PNC Tower Preserved Facades Sketch (Pittsburgh, York: house, theatre, pharmacy)

[gg]

Originally Posted by greg42

What would constitute proof? Keeping it out of a landfill is greener than not, can we agree on that at least? Who gets to determine whether preserving them is greener than any possible recycling, and will you believe that if that is so stated by USGBC or some other such source? The calculation would take into effect the entire process, energy used in recycling vs energy used in preservation, etc, etc. In going for the greenest skyscraper, I do not doubt they will look into all these details in making these determinations.

Yes, we can agree on that. Recycling is no doubt green, so long as it doesn't create a problem with energy costs in the long term. Then it becomes a problem. The facades are mostly "clean fill", which is something that needs to be considered. There is a difference.

Hope it turns out as grand as the announcement says. That would be great.

Nice post greg.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

Sure, anything can be done but will PNC want to spend 10's of millions of dollars to preserve a few facades?

And exactly where are you getting your cost estimates from?

All I know is that this sort of thing has been done a lot in the past, so it can't always be cost-prohibitive. But of course before any of us reached final conclusions, we would need to know a cost estimate.

Incidentally, I am not assuming at this point that PNC is decidedly hostile to the idea. My read is that PNC has so far left the design of the street-level retail section along Forbes a blank slate, and is potentially interested in public comments.

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

I don't want to repeat everything going on in multiple threads, but suffice it to say, as many people have pointed out, reuse is often considered green.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

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.

I actually have mixed feelings myself about some of the ones which more aggressively blend buildings.

In this case, as the sketch in the OP was supposed to help illustrate, you really don't need a lot of blending in this particular project. You would just be creating what would look like a row of narrow buildings along Forbes, and next to it would be the tower, pretty much as they already designed it. It needn't have a more unusual aesthetic than any case in which buildings of two different eras are next to each other.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stburr91

There's not just the cost of deconstructing and supporting the old buildings, but the time lost in having to work around the facades. Time is very expensive in construction, adding weeks, or months to a project can really add to the overall cost of the project.

I may be missing something, but I don't see why it would add months to the schedule to include the facades. I'm not sure it would even add any time at all. Again, I'm sure it will take some tricky, specialized work to build the new supports and deconstruct the rest, but obviously there are people who do that sort of thing. And once that is done, again, it should just be like having a building next door--a fact they will already be contending with to the east.

While I like the idea of saving the facades, I can understand why the bean counters may not.

I'd again note we don't actually know at this point if anyone has considered and decisively rejected this plan.

[hempfield mania]

[quote=BrianTH;19304990]And exactly where are you getting your cost estimates from?

All I know is that this sort of thing has been done a lot in the past, so it can't always be cost-prohibitive. But of course before any of us reached final conclusions, we would need to know a cost estimate.

[quote]

ummm...since I am a civil/structural engineer by education and currently a project engineer who deals with large scale transportation/infrastructure projects starting out in the 100's of millions and into the multi-billions of dollars, I think I have a little knowledge on the subject.

Time is $. More care (read more time) needs to be taken to build around the obstruction not to mention the extra time, materials and expertise (specialized) that would be required to properly shore the pit wall in this area in a manner that would minimize construction impacts to these older structures (mentioned previously). Instead of capping and removing utilities to these bldgs they would have to be preserved and relocated (unless it is just a facade). All these activities add additional overhead to the project due to the increased planning, scheduling and project management required.

As I said before, anything can be done these days if someone is willing to pay for it. 10's of millions may be a stretch on my part but the cost will definitely be in the millions to preserve these buildings and possibly even just the facades. In the end, the cost benefit is negligible (as long as the bldg. design and aesthetics are palatable to many).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

For the record, here are the buildings in question

Unless I am missing something, your pictures are just of the bottoms of the buildings.

Here are some pics:











Obviously they need to be cleaned, repaired, and renovated (particularly at the street level), but there are lots of nice details, and it is actually an interesting assortment of styles.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

right, but is there harm in asking? I doubt the modern facade will be much of an improvement at street level. mind you, brian is only asking for forbes, meaning the other sides will be modern

I might I actually quite like the building entrance they designed (facing Wood).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

10's of millions may be a stretch on my part but the cost will definitely be in the millions to preserve these buildings and possibly even just the facades.

An incremental cost in the singles of millions isn't necessarily going to be a problem for PNC, given that the overall project is going to cost them at least $418 million (and counting).

In the end, the cost benefit is negligible (as long as the bldg. design and aesthetics are palatable to many).

I'd again suggest this is an inherently contextual decision, meaning that how the street-level section along Forbes would work in relation to other contiguous properties, including across the street and down Forbes to Market Square, are worth considering.

[ditchdigger]

Reference the question of the masonry in the facades being "clean fill", if you need a visual aid, look again at size of the hole the Steel building was built in. All that material was clean fill too, and it went somewhere. The same thing will be true for the spoil from this excavation. Somewhere, there's a big hole that's going to get filled up by this project. The amount of material in those facades represents (literally) a drop in the (proverbial) bucket. It's not even worth talking about.

And to Brian, I'm not "objecting". I'm just saying somebody has to do the math.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

And to Brian, I'm not "objecting". I'm just saying somebody has to do the math.

I think we all agree on that.