PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Minivan Werner]

I guess I won't get picky about 30 story high rises.. but there are a lot of other buildings, parking structures and vacant lots I'd rather see go before that Frank & Seder building. Although I admit I never even paid much attention to it before.

[themaguffin]

Once key vacant lots - not just downtown but in areas adjacent to downtown are built, then maybe consider tearing it down, but I see absolutely no reason to do that now and to have a big to do over an undecided action seems odd.

Just update Oxford 2 from the 80s....

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by markson33

The floor plates of 411 Smithfield are too large for conversion to residential. You could wind up with a lot of apts that didn't have windows.

To me, that building isn't really that impressive from a historical architecture standpoint. I'm also not sure that a redevelopment of the existing structure would really improve its viability much, although I am open to the concept.

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

I guess I won't get picky about 30 story high rises.. but there are a lot of other buildings, parking structures and vacant lots I'd rather see go before that Frank & Seder building. Although I admit I never even paid much attention to it before.

Windows? Who needs windows in an apartment?


While I don't think that the building is a spectacular example of architecture, it still is a significant and historic building for 1917 Pittsburgh, and obviously of high-quality construction.

My stance is... if your city is on an economic upturn after decades of stagnation and decay, and there is demand and opportunity for new development... don't tear down the remaining good stuff, get rid of the shit instead.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by markson33

The floor plates of 411 Smithfield are too large for conversion to residential. You could wind up with a lot of apts that didn't have windows.

To me, that building isn't really that impressive from a historical architecture standpoint. I'm also not sure that a redevelopment of the existing structure would really improve its viability much, although I am open to the concept.

As it relates to the retail there, surprisingly its pretty high rent, despite the somewhat lowbrow uses.

I agree that this is a trial balloon by Oxford to see if anybody will bite. They are going to do the exact same thing as Burns & Scalo on Fort Pitt Blvd.

I agree, I am tired of the faux cupolas. Come on architects! Come up with something original!

Agreed on all points.

Also... I think we should withhold judgment until the Oxford/Ravenstahl press conference on Thursday.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I don't see how it's not a designated historical landmark.

The local attitude seems to be that buildings like that are a dime-a-dozen around here. And while it is true Pittsburgh still has more historic buildings left than some other comparably-sized cities (in part because many of those other cities grew to this size much more recently), that is increasingly less true all the time.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Why is it not suited for residential conversion?

As another poster noted, because of the large floorplates with no central opening, a legacy of it being a department store.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

I guess I won't get picky about 30 story high rises.. but there are a lot of other buildings, parking structures and vacant lots I'd rather see go before that Frank & Seder building. Although I admit I never even paid much attention to it before.

This is exactly what I was thinking earlier. People are hyperventilating about losing the Frank & Seder building... yet these same people never noticed it before. It's a solid structure... but relatively bland and anonymous. I'm sure a rehab could transform the structure... but... if Oxford has plans for a major office tower at this site... I think that's an opportunity to generate a lot more value and vitality at this site than its present underutilized state.

As for suggestions about building at other sites... there are real estate economics that may dictate this Smithfield/Fifth location is best suited for an allegedly speculative office tower. There's a big difference between being in the absolute middle of Downtown... and being along a river or on the Lower Hill or even Grant Street.


examiner.com

[BrianTH]

Although this building may not be the nicest, it is contributing to an overall historic district. I think that concept of historic districts is undervalued, and underutilized.

Fortunately there is a way of having it both ways--you could preserve the facades as the base and build a tower springing from within it.

Unfortunately, despite ample precedents both in other cities and in fact Pittsburgh, this concept seems to have gone nowhere when it came to PNC Tower, and I am not particularly hopeful about this project either.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

This is exactly what I was thinking earlier. People are hyperventilating about losing the Frank & Seder building... yet these same people never noticed it before. It's a solid structure... but relatively bland and anonymous. I'm sure a rehab could transform the structure... but... if Oxford has plans for a major office tower at this site... I think that's an opportunity to generate a lot more value and vitality at this site than its present underutilized state.

As for suggestions about building at other sites... there are real estate economics that may dictate this Smithfield/Fifth location is best suited for an allegedly speculative office tower. There's a big difference between being in the absolute middle of Downtown... and being along a river or on the Lower Hill or even Grant Street.

I totally hear what you're saying and agree overall, though I don't think anyone was hyperventilating about a loss of the building -- on here at least -- especially since we don't even know if it's really even a possibility. I just don't like seeing high-quality structures from 1917 meet the wrecking ball, in general... whether they are architecturally-ornate or not.

They still lend remarkable presence to a city and indicate the fact that Pittsburgh was a city of prominence and wealth a century ago. Buildings like this one bestow downtown Pittsburgh with that old-school urbanity that really very few US cities have in such a dense environment. I just hate to see a city as small as Pittsburgh lose buildings like that... because that quality ain't comin' back to Pittsburgh, my friends... and especially when it is surrounded by so much junk (building right across Forbes, for one). Also, it's anonymity now is much more due to its low-quality use and its long-overdue, dire need for a cleaning and update (I'm sure it hasn't been touched in 30-40 years), than to its perceived architectural blandness. If it were cleaned and taken care of better, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Though, I do agree that a major office tower development could obviously help to revitalize the area (and contribute to downtown overall) in a way that the current use or even rehab cannot. There's the rub.

And sure, there's no doubt that Oxford would want to get in on all the Fifth & Forbes/Market Sq action, if they're planning a big investment.

[markson33]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Although this building may not be the nicest, it is contributing to an overall historic district. I think that concept of historic districts is undervalued, and underutilized.

Fortunately there is a way of having it both ways--you could preserve the facades as the base and build a tower springing from within it.

Unfortunately, despite ample precedents both in other cities and in fact Pittsburgh, this concept seems to have gone nowhere when it came to PNC Tower, and I am not particularly hopeful about this project either.

Oxford has an opportunity that PNC may not have had. The PNC Tower site had really, IIRC, two architecturally significant buildings on it (one of which was in a pretty bad state of disrepair). While PNC certainly could have saved those building facades, it made for a much more difficult plan than what Oxford faces. Oxford has one building that is in decent shape that covers the entire block. All that being said, I will not shed many tears if Oxford decides to tear the building down.

[BrianTH]

I agree that fundamentally there may be more reason for hope this time. Primarily I am still not hopeful for two reasons:

(1) For various reasons I got the sense this block was being written off by the established preservationists (e.g., the PHLF); and

(2) The P-G article stated, "The proposed tower would replace a seven-story office building the company owns at the site. . . . If it is successful [in finding a tenant], it would demolish the existing building to make way for the new complex."

But we'll see.

[jmcleanva]

What about the empty lot next to One Oxford Centre? That could build Two Oxford Centre there. They just need an anchor tenant. US Steel, maybe?

Heck, the could even get HOK to design it.

Why go tearing down a damn nice building. We need older buidings. It gives the city character.

[Jonboy1983]

I'm kinda with jmcleanva. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of wanting to build a new office tower, but it would be neat to preserve the facade of this building a build something modern on top of it. Didn't they do this in New York City and in Philly? I know they took an old historic building and put in a really neat-looking 42-story building on top of it? I think it's the Hearst Tower in Midtown...

Personally, it would be cool to see a modern art-deco construction go up on top of this thing. How cool would that be?!

[themaguffin]

What about the empty lot next to One Oxford Centre? That could build Two Oxford Centre there.

That was the plan...

Twin Skyscraper to Rise near One Oxford Centre

[markson33]

Oxford sold that lot in 2009.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I'm kinda with jmcleanva. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of wanting to build a new office tower, but it would be neat to preserve the facade of this building a build something modern on top of it. Didn't they do this in New York City and in Philly? I know they took an old historic building and put in a really neat-looking 42-story building on top of it? I think it's the Hearst Tower in Midtown...

Personally, it would be cool to see a modern art-deco construction go up on top of this thing. How cool would that be?!

It would be really cool. Though, Pittsburgh is not NYC, nor Philly when it comes to this stuff.

But we don't really know what's going yet. So all of this speculation may be moot once we get the announcement on Thurs... and it still might be moot after years from now.

Though still, I don't get too excited for a 30-story tower, whatever the outcome of this potential development by Oxford. I mean, 30 stories is pretty much in Louisville, or even Dayton, league... doesn't really do much for me in Pittsburgh.

[Johnland]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

My stance is... if your city is on an economic upturn after decades of stagnation and decay, and there is demand and opportunity for new development... don't tear down the remaining good stuff, get rid of the shit instead.

Those last 13 words are the perfect essence of what city planning should be. Oh, if only that's how it went in reality.....

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by markson33

Oxford sold that lot in 2009.

That's a royal shame. It would have been cool to see a 50-story building on that "lot..."

[East7thStreet]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Though still, I don't get too excited for a 30-story tower, whatever the outcome of this potential development by Oxford. I mean, 30 stories is pretty much in Louisville, or even Dayton, league... doesn't really do much for me in Pittsburgh.

Density and ground floor retail are all that matter.... although nothing wrong with a nice 30 story tower. According to Emporis it's been over 24 years since Pittsburgh has seen a building over 23 stories built.

[Private Dick]

^ No, of course there's nothing wrong with a new 30-story tower at all. I welcome it, but I still don't get too excited for a building at that height in Pittsburgh, considering the city's had its fair share of buildings that are much taller than that for a long time. And true, no buildings of much height were built during the 90s or 00s, but the city's got a shiny new 40 story tower u/c as as we speak.