Could Pittsburgh do with a defining structure? (Houston: fit in, to buy)

[LIRefugee]

How about we come up with ideas as to what sort of iconic structure could be built in Pittsburgh? The more absurd, the better!

With all the talk of the St. Louis Arch, how about an arch built directly over the Point with each end situated exactly at the place where the Mon and Allegheny become the Ohio, paint it gold, and call it "Gateway to the Ohio"? Tourists would be able to visit a platform at the very top and take in spectacular views of the area. "Arch" the Transformer could be moved there as the keeper of the Pittsburgh Arch. Visitors would get to the platform by way of gondolas originating from where the civic arena used to be, which would be turned into a small Pittsburgh-themed amusement park.

[Copanut]

Steelie McBeam

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You don't think something common can also be wrong?

Governments of all sorts have indeed pushed expensive and impractical vanity projects on cities throughout history. But the alternative to assuming those governments have been faithfully acting on behalf of their cities is to ask whether instead those governments have been serving themselves at the cost of their cities. The fact is that economic development generally requires a lot of hard, smart work under the best of circumstances, and city governments are often not in control of all of the factors that lead to success or failure even if they do work hard and smart, and yet people tend to blame them for disappointed expectations regardless. Given that basic dynamic, governments often opt to blow resources on tangible projects that they think will immediately evoke civic pride, but that doesn't mean such projects really are important to economic development.

In short, vanity projects like this are undoubtedly a PR device for the officials who promote them, but whether they serve the same function for the relevant cities as a whole is a much more dubious proposition. And that's no slight on Seattle, although I will be visiting there soon and I intend to take in what Seattle has to offer on my off time.

First, people would still be "talking about" cities like Washington or London regardless if you subtracted any given monument, because those cities are legitimately very important cities.

As for places like Seattle--we have been discussing the Space Needle here because it was specifically cited in the OP, and the topic of this thread is gimmick structures like the Space Needle. The more relevant question is: outside of this highly limited context, do we talk about Seattle more here than we would otherwise because of the Space Needle? I'd say the answer is no, not in any detectable way. As a matter of fact, I would guess we have talked more about Houston recently than Seattle, so what does that say about the supposed benefits of the Space Needle? The fact is that such a thing is really negligible in comparison to real economic factors, such as a growing and evolving energy sector.

It would all be a harmless diversion, if these things didn't take up real resources that could be used in far more productive ways. I don't think there is much danger of a Gateway Arch-type project in Pittsburgh, but a very similar argument could be conducted over the merits of the North Shore stadiums, and I think a very strong case could be made that the resources directly and indirectly spent on those stadiums could have been much better used in other ways.

Brian, you must not have an artistic or creative bone in your body. To follow your logic there wouldn't be a single museum on earth, no sports, and no movies because there are better ways to spend that money. There are things that enhance our lives beyond the purely practical. We need a sense of spirit and purpose in life otherwise it is mere existence. Unless you feel we should bestow all that on New York and DC.

And we probably talk about Houston more often because i bring it up, and Houston is an energy business center and the Pittsburgh region at this moment is of their interest. And that's no slight on Seattle which i will be visiting soon and I intend to take in as much of it as i can during my off time. And that includes the Space Needle.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by sskink

I'm afraid that if Pittsburgh did build a defining structure, this is what we'd end up with.

Dude...you are definitely off that committee.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

We need a sense of spirit and purpose in life otherwise it is mere existence. Unless you feel we should bestow all that on New York and DC.

So let's ask some Seattleites: Does the Space Needle give you a sense of spirit and purpose? Ask some San Franciscans: does the Golden Gate Bridge make your city feel more special? I think these things are pretty and make really nice photographs, but otherwise are pretty frivolous.
Most of these things seem to mark a certain place in a landscape or provide a view. We already have the exclamation point of the Point (and maybe sometime again its fountain), and a numerous hillsides providing great views. Our landscape is already pretty distinctive. We have lots of interesting bridges.

If I were challenged to come up with an idea for such a monument (without putting much thought into it), I'd go with an idea like Wright's for the point, perhaps. Or some sort of beacons/towers on hilltops, for example.

Anyway, how about the inclines? Aren't they pretty unique?

[Mugatu]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

"Arch" the Transformer could be moved there as the keeper of the Pittsburgh Arch.

Speaking of, does anyone know what happened to the Transformer? Was it moved or just dismantled?

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Dude...you are definitely off that committee.

I think sskink is on to something. Not with the specific structure but with the method. Rather than build something new, just photoshop something new into some place. Hardly anybody sends a photographer in from out of town to take a picture of a building. If the structure shows up in most of the hits for a google image search and in the stock photo sites, it is close enough to real. Obviously, people will figure it out eventually, but if enough people start looking for it, we just say it blew over. Then everyone in Pittsburgh will be happy because they always have a much easier time telling what used to be somewhere than what is there now.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

So let's ask some Seattleites: Does the Space Needle give you a sense of spirit and purpose? Ask some San Franciscans: does the Golden Gate Bridge make your city feel more special? I think these things are pretty and make really nice photographs, but otherwise are pretty frivolous.

A better question would be to ask if they had to do it over...would they have the Space Needle or instead build something more practical like an office tower? But yeah, stuff that pushes the envelop in form, scale, and ingenuity is pretty inspiring. They often do evoke local civic pride. But I was speaking also to producing works of art. Pretty frivolous activity really, but they do enrich our lives.

Most of these things seem to mark a certain place in a landscape or provide a view. We already have the exclamation point of the Point (and maybe sometime again its fountain), and a numerous hillsides providing great views. Our landscape is already pretty distinctive. We have lots of interesting bridges.

No question it looks good. The view from Mt Washington is probably the closest thing to an icon Pittsburgh has. But symbols work best with simplicity.

If I were challenged to come up with an idea for such a monument (without putting much thought into it), I'd go with an idea like Wright's for the point, perhaps. Or some sort of beacons/towers on hilltops, for example.

I think they did the right thing with the park, but it needs better access and trails leading into it. It is surprisingly bereft of people except for special events.

Anyway, how about the inclines? Aren't they pretty unique?

Close but not iconic. I have nothing against them but not many people even know about them.

[MathmanMathman]

My idea is to build a large arch bridge to replace the West End Bridge. (I don't know if it is near the end of its life but...whatever. Even bridges meeting at The Point were taken down).



Anyway, two large arches over the Ohio, high as you can make it given engineering and material limitations. Glistening steel or aluminium...or heck...maybe both. The two arches would lean in and touch at the top which would be an observation deck (sort of like the St Louis Arch in that regard but hopefully more room at the top). At road level it would be fairly wide with a road of course but at its center a LRT line to cover the route from the Airport, to the North Shore, to the Convention Center, Downtown, and up through Oakland...but I digress. The bridge would have wide sidewalks on either side to act as an expansive observation deck and have bike paths. Preferably keep both ends of the bridge on the shore to make the suspension appear as long as possible.

Hopefully its practicality would assuage critics of the other extravagances in its design.

Another idea is Pittsburgh's Space Needle located near the Convention Center with a hotel at its base. Sort of a luxury convention center hotel with a soaring tower with a view for both guests and tourists. An extra allure for conventions to choose Pittsburgh.

And one more, I'd build a twin to the convention center on the North Shore and have an enclosed suspended pedestrian bridge between them. The present building looks pretty good but a twin with a suspended bridge (designed in sync with the original convention center design of course) between them would be awesome. It would require tearing down the housing on the other shore...but whatever.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

A better question would be to ask if they had to do it over...would they have the Space Needle or instead build something more practical like an office tower?

The Space Needle was not built after some long civic discussion about having a defining structure. It was built for the 1962 World's Fair as a commercial project. The World's Fair format was hardly practical; nobody would have built an office tower for the World's Fair. It was privately built and financed and remains privately owned. It is a testament to their choice of architecture that it became a wider symbol of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, sure. But otherwise it serves much the same purpose of, say, Skylon Tower at Niagara Falls, which is another privately owned observation tower with a revolving restaurant, one that most people would say detracts from the landscape.

What I would take away from the Space Needle is that defining structures aren't made as such. You can't really sit around deciding to make a defining structure. It can only become that way based on time and feelings that you have no control over. Which isn't to say you can't make striking designs of the things you do put up, such as bridges and buildings. I'm not sure it would do to put up a less practical structure these days though.