HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9121  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 1:17 AM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private Dick View Post
Well yeah, of course there are going to be backstories behind any major real estate dev project. But the fact is that these recent examples got built or are being built in the case of chevron. And... Goldman Sachs seems to have gotten things backwards when you look at their tower across the Hudson. Also that wide and squat Goldman tower would be the 2nd tallest in Pittsburgh.

And haven't skyscrapers always been pretty much akin to a big and fancy penis battle?
Yes. I guess my point is skyscrapers represent a moment in time when money and egos flare in harmony. Perhaps that time has passed for post-industrial Pittsburgh.
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9122  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 3:43 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Yes. I guess my point is skyscrapers represent a moment in time when money and egos flare in harmony. Perhaps that time has passed for post-industrial Pittsburgh.
The execs at US Steel had an opportunity in the '60s when planning their HQ at 600 Grant. However, they agreed to not get into a pissing contest with One and Two World Trade Center in Manhattan and the John Handcock and Sears Towers in Chicago...

If I had to guess, I'd say they initially thought of making this thing 90 to 100 stories, 1,300 feet tall...
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9123  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 4:02 AM
Private Dick Private Dick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: D.C.
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Yes. I guess my point is skyscrapers represent a moment in time when money and egos flare in harmony. Perhaps that time has passed for post-industrial Pittsburgh.
Money and egos and penises flaring in harmony -- sorry, just keeping the skyscraper/penises thing going.

I don't know about the time having passed. Pittsburgh has good days ahead -- I can feel it. And even if it doesn't get another 700-800 footer overall I'm still fine with it.

I'm actually in town this weekend and I love seeing the many changes big and small since I left a few years ago. I'm actually looking to buy a house in Pittsburgh with hopes of returning in the near future. I like DC a lot, but I'd like to get back close to family and old friends... and aside from that, western PA is home to me and I have deep roots in the burgh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9124  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 4:07 AM
Private Dick Private Dick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: D.C.
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
The execs at US Steel had an opportunity in the '60s when planning their HQ at 600 Grant. However, they agreed to not get into a pissing contest with One and Two World Trade Center in Manhattan and the John Handcock and Sears Towers in Chicago...

If I had to guess, I'd say they initially thought of making this thing 90 to 100 stories, 1,300 feet tall...
That may be true, but we're talking NYC and Chicago here... Even if Pittsburgh had the tallest building in the US with US Steel, I wouldn't have been for long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9125  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 4:34 AM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private Dick View Post
Also that wide and squat Goldman tower would be the 2nd tallest in Pittsburgh.
It would be the tallest building in Baltimore by over 200 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9126  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 4:53 AM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
The Heth's Run Valley park proposal is moving forward with its first large design and engineering expenditure:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201407260045
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9127  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2014, 8:14 AM
Private Dick Private Dick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: D.C.
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey View Post
It would be the tallest building in Baltimore by over 200 feet.
And tallest in DC by over 400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9128  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2014, 1:17 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Some interesting details in this article on Lando Lofts:

http://triblive.com/lifestyles/homeg...#axzz38Y0XDqIB

The lack of a dedicated dining space makes perfect sense to me--it is wasted space in so many contemporary homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9129  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2014, 11:36 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
This is a pretty typical positive article about Pittsburgh these days, but if you read German (I don't) or run it through Google Translate (I did), you will see an extended discussion of the Tiny House project in Garfield:

http://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/pittsbu...ion-1.18351150
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9130  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 12:31 AM
TBone7281 TBone7281 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 685
Wandered around, drank some beer, took some pics on Friday before going to see a show.

Homewood Suites in the Strip





















The Gardens

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9131  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 2:40 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Speaking of the Tiny House project, they have hired an architect to guide the project, Chad Chalmers of Wildman Chalmers Design, LLC:

http://www.citylabpgh.org/8882/

They have now also posted a two-part interview with Chad:

http://www.citylabpgh.org/8871/
http://www.citylabpgh.org/8912/

There is a lot of interesting stuff in that interview, including discussions of utilities, what they are thinking about the foundation (required in Pittsburgh as it can't be left on a trailer), and materials and manufacturing (they may try to use local materials and also contract with a local pre-fab home manufacturer to build it off site). If they can get this all sorted out, you can see how this project could potentially be repeatable on a streamlined and cost-effective basis (perhaps with a menu of options to allow for some customization).

Also, here are two related snippets on outdoor design, some zoning issues, and streetscape considerations:

Quote:
cL: How will you deal with Garfield market and the Pittsburgh Zoning Code?

CC: According to cityLAB’s surveys and discussions with potential buyers, gardens are an important amenity for people interested in living in a tiny house. We’ll need to incorporate outside space into our tiny house seamlessly. Integrating the house with the outdoor space is going to be critical. We’ll consider putting in a yard, a garden, perhaps a raised surface such as a deck. We want to use quality materials. Zoning codes issues include setback from the side, rear and front, curb cuts, as well as the contextual fabric of the street.

. . .

cL: What about the streetscape?

CC: Fitting Minim into the streetscape is going to be a little tricky. It’s smaller than its neighbors. Landscaping is going to be key and so is setting the height of Minim’s floor. How many steps should we have up to the front door? Should there be a front porch? How do resolve the proportions of Minim to the existing streetscape and make sure everything fits? We’ll be doing some three-dimensional studies so that we understand what the streetscape will look like.
I know there are some skeptics here, but I for one share Chad's overall enthusiasm for this project:

Quote:
cL: What’s the most exciting part for you?

CC: I’m most excited by the idea of being able to produce a product that everyone could own for potentially less than the cost of renting in the City of Pittsburgh. This could be a starter home or a home for an empty nester. It has lots of potential. Just looking at all the “missing teeth” throughout the neighborhood and imagine being able to fill them with Tiny Houses. That’s exciting!
If they can nail the outdoor spaces and streetscape integration while still coming in at a competitive cost, they could really have something special that would appeal to a substantial submarket and potentially help infill a decent fraction of the smaller vacant lots in the City and some older suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9132  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 3:32 PM
gallacus gallacus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 64
I think the tiny house idea is cool, but I think it'd be even cooler if the architects could figure out a way to orient the house in such a way that it completely fills the width of the lot at the sidewalk, making it virtually impossible to tell it is a tiny house from the front. Maybe make it really skinny and turn it sideways, but make the whole side of the house look like the front of a larger house. This would be more effective, IMO, at filling in the "missing teeth."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9133  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 3:46 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
I'm interested to see what the architect comes up with, but I am more of the feeling they should actually really sell the outdoor space from the street view. Porches, gardens, and so forth are all very popular features in pleasant walking neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill and Regent Square. Nice outdoor spaces add interest/customization, and also creates a very welcoming/social feel. And I think part of the appeal of these urban tiny houses is allowing that same vibe to occur even on rowhouse-sized lots.

Edit: I've been thinking I am a sucker for a wraparound porch, and it would be cool to see something like that on this project. With the house style they are using, it could look a little something like this:



Reminder of what they are working with:






Last edited by BrianTH; Jul 28, 2014 at 8:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9134  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 12:20 AM
AaronPGH's Avatar
AaronPGH AaronPGH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PGH / SLC
Posts: 1,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallacus View Post
I think the tiny house idea is cool, but I think it'd be even cooler if the architects could figure out a way to orient the house in such a way that it completely fills the width of the lot at the sidewalk, making it virtually impossible to tell it is a tiny house from the front.
I think you could accomplish that pretty easily by turning the long side of the house sideways and butting it up against the sidewalk. Then, build a fence around the lot that is made of the same type of wood/material as the house... so that it looks like a continuous wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9135  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 12:49 AM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Puking in my mouth:

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz38oVj9rKl

Quote:
We need to think bigger as a region. We need to be aspirational or we'll get what we've always gotten. The Southern Beltway project is aspirational,” said Steve Craig, chairman of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission and a Lawrence County commissioner.
A shiny new Beltway! Greenfield development! Aspirations straight from the 1980s!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9136  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 12:58 AM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
Acute shortage of industrial space?

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg....html?page=all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9137  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 3:22 AM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Puking in my mouth:

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz38oVj9rKl



A shiny new Beltway! Greenfield development! Aspirations straight from the 1980s!
This is why politicians from backwards fringe counties like Lawrence should never be allowed to lead SPC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9138  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 3:35 AM
SteelCityRising SteelCityRising is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Puking in my mouth:

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz38oVj9rKl



A shiny new Beltway! Greenfield development! Aspirations straight from the 1980s!
Wow. I forgot how much I missed BrianTH until I read this! Nice to see (well, "read" you) again!

In regards to the micro-housing movement I view this as a perfect way to fill in missing "gap teeth" in our tight-knit historic urban neighborhoods.

For example, there's currently a residential building lot on the market on Howley Street in Bloomfield, right near the light at Friendship Avenue (physical street address of 4445 Howley Street). It is extremely small, at just 1,600 square feet (looks even smaller, though). It has just been removed from the market (not necessarily "sold"), but I was toying with the idea of buying this lot and building a two-story micro-house on it someday---first floor for me and an exterior staircase leading to a separate upstairs living quarters for a tenant.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/44...11514275_zpid/

If we want a better Pittsburgh, we need to encourage density. Building micro-homes on these tight lots is a great way to accomplish that goal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9139  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 2:09 PM
BrianTH BrianTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,071
More random Tiny House commentary:

I was interested in figuring out approximately what it would take for owning a Tiny House to be financially competitive with renting. I looked up Bakery Living, and they are asking around $1300/month for "micro" studios that are just over 500 sqft. The assumption I am going to make is that some individuals or couples (not all) would find it equally or more appealing to own a house with fewer internal sqft, but located on a lot where they could get their own garden, porches, and so on that would total considerably more sqft (e.g., the lot they are using in Garfield is about 1100 sqft, so even with the single-story Tiny House design they selected they are going to meet that requirement). Of course it should be noted the Tiny House will come without the common amenities offered in buildings like Bakery Living, and not all people are going to want to trade so much indoor space for outdoor space to begin with, but I think it is fair to assume at least some people would be willing to make those tradeoffs if the financial cost was similar. And, of course, there are Tiny House designs with a lot more sqft than the one they chose--those might increase cost and eat up more outdoor space, but the point is you can contemplate a range of tradeoffs appealing to different people/couples.

I then used this tool to find a break even point:

http://www.trulia.com/rent_vs_buy/

I left the Advanced Settings alone (feel free to refine those if you want to do this yourself--those will also detail how the tool is dealing with taxes, appreciation, cost of capital, utilities, maintenance, and so forth), but I took the anticipated living term down to 3 years and clicked on the "I do not itemize" box. Those both push the comparison to be more favorable for renting, but I think those are more realistic assumptions for the likely market for studios or Tiny Houses.

Anyway, with a target monthly rent of $1300, I get a breakeven with buying at around $160,000. So that is actually a pretty generous budget for this project, particularly if you are imagining doing this at some scale. Incidentally, if you move the anticipated living term out to 4 years, you get a budget of $180,000, and at 5 years it is about $195,000. I still think 3 years is the right number to use, but you can see how this Tiny House approach could appeal even more to individuals or couples with longer anticipated terms, such as empty-nesters. FYI, down to 2 years drops you to $130,000, and 1 year around $85,000, but you are pretty crazy to be looking at buying and selling in only one or two years.

In any event, I believe City Lab is hoping to bring this pilot project in for under $100,000. That would be great according to this analysis, and my suggested takeaway from all this would be that it may not be a great idea to skimp too much on the budget. In particular, I continue to think absolutely nailing the outdoor spaces is going to be key to making this work, and I would personally spend some extra money if necessary to make that happen.

Last edited by BrianTH; Jul 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9140  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2014, 2:22 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,495
So I dont get it, im trying to find out where these tiny houses are and cant find any, have they actually built any in Pittsburgh yet?
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
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 12:14 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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