.



This one isn't bad!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=209688

http://i.imgur.com/iWYcNi8.jpg

But something like this is more likely:

http://www.junctionflats.com/Gallery.aspx

http://crossfiremedia.realpage.com/j..._w975_h478.jpg

http://crossfiremedia.realpage.com/j..._w975_h478.jpg

http://crossfiremedia.realpage.com/j..._w975_h478.jpg

Not groundbreaking, but not bad either. You could probably rent out a building like that in that location for top-of-the-market type rates, which is presumably the goal.
I like either one of the designs above, altho I'd have to agree that the latter seems more likely.

I would love to see Pittsburgh erect a residential tower at least 30 stories high, and I wonder what other threshold needs to be reached in order for that to happen. Places like Raleigh, Charlotte, and Austin seem to be erecting such buildings. Why the hell not Pittsburgh?

markson33 Nov 28, 2014 11:27 PM
Low rise (5 stories or so) construction can be stick built. Highrise requires a metal skeleton which costs a lot more.

Wave Nov 29, 2014 1:26 AM
Tiny Houses...
 
Just really not crazy about the tiny house endeavor. in that location I get the varied taste argument, but varied tastes would presumably include suburban style homes too and ugly strip malls, but I doubt anyone would like that in the city. Additionally it can really create a poor aesthetic with the massing of urban streets in an urban renewal environment and I fear these units wold not age very well (though that argument is not unique to tiny houses). Perhaps, a better way to accomplish outdoor space in this type of location would be to build a multi family property that has interior courtyard space, exterior rear space or common area space, or anyone of a number of other options, a residential development with single family homes or duplexes, triplexes with a formal park adjacent consistent with an urban environment. I am not against this concept in principal (in fact I think there is a lot to like about it, just not in Garfield or similar areas.

BrianTH Nov 29, 2014 2:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wave (Post 6824785)
but varied tastes would presumably include suburban style homes too and ugly strip malls, but I doubt anyone would like that in the city.
Speaking just for myself, my top concern when it comes to these urban development issues is making sufficiently intense use of the land in question in light of its location. Strip malls use land very inefficiently. I'm not sure what you mean by suburban style homes, but to the extent they are on larger lots, they also use land inefficiently. So that is the primary reason I would have a problem if someone proposed a new strip mall in East Liberty, or wanted to build homes on larger lots in Garfield.

But the thing about Picker's plan for these Minim houses is that they would only be taking up the same amount of land as a small rowhouse (including the outdoor spaces). And these days, many small rowhouses are only occupied by 1-2 people. So there really isn't a notable difference in terms of land utilization. Again, it is more just the residents making the choice they'd like a bit more outdoor space and less indoor space, and getting a lower construction cost as well.

So aside from pure aesthetics, I'd like to understand exactly why someone preferring that balance is a problem from a greater urban development perspective. Because as yet I am not understanding the issue.

Quote:
Perhaps, a better way to accomplish outdoor space in this type of location would be to build a multi family property that has interior courtyard space, exterior rear space or common area space, or anyone of a number of other options, a residential development with single family homes or duplexes, triplexes with a formal park adjacent consistent with an urban environment.
The idea is to infill scattered vacant small lots, so in many cases you are not going to have a lot of multifamily options. SFHs, and sometimes duplexes and such, are a possible alternative, but even with nearby parks, you are still de facto insisting on more expensive new homes, with less private outdoor space but more private indoor space.

So again, why is that so important? What overridingly important urban policy goal is being served by dictating to people that on small rowhouse lots they must build larger and more expensive homes with less outdoor space?

Steel City Scotty Nov 29, 2014 5:50 AM
I took this picture before going to lunch at Station Square on Black Friday.

I'm sure I could have gotten better views from walking up to the river, but it was really just a spur of the moment thing before I entered a building.

Anyway, this is what The Tower at PNC Plaza looks like from across the Monongahela.

http://s12.postimg.org/d7oz1tmvx/20141128_124943.jpg

Wave Nov 29, 2014 9:57 AM
All good points. If its simply a land use argument, then your points are well taken, I just don't think the aesthetic can be pulled off in the context of that neighborhood (though I respect Eve Picker and so the project has a greater chance of success).

To answer your questions; The 'suburban' style home is one example. There are plenty of possible architectural styles and other aesthetic and structural outcomes that i would not be nuts about. Some more so than others. For instance, very few would approve of a crappy frame or siding detached home with a deeper setback than typical in the neighborhood regardless of sq. footage.

Setback and other structural and orientation elements are important when recreating, rebuilding or rehabbing a 19th century neighborhood. Think of Frienddship, Bloomfield, lawrenceville and other neighborhoods immediately adjacent to Garfield, not to mention the intact portion of Garfield. These neighborhoods are primarily made up of 19th century row houses (larger detached homes in Freindship) The area ratains a certain urban fabric that contributes to the character and vibrancy of the city.

I think about the awful 'modern' 1970s homes built in Manchester, East Liberty and the Hill district that are simply awful. In many cases these homes do not take up more land than their predecessors but they are far inferior.

So, hopefully the mini homes will be done right, tastefully and fulfill the needs of the community. Though I am still not a fan, we all want good design and of course the community needs affordable, quality living spaces. Let's hope we get both.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6824823)
Speaking just for myself, my top concern when it comes to these urban development issues is making sufficiently intense use of the land in question in light of its location. Strip malls use land very inefficiently. I'm not sure what you mean by suburban style homes, but to the extent they are on larger lots, they also use land inefficiently. So that is the primary reason I would have a problem if someone proposed a new strip mall in East Liberty, or wanted to build homes on larger lots in Garfield.

But the thing about Picker's plan for these Minim houses is that they would only be taking up the same amount of land as a small rowhouse (including the outdoor spaces). And these days, many small rowhouses are only occupied by 1-2 people. So there really isn't a notable difference in terms of land utilization. Again, it is more just the residents making the choice they'd like a bit more outdoor space and less indoor space, and getting a lower construction cost as well.

So aside from pure aesthetics, I'd like to understand exactly why someone preferring that balance is a problem from a greater urban development perspective. Because as yet I am not understanding the issue.



The idea is to infill scattered vacant small lots, so in many cases you are not going to have a lot of multifamily options. SFHs, and sometimes duplexes and such, are a possible alternative, but even with nearby parks, you are still de facto insisting on more expensive new homes, with less private outdoor space but more private indoor space.

So again, why is that so important? What overridingly important urban policy goal is being served by dictating to people that on small rowhouse lots they must build larger and more expensive homes with less outdoor space?

BrianTH Nov 29, 2014 2:21 PM
I think the outdoor spaces are going to be key to the aesthetics of this project, along with however they redesign the street-facing end of the Minim. The Minim itself is not a bad-looking structure--plain but clean and classy-looking:

http://minimhomes.com/wp-content/upl...3-1024x704.jpg

If the parking pad, deck, and garden areas are all done well, I actually think it could fit right into these neighborhoods. They remind me a little of Hulley Houses, in fact:

http://patch.com/pennsylvania/forest...20s-structures

markson33 Nov 29, 2014 2:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6825079)
I think the outdoor spaces are going to be key to the aesthetics of this project, along with however they redesign the street-facing end of the Minim. The Minim itself is not a bad-looking structure--plain but clean and classy-looking:

http://minimhomes.com/wp-content/upl...3-1024x704.jpg

If the parking pad, deck, and garden areas are all done well, I actually think it could fit right into these neighborhoods. They remind me a little of Hulley Houses, in fact:

http://patch.com/pennsylvania/forest...20s-structures
http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapt...tegoryID=23105


In some ways this is the same argument regarding USSteels new headquarters. Why build a low rise suburban building in an urban environment vs why build a luxury shack in an urban environment.

BrianTH Nov 29, 2014 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markson33 (Post 6825092)
In some ways this is the same argument regarding USSteels new headquarters. Why build a low rise suburban building in an urban environment vs why build a luxury shack in an urban environment.
Except not really. US Steel's new HQ is only going to provide office space for so many employees because of its small scale. But these small houses are likely to add about as many residents as any SFHs would if put on these lots, because whether under 400 sqft or over 1000 sqft, SFHs on these small rowhouse-size lots still tend to end up with 1-2 person households.

In fact, the population density of a neighborhood full of these would likely be higher than city neighborhoods where both the lots and houses are much bigger, like much of Squirrel Hill, Point Breeze, Friendship, Highland Park, and so on. As far as population density is concerned, 1-2 people living on an 1100 sqft lot beats a family of 4-5 living on a 6000 sqft lot.

So again, from a land utilization perspective, I don't see a public policy reason to insist 1-2 people living on a rowhouse-sized lot should have more indoor space and less outdoor space at a higher construction cost than they would prefer. There is in fact a powerful benefit to turning vacant lots into occupied housing units, but no one has yet explained why the indoor/outdoor space ratio of that occupied housing unit is important.

Thus the new US Steel building is not analogous because there is no reason to believe there were will be about as many employees in that building as would be in a building at or near the maximum allowed height. However, if the patio ends up packed with cubicles, maybe we could reconsider the analogy.

Minivan Werner Nov 29, 2014 10:59 PM
If they help boost the city's population, I'm all for it.

If they become derelict and slummy, you can just tow them away.

designer3d712 Nov 30, 2014 5:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6825079)
I think the outdoor spaces are going to be key to the aesthetics of this project, along with however they redesign the street-facing end of the Minim. The Minim itself is not a bad-looking structure--plain but clean and classy-looking:

http://minimhomes.com/wp-content/upl...3-1024x704.jpg

If the parking pad, deck, and garden areas are all done well, I actually think it could fit right into these neighborhoods. They remind me a little of Hulley Houses, in fact:

http://patch.com/pennsylvania/forest...20s-structures
Who wants to live in a closet?

BrianTH Nov 30, 2014 6:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by designer3d712 (Post 6825773)
Who wants to live in a closet?
Well, let's see. Bakery Living is renting 510 sqft apartments for $1150/month:

http://www.zillow.com/b/Bakery-Livin...-79.926513_ll/

Picker is trying to deliver these for under $500/month, part of which includes payments into equity. For that you get 336 sqft of indoor space, and around 750 sqft of additional private outdoor space. To be fair, Bakery Living also has on site amenities, but $650+/month will buy you a lot of access to amenities. Similarly, to the extent you need maintenance and don't want to do it yourself, that is way more than enough to cover such expenses. And you can live by your own rules.

Doesn't sound like such a bad deal to me.

BrianTH Nov 30, 2014 2:45 PM
Another interesting data point: the rate of return on flipping houses in Pittsburgh is among the highest in the nation:

http://www.realtytrac.com/content/fo...ng-report-8189

Quote:
Markets with the best return on flips in the third quarter included Baltimore (88 percent), Pittsburgh (79 percent), Detroit (61 percent), Richmond, Va. (60 percent) and Mobile, Ala. (59 percent).
But Pittsburgh, like those other top rate of return cities, was not among the top dollar margin cities:

Quote:
Metros with the highest dollar amount of average gross profit on home flips included San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle and San Diego, all of which had an average gross profit of more than $125,000 per flip.
So it appears flippers are making their money in Pittsburgh by buying very low, doing so work, and then selling for a very healthy percentage higher. And that suggests there is a lot of unmet demand for newer/updated homes to own in the lower parts of the market.

Of course these small houses are unlikely to serve more than a niche role in that market. Still, the point is that it is likely that modest but brand new housing can compete effectively with cheaper but older/dated housing.

Evergrey Nov 30, 2014 7:11 PM
Tiny houses will be the new trailer park.

BrianTH Nov 30, 2014 11:07 PM
One of the defining characteristics of a mobile home "park" is that while residents may (or may not) own their mobile home, they are renting the land. They are also typically not well-integrated into walkable neighborhoods and street grids. Finally, unlike other homes using off-site construction methods (modular, sectional, panel, etc.), which have to comply with local building regulations, mobile homes are federally regulated (by HUD).

Conversely, even a "single wide" mobile home is way bigger than these houses will be.

I believe Picker will likely be using some off-site construction methods--the Minim house is designed with the possible use of factory-manufactured panels in mind. But otherwise there is no particular similarity between her development plan and a mobile home park, and indeed her plan is actually just a variation on other developments that use off-site construction methods to help produce permanent, locally regulated, homes/lots for sale.

And in fact, a lot of homes in Pittsburgh are variations on the catalog homes of the early 20th Century (Sears homes and the like), which were sort of pioneers in the field of off-site construction.

ChipSF Dec 1, 2014 1:14 AM
Good point: I think it would be better if these homes were modular and could increase in size and add features over time. They could truly be starter homes that would grow as the owner's income raises or needs change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6826295)
One of the defining characteristics of a mobile home "park" is that while residents may (or may not) own their mobile home, they are renting the land. They are also typically not well-integrated into walkable neighborhoods and street grids. Finally, unlike other homes using off-site construction methods (modular, sectional, panel, etc.), which have to comply with local building regulations, mobile homes are federally regulated (by HUD).

Conversely, even a "single wide" mobile home is way bigger than these houses will be.

I believe Picker will likely be using some off-site construction methods--the Minim house is designed with the possible use of factory-manufactured panels in mind. But otherwise there is no particular similarity between her development plan and a mobile home park, and indeed her plan is actually just a variation on other developments that use off-site construction methods to help produce permanent, locally regulated, homes/lots for sale.

And in fact, a lot of homes in Pittsburgh are variations on the catalog homes of the early 20th Century (Sears homes and the like), which were sort of pioneers in the field of off-site construction.

designer3d712 Dec 1, 2014 4:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipSF (Post 6826380)
Good point: I think it would be better if these homes were modular and could increase in size and add features over time. They could truly be starter homes that would grow as the owner's income raises or needs change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH (Post 6825837)
For that you get 336 sqft of indoor space, and around 750 sqft of additional private outdoor space.
They'll have their "Private" space to expand...

Found5dollar Dec 1, 2014 5:02 AM
New Planning Commission presentation is up.

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/sch...ion-51-650.pdf

new stuff:

* Heinz Field. South Plaza Project. addition of ~2900 seats, club space, concourse, restrooms, and food stalls. They are basicly filling in under the scoreboard with seats.

* Amendments to the law describing "Specially Planned" districts and what can be done on such areas.

* Conversion of the Schenley Building at Centre and Bigelow to "163 residential units with underground and enclosed parking areas and add 10 residential units to the roof." This seems to be the best use of this building. amazing how many apartments they are making.

* Distrikt Hotel I think has some new perspective renders.....

* Civic Arena info on stormwater, modifications to max heights (no longer unlimited and step back at Crawford and Centre), New massing renders, transportation study.

BrianTH Dec 1, 2014 12:00 PM
The Distrikt Hotel itself looks great. If only it didn't have that huge surface parking lot and drive.

http://i.minus.com/jbg1lJ9jkZWsIW.png
http://i.minus.com/jbv6PQyHF1KHOl.png
http://i.minus.com/jBPVp8sjb2TWo.png
http://i.minus.com/j3sVz4URMMHNG.png


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 PM.
Viewing Page 523 of 1008
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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