PNC Tower Preserved Facades Sketch (calculated, disposal, costs)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Yeah, but the supports have to land somewhere, and if there's a great gaping big hole back there...

Again, no engineer, but I have seen many structures with vertical supports--as in, almost all of them. Then you dig the hole next to those supports, not under them, just like they were an adjacent building. Which in fact they would be once you added the supports.

I honestly don't know if you are serious, because this seems like a baseless objection.

I'm saying that a vertical, old, masonry structure is going to take a lot less abuse, in the form of construction vibration, wind loads, and heaven knows what else, and need a lot more help, than a flat concrete street.

Obviously it is possible to build a supporting structure for a facade that is just as sturdy as the former building, because people do it all the time. Once you have done that, the dig shouldn't affect that any more than any other building.

So again I am wondering at this point if you are just pulling our legs. Obviously no one is proposing facades with the structural integrity of a Jenga stack. Both during the dig and after, they would have to be securely supported.

Like they say, we sent a man to the Moon, anything is possible. I'm saying it's as much as question of at what cost it can be done, as it is whether or not it is "possible".

We preserve facades a lot more often than we go to the Moon.

But obviously someone would have to figure out the cost of deconstructing the back ends of the buildings and creating the supporting structures for the facades. Fortunately, there should be no shortage of people with experience in such projects available to give you a cost estimate.

[gg]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Here is the 9th greenest skyscraper in the world, according to Consumerenergyreport.com (check out the facades at the base):



Ten of the Greenest Skycrapers in the World

I think this is a great example of pure ugly. If it was modern from top to bottom it would look so much better. This is a subjective opinion, but I find saving old facades will really look out of place on what is supposed to be a modern marvel. Like I said, it is just my opinion and I hop they do it right instead of a transitional piece with some old buildings on the bottom and a modern top. Yuck.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Maybe I am in the minority here, but regarding the facades in question, besides the building directly on the corner of Wood & Forbes, the others at street view are fugly.

Obviously it is in part a matter of taste. But I would note that the way the facades look now doesn't really demonstrate their full aesthetic potential. I would again point to Market Square Place and the Penn Avenue Fish Company building across the street.

In fact you can still see the old Penn Avenue building on Google streetview (the VIP styles building):

pittsburgh - Google Maps

Here is an "after" picture:



Again, some people still may prefer something new, but we should at least judge the alternatives fairly.

And I am a huge proponent of saving historical things when they are in danger, I just don't see anything here (apart from the single building I mentioned) worth caring about.

The other point I would make is that we should view this in context, not building by building. There are historic facades all the way from Market Square to the Warner Centre along Forbes. The other side of Forbes is not as consistent, but there are still some notable historic facades on that side, with plans to preserve them. So basically we have an opportunity to turn this stretch of Forbes into an extension of Market Square, which with Market Square Place and the Penn Avenue Fish Company is already happening.

Again, some people may not like Market Square, and for them this approach may not have much appeal. But obviously a lot of people do like the feel of Market Square, and in that context it is not about the merits of each building in isolation, but how they contribute to that overall street-level feel.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by neurodistortion

Most buildings nowadays are lucky to live past 200 years old, anything longer is probably pushing it unless they've undergone extensive preservation.

On the other hand, having cleaned up the air means we have de facto extended the lifetime of masonry facades. And these particular structures are not 200 years old anyway.

So while I have no idea how long these facades will last, I am pretty sure they could last for the rest of our lifetimes. At which point it will be up to the next group of people to decide what to do with them.

[gg]

Since there are two threads that are about the same, I figured I would post my final response on both. I fell for the headlines and probably shouldn't have:

I suspect you are indeed correct and the press release was just for publicity purposes. I wish they wouldn't do that to get people like me all excited about "the world's greenest". After your post I feel I am back on the ground. Being someone that grew up here and knowing there are plenty of people that STILL view Pittsburgh as some smoke filled hole, I get all excited about anything that will move Pittsburgh in a direction to make that view further and further away from the present.

My appologies to all, that my passion for Pittsburgh to have the "greenest building in the world" built here. I didn't do the reporting, but fell for it. That being said, I guess I don't care what they do with the facades. I think it will look dumb with an old bottom and a modern top, but lets face it, we are not Dubai. My excitement got the best of me. At least people DO know I am pretty passionate about the town I grew up in. I am always looking for headliners. One of the reasons I really wanted the Civic Arena to be saved and the Penguins to have a home game or so with the roof open. That would be a show stopping headline that no one else can do. It is special, but people don't seem to share my view on that either. Same goes with the Monroeville Mall. If it still had the ice rink, I would probably go there more. It was special, but that too is something no one else wants. I seem to be alone on 99% of my views on most all subjects. Always looking for a great headline for Pittsburgh. Guess I should just get with the masses.

My apologies to all.

[hempfield mania]

Brian, you are correct, you are not an engineer.

You sure do enjoy spending other people's money though. Sure, anything can be done but will PNC want to spend 10's of millions of dollars to preserve a few facades? Maybe they have money to burn like the sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Dubai but, I highly doubt it.

At some point, some sense of practicality must come into play.

Go modern. Going green is modern and the architecture should represent that, IMO.

[gg]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

Go modern. Going green is modern and the architecture should represent that, IMO.

OMgoodness! Someone agreed with me on a topic.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

OMgoodness! Someone agreed with me on a topic.

I'd have to see what it looked liked first. I can imagine it looking very nice, but it could also turn out to be exceedingly fugly. As long as the materials are reused like the release says, I suppose I'm okay with it either way.

As far as knowing how much energy it would take to leave part of the building there vs. the amount for hauling it away and disposing of it--I can't really say. I'm sure that the people most intimately involved with the project couldn't tell you for sure at this point.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

F... the facades, make it modern...

Out with the old, in with the new.

In many ways it could be argued that the most modern, cutting edge approach to this buildings design would incorporate the facades. Unless of course you meant "modern", which is a particular form of architecture that was largely rejected decades ago and would thus not really represent a step forward.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by Lobick

In many ways it could be argued that the most modern, cutting edge approach to this buildings design would incorporate the facades. Unless of course you meant "modern", which is a particular form of architecture that was largely rejected decades ago and would thus not really represent a step forward.

In theory I like the idea of merging the new and the old. I was starting todoubt myself, though, looking at that Hearst Tower. In my eyes that building looks really stupid (I'm obviously in the minority considering the awards it's won). But then I saw this image of a building they are making in Vancouver:


Again, just for the moment I'm not talking about "green-ness" or how feasible doing something like that is, just the "looks" here. The tower looks awesome and modern, while the street level maintains is personality. And it doesn't look "forced" like others I've seen.