Plans to tear down this beautiful church and put in crap with a parking lot! (Lawrenceville: apartment, how much)

[sealie]

Originally Posted by SolitaryThrush

I'm not a fan of one-story developments in the city, especially in that area, so I'd hope to see more density there on that growing strip. I'd also like to see a parking garage beneath the building, rather than a sea of asphalt surrounding the island of retail.

But you can't begrudge a developer for buying a property nobody else wants, and that the congregation and community can no longer support. Just a reminder that not every old building is "historic" and worth saving. Neighborhoods are doomed to stagnation if they're not able to move past the structures that were there generations ago.

What I find fascinating is how quickly Pittsburgh turned around in the past, oh, three years. We used to be somewhere where you'd have to take some sliced up 8-apartment house if you wanted the east end. Multiple people came here to CD wanting advice on modern apartments near Oakland, and were told to embrace the scruffiness and character and deal with it because it didn't make sense for developers to build new, not enough money to be made. Looks like it does now, now we're asking if we really need more yuppie condos and starbucks. If there was a transition period between the two extremes I missed it.

[erieguy]

The majority prefers new and convenient and has for a long time, now...Not old and something they have to work on, so that's what will get built. $$$ follows $$$ and Starbuck's is no exception.

[sskink]

Originally Posted by erieguy

The majority prefers new and convenient and has for a long time, now...Not old and something they have to work on, so that's what will get built. $$$ follows $$$ and Starbuck's is no exception.

But that has nothing to do with one story vs denser multi-story/multi-use development of the property. If nobody wants to renovate the church, then the church has no purpose. But certainly there's a better potential use of that land than what's being proposed - and one that's likely more profitable in the end.

[SteelCityRising]

Does anybody in the modern era even know HOW to build something as nice as one of these old late-1800's/early-1900's churches? If they do, then why does nearly every new construction project going up in this city look like boxy garbage that will be "dated" in 20 years? I don't want to hear that it's "too much money" to make things look nice, either, especially considering it seems like every other person in this city these days drives a BMW or Lexus.

[erieguy]

You answered your own question, really. New BMW's and Lexus' are modern looking. If the majority wanted things to look old they'd build them that way.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by sskink

But that has nothing to do with one story vs denser multi-story/multi-use development of the property. If nobody wants to renovate the church, then the church has no purpose. But certainly there's a better potential use of that land than what's being proposed - and one that's likely more profitable in the end.

Possibly, but what's likely to be best isn't always what gets done.

[selltheburgh]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Does anybody in the modern era even know HOW to build something as nice as one of these old late-1800's/early-1900's churches? If they do, then why does nearly every new construction project going up in this city look like boxy garbage that will be "dated" in 20 years? I don't want to hear that it's "too much money" to make things look nice, either, especially considering it seems like every other person in this city these days drives a BMW or Lexus.

Construction costs and innovations. Labor and materials to build a stone church are much much higher than it is to build a more energy efficient, yet less elegant modern box. Construction labor and materials were substantially less 100 years ago when adjusted for inflation.

Plus you have building codes, fire codes, ADA codes, mandatory parking requirements in the zoning code, etc for use change / conversions of existing buildings or building new construction.

Honestly, I wouldn't hate the design of that building (wouldn't love it either) if it replaced most of the other 1 story buildings or vacant lots along centre and Baum. I would totally get the reasoning for building it that way.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by SolitaryThrush

Neighborhoods are doomed to stagnation if they're not able to move past the structures that were there generations ago.

Oh, like the War Streets, or Lawrenceville, or the South Side Flats -- three of the hottest neighborhoods in the city, which retain their old structures?

Or how about Rittenhouse Square in Philly, or Mt. Vernon in Baltimore, Allentown in Buffalo, or downtown Sewickley, Franklin, Lancaster, Gettysburg, etc. Are those "doomed to stagnation" as well?

[PreservationPioneer]

It is not efficient to tear down a stone building of that scale to be replaced by a modern building. In fact, it is incredibly wasteful. Think of the energy and materials that will be wasted to tear down and re-build. Instead, we should be looking at adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Just about any substantial building can be adapted to become efficient and practical for modern use, without the added waste of demolition.

I can't see how it would be cost-efficient to tear down a huge stone church, either. What would demolition of the building cost? Wouldn't it be better to find a surface lot somewhere in the area to build on?

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Does anybody in the modern era even know HOW to build something as nice as one of these old late-1800's/early-1900's churches

The short answer for you is "no", they don't.


Immaculate Heart, adjacent to your domicile, was built by the men of the parish-who apparently had construction skills to do it on their time off at the mill. I don't think that the men now in the parish could successfully construct a garage or an out house even if it came shipped in a box with the assembly instructions.


We're in a different age now.