PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[TBone7281]

This perspective certainly makes it look like it'd be at least as tall as US Steel, even taking the higher starting elevation into consideration...

[DKNewYork]

Nothing new but always good to see articles like this in the Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/s...-makeover.html

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Urbana

Turns out the AE7 website is a bit of a treasure trove. There are also renderings of a large mixed-use structure on the Syria Mosque site. You may recall that Pitt owns the site and announced plans to build a tech-focussed mixed use structure (a la CMU).






[/URL]

Isn't the Syria Mosque site part of the Schenley Farms Historic District? I would think that there would be issues with a development this tall.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Isn't the Syria Mosque site part of the Schenley Farms Historic District? I would think that there would be issues with a development this tall.

The site is part of the district, but so is a major chunk of Oakland. And there's obviously tall buildings within it... Cathedral of Learning, Chevron Science Center, Webster Hall, and the recently-constructed Nordenberg Hall..

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

The site is part of the district, but so is a major chunk of Oakland. And there's obviously tall buildings within it... Cathedral of Learning, Chevron Science Center, Webster Hall, and the recently-constructed Nordenberg Hall..

The Schenley Farms Historic district doesn't go below Bigelow. The former Syria Mosque site is in the Oakland Civic Center district which was designated in April of 1992 less than a year after the Mosque was lost.

The rules for new construction for the Civic Center district are as follows:

1. The general aim of the guidelines for new construction is to encourage the visual
compatibility of new construction with the character and quality of the nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century buildings that give the district and the adjoining Schenley Farms Historic
District their historic architectural significance and visual character. This does not require,
although it also does not forbid, replication of the styles of the existing buildings in the
district. The review of the design of a new structure will take into account the immediate
context of the buildings that surround it, as well as the historic and architectural character of
the district as a whole.

2. Materials: Materials should be of a similar color, texture, and scale to building materials
in the district's contributing buildings.

3. Scale, Massing, Rhythm, and Siting: The scale, massing, and rhythm of a new building
and its individual elements (e.g., windows, doors, roof, and ornamentation) should be
compatible with the forms found among the contributing buildings in the district. In
addition, the Commission will review the spatial relationship of a new building to the open
spaces and buildings around it. The ratio of wall surface to openings, and the proportions
and direction of the door and window openings, should be consistent with those of the
contributing buildings. Glass curtain walls and horizontal strip windows along the
principal facades should be avoided, as well as large, flat wall surfaces unbroken by
openings, setbacks, or moldings.

4. Detailing: The detailing of new buildings should correspond to the kinds of detailing
found on contributing buildings in the district. This does not require replication of the
degree of ornamentation found in those buildings but should generally include the
following: a cornice or other definition of the roofline; a distinctive main door surround;
window sills and lintels, or other distinctive detailing at the openings; and ornamental
features such as moldings.

5. Accessories: The Historic Review Commission will usually approve all signs for new
buildings that conform in size and material to the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
Signs should not be installed in such a way as to obscure architectural features of the
building; they should not be installed on the roof of the building; and they should not be
internally-illuminated box signs (channel-letter signs may be approved by the Commission
on a case-by-case basis). Awnings on new buildings should be sloping and triangular in
section, in most cases (although arched windows should have rounded awnings); they
should be made of canvas or canvas-like materials; and they should not be internally-
illuminated. Exterior lighting should be mounted in an inconspicuous and non-
destructive manner, and screened from adjoining residential uses.

6. Rooftop Elements: Structures on the roofs of new buildings, such as elevator or other
mechanical housings or devices, vents, utilities, and skylights, should be designed so that
they are inconspicuous from the public streets.

[Zachary R. English]

http://http://www.post-gazette.com/b...s/201707240018

[eschaton]

The August Historical Review Commission presentation is now up. As is typically the case, the projects are mostly small jobs on houses in the North Side. There's a very unimpressive new facade for a building on the 1700 block of East Carson as well (though it will be a trade up from what was there before). Unfortunately, there's a proposed demolition of a historic structure as well - one of the last remaining buildings with commercial storefronts in Manchester.

[Captain Crash]

Looks like Bakery Square 3.0 is coming soon.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201707250036

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Captain Crash

Looks like Bakery Square 3.0 is coming soon.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201707250036

I find it a bit irritating they're marketing it as 3.0 when really it's just finishing the buildout of the 2.0 master plan.

I'm also not sure how they're going to do the skybridge for the new building. Most of the new office building will be across the street from the parking lot, with only a thin sliver across the street from the remaining portion of the old Nabisco plant. I suppose you could build a skybridge at or near the corner, but it will look terrible in terms of design. It would be a lot better, IMHO, to build the bridge between the two new buildings.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I find it a bit irritating they're marketing it as 3.0 when really it's just finishing the buildout of the 2.0 master plan.

I'm also not sure how they're going to do the skybridge for the new building. Most of the new office building will be across the street from the parking lot, with only a thin sliver across the street from the remaining portion of the old Nabisco plant. I suppose you could build a skybridge at or near the corner, but it will look terrible in terms of design. It would be a lot better, IMHO, to build the bridge between the two new buildings.

I'm pretty sure that the bridge that they're talking about will be between 2.0 and 3.0 on the same side of the street.

[Captain Crash]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm also not sure how they're going to do the skybridge for the new building. Most of the new office building will be across the street from the parking lot, with only a thin sliver across the street from the remaining portion of the old Nabisco plant. I suppose you could build a skybridge at or near the corner, but it will look terrible in terms of design. It would be a lot better, IMHO, to build the bridge between the two new buildings.

I think that they do intend to link 2.0 and 3.0 via skywalk and not 3.0 to 1.0:

The $35 million building would be erected in a vacant lot adjacent to the Bakery Square 2.0 office structure. It would be basically a mirror image of the other, a LEED gold certified building that includes an outdoor patio overlooking a pond fed by rain runoff from the roof.

They would be connected by a skybridge, just as the Bakery Square and Bakery Square 2.0 office buildings are joined by a span that stretches across Penn Avenue.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

This perspective certainly makes it look like it'd be at least as tall as US Steel, even taking the higher starting elevation into consideration...

I counted 69 floors above the mezzanine levels. Assuming 15 foot floor-to-ceiling (floor-to-floor, etc), this could easily top 1,000 ft if not more. The Steel City would get a supertall...

But who would likely sign a lease as an anchor tenant...?

Sorry for the dose of reality, folks.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Captain Crash

I think that they do intend to link 2.0 and 3.0 via skywalk and not 3.0 to 1.0:

Oops, my bad.

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I counted 69 floors above the mezzanine levels. Assuming 15 foot floor-to-ceiling (floor-to-floor, etc), this could easily top 1,000 ft if not more. The Steel City would get a supertall...

But who would likely sign a lease as an anchor tenant...?

Sorry for the dose of reality, folks.

Do we have any evidence this is anything other than a losing bid for the project that BIG ultimately won?

BTW, I just noticed they made a pretty incredible mistake in the picture. The existing row of buildings on Crawford Avenue - including the first group of Crawford Square townhouses and St. Benedict the Moor - are cut out of the picture entirely. Indeed, you can see at the bottom of the picture where Crawford Avenue should have been from the little stub by City View Apartments. This is a very sloppy rendering, at least insofar as it's poorly merged into the existing cityscape.

[BrianTH]

Whether you call it 3.0 or 2.3 or whatever, I definitely want to see that second BKSQ office building get done, as well as a new Busway station. I'm also curious about what they mean by "adjacent neighborhoods":

“We’re looking for opportunities in the adjacent neighborhoods to see if we can kind of use the energy created here to improve and help revitalize some of the other adjacent neighborhoods,” Mr. Reidbord said.

[highlander206]

Some good relocation news for Downtown Pittsburgh as water treatment company Evoqua has announced they are moving their headquarters to Downtown from Cranberry. At 60,000 sq feet being leased in the K&L Gates Center and 200 employees being moved down here, it is a sizable move (and the largest new lease in three years). Looking at their website it appears they have a footprint across the country so maybe there is the chance of them expanding in the future.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201707250119

[Minivan Werner]

More Hunt Armory redevelopment news:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ea...s/201707260047

An “urban beach” resubmitted by Sutton Management Corp. featuring a pool, sand, palm trees and walking track incorporated into a mixed use development that also would include 50 residences for “active seniors”; a 20,000-square-foot health club; 20,000 square feet of restaurants, boutiques and medical offices; and 80 parking spaces for cars and 50 spaces for bicycles.

• A 10,000-square-foot forest-style landscaped skating pond that would be converted into a water feature during the summer. The plan pitched by Brinton Motheral and Victory Plaza LLC also includes a one- or two-screen movie theater, a 5,500-square-foot restaurant pub pavilion with outdoor seating, 38 condominium units with access to a landscaped deck, and parking for 50 vehicles.

• A “world-class” multi-sport facility with the capacity for 12 regulation volleyball courts, six regulation futsal courts, six regulation basketball courts, three soccer fields, three baseball diamonds, and an elevated running/walking track, along with multiple studios for yoga, spin, and other types of classes. Cozza Enterprises also is proposing a sports shop, a restaurant overlooking the playing field, community event space, a 159-space parking garage, and a “historic wall” honoring the armory.

• A regulation ice rink and squash center that would share space in the main hall. During the summer, the rink would be converted to an all-sports surface for soccer and other field sports. The development team of Steve Mosites, David Light, and Lafe Metz also is proposing to build a one-story addition over part of the armory to house medical offices. Also included in the plan is a 100-space parking garage.

[daviderik]

William Penn Place is getting a makeover. Behind paywall but I like the upgrade.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...on-of-525.html

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by daviderik

William Penn Place is getting a makeover. Behind paywall but I like the upgrade.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...on-of-525.html

any chance that someone here could post the other images?

[AFW523]

Nice to see some solid momentum after a seemingly extended slip.

To add - a quick round up of momentum in the strip (some of which have already been mentioned:

[IMG]20170721_101515[/IMG]


Penn 23. No work started there but I'm pretty sure I've seen building permits so that's generally a good sign. Side note, does anyone know what the building to the right of this is ? It's been in the same shape now for well over 10 years and I just can't figure.

[IMG]20170718_180616 by tfw0523, on Flickr[/IMG]

The previous mentioned 3000 Smallman. Not amazing design but would add some heft to that corner.

[IMG]20170724_185924 by tfw0523, on Flickr[/IMG]

Terrible picture notwithstanding; Three's Crossing Riverfront West has broken ground filling in another parcel near that funky Cork Factory pseudo-dog park.

20170724_190510 by tfw0523, on Flickr

District 15 is taking lease apps. That one is down in the sea of parking on Smallman. Nothing special but it continues the trend of developing the asphalt graveyard.

The Buncher project, as much as I loathe it, is looking like it will have a nice mass to it. Surprised how much build out it still has to go.

The hotel on Smallman and 11th is moving along.

Those fatcat million dollar condos on Smallman are complete and selling.

The most recent public market has a lease signed for a new, private tenant.

So it's no surprise that the URA can't get out of it's own way on the produce terminal. The most dynamic piece of real estate in the most sought after area in town, and it's just rotting away while everyone at the City County Building shrugs.

Anyways - exciting times down there.

[TBone7281]

Originally Posted by AFW523

[IMG]20170721_101515[/IMG]


Penn 23. No work started there but I'm pretty sure I've seen building permits so that's generally a good sign. Side note, does anyone know what the building to the right of this is ? It's been in the same shape now for well over 10 years and I just can't figure.

It was for sale for what seemed like forever. However, the way I read it, I thought that building would become part of the new condo "tower". It looks like the design has changed a little bit too, but perhaps that is just a difference in the perspective, left vs. right.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...ict-condo.html