Lol, yes it was a blast. God bless Mary schenley and multi million dollar water fountains. Let's go pens.
Pitt announces partnership for facilities master plan - long but important
- Thread starter Chris Peak
- Start date
Hey my kids actually enjoyed playing in the fountain by Frick last summer... What kind of jack wagon would want to destroy that? Oakland is about 150% better than it was in the 80s but none of those locations make any sense whatsoever for a football stadium ....? Sweet Jesus.
I'll go back and re read it. I thought you said they spent millions restoring a water fountain. A vomit inducing thought. I thought it was crazy but after reading that it cost 10 million to fix elevators at cathedral a few years back, wasted money spent by universities is becoming the norm.
I agree with everything you said, and not putting it on the Mosque sit makes sense. That could be good land for academic purposes (as it should be!) I think that Fitzgerald could expand quite a bit before getting too close to Salk Hall and Trees needs to expand and take advantage of the entire piece of land it is on. Do you think it's possible that the volleyball and wrestling teams could move everything into The Pete and then turn Fitzgerald into what you said? Also, I hope you weren't calling me the fool. I just think they'd throw that study in there to appease everyone and show that it wouldn't fit with what the University is trying to do, especially when it comes to the idea of knocking down those historic sites
The city restored the fountain, not Pitt. Pitt had nothing to do with it. Pitt doesn't own it and it doesn't sit on Pitt land and it is managed by Pittsburgh Parks Conservatory. However, it has been a major photo point of the university since it moved to Oakland. That said, if it induces vomit in you mind, you are in the vast minority and it certainly isn't an opinion shared by anyone in the city or university with any influence.
Across the street, both Pitt and UPMC both did give money to support the Park's re-creation of Schenley Plaza, which is also city park property, and is also managed by Parks.
Behind the fountain, Pitt owns the Frick Fine Arts building, but the land is on is perpetually "leased" to Pitt as it is technically in Schenley Park. The school received special dispensation to place it there due to Helen Frick who donated the building to the school. She insisted on that location (originally targeted for the Cathedral Lawn), in part due to its juxtaposition with the Schenley Fountain and Schenley Park's main entrance. It is the home to the Department of History of Art & Architecture and the Department of Studio Arts. It is one of the university's main classroom and lecture buildings (its main lecture hall is one of the university's most used lecture and presentation spaces) and houses all of Pitt's art studios, its art library (which is one of the best in the nation), as well as the university's primary art gallery that is mostly used for rotating exhibits (the gallery is not the Lochoff cloister, which was also restored a decade ago). Pitt has targeted an expansion of Frick Fine Arts as a priority project. It and the fountain are as touchable as the adjacent Carnegie museums and library: i.e. not at all.
There are essentially 6 "premiere" buildings on Pitt's Oakland campus that it owns: Cathedral of Learning, Heinz Chapel, Stephen Foster, William Pitt Union, Alumni Hall, and Frick Fine Arts.
There are 11 more Pitt owned buildings on its Oakland campus of architectural and historical significance that enjoy local historic designations and that are essentially off limits: Schenley Quad (Amos, Brackenridge, Bruce, Holland, and McCormick), Music Building, Bellefield Hall, Clapp Hall, Allen Hall, Thaw Hall, Gardner Steel, O'Hara Student Center, University Club, Ruskin Hall, and Thackeray Hall. Pitt would also have a hard time trying to do anything with Ebery Hall and the Eureka Building. The City Planning and Historic Review Commissions, and the Oakland Historic Review Commission will never allow any of those to be significantly altered. In fact, City Planning just shot down closing off a doorway on the side of the Gardner Steel building. But that is something like 19-23 out of about 80+ buildings Pitt owns in Oakland, and a good chunk of those were purchased already having historic designations attached.
The non-Pitt buildings that have major historic designations are Soldier's & Sailor's, Pittsburgh Athletic Association, Mellon Institute, Frick School (Sci & Tech Academy), Schenley High School, St. Paul's, St. Nicholas, Phipps, and the Carnegie museum buildings.
And Pitt has spent $10 million to replace 80 year old elevators with a state-of-the-art, destination based system. That's not wasted, that's long over due.
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said, and not putting it on the Mosque sit makes sense. That could be good land for academic purposes (as it should be!) I think that Fitzgerald could expand quite a bit before getting too close to Salk Hall and Trees needs to expand and take advantage of the entire piece of land it is on. Do you think it's possible that the volleyball and wrestling teams could move everything into The Pete and then turn Fitzgerald into what you said? Also, I hope you weren't calling me the fool. I just think they'd throw that study in there to appease everyone and show that it wouldn't fit with what the University is trying to do, especially when it comes to the idea of knocking down those historic sites
I think eastern part of Trees (non-pool) could be demoed and rebuilt into a multi floor structure. The Carillo Street Power plant is adjacent to Trees and may complicate that. The piece of land remaining between Salk and Fitzgerald is a wasted plot, and it will be difficult to build on because of the grade. The recent Salk annex that was just finished had major complications because it had to cut into and brace that hillside. It would definitely be a target to build on but is an obvious location. You could potentially expand Cost out to the OC, or onto the OC. There may be some land behind Sutherland near the radio tower and a long surface parking lot between it and the VA that Pitt could look at working with. There are some pieces, some on very steep grades, but it definitely takes an architectural/engineering firm to come up with the best (and affordable) plan for its use.
No, the fool part was actually for an old post ... it is out of sequence (and believe it or not was accidentally posted, but what the heck I ran with it). The term is reserved for those who are presented with information, repeatedly, and reject it out of hand, repeatedly, because they "know" better...people that continue to think it is both a good idea AND feasible to move historic structures in the heart of a historic district for a football stadium are, well, unfortunately deserving of it. Even if Pitt wanted to do such things, and the university would be out of its mind to want that, it would be politically and legally impossible.
If the steelers leave, Pittsburgh would be just fine outside of some suicides. Even the north shore would continue without issue...remember, there are generally only 10 steelers home dates a year.
Now, if the Pirates moved, the north shore eateries and bars would be in trouble. 81 home dates a year really fills up those places and THAT is where they make their money...not the steeler games.
Now, if the Pirates moved, the north shore eateries and bars would be in trouble. 81 home dates a year really fills up those places and THAT is where they make their money...not the steeler games.
Paco, my on campus stadium suggestions come from fantasy land, I know there are a million logistical nightmares. Never do I think these suggestions are practical or even possible. I still like to play the what if games though.
I can tell you for a FACT that the 8+ games the Steelers play has a MUCH greater impact on the retail industry in Pittsburgh than both the Pirates and Penguins combined.
Here's some other anecdotes about Frick Fine Arts....ever notice how the Frick Art Museum in Point Breeze looks a lot like Pitt's Frick Fine Arts Building?
That's because Pitt's art building was supposed to also be the Frick museum. That collection was intended to be donated to Pitt.
Helen Frick, Henry Frick's daughter, was a huge art collector like her father. She was a major, and very persnickety benefactor of the university, essentially funding the creation of the fine arts department...at least as a serious art department. Her fondness for Italian Renaissance was why it is in the style it is in, and why it changed design and location multiple times over the over 20 year period that it was announced and actually built.
She also wanted to run the arts department. So after the building was built and occupied by Pitt in the 1960s, she was appalled that Pitt hired a German specializing modern art to lead the department as she detested both Germans and modern art and demanded his replacement. The issue became one of academic freedom that gained national attention and media coverage and resulted in Pitt holding its ground while Frick withdrew her collection. She essentially built herself a new Italian Renaissance villa museum building on her ancestral Clayton estate in Point Breeze to house her collection instead of it being at Pitt as originally intended (although some pieces, like the Lochoff murals, remain).
So that little stand for academic freedom cost Pitt $100s of millions in priceless art work.
Early concept for Art's building on the Cathedral Lawn:
Frick Fine Art's building:
Frick Art Museum at Clayton:
That's because Pitt's art building was supposed to also be the Frick museum. That collection was intended to be donated to Pitt.
Helen Frick, Henry Frick's daughter, was a huge art collector like her father. She was a major, and very persnickety benefactor of the university, essentially funding the creation of the fine arts department...at least as a serious art department. Her fondness for Italian Renaissance was why it is in the style it is in, and why it changed design and location multiple times over the over 20 year period that it was announced and actually built.
She also wanted to run the arts department. So after the building was built and occupied by Pitt in the 1960s, she was appalled that Pitt hired a German specializing modern art to lead the department as she detested both Germans and modern art and demanded his replacement. The issue became one of academic freedom that gained national attention and media coverage and resulted in Pitt holding its ground while Frick withdrew her collection. She essentially built herself a new Italian Renaissance villa museum building on her ancestral Clayton estate in Point Breeze to house her collection instead of it being at Pitt as originally intended (although some pieces, like the Lochoff murals, remain).
So that little stand for academic freedom cost Pitt $100s of millions in priceless art work.
Early concept for Art's building on the Cathedral Lawn:
Frick Fine Art's building:
Frick Art Museum at Clayton:
Last edited:
Publicly financing stadiums for billionaires to make more money is one of the quintessentially stupid things Americans do on a regular basis.
In defense of the populace, even if they vote against using tax money to build stadiums, tax money still builds stadiums.
Pittsburgh Pirate attendance at PNC was 2,498,596 fans.
Pittsburgh Penguin attendance at Consol was 720,000 fans.
Pittsburgh Steeler attendance for 10 games at Heinz is 650,000 fans for a season.
Pirates and Penguins together bring in way more fans into the city.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
It isn't impossible, just totally moronic. Football doesn't run Pitt. It's a sideshow with fading traditions. And no matter what any study says....knuckleheads, many of whom were all for leaving campus for HF, would still whine about it. Gallagher has more important things to do.
The retail industry would go on just fine.
I'm not saying the steelers should leave, but you are greatly overestimating their impact.
Yes, Paco slapped me around on that already. That's what I get for going 1 on 1 with Paco on Oakland real estate. I know better
lol ok. I'll make sure to tell the board room on Monday that the millions of dollars of extra sales we budget for strictly for Steeler games will still be there if the Steelers leave. I'll tell them you're my source. Hahahahahahaha.
Last edited:
Really?
Or perhaps it could be that Paco actually has facts to bring to this thread?
Naa ... let's just go with insults.
Last edited:
If the Stillers merely move to the suburbs the net effect on sales in the region would be nil. The few businesses that rely on them playing on the North Side would be replaced by businesses in Cranberry or Washington or where ever.
The comments are let them leave Pittsburgh/wpa and go to another city. Not leave the north side to go to cranberry, moon, washington or whatever.
Well no one thinks the Stillers are actually leaving Western PA. And even if they did, study after study has shown that the net economic effect to the region would still be approximately nothing. People will just spend their money on something else. It might hurt your particular business, but there are others that would see gains.
Wait, so now the steelers have no economic impact on city? I got to see that study, that's hilarious. 40-45 million dollar economic influx with a home afc championship game in Pittsburgh according to business insider. Are you guys saying pittsburghers would have spent 44 million on something else that day if there were no game?
Last edited:
Yup, they would have taken more trips to the zoo with that extra 45 million.
If anything, they would use the extra money to take vacations and spend that money outside of WPA.
NTOP, do you honestly believe that a stadium feasibility study will NOT be a part of the services that Populous is offering Pitt? I'm not predicting they say its a great idea or its feasible but I'm 99.9999999999% sure they are at least studying the idea. As I said numerous times, you dont hire a world-class firm like Populous to look at locker rooms, academic support buildings, and wrestling practice rooms over 9 months and not ask them to provide you a feasibility study.
Populous will study Oakland locations, funding sources, revenues, etc and provide Pitt a report and Pitt has to decide whether its feasible or not.
So, I'm asking, do you honestly believe Populous wont be doing this?
Millions spent on steelers Sunday's are millions not spent elsewhere in a macro sense .
It's a zero sum game .
www.newpittstadium.com
View the empty land and half used land already owned by Pitt, and we can realize the greatest potential for building the best athletic multi-use facilities in the USA/world. If we simply renovate, it says that we are not the very best, and it illustrates that financial & political constraints are too large to overcome. The truth is that Gallagher and Barnes want to "build" in order to cement their legacies and career achievements. The "Greatest Athletic Facilities in the USA" will accomplish their goals, and the money is there to build new.
View the empty land and half used land already owned by Pitt, and we can realize the greatest potential for building the best athletic multi-use facilities in the USA/world. If we simply renovate, it says that we are not the very best, and it illustrates that financial & political constraints are too large to overcome. The truth is that Gallagher and Barnes want to "build" in order to cement their legacies and career achievements. The "Greatest Athletic Facilities in the USA" will accomplish their goals, and the money is there to build new.
ZZZZZZZ.... you simply do not have the understanding of urban planning principles to make these comments. Let Populous do their study. It will be done by professionals, and whether we, you or I like or dislike it or agree with it, it will be done by the best minds available to create the master plan. This isn't just some obnoxious, bigoted know-nothing outfit trying to become President ~ LOLOL ~ Populous is professional, proven and with excellent talent.
I'm hoping that Pitt is smart enough to have already ruled that out. If not, then we have a problem at the top. Hmmmm, 2 Pat Gallaghers screwing things up?? If anything, it'll be used to put the mess to bed, once and for all. I said 18 years ago that razing Pitt Stadium would be the end of Pitt FB on campus. I'll stand by that, today.
Last edited:
