Pittsburgh's Hilly Terrain - Future Problem? (Washington, Oxford: top neighborhoods, house, neighborhoods)

[gottaq]

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

Considering there's still a ton of available relatively flat land in and around the Golden Triangle, Strip District, Station Square, and North Shore for future high-density redevelopment I don't ever foresee this becoming an issue. Although office space Downtown is extremely tight PNC is building a rather unimpressively short new HQ tower, and the new tower being built by Oxford is also going to be on the short side. This is a conservative city. This isn't Miami or Seattle where you'll see construction crane after construction crane going up simultaneously to expand the skyline, for better or for worse.

I actually like the idea of having a super-tall "Point" surrounded by dense mid-rise development in the Lower Hill District, North Shore, and South Shore, tapering off to lower-height buildings in surrounding areas. The hills provide excellent vistas for viewing this well-balanced skyline.

[steindle]

Pittsburgh is improving at a nice clip, but I'm not sure "how to build skyscrapers in Fineview" is ever going to be a crisis topic.

[Evergrey]

Pittsburgh's aggressively turbulent terrain presents many land development challenges... but skyscrapers is the least of the city's concerns as tall buildings will only be built in the Greater Downtown area and Oakland (midrises from 10 to possibly 25 stories). I guess Mt. Washington has been eyed for more tall buildings as well... but the topographical and infrastructure issues up there are probably playing a role in preventing development (such as the 21-story tower proposal next to the Mon Incline).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

If you're talking about just finding land for skyscrapers, there's plenty of flat land available. Remember that Downtown isn't all skyscrapers right now as it is. And there's always the lower part of the Strip District, Uptown, the North and South Shores, etc. There's even plans to allow for the building for at least two new skyscrapers near the bottom of the Civic Arena site. I don't think Pittsburgh has anything to worry about regarding the CBD running out of room any time soon.

Outside of Downtown, you could always see new highrises built in Oakland, in the Baum/Centre corridor, or East Liberty. Hell, there's tons of relatively flat land throughout the East End (and the lower North Side) but I think zoning will generally preclude building out new highises there (unless fluke things like the Highland Park tower get built again).

More broadly, the hilly terrain will cause issues in the future in terms of future neighborhood redevelopment. Views aside, hilltop urban neighborhoods simply aren't as desirable in the modern era. They aren't as walkable and urban, seldom have great transit access, and lack full-service business districts. Not to mention they tend to have relatively low connectivity to a wider urban fabric. You can see this in that most flat areas of the city are in some stage of gentrification, whereas most neighborhoods still in decline are "hilltop" neighborhoods with topographical issues. Provided the recovery of the core within the Pittsburgh MSA continues to be strong I think the topographical issues can be overcome to some degree, but hilltop areas will always lag in desirability compared to areas on "the flats."

[Evergrey]

Agreed with eschaton. I've been thinking a lot about Pittsburgh's topography lately... and basically topography is everything here. If you compare terrain maps of Pittsburgh to other US major cities... no other city comes close to what we have. Cincy has some of it to a less extreme degree... but flattens out quickly in the northern suburbs. SF is known for its hills... but it's a more gentle sloping topography (with a couple of mountains that spike in the center... and south of the city is of course largely un-developable) than the labyrinth of ravines here in PGH.

Many have often lamented about the lack of a decent business district in Mt. Washington... those million dollar views! The millions of tourists! If Mt. Washington flattened out to a broad gentle hilltop with lots of easy-to-develop land... perhaps. But after reaching a narrow crest at Grandview... you start sliding back downhill again. And the housing also declines from that thin upscale crust to drab working class housing as the view is immediately lost.

While the hills add loads of charm and uniqueness to Pittsburgh... it is the flat, dense, connected neighborhoods that will continue to be the hot spots. The Strip District's melange of undesirable uses will be replaced with residential. Lawrenceville will reclaim its waterfront from idled factories. Etc.

I do think 'hillside' areas that are well integrated with vibrant flat neighborhoods will also experience a favorable trajectory. Places where the views afforded by elevation can be coupled with access to amenities. South Side Slopes, for example... Polish Hill.

[theta_sigma]

I think we need to bring back more funiculars. (It would allow me so much more opportunity to make "putting the FUN in funicular!" jokes.)

There are so many hilltop neighborhoods (like mine) that are so close, as the crow flies, to more happening hot spots, but so hard to get to. I think the person who bought the house next to ours as a flip just looked at a map and thought "Lawrenceville! Sweet! I'm going to make $300k!" and bought it at auction, not knowing that You Can't Get There From Here.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

I don't see a problem. There are plenty of places to build skyscrapers. They can go all the way into the Strip and up to Lawrenceville, all of North Side, all the way up the Hill and the Bluff/Uptown. The golden triangle is not flat. Grant Street is uphill from Liberty Avenue. There are still plenty of places in the existing downtown to put skyscrapers too.

[gg]

The topography is great if you enjoy views and exercise. It is one of Pittsburgh's best features. Our city will never grow enough to worry about expanding into the hillsides. Tons of flat land all around the rivers to be developed. I don't think we will see massive growth in our area. Just a steady slow increase. It isn't like there is some baby boom going on.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

View photos of Hong Kong.

Skyscrapers on mountains are a very beautiful thing.