HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9401  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2014, 11:18 PM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
I liked the way Riverparc was described at the time... but I always thought the renderings were very very weird and amorphous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9402  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2014, 11:44 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh View Post
I was driving past Molnars the other day, I was informed that they have closed and the land was sold to a developer.
You could do something pretty cool with that parcel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9403  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2014, 12:05 AM
themaguffin themaguffin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,284
In looking at the positive on Riverparc and 350...

Riverparc was set before the economic crash and before Pgh's economy improved. Hopefully whenever something happens, it will be better yet.

With 350, another developer wasn't going to do anything with that property and it didn't seem like Oxford was intent on developing an open lot, so I guess we get a nice-ish, moderate size tower near the new PNC tower and open lots are still a viable option....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9404  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2014, 12:47 AM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaguffin View Post
In looking at the positive on Riverparc and 350...

Riverparc was set before the economic crash and before Pgh's economy improved. Hopefully whenever something happens, it will be better yet.

With 350, another developer wasn't going to do anything with that property and it didn't seem like Oxford was intent on developing an open lot, so I guess we get a nice-ish, moderate size tower near the new PNC tower and open lots are still a viable option....

Video Link


Agreed...

If Riverparc would have proceeded at that time... renderings released mid-2006... construction would've started right as global economy started to crater and units would've been ready for occupancy in maybe 2009... the absolute worst time for the condo market (these were planned as owner-occupied units)... Riverparc could have run in to many problems... and could have had negative impacts on Downtown's housing market and development momentum. Purely speculation, of course... but the years immediately after Riverparc's announcement were turbulent.

...

I'm pumped for 350 Smithfield despite the height reduction. Replacing Frank & Seder with this 20 story tower is certainly not a "lateral" move. Frank & Seder is empty... and there is no market appetite for a renovation of this awkward property... which I regard as a solid-but-unspectacular "third tier" early 20th century building. Sure... it would be nice if a parking lot was being developed... but that is not the reality of the situation... this is the property Oxford controls... and the dynamics of a location can change in only a couple blocks in Downtown Pittsburgh. 350 Smithfield is a very core spot... while some lot in the Cultural District is pretty fringe for a major office development.

I generally support repurposing older buildings... but I'm willing to sacrifice Frank & Seder in this case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9405  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2014, 12:39 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
The problem is that I feel like the Riverparc site is basically being land-banked at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9406  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2014, 10:01 PM
Found5dollar Found5dollar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 196
so i was on a plane from canada yesterday and one of the two guys that owns Walnut Capital and his family were on the flight. all i have to say is "wow." It was all louis vuitton duffel bags, yelling at people on phones, and just generally being asshats. Both from him and what I assume were his daughters. I now completely understand why the materials of the new buildings at Bakery Square are shotty.... that guy is in charge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9407  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 3:18 AM
AaronPGH's Avatar
AaronPGH AaronPGH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PGH / SLC
Posts: 1,784
I just really wish BkSq had more signs with more stuff on them. Signs everywhere!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9408  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 6:16 AM
mikebarbaro mikebarbaro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 116
It's interesting that the address of the Empire State Building is also 350 fifth ave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9409  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 11:26 AM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH View Post
I just really wish BkSq had more signs with more stuff on them. Signs everywhere!
I don't get it. The pylon sign you posted an image of is standard for the entrances to retail developments where a lot of the store fronts are off the main street. It basically says, "Yes, turn in here for the following stores . . . ."

Does BKSQ actually have more signage than usual for complexes of its type?

Last edited by BrianTH; Aug 19, 2014 at 11:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9410  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 11:53 AM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
So the politicians have agreed to the framework of a deal for the Lower Hill site:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201408190075

In part, the politicians have put themselves in the role of trying to mediate a deal between the Penguins (the developers) and the Hill community groups, but different politicians having different constituencies so agreement among them could represent progress toward that end. The politicians are also players in the sense they control planning, and they also want to apply for federal grant money which requires the project to have more or less unified local support.

So hopefully this works to move the project forward without a one year delay (as the Penguins requested). And in fact hopefully what emerges is a better overall plan--the Penguins' proposed plan was very dated at this point and there is room for lots of improvement overall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9411  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:01 PM
GeneW GeneW is offline
Northsider
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
So the politicians have agreed to the framework of a deal for the Lower Hill site:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201408190075

In part, the politicians have put themselves in the role of trying to mediate a deal between the Penguins (the developers) and the Hill community groups, but different politicians having different constituencies so agreement among them could represent progress toward that end. The politicians are also players in the sense they control planning, and they also want to apply for federal grant money which requires the project to have more or less unified local support.

So hopefully this works to move the project forward without a one year delay (as the Penguins requested). And in fact hopefully what emerges is a better overall plan--the Penguins' proposed plan was very dated at this point and there is room for lots of improvement overall.
I still don't understand why the Penguins got the deal to develop the site (they don't own it) but this seems like a very positive step forward. Really glad to see Lavelle and the mayor's administration working together as he and Peduto haven't always seen eye-to-eye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9412  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:12 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
A non-profit has formed to try to buy and preserve the Old Stone Tavern, the second-oldest building in the area:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6...#axzz3Aq2ywUlS

It is an odd tale in a lot of ways. It has always been under private ownership and was continuously operated as a functioning tavern until the last owner, who wanted to tear it down to expand his adjacent construction yard. So the City designated it historic and now the owner is willing to sell, but only if they buy out the adjacent properties too.

Hopefully this can all get worked out. The building has great potential to be a living history monument where you can go get a drink where the City's founders also got drinks and perhaps plotted the Whiskey Rebellion over 200 years ago. The biggest impediment in my view is the setting is currently less than pleasant, but I actually wonder if they could do something with the adjacent properties to make it more of an all-around destination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9413  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:16 PM
dfiler dfiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I don't get it. The pylon sign you posted an image of is standard for the entrances to retail developments where a lot of the store fronts are off the main street. It basically says, "Yes, turn in here for the following stores . . . ."

Does BKSQ actually have more signage than usual for complexes of its type?
That might be the point, that it is an off-street complex that feels the need for a prominent bill board. It is normal for suburban strip malls but not for urban, streetwall businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9414  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:30 PM
Private Dick Private Dick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: D.C.
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH View Post
I just really wish BkSq had more signs with more stuff on them. Signs everywhere!

Was that picture taken in Cranberry?


Am I alone in thinking that there is nothing remotely attractive about Bakery Square? I mean, I'm glad that the building was preserved and put to reuse as a tech hub, but the layout and establishments of the surrounding development? No thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9415  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:36 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneW View Post
I still don't understand why the Penguins got the deal to develop the site
In broad outline, it is a simple case of lawful extortion. The Penguins threatened to leave unless the public bribed them to stay. They got a ridiculously good lease on their new arena that the public is still mostly paying for (through local and state casino revenues), but that wasn't a big enough bribe.

So they also got the parking revenues from the Lower Hill site (even though, as you note, the SEA actually owns those lots), which would be further expanded once the Civic Arena was demolished. But the City didn't want the Lower Hill site to stay surface parking forever, and the Penguins said OK, but they wanted to get the very valuable development rights to make up for the eventual loss of parking revenues. So the public agreed to that too.

The public did, however, put the Penguins on a 10-year development schedule (delayed for the clearing of the site and such, so the 10 years is starting just this fall), and in theory the Penguins will lose part of their rights each year if they don't keep the schedule. Predictably, with the first such period looming, the Penguins are asking for an extension. The public also demanded the Penguins sign a Community Benefits Agreement, and the current debate is basically about what the Penguins need to do to comply with that CBA.

By the way, after the deal was made, the Penguins then laughed off the idea that they ever REALLY meant to leave to Pittsburgh. They just used that threat to get the most possible money from the public. Ha ha, good times, eh?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9416  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:39 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
That might be the point, that it is an off-street complex that feels the need for a prominent bill board. It is normal for suburban strip malls but not for urban, streetwall businesses.
Sure, but that is what it is--a former factory complex turned into a sort of mixed-use office/hotel/mall-thingy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9417  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:43 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private Dick View Post
Am I alone in thinking that there is nothing remotely attractive about Bakery Square? I mean, I'm glad that the building was preserved and put to reuse as a tech hub, but the layout and establishments of the surrounding development? No thanks.
Eh, it is OK. I'm not a huge fan of such retail complexes in general, but if you see it as a model for how to replace the nearby strip malls and free up that land for redevelopment, then I think it makes a bit more sense. It is also good it is mixed-use, because the addition of hotel and office allows you to fund a big parking structure that retail alone probably couldn't sustain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9418  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 12:54 PM
Private Dick Private Dick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: D.C.
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Eh, it is OK. I'm not a huge fan of such retail complexes in general, but if you see it as a model for how to replace the nearby strip malls and free up that land for redevelopment, then I think it makes a bit more sense. It is also good it is mixed-use, because the addition of hotel and office allows you to fund a big parking structure that retail alone probably couldn't sustain.
True, overall I think it's a positive development for the reasons you mention; just not a location that offers anything that I personally am very interested in. Though I can see the success it will have as a retail and hotel complex, particularly once the other residential and office components are developed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9419  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 1:31 PM
DKNewYork DKNewYork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 494
For anyone who didn't see this piece in today's P-G. Oliphant's opinion piece a few days ago was almost disturbing in its the-sky-is-falling hysteria. Very glad this partner at 980 spoke up.

Saving the Wilson Center

There’s no pretense involved, just a realistic new course
August 19, 2014 12:00 AM

By MATTHEW SHOLLAR

I note the concerns of Grant Oliphant, president of The Heinz Endowments, regarding our offer to purchase the August Wilson Center with respect, but his assertions misstate the facts (“Save the August Wilson Center,” Aug. 11 Perspectives).

In my view, productive dialogue beats colorful invective and might provide a different view of our plans; with it, he certainly would not have been able to describe our proposal as he did. May I correct the record?

Our deal will not “throw away” anyone’s money, nor will it “hand off” anything to us. Rather, we will spend millions to address all the debts of a failed non-profit (a failure which we had nothing to do with), and at great and ongoing expense to ourselves we will revitalize the center in an enduring and sustainable manner, guaranteeing both significant cost reductions and new revenue streams; not for three or five years, as the foundations propose to do, but over the course of a nine-year lease.

Rather than “gut” or “shove” the August Wilson Center cultural facilities, our plan offers more accessibility without reducing program space and leaves it available to the public at no charge. The center would not be in the “hotel lobby” as insinuated, but in a large, separate and defined space.

A partnership with the foundations would further expand the center’s area. 980 Liberty Partners would not decide what is artistically acceptable; there has never been any intention to influence, guide or censor the art installations or performances in the center.

Our plan, far from “shattering” the original intent, would fulfill it, by bringing to fruition the always-planned hotel addition. The center’s own documents and the extensive public record show that a hotel was deemed necessary to provide a revenue stream, without which the center’s very existence was at risk.

Mr. Oliphant must be aware of the incorporation of the Museum of the African Diaspora into San Francisco’s St. Regis Hotel, just one example of successful co-location.

As to suggestions that 980 plans to “deface” the building and “erase” the center’s presence and signature elements, let me clarify: There are no exterior pillars of any kind and, rather than relegating the symbolic sail to a “footnote,” we have allocated significant funds to enhance the sail, build a new center marque entrance and install the exterior digital signage that was part of the architect’s original design but was omitted due to cost overruns.

Our plans call for an elegant, restrained tower that complements the existing structure, using under 50 percent of the available zoning allowance.

Rather than “eviscerate” the Urban Redevelopment Authority covenants, our dual-purpose approach conforms to the alleged use restrictions. We merely seek URA consent to the improvements, no differently than if this were the air-rights proposal made to us by both the URA and the foundations.

As to our “pretense” regarding preservation of the center, 980 would not create the non-profit, but would advise that any continuing or successor organization be one that allows for foundation and corporate support. We would expect that the giving community that has supported the center in the past would continue to do so and would see the fruits of their grants take flower.

Would anyone accept what Mr. Oliphant refers to as “terrible tradeoffs?” They wouldn’t. Thinking people recognize the following truths:

All of the contentious discussion could be resolved with even a modicum of productive discussion. This is a fundable transaction, one that will proceed in phases to a closing.

We are not making our purchase because the center “loses money.”

Rather, the opportunity exists because the center failed. It defaulted on its mortgage long ago, and its lender, after an extended forbearance period and with great reluctance, is forced to foreclose.

It is certainly true, however, that prior to the center falling into receivership, a solution could have been found to bring the mortgage current and restructure the center. Perhaps, in hindsight, that is what should be “especially infuriating.”

Yes, 980 will pay everyone. Not because it is the best business decision – we could have offered far less and still been the high bidder – but because it is the right thing to do. Forcing banks and unsecured creditors to suffer substantial losses is simply not a moral position to take.

Yes, the building can be placed back on the tax rolls, creating millions in new tax revenues; these in turn can fund more local and regional priorities (including the arts through the Allegheny Regional Asset District).

Our project will create over 130 new, well-paying jobs and much-needed hotel rooms, enhancing our city’s competitiveness in the meeting and convention markets, driving more dollars to the city and the region while maintaining the August Wilson Center and strengthening its finances.

Expert third-party opinion affirms that the addition of a world-class hotel and a ground-floor restaurant will enhance, not detract from, the August Wilson Center and the Cultural District. “Fools bargain?” I think not.

I don’t consider it “self-righteous moralism” to suggest a new course when the previous one was unsustainable. Mr. Oliphant suggests, “Let’s forgo the judgment and instead focus on what his center could yet become.”

I wholeheartedly agree. We have never suggested that a “center based on African-American culture can’t succeed.” Instead, we are betting that it can succeed, and thrive.

The Pittsburgh Foundation offer letter – one augmented by nearly $3 million in additional public dollars – leaves no doubt that the African-American community will not control the destiny of the August Wilson Center in their plan. The foundation will own the building, will appoint and fire the board, and their three-to-five year funding provides no assurance to the African-American leaders with whom I am working that there is a long-term foundation plan that includes community control.

Mr. Oliphant warned about saving the Pittsburgh village by not “destroying” the August Wilson Center.

I wish to underscore a different point about our great and unique city.

We build things. We are a shining example for the country and the world — of how to innovate, to grow and to break free from the constraints of conventional thinking. The foundation community, which does so much good, can elect to continue this Pittsburgh tradition, and together we can create a new paradigm that showcases the exponential value of public/​private collaboration. All it takes is a new conversation. Let’s talk.

Matthew Shollar is a partner of 980 Liberty Partners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9420  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2014, 2:09 PM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
Shollar's letter is brilliant.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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