Next Skyscraper? (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Wilson: real estate market, insurance, condo)

[BrianTH]

A little tangential, but here is a WSJ article on Downtown Pittsburgh's trend of office-to-residential conversions, with a focus on the State Office Building:

More Living in Steel City - WSJ.com

[Clint.]

Glad to see so many market rent (or at least affordable for the average to above average earning worker in the area) apartments opening Downtown. I hope they quickly have a high occupancy rate. If residential space continues to increase in existing buildings, and a high occupancy rate is maintained, then that could increase the likelihood of new office space being developed in the future, resulting in the "next skyscaper" in an organic way and from a surprising convergence of needs.

Having so many people living Downtown will mean only good things for the City and region.

[algia]

I don't care what business it will have inside, what I would like see (and not just here) is more architectural diversity. Even if it is a skyscraper, it really doesn't need to have the same outside structure as the rest of them. I would welcome more originality.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by algia

I don't care what business it will have inside, what I would like see (and not just here) is more architectural diversity. Even if it is a skyscraper, it really doesn't need to have the same outside structure as the rest of them. I would welcome more originality.

It costs money to make a fancy facade on a large office tower. Most architects and developers want to find a balance balance between appealing aesthetics of the structure, functionality and cost. But in this day and age, unlike the 1980's when some pretty fancy buildings were built in most cities, being cost conscious comes first.

[algia]

and it sucks! There is no appeal anymore.

Don't they make they're money back by renting them out? (I think it is more of a "get rich quick" scenario than anything else.)

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

It costs money to make a fancy facade on a large office tower. Most architects and developers want to find a balance balance between appealing aesthetics of the structure, functionality and cost. But in this day and age, unlike the 1980's when some pretty fancy buildings were built in most cities, being cost conscious comes first.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by algia

and it sucks! There is no appeal anymore.

Don't they make they're money back by renting them out? (I think it is more of a "get rich quick" scenario than anything else.)

It's just a trend. If you look back in history you'll note that there are periods where more ornate buildings were built and then during other periods less stylish buildings. Boxy glass and steel construction started to become popular by the 1960's and many people argue that most glass boxes have little or no viewer appeal.

I think Inflation is the culprit here. The cost of living and of course building a new structure is rising fast and the only way to come in near budget is to cut out the frills.

[wpipkins]

Originally Posted by algia

I don't care what business it will have inside, what I would like see (and not just here) is more architectural diversity. Even if it is a skyscraper, it really doesn't need to have the same outside structure as the rest of them. I would welcome more originality.

I would argue that pittsburgh has more architectual diversity than most cities. Every era of skyscraper is represented. Although the eqt tower was completed in 88, it represents the 90s style of skyscraper.

[algia]

I think there are other things they should cut from rather than the facade. That is what attracts ppl.

I agree that every style is represented; PGH has an awesome downtown...which is why I can only hope they go down that path, and build more divers looking buildings. They can still be made of glass and steel, as those are (thankfully) two VERY customizable materials, but they definitely don't need to be black, gray and square!

The court house though...is gorgeous! I am not saying build them all like that, but they should definitely not restrict architectural types.

I can't even imagine being an architect, and have my creativity shuttered like this. It would drive me bunkers!

My question is this: how come in Dubai (which I think the entire country is smaller than Pittsburgh) they build with so much diversity, and we can't? is it because we spend all our money on their oil, and we're strapped for cash? and they spend our cash to build those cool buildings? Hmmm...once again, a matter of priorities.

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

It's just a trend. If you look back in history you'll note that there are periods where more ornate buildings were built and then during other periods less stylish buildings. Boxy glass and steel construction started to become popular by the 1960's and many people argue that most glass boxes have little or no viewer appeal.

I think Inflation is the culprit here. The cost of living and of course building a new structure is rising fast and the only way to come in near budget is to cut out the frills.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by algia

I think there are other things they should cut from rather than the facade. That is what attracts ppl.

I agree that every style is represented; PGH has an awesome downtown...which is why I can only hope they go down that path, and build more divers looking buildings. They can still be made of glass and steel, as those are (thankfully) two VERY customizable materials, but they definitely don't need to be black, gray and square!

The court house though...is gorgeous! I am not saying build them all like that, but they should definitely not restrict architectural types.

I can't even imagine being an architect, and have my creativity shuttered like this. It would drive me bunkers!

My question is this: how come in Dubai (which I think the entire country is smaller than Pittsburgh) they build with so much diversity, and we can't? is it because we spend all our money on their oil, and we're strapped for cash? and they spend our cash to build those cool buildings? Hmmm...once again, a matter of priorities.

Dubai is a oil rich country.

Architectural firms are at the mercy of the client. The client pays them money to come up with a design that will meet their needs. If the client is willing to pay more for a fancier design, or a signature building, then the architects will have more leeway to get creative with the design.

Ultimately this is a business and the bottom line is what matters. Most companies just want a building that suits their functional needs while appearance is secondary. The only exception to this is usually when you get someone like Donald Trump or a similar corporate entity with the same mindset with a large ego that is willing to spend a lot of extra money to make statement.

[algia]

That's pretty sad though...considering that "appearance" should come first to "attract" the clients. IMO
I don't think it has to do with ego, more so than differentiate yourself for the next guy.
Uniformity is prevalent in communist countries...I mean look at South America, they spare no expense on diversity starting with color, and ending with different shapes. & They're not all that rich by comparison with Dubai...or the US.

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Most companies just want a building that suits their functional needs while appearance is secondary. The only exception to this is usually when you get someone like Donald Trump or a similar corporate entity with the same mindset with a large ego that is willing to spend a lot of extra money to make statement.