Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Yes, that is BS, and yes, it is indifference to the facades. As far as I know the first floors of the facades were always store fronts, and in any event I don't believe they had been notably preserved (go check out the Streetview image as of 2007). On top of all that, the facades only take up part of the frontage on Forbes--the whole adjacent lot is available to do whatever they want to do at street level. So if just seeing into the theaters from the street level was the goal, there is no reason to believe the facades are any sort of practical impediment. As in fact was indicated in their original renderings:
And by the way, isn't it an AMAZING coincidence that the recession hits, torching a bunch of large institutional investment portfolios, and suddenly Point Park all over is delaying and/or scaling down its original "Academic Village Initiative". It is of course possible all this just happened to coincide with new analysis or design processes, but the simpler conclusion is that Point Park is now trying to do all this on the cheap.
Which is perfectly rational of them, but that is no excuse for waiving the historic preservation code, or providing public subsidies for the new crappier versions of their projects. The public shouldn't suffer because Point Park mishandled its investments.
This is the equally BS 18 inches argument. Here is the plan they circulated when getting approval to do the demo:
You can see the Stock Exchange building down on the lower right (with a prop shop and lounge). You can also see the main theater and main lobby space where they are destroying the facades. And as you can see, the theater would BARELY, if at all, impede on where the Stock Exchange building is located.
So it is probably BS to begin with that you could not move the main theater over to the east. And it certainly is BS that you could not move the main theater a bit father south.
So obviously you either formally represent Point Park, or they are feeding you information because they view you as a useful conduit.
OK, fine, but that doesn't mean we are getting the whole story from you. For example, did they tell you what the cost estimate for each alternative ended up being? And can you share that with us?
In any event, whether it was because they are cheaping out, or because they do have a slight preference for the exact current layout, or both, is ultimately immaterial. Historic preservation codes regularly require builders to modify their plans--that is the whole purpose of making it a code. So I don't care if the various architects they are paying (and I find the idea of "outside" architects to be a bit laughable when they hired them and they are paying their bills--that's more "inside" architects, not any true "outside" architects) said they slightly liked this plan better. That is not supposed to be up to their architects, that should be up to the HRC, and "on reflection we would really rather just destroy these buildings, OK?" is not supposed to be a sufficient argument.
|
Lots to reply to here. Here's my quick take on some of your points:
I don't represent Point Park, either formally or informally. And I have not been asked to be a conduit of information. Is it possible that I am being used to get out a Playhouse story with a positive spin? Nah---why would anyone recruit me? Or care about this forum? I was in the city last week and a few people told me some things about the Playhouse project because I asked. Then I shared the information here. I doubt that anyone who shared the information with me much cares if I repeat it, but I am equally sure that they did not tell me so I would repeat it. Is the information I was told complete and accurate? Not sure. If pushed, I would guess that it is mostly accurate but perhaps not exhaustive.
I assume that the university delayed the start of the Playhouse project for the very reason that you cite: The 2008-09 crash. Point Park has very little endowment. It needs to raise the funds to build the new Playhouse. When the project was announced, the university promised that it would only start the project when the majority of funds were raised. Then the crash happened and the school's ability to raise the necessary funds disappeared. Also, the school made public its goal of raising $25M from individual donors, which would have been impossible for Point Park to reach in 2008-09. It is probably a challenge now.
I will grant that an architect is not truly an "outside" architect if being paid by the university. The descriptor was mine---my bad and I retract the word. How about this: The school hired two additional architects, one of which I know specializes in reuse of historic buildings, to review the WRL plans. Is there an inherent conflict with the university paying the fees? Perhaps. But maybe one of the additional architects scores points by actually devising a solution that gives the school what it wants while allowing the facades to stay in place...
Also, I don't know whether either or both of these architects actually created alternative plans, let alone whether any alternative plans were priced. As I understand it, the two additional architects were asked to review the WRL floor plans to see what could be changed to allow the facades to stay in place.
I do not know all the reasons behind not being able to move the main house east or south. I was told that the reasons involved the Stock Exchange building. But its obvious looking at the floor plan for the first floor that there is a lot going on and everything is tightly packed. Maybe the parts only fit together this one way.
You write about the school doing this project "on the cheap." The original estimate for the cost of the Playhouse was $53M and that included the dorm and underground parking garage. Sometime last year (after the dorm and garage were dropped), I read about a $68M budget. This week's PG article had Paul Hennigan quoting a $75M cost. The project is smaller but more expensive. Maybe part of that is higher materials costs. Or maybe the higher total includes a higher endowment goal for the operation of the new Playhouse. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be getting cheaper.
Check out the Westlake Reed web site. This is a major architectural firm with five or six offices across the country. It has done some really interesting work, including a renovation of the original Smithsonian building in DC. Performing arts centers seem to be one of the areas in which the firm specializes. My guess is that they would not sign on for a cheap job.
I don't believe anyone is trying to circumvent the HRC. Point Park, to its credit, has vowed not to dismantle the facades until its proposal is made public and reviewed/approved by the appropriate city boards and commissions.
Prev
.jpg)
Linear Mode
