Huge new project proposed for Oakland... (Georgetown: promotional, landscaping, college)

[BMan_152]

Originally Posted by zalewskimm

This is DOA hopefully. Anything including the word "demolishing" should be snuffed out. Peduto's favorite word though. Horrible.

I just want to make sure I understand correctly. In your opinion, no buildings whatsoever should be demolished to make way for new development, correct?

If that is in-fact what you're trying to say, I must argue that such a policy would be extremely short sighted & would be detrimental to the development of a dense urban core. Please find 1 example of a currently iconic or historic building that didn't require demolition of existing structures. (There are likely a few, but I would bet that the amount could be counted on 1 hand)

Based on your stated opinion, I assume you be against demolishing an abandoned kmart in order to make way for a new mid-rise housing complex? How about an outdated (unusable) & abandoned steel mill in order to build a large mixed-use development along the river? Hell, what about even a few dilapidated houses to make way for a new mass transit station that will surely spur investment into the thousands of nearby dilapidated houses?

If a short sighted blanket policy like this existed, it would effectively prohibit any sort of new development (other than some minor infill) in most of the city! Hell, it would even make upgrading our road & mass transit systems next to impossible.. The only outcome that a policy like that could possibly achieve is speeding up the urban sprawl in the neighboring counties.

[gg]

I would love to see this go through. It would be great for the city and that area. I am sure it will be met with protest and people all running around thinking they are saving some old buildings that will never be nice due to them being college slum rentals (cash cows) that are always going to be dumps.

Hope in 10-15 years they break ground.

[Copanut]

I'm for anything that gets rid of this eyesore. The very first thing you see when coming to Oakland via the Parkway East exit.







It's been like that for almost 40 years.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I'm for anything that gets rid of this eyesore. The very first thing you see when coming to Oakland via the Parkway East exit.
It's been like that for almost 40 years.

Geez, what a crap hole. Maybe in 10 or so years those bastardized buildings will be gone and something new and updated will be in their place. I don't think any of this will really happen, but it is fun to think it will. The people that downed the Whole Foods relocation will no doubt be all over this change.

[PITairport]

Adding those missing ramps to the Parkway East would greatly benefit the ALMONO project and Hazelwood in general.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I'm for anything that gets rid of this eyesore. The very first thing you see when coming to Oakland via the Parkway East exit.

...

It's been like that for almost 40 years.

I always wonder when and how things got to be so bad in parts of Oakland they were outright demolishing houses. I mean I know it wasn't always a student slum, but I thought it was a pretty socially sable Italian neighborhood before that time.

[aw_now_what]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I always wonder when and how things got to be so bad in parts of Oakland they were outright demolishing houses. I mean I know it wasn't always a student slum, but I thought it was a pretty socially sable Italian neighborhood before that time.

That row was intact until the gaps in it were created when three of the houses burned on the same night at some point in the 90s. They were reportedly all owned by the same person when the fires happened.

[SolitaryThrush]

Originally Posted by zalewskimm

This is DOA hopefully. Anything including the word "demolishing" should be snuffed out. Peduto's favorite word though. Horrible.

Some people around here are really tied to the past and dislike any type of change. Almost every new development we've seen in the past few years has come with cries about "preserving" what was once there, even if it hasn't been viable or worthwhile in generations. The new apartments on Craig St. brought down old houses that some claimed were "historic" because they were old. I even remember reading here that people considered Poli in Squirrel Hill "historic" and that the building should be preserved rather than being demolished. And any development in East Liberty brings cries of "gentrification" to a neighborhood that was on the decline for three generations.

Not every old building in Pittsburgh is historic or worth saving. These old houses are just that: old houses. And, as you would see if you spent time in the area, they have long been poorly-maintained rental properties that are crumbling and, in many cases, empty. That whole stretch from the hotel to Schenley Park is hideous, and any effort to bring it back to life should be encouraged.

It is very important to have new housing in the neighborhood, and it is important to have density in the area. For all the effort Pitt makes in promoting itself and its urban campus, the area surrounding it is old, crappy, and ugly. If locals were so keen on preserving the area, they would have maintained their properties instead of cutting them up and neglecting them for decades. They didn't make any effort to maintain the neighborhood, though, and were content to let it deteriorate into what it is now.
Unfortunately, I think short-sighted NIMBYs will hold this up for a long time.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by zalewskimm

This is DOA hopefully. Anything including the word "demolishing" should be snuffed out. Peduto's favorite word though. Horrible.

Are you the South Side Slope commenter on the Post Gazette's comments section?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SolitaryThrush

Some people around here are really tied to the past and dislike any type of change. Almost every new development we've seen in the past few years has come with cries about "preserving" what was once there, even if it hasn't been viable or worthwhile in generations. The new apartments on Craig St. brought down old houses that some claimed were "historic" because they were old. I even remember reading here that people considered Poli in Squirrel Hill "historic" and that the building should be preserved rather than being demolished. And any development in East Liberty brings cries of "gentrification" to a neighborhood that was on the decline for three generations.

Not every old building in Pittsburgh is historic or worth saving. These old houses are just that: old houses. And, as you would see if you spent time in the area, they have long been poorly-maintained rental properties that are crumbling and, in many cases, empty. That whole stretch from the hotel to Schenley Park is hideous, and any effort to bring it back to life should be encouraged.

It is very important to have new housing in the neighborhood, and it is important to have density in the area. For all the effort Pitt makes in promoting itself and its urban campus, the area surrounding it is old, crappy, and ugly. If locals were so keen on preserving the area, they would have maintained their properties instead of cutting them up and neglecting them for decades. They didn't make any effort to maintain the neighborhood, though, and were content to let it deteriorate into what it is now.
Unfortunately, I think short-sighted NIMBYs will hold this up for a long time.

Both these attitudes are extremes in either direction - a happy medium can be found.

"Old houses" as you call them, are a finite resource. We will never make houses which look like them again (except if eccentric rich people are really, really historic minded). If we lived in a perfect world, where modern zoning and design allowed for the sort of "fine-grained urbanity" and attention to ornament that the 19th century provided, this wouldn't matter. But they tend to invariably be replaced with bland modernist structures, often stretching across an entire block and providing quite a boring experience from the sidewalk.

That said, there is the utilitarian aspect to consider as well. If a "higher and better use" replaces a historic structure, I think it's permissible to destroy a historic structure. For example, it's not okay to demolish a historic Victorian house which is in salvageable condition for a modern single-family home, but it's okay to do so in order to build an apartment building. This is because more people benefit from the apartment building. Indeed, one could argue that the apartment building, if sufficiently big, might help preserve other structures nearby, insofar as it lessens housing demand elsewhere.

Of course, to some extent "higher and better use" is subjective. The Civic Arena was thought to be a higher and better use for the Lower Hill than the 8,000 residents and hundreds of businesses which were there. That was of course a mistake. But once again, comparing the raft of improvements to the few dozen structures involved in this deal (most of which are vacant or inhabited by student renters) it's a very different calculation than the Civic Arena.