HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2081  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 2:56 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,016
Sorry to say that I highly doubt that building was by him. First of all, it's too early for his work and second of all, Hornbostel didn't seem to build just normal looking factory buildings. Either way, I wish they could preserve that building because I'm sure another storage shed cladded building will replace it.
__________________
Computer; end program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2082  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 3:06 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Sorry to say that I highly doubt that building was by him. First of all, it's too early for his work and second of all, Hornbostel didn't seem to build just normal looking factory buildings. Either way, I wish they could preserve that building because I'm sure another storage shed cladded building will replace it.
The design is much, much better than Coda on Centre, but who knows how it will get value engineered:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2083  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 5:35 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,552
Yeah, that is a pretty cool example of commercial architecture at the time, but it is all pretty common vernacular for the period, nothing that would suggest Hornbostel (or anyone else famous) in particular designed it.

And in fact, looking at the historic maps--I am pretty sure the stepped back portion was older, maybe built right before 1910, as the home of the Highland Auto Company. It appears the bigger portion in a somewhat different style (with different bricks--see streetview on Commercial) was built much later, between 1923 and 1939.

Anyway, I think Walter Kidney's book on Hornbostel includes as comprehensive a list of his Pittsburgh works as anyone has ever compiled. So, someone could check that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2084  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 5:48 PM
GeneW's Avatar
GeneW GeneW is offline
Northsider
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Yeah, that is a pretty cool example of commercial architecture at the time, but it is all pretty common vernacular for the period, nothing that would suggest Hornbostel (or anyone else famous) in particular designed it.

And in fact, looking at the historic maps--I am pretty sure the stepped back portion was older, maybe built right before 1910, as the home of the Highland Auto Company. It appears the bigger portion in a somewhat different style (with different bricks--see streetview on Commercial) was built much later, between 1923 and 1939.

Anyway, I think Walter Kidney's book on Hornbostel includes as comprehensive a list of his Pittsburgh works as anyone has ever compiled. So, someone could check that.
I have that book at home, I'll check tonight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2085  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 5:52 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneW View Post
I have that book at home, I'll check tonight.
Great! Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2086  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 7:36 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Fuck you very much, North Side NIMBYs.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2087  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 8:43 PM
Lobick Lobick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Fuck you very much, North Side NIMBYs.
FWIW...I think it helps if we name names. David Demko and Stephen Pascal...and ultimately just Pascal.

All the meaningful Northside neighborhood associations were for the original 8 story Trek plan. We supported it for years, showed up in force to the zoning board to support the proposed waiver, which was granted.

The neighborhood was overwhelmingly for it...one guy wasn't. I just don't want it to appear that there was a large faction of people in the neighborhood fighting against it.

Also, PS...I saw previously that you referenced the defeat of the expansion of the War Street Historic District. Not so fast. The Court ruled on appeal that the City Council failed to vote against the expansion in time as required by the City Code. The expansion is thus in effect by default, but the City is appealing the decision again. I had Judge Coleville's opinion on it somewhere but I can't find it right now. I will post when I do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2088  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 11:47 PM
bossride bossride is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Fuck you very much, North Side NIMBYs.

You can blame the NIMBYs all you want, but the real blame lies with the URA and city council. They've had decades to change the zoning laws to accommodate the changing neighborhood. If the zoning laws had been changed, there would not have been the need for a variance and special exception.

The ZBA decision was doomed the moment it was appealed despite all the neighborhood support. The URA and Trek did a horrible job claiming a hardship at the ZBA to justify the variance. It seemed that they took it for granted that Trek would get the variance because of the neighborhood support and didn't properly build their record. Even if they did build a better record, it may not have mattered. The trial court used the ZBA record, without new testimony, to make its decision and the Commonwealth Court used the trial court's record. Based on that record, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the ZBA didn't have the authority to grant the variance and that rezoning would have been the proper way to allow Trek's plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2089  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 1:40 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobick View Post
FWIW...I think it helps if we name names. David Demko and Stephen Pascal...and ultimately just Pascal.
I did almost say "North Side NIMBY" in singular instead.

I was aware of almost all of the backstory, and have posted about it before, but I felt like something short and pithy and angry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossride View Post
You can blame the NIMBYs all you want, but the real blame lies with the URA and city council. They've had decades to change the zoning laws to accommodate the changing neighborhood. If the zoning laws had been changed, there would not have been the need for a variance and special exception.
This is a good point. I've mentioned to people before there's something deeply wrong with Pittsburgh zoning insofar as it just takes someone willing to hire a lawyer to essentially kill any project which requires a variance. The logical conclusion here would be to overhaul city zoning. It's been done to a limited extent in select parts of the city (Uptown, and now the riverfronts) but we really need to have something more comprehensive.


I'd like to see the city drastically simplify the zoning code. I realize that the areas zoned for single-family residential aren't going anywhere. But I think the city could roll Residential Multifamily (RM), the commercial zoning types (LNC, UNC, HC, and the little used NDO), and a lot of the land now zoned for light industrial (NDI and UI) into a new "mixed use" category. Make there be three different potential building heights, but have the areas open to just about any use other than heavy manufacturing. Then see what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2090  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 2:01 AM
cityofblindinglights's Avatar
cityofblindinglights cityofblindinglights is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 108
That picture makes me so mad. I have followed this project for 10 years since moving to the north side in 2009. I cannot believe after all that they just tore it all down. Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2091  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 2:31 AM
GeneW's Avatar
GeneW GeneW is offline
Northsider
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Great! Thanks in advance.
From the appendix of the Kidney book:
Quote:
117. Frank D. Saupp, Inc. truck sales building
5803 Centre Avenue (East Liberty)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Eric Fisher Co. and Henry Hornbostel,
associated architects
built 1925
now largely altered
So the answer is yes, it is a Hornbostel, although a minor work and changed quite a bit.

Edit: Should should be able to see the paragraph here in Google Books.

Last edited by GeneW; Mar 14, 2019 at 12:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2092  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 5:30 AM
Wally G's Avatar
Wally G Wally G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Fuck you very much, North Side NIMBYs.

Well said! We can only hope the new building looks okay with the older ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2093  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 1:48 PM
Don't Be That Guy Don't Be That Guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I did almost say "North Side NIMBY" in singular instead.

I was aware of almost all of the backstory, and have posted about it before, but I felt like something short and pithy and angry.



This is a good point. I've mentioned to people before there's something deeply wrong with Pittsburgh zoning insofar as it just takes someone willing to hire a lawyer to essentially kill any project which requires a variance. The logical conclusion here would be to overhaul city zoning. It's been done to a limited extent in select parts of the city (Uptown, and now the riverfronts) but we really need to have something more comprehensive.


I'd like to see the city drastically simplify the zoning code. I realize that the areas zoned for single-family residential aren't going anywhere. But I think the city could roll Residential Multifamily (RM), the commercial zoning types (LNC, UNC, HC, and the little used NDO), and a lot of the land now zoned for light industrial (NDI and UI) into a new "mixed use" category. Make there be three different potential building heights, but have the areas open to just about any use other than heavy manufacturing. Then see what happens.
While that's the logical way to go about it, I don't know if the riverfront and Uptown zoning changes are great examples of fixing the problems with the code. Looking at the ZBA agenda and there are already variance requests on the riverfronts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2094  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 2:09 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally G View Post
Well said! We can only hope the new building looks okay with the older ones.
I wouldn't bet on anything new happening right away. Remember the original variance (which was defeated) called for a taller building and less parking than LNC zoning allowed for. Provided Pascal was really being a NIMBY, and wasn't trying to get a hold of one or more of the buildings in a deluded attempt to restore/flip himself, he would likely block a new construction plan which also required variances.

Thus, unless the plan to upzone the block to UNC ever goes forward, whatever is built is going to be no more than three stories/45 feet, and require one parking space per unit. I'm sure it's going to be modern in design as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2095  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 3:02 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Fuck you very much, North Side NIMBYs.

I would very much like to punch every last NIMBY square in the jaw and then forcibly move them to the suburbs where they can complain all they want.
__________________
Computer; end program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2096  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 3:04 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneW View Post
From the appendix of the Kidney book:

So the answer is yes, it is a Hornbostel, although a minor work and changed quite a bit.

Edit: Should should be able to see the paragraph here in Google Books.
Whoa, awesome; so hopefully they can just restore that building to its former glory without getting another shit clad building to replace it. Theres a whole load of ugly 50's buildings and junk around there to tear down instead and replace. Guess I should research buildings before theyre torn down forever and replaced with trash to see if they were built by famous architects. Wonder if that building on Forbes, the old Croatian Hall building or whatever it was at 3441 Forbes that Pitt wants to tear down was built by any well known local architects....
__________________
Computer; end program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2097  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 3:11 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Looks like the city council is set to vote on an IPOD (Interim Planning Overlay District) for all of Lawrenceville on April 23rd. This overlay will mandate 10% affordable housing units in any residential project in Lawrenceville with greater than 20 units.

As I said in the past, the more I have read the inclusionary zoning proposal, the more flawed I think it is. First, it covers very little land, since it's only legal to build 20+ unit apartment buildings along Butler Street and in the formerly industrially-zoned areas along the riverfront. It does nothing to stop gentrification within the "rowhouse core" of the neighborhood, which I think was the real concern of neighborhood residents. Secondly, it simply adds the inclusionary zoning requirement without loosening zoning anywhere else. Although the market study done concluded that developers could still turn a profit with this level of affordable housing, I worry the reaction of developers will be to reduce the total number of units downward. Less overall units being developed more or less cancels out the benefit of inclusionary zoning, because the people who couldn't get market-rate units will instead gentrify people out of historic housing units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2098  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 3:15 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Wonder if that building on Forbes, the old Croatian Hall building or whatever it was at 3441 Forbes that Pitt wants to tear down was built by any well known local architects....
It was built by an associate of Frederick Osterling, who among other things built the Union Trust building downtown. The two buildings share a similar Flemish Gothic facade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2099  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 6:17 PM
markson33's Avatar
markson33 markson33 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Whoa, awesome; so hopefully they can just restore that building to its former glory without getting another shit clad building to replace it. Theres a whole load of ugly 50's buildings and junk around there to tear down instead and replace. Guess I should research buildings before theyre torn down forever and replaced with trash to see if they were built by famous architects. Wonder if that building on Forbes, the old Croatian Hall building or whatever it was at 3441 Forbes that Pitt wants to tear down was built by any well known local architects....
Meh, not every building has to be preserved. That building really doesn't have much historical significance.

Arguably the Croatian Hall building is a much better candidate for preservation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2100  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 6:19 PM
qwho's Avatar
qwho qwho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 201
City residents question proposed redevelopment of Shadyside Giant Eagle plaza

https://www.post-gazette.com/local/c...s/201903140082


Each one of those "City Residents" named is probably a local slumlord.
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 10:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.