 |
| Getty Images |
The Strip District is one recent example:
Pittsburgh City Council on Monday delayed a vote for a second consecutive week on whether to grant historic status for the Strip District's landmark Produce Terminal. (Trib, Bob Bauder)
Ideas for the building are just starting to circulate, a new Council rep and Mayor are just coming aboard.
Mr. Ferlo argued against proposed alternatives, saying "we can't afford to let more of the building fall apart while we wait for a faction of the preservation community's ideal to materialize." (P-G, Mark Belko)
Well we could always take basic, critical-needs measures to maintain our building, if any are truly necessary. We could also take "The Preservationists" seriously. It's not like they are an exotic or foreign Hobbit-like race. They're just the half or so (or more?) of regular Pittsburghers who harbor an affinity for innovation and doing things better.
*-UPDATE / THOUGHT: To view the Terminal from the David McCullough Bridge -- perhaps our greatest bridge -- approaching the development site from the north, and viewing it on approach from Downtown, the opportunity to deliver and build upon historic value lies to the west. Let us not destroy that. Points east also deserve historic exposure. There is also a strong sentiment for riverfront access. Why not demolish the middle, creating a short north-south avenue of retail and other commercial or boutique residential bisecting the Terminal? The surviving two approximate thirds of the Terminal on either end can be preserved and commercially or otherwise advantageously adapted, as well as made to suggest an architecturally consistent one-time connection between each other -- which has an aesthetic appeal. Entertain discussions about signage and other opportunities.
And if the URA board has taken an official and binding position pertaining to the question, it seems proper that Councilman / URA Board member Lavelle ought to formally wash his hands from the discussion.
ReplyDeleteEven if I were to assume your position to be the proper one, and I don't, as it happens, that won't solve your problem in the instant case.
ReplyDeleteAgreed only in regards to getting to the five votes needed for approval. Being at the table however, and having that power to negotiate, comes with real power to affect outcomes. Planning Commission and ZBA members are always careful to get out of the room.
DeleteAre you saying that Peduto hasn't taken the Preservationists seriously? I think we all know that he has done so - he's got a long track record of cooperation with those people. If Bill is saying that there are funding problems for Rob P's plan, I'm going to take him at his word - and regard it as well-considered. And...about Rob P and handwashing, his firm did work on the Produce Terminal in recent years, and surely wants to do more...someone pass him the handsoap and send him off to scrub already.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about Rob's plan, I'm talking about alternatives in general. I've heard different things about Rob's plan pertaining to the pass-through portals. And I'm not fundamentally opposed to dynamite.
DeleteFair enough, I read "Preservationists" and I thought of Rob P. It does sound like Bill is interested in and has been exploring some interesting alternatives.
DeleteBill is already changing gears on this. Hence the reason for all the delays. He wants to wait until next year so that council can make a decision and not him. Inside word is that he wants demolition but can't public vote on it for obvious reasons.
DeleteI am here to defend Hobbits.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you.