Hilton (or not) (Pittsburgh, Liberty, Dallas: crime rates, how much, good hotel)

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So you're taking about just the pedestal that is tucked in under the windows? I guess this is a matter of interpretation, but I don't think you are supposed to see that as conveying "back of building".

I thought maybe we were talking about different things. it's the ass end of the building, and that's basically how it's treated.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It is on the Penn-Liberty/Cultural District street grid, which is running parallel to the Allegheny, and they put the wide side facing the park because that is the view they thought people would want. Of course you can only get away with that if it is the last building on the grid, but that was exactly what it is (and remains).

it all comes to a point, which is what I think the building should mimic. that's personal tastes, whereas the base of the building is common sense.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The thing is, everybody in every era as they have been tearing down or effectively destroying through modification a bunch of middle-aged buildings has said effectively the same sort of thing (their immediate predecessors made a bunch of mistakes, the things we do now are more timeless, and so forth). And again, people are in fact using these buildings, and we have other places to build. So I just don't see the rush--let's give it at least another 50 years or so.

sort of. in the days when what came after was often better than what came before, no one really complained. and before the 50's, they all had similar design principals in urban areas with different styles. there's on particular era that stands out as antiurban and this is from that era.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

I thought maybe we were talking about different things. it's the ass end of the building, and that's basically how it's treated.

Certainly the base is intended to be low-profile, but I think it is supposed to come across like a Le Corbusier house:

it all comes to a point, which is what I think the building should mimic.

I actually like the fact that the two sides of Commonwealth, and particularly the Hilton and State Office Building, essentially form an inverted/mirror-image of the Point. The old approach was basically just to let everything run together:



Edit: Here is another older shot of the Point in 1969, right before the older bridges came down. Again, to me the geographic logic of the now-completed Modernist arc between Commonwealth and Stanwix is quite obvious:

sort of. in the days when what came after was often better than what came before, no one really complained.

When have people not thought that? As people were tearing down Victorian-Era and Beaux-Arts buildings to build these Modernist/International buildings, they thought they were doing better.

there's on particular era that stands out as antiurban and this is from that era.

Ideals of the City/urbanity change. And Le Corbusier et al had their own theories about why the buildings of their immediate predecessors didn't work in cities and should be destroyed to make way for their new and improved vision.

Don't get me wrong--I'm a person of my time and if we were building something new I would argue that we have better ideas these days than Le Corbusier et al had, and we should use our ideas and not theirs.

But again, I don't see the need to rush to destroy what they built, in part as a hedge against the possibility that in the future, people will value their works, if nothing else for their historic significance (and, likely, by that time their relative rarity).

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Certainly the base is intended to be low-profile, but I think it is supposed to come across like a Le Corbusier house:

not that it makes it any better.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Ideals of the City/urbanity change. And Le Corbusier et al had their own theories about why the buildings of their immediate predecessors didn't work in cities and should be destroyed to make way for their new and improved vision.

eh, I think perhaps you're getting too caught up in the academic side, something certainly afflicting the architecture of this period. the ideals of urbanity really didn't change much, just technology. while the theories of le corbusier may have been intellectually stimulating, it often produced anti-urban schlock, as is evidenced in this building.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Don't get me wrong--I'm a person of my time and if we were building something new I would argue that we have better ideas these days than Le Corbusier et al had, and we should use our ideas and not theirs.

I'd have to disagree. you are using preservation as a prison. buildings are living things and there's nothing wrong with altering buildings so that they are improved uopn. If you think having a pedestrian friendly base and making better use of the plaza isbad, that's a different story, but to simply not improve the structure because corbusier would have disapproved is enslavement to the past.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But again, I don't see the need to rush to destroy what they built, in part as a hedge against the possibility that in the future, people will value their works, if nothing else for their historic significance (and, likely, by that time their relative rarity).

eh. that's not a good enough reason not to alter their works at all. should we not convert an office building to a hotel because it wasn't the original intent? should be not cut a storefront into an older building because the street was once residential? I don't see how putting a restaurant on the plaza side and having the base engage the plaza and street in a more productive and human manner is going to ultimately undermine the whole group of buildings. if anything, the old hilton is the worst offender among the group.

[BrianTH]

By the way, the only building left in that Modernist Arc that actually predates Renaissance I is the Post-Gazette Building. Which, somewhat ironically given our discussion here, was given a new facade to try to help it blend into its new setting. I believe this is a picture of what it used to look like:



And today:

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

not that it makes it any better.

Maybe not to look at, but I think it is important to understand the look was intentional, not the result of neglect.

eh, I think perhaps you're getting too caught up in the academic side, something certainly afflicting the architecture of this period. the ideals of urbanity really didn't change much, just technology. while the theories of le corbusier may have been intellectually stimulating, it often produced anti-urban schlock, as is evidenced in this building.

It is less about specific academic theories of architecture than a common sense conservatism based on a knowledge of history. This really does happen over and over again: as time passes the perceived value of buildings goes down and down, but then after around 100 years, give or take, the perceived value starts going up again.

Maybe this time is different and in 50 years people will still disregard all these buildings as much as they do today. But why assume we somehow have better perspective than all the people who came before us? Particularly when these buildings are in use and we have other places to build.

I'd have to disagree.

I don't think you disagreed with the point I was making in what you quoted.

you are using preservation as a prison. buildings are living things and there's nothing wrong with altering buildings so that they are improved uopn.

That depends. Small alterations are often necessary and can be done without doing any substantial harm to the design. On the other hand, sometimes people pretty much ruin buildings with "modernizing" alterations. I mean back in the day, if you didn't tear down a Victorian Era, Beaux-Arts, or Art Deco building, you might instead knock off all the ornamentation and slap up some nice flat metal panels instead. Are you really saying there was nothing wrong, or at least thoughtless and hasty, about such decisions?

If you think having a pedestrian friendly base and making better use of the plaza isbad, that's a different story, but to simply not improve the structure because corbusier would have disapproved is enslavement to the past.

Good thing I didn't take such an extreme view, then. I already said I would be fine with some alterations at the street level. Heck, I even said I would be willing to consider adding another tower.

eh. that's not a good enough reason not to alter their works at all. should we not convert an office building to a hotel because it wasn't the original intent? should be not cut a storefront into an older building because the street was once residential? I don't see how putting a restaurant on the plaza side and having the base engage the plaza and street in a more productive and human manner is going to ultimately undermine the whole group of buildings.

Again, it is a good thing I didn't make any such arguments. I fully agree you could tweak the Hilton in various productive ways without ruining the overall design. But that does take some restraint.

if anything, the old hilton is the worst offender among the group.

I'm not really seeing that. I certainly particularly like Gateway One, Two, and Three . . . the story of the design of those buildings is interesting and in some ways they got lucky, but the overall effect is definitely pretty cool. I also particularly like the Steelworkers building, or as I think of it, the Cheese-Grater. Like a few other select buildings in Pittsburgh, it served as an advertisement for the tenant.

Otherwise--Gateway Towers, the Hilton, Gateway Four, the State Office Building, the Verizon Building, and the Westinghouse Building, all sort of strike me as roughly equivalent. As noted above, the Post-Gazette building is actually a "modernized" conversion, so I don't really count it (although honestly I think the effect is kinda goofy and once you know it was "modernized" it makes sense).

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Maybe not to look at, but I think it is important to understand the look was intentional, not the result of neglect.

intentional neglect perhaps. they certainly neglected the human aspects of architecture.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It is less about specific academic theories of architecture than a common sense conservatism based on a knowledge of history. This really does happen over and over again: as time passes the perceived value of buildings goes down and down, but then after around 100 years, give or take, the perceived value starts going up again.

sort of. the basic function of a building is perhaps the most important. some things are worth saving, others are not. the pedestal of this building is not. lucklily this building can be altered at the base without substantially changing it. if that were not the case, then a legimate argument could be made to demolish it. In Philadelphia preservationists, using the very same argument you are, are trying to save the hilman medical center. this is a squat modern bunker at war with its surroundings. It is not posisble to alter this building to make it more urban without substantially destroying the facade so you may as well knock the POS down. it deadens an otherise lively stretch. perhaps more importantly, what will replace it will indeed be an improvement for the city (a highrise mixed use building) where as often buildings were replaced with parking lots or grand structure were replaced with smaller, uninteresting ones. in the boom days of yore (pre depression, often cities like pittsburgh, philly, baltimore, etc tore down and did indeed build more modern, more grand structures). often, in hindsight, what replaces a building is as important as what was there. the hilton, as mentioned, is much more functional, so simple modification so that it adds vitality to the area seems most sensible (even if I think it's ugly).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That depends. Small alterations are often necessary and can be done without doing any substantial harm to the design. On the other hand, sometimes people pretty much ruin buildings with "modernizing" alterations. I mean back in the day, if you didn't tear down a Victorian Era, Beaux-Arts, or Art Deco building, you might instead knock off all the ornamentation and slap up some nice flat metal panels instead. Are you really saying there was nothing wrong, or at least thoughtless and hasty, about such decisions?

actually, a lot of alterations were done simply by covering over the old facades. of course, with modern structures, we can replicate them pretty easily, we can't afford to replicate the victorian era ornateness, those were substantially different days.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not really seeing that. I certainly particularly like Gateway One, Two, and Three . . . the story of the design of those buildings is interesting and in some ways they got lucky, but the overall effect is definitely pretty cool. I also particularly like the Steelworkers building, or as I think of it, the Cheese-Grater. Like a few other select buildings in Pittsburgh, it served as an advertisement for the tenant.

not a big fan of the steel workers building either but don't particularly hate it either. if you walk around the plaza ou'll see what I mean. sure the businesses are uninteresting, but they recognize the plaza. it's an underutilized space, something I've seen you mention before.

q: does the PG building still have the original facade underneath?

[greg42]

Originally Posted by pman

ground level is a wall.

I walk by this building every damn day, through the plaza in fact. The ground level is NOT a wall on the plaza side. Parts of it are solid there, and parts are windows. The corner that is the MOST into the plaza is in fact entirely windows at the ground level, and that corner houses a restaurant. Every morning when I walk by there are hotel guests eating breakfast in there.

There's actually much more solid wall on the street sides at ground level than on the plaza side. That solid wall you see in the pic is only the center of the back wall. It's maybe 1/4 of the width of the thing at most, with windows glass on both ends and around the corners.

[pman]

Originally Posted by greg42

I walk by this building every damn day, through the plaza in fact. The ground level is NOT a wall on the plaza side. Parts of it are solid there, and parts are windows. The corner that is the MOST into the plaza is in fact entirely windows at the ground level, and that corner houses a restaurant. Every morning when I walk by there are hotel guests eating breakfast in there.

I don't know what to say, it's fairly obvious it is. you can see it clearly in the photos posted. in where? in the plaza? I tend to think you're considering the elevated windows and the are in there. the building presents a wall at ground level with windows above it and does not engage the plaza at all. perhaps we have different standards.

[BrianTH]

I think you could make the building a lot more functional without eliminating the pedestal effect, which is a very important element of the design.

The people in the past who tore down buildings we now wished we still had also frequently argued they were replacing less-functional, less-interesting buildings with something better, including the Modernists. And as for conversions, what could be more function-preserving than simply knocking the ornamentation off buildings? And yet that is exactly the sort of practice we now criticize.

Seriously, this is a wheel which just keeps turning, and this is right at the predicted time for us to be having these discussions about buildings from this era.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think you could make the building a lot more functional without eliminating the pedestal effect, which is a very important element of the design.

perhaps not as important as you think from a practical standpoint but yes, you could basically open the pedestal up in this case (and perhaps add a second tower as also noted)

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The people in the past who tore down buildings we now wished we still had also frequently argued they were replacing less-functional, less-interesting buildings with something better, including the Modernists. And as for conversions, what could be more function-preserving than simply knocking the ornamentation off buildings? And yet that is exactly the sort of practice we now criticize.

not sure I follow that logic. yes, buildings have always been knocked down and replaced (sometimes with better buildings and most often in the post war era, not). there would seem to be no function in knocking off ornaments.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Seriously, this is a wheel which just keeps turning, and this is right at the predicted time for us to be having these discussions about buildings from this era.

and in this case, they really aren't that interesting. especially the hilton. it's much less iconic than the igloo yet that too wil make way for a better development. while it's noble of you to argue for city destroying architecture, the ideas they had didn't work. today isn't full of wonderful architecture but the back to basics ideas in urban planning are refreshing. it's not today's fad, it's time tested.