Jump to content

Pittsburgh Cultural District-what next?


tooluther

Recommended Posts

Some financing will be private. That was one of the things each team was judged on. Plus foundation money will play a big part. But state money and local tax incentives will almost absolutly need to be used for such a large project.

Also, I feel like the new Encore Building will now look very out of place. The turret on one side speaks to me like there should be a second building that emulated that look somehow. This (nor any of the not accepted plans I saw) had that in them

One more thing...I think that is technicaly 4 blocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think these "party hats" that all new projects seem to require recently, are a bit cutsey and will pass, simply as a quirkey trend. The Encore is handsome but hardly an architectural gem. It's the location that is memorable, the architecture is quite forgettable. I can say the same for the most of the North Shore's developments. None have any architectural merit. Look at Phillie's development thread and there are some real gems rising there. I'm hoping for the same.

Pittsburgh tends to be very conservative with it's developments. The river front deserves a more architecturally potent statement, such as ALCOA headquarters and the Convention Center, which are masterpieces. The stage is set, and the location is perfect for some "real" architecture. Judging by the presentation graphics, though very preliminary and sketchy, it appears to be what they're leaning toward. PNC 3 seems to be leaning that way also. I hope so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the conservative-ish architecture. Specifically I like that the design for the convention center that was chosen was picked over some crazy glass block modern monstrosities. However, the preliminary renderings for this building seam to be a good blend of the two. I specifically liked these commented on the "analysis" of the project in the post gazette today...

The predominantly glass buildings would significantly increase the scale and sophistication of riverfront housing in Pittsburgh, bringing it a little more in line with new waterfront developments in London, Amsterdam and other cities.

As for the "party hats" and "Eyebrows"...In general I HATE them. However, I think they were well done on the Encore building and the North Shore buildings. I just hope they are on the way out. I think that in 20 years people will look at buildings with Eyebrows and say "oh, that building is so early 2000's" the way we talk about ugly 70's buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this project does seem to have a European flavor to it. I feel it will definately compliment the Convention Center on the skyline and reflect well the ALCOA Building across the river. The turbines will be a great statement. Lets start digging!

Eyebrows are the curving swooping roof lines, like those found on the new American Eagle Outfitters. They have been very overused and Tooloother is right, they will definately date these projects later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fountain.jpg

The totally unnecessary roof accent on this picture from Greenville's otherwise fantastic Riverplace development. The developer actually stated that the eyebrows give the building a timeless look...you've got to be kidding me :shok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fountain.jpg

The totally unnecessary roof accent on this picture from Greenville's otherwise fantastic Riverplace development. The developer actually stated that the eyebrows give the building a timeless look...you've got to be kidding me :shok:

I like them. I'd preffer to hear what the architect has to say, not the developer whose making a sale, IMO. Timeless they are not but I don't think they should be. I think it takes a place in time and adds to the continuity of the urban center's architecture. I hate modern buildings that have no relationship to their surroundings, just a "timeless" glass box that tries to hide all signs of design influence and continuity. If you drive down East Carson and look at the roof-lines of those buildings carefully, and then come up on SSWorks and compare the rooflines there, you'll notice that a lot of references that are basically post-modern. I get a sense that instead of trying to make an ultra-futuristic glass box, they might have been trying to ask the question, how would those old buildings have been built had they access to all of these modern materials and methods? At the same time they're not necessarily useless by the fact that they cast shadows and absorb heat that would otherwise go down to the sidewalk. They may also be designed to slow down wind and it's negative effects on street life and the building's energy loss. The oversized looks also play an optical illusion that breaks up the sensation of being in a tall and inaccessible urban canyon and help it blend in with shorter, older structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no inaccessible urban canyons, downtown Manhattan is the most accessible place and the swarms of people there arent intimidated. These buildings blend with shorter older structures because they are copying them. They take no chances. There is room for both, I simply prefer a Frank Gehry to a Michael Graves or Phillip Johnson anyday. As long as they're building them in town, it's all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Frank Gehry is a joke. Hopefully his non-architecture never reaches Pittsburgh. A building should be functional and pay respect to and enhance its environment... instead of being a shiny toy in isolation... like Gehry's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he is probably one of the most internationally acclaimed "jokes" in the world. His museum in Bilbao has become instantly one of Europes most visited attractions. I understand he was the first choice for the Carnegie Science Center's addition but he declined. I think they're holding out for him. I'm sure the news that you think he is a joke has hit him hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he is probably one of the most internationally acclaimed "jokes" in the world. His museum in Bilbao has become instantly one of Europes most visited attractions. I understand he was the first choice for the Carnegie Science Center's addition but he declined. I think they're holding out for him. I'm sure the news that you think he is a joke has hit him hard.

Any idea why he declined? I hadn't heard about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I never liked Philip Johnson.The neo-gothic PPG IS a Pittsburgh icon. That is not in question, but it's just an abstraction of centuries old Gothic architecture.

I prefer the ALCOA riverfront building to the PPG. It has more expression and I see it as a work of art. It attempts a new direction in the function and interaction of the modern office layout. It's sinuous lines reflect beautifully the river. I would have preferred the North Shore developments reflect this style as to the Post-Modern direction it has taken. They are handsome but generic. The Delmonte Center does have a nice "ship-like" feel.

I even prefer the old ALCOA tower to the PPG. The old ALCOA tower, now the Regional Enterprise Tower, when built was one of the most famous and progressive buildings of the early post war era. It was the first building with an all aluminum facade and was very advanced modern architecture, with its intricate pre-cast aluminum tiles. It used elevated technologies in construction and it's function.

The PPG is mostly aesthetic. It does make new use of mirrored glass and I understand it has high energy function, this is due to PPGs innovations and not Philip Johnson's. Like most Post-Modern architecture, it uses familiar architectural elements as decoration mostly, used for mass appeal. They generally have little function other than aesthetic and generally have little to do with the advancement or elevation of architecture or engineering. This is not a radical view.

PPG is more dramatic than most. Part of this building's fame came from the controversy of it's design. Post-Modernism has it's fans and it's critics. It is an era that is, for the most part, passed and we should not cling to it as these new buildings will be quickly dated. Pittsburgh has more than it's share of Post-Modern examples. I'd like to see something different. Integration and variation is what makes a rich vibrant city.

I don't consider the Convention Center conservative at all. It probably has transformed the skyline more than any single building in history. It is a reflection of the city and has a long list of innovative design and structural details. It is a one-of a-kind design and its goundbreaking GREEN building!

I think Pittsburgh has many architectural gems, they're probably just not the most obvious that you would think of. For me the PPG is just quirky but it is an icon and is very photogenic.

This is a "forum" where we discuss ideas and express points of view. I don't expect you to agree with me, but for the sake of conversation, I express my views, and many times play the devil's advocate. I keep hoping this thread is more than just blind cheer-leading for our city. We're here to discuss the good and the bad, as we see it. For it to be interesting and useful, I expect we should feel free to express our views. Please don't respond like I attacked you personally.

I love this city and am exhilarated by it's direction. I feel it has made so many good decisions and has finally seemed to turn a corner. I love to see the new proposals are having a definite modern edge. They will juxtapose nicely with all the Post-Modern, icons and in fill present. This is not a radical view. and I like shiny toys!

Any idea why he declined? I hadn't heard about this.

This was before the misguided "competition" took place. I read that he simply had too much on his plate. If this is true or not I couldn't say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I think these discussions are important to the forum. It's part of why we are all here, isn't it?

I love the old ALCOA building (and the new one, though I wish it were a little taller) and love the mix of buildings downtown, from ALCOA, to the gothic gem that is PPG (to me anyway) to detailed older buildings that dot the skyline. Fifth Ave place I like, but can undertand why some don't - though I feel that it was blemished with the $%^&ing sign atop it.

I think that Encore if a fine apartment building, nothing new or exciting about it, other than it's great that finally a new apartment tower is downtown. The Cultural Trust though is ambitious and their proposal will be exciting to see come to fruition in the coming years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we're quite past the post-modern era. New Urbanism is quite Post-Modern in nature. One of the great things about Post Modernism is that it isn't so reactionary against the past like Modernism is. In what Modernism has turned into, you're basically supposed to reject the entire world around you and look at a building as a pure intellectual concept, not as something organic that grew out from its surroundings. It gets to a point where people have to adapt to the building rather than the other way around. Urban sprawl and the lack of street life in urban centers is by and large a product of Modernist thought. The way I look at Modern buildings is that for every 1 of those there are 1,000 crappy vynil sided abominations sitting out in the sticks. Post Modernism tries to remedy that by putting the life of people above all else into the design, and says its okay to borrow any element from anywhere at all just if it helps create a relationship not just to an intellectual concept but to culture, history, nature, and the rest of the city.

If you look at Bilbao carefully, you will see a lot of the problems that whole school of thought. The building was intended as nothing less than a gateway to serve as the main entrance and symbol of the city... and get this, it's meant to be viewed from an expressway. It's lavish, impractical, and a tourist trap for sure, but in it's functionality as a museum it becomes a huge shortcoming. Many artists refuse to even0 have their work displayed there because they feel that it's not presented in a neutral way that lets people appreciate the artist's own intent for that work. What is an art museum that artists refuse to be seen in? Instead, here the displays are used more as a gimick to decorate the building and give it a feeling of respectability and purpusefullness that some other blatant tourist trap like, say, the Eiffel Tower, doesn't have.

Urban, you seem to have mixed feelings about which one you really preffer. You advocate going back to something like Modernsim on the one hand and moving forward on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely do have mixed feelings. Don't get me wrong, as long as something is being built, go! It has become such a standard that every building going up has a quirky turet. Enough already. I've referred to The Regional Enterprise Tower because it is modern but has a human scale. That doesn't mean I'm looking back to modernism. I refer to the ALCOA hqtrs because it is unique to it's location. I think modernism has come a long in that it does not reject the entire world around it and is not a pure intellectual concept. I don't suggest Frank Gehry does a building there, it's not suited to him, but there must be something in between. New buildings have a sculptural element to them because the computer allows it. I like the sketchy prelims of what I see, both for the Cultural District plan and PNC's tower. I hope it plays with the modernist lines of the Convention Center and ALCOA while fitting in it's historic confines. This will be a great challenge for any architect.

I just got back from NYC last week and was looking closely at many of the towers and buildings. There is a very ecclectic thing going on. We might not be past the post-modern era, but it is on it's way out.

Like or not, museums are tourist traps and so is the Science Center. The Louvre has 100 paintings on one 40' high wall. Not the best to see art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The reply I received from the PG:

well, that is . . . bizarre. there isn't a 19 or a 14-18; if memory serves, the

19 building is perhaps an art gallery, next to some loft apartments, but that

could be wrong. at any rate it's not part of the cultural district project and

certainly not slated for demolition or anything -- just a screw-up by our arts

staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.