I'm glad that city planning has been so pro-development. That fact has allowed the city's economic and cultural growth to spur a building boom. But our architects aren't making it worthwhile.
The types of buildings we are seeing are far less than what the city deserves. For a place with a history of collapse, it pains me to see this level of nearsightedness. It was a misguided vision that filled downtown with department stores, ignorance that put towers in East Liberty, and now negligence that's lining Penn Avenue with Alucobond and Dryvit.
This stuff should be better. And not just better for now, but better for the next 50, 100 years. Do we think about what some of these building will look like in 20 years? or whether they will be standing in 50? Their aesthetic role within our urban fabric is, at best, unclear and, at worst, debasing. Their energetic agenda is that of throwaway objects. They are disposable cameras; they take pretty pictures, but then we toss then. I am no classicist, but will we never see another Union Trust, a PAA? Sadly, one of the best civic buildings this city has produced in the past 20 years doesn't have a roof and we play baseball inside it.
This city is full of great architects. Yeah, the budgets are tight. Yeah, it's not New York. But don't we harp on the merit of constraints? Can't we build well within them? "I have never been forced to accept compromises but I have willingly accepted constraints." Charles Eames made it work.
City planning exists as a check against the motivations of developers; they have license to speak on behalf of the community. I'm glad to see them taking a stance about the future of this city. Our architects should follow in kind. The work they do matters for Pittsburgh's future. Let's put on our Big City Pants and do something of meaning.
Recent Comments
I'm glad that city planning has been so pro-development. That fact has allowed the city's economic and cultural growth to spur a building boom. But our architects aren't making it worthwhile.
The types of buildings we are seeing are far less than what the city deserves. For a place with a history of collapse, it pains me to see this level of nearsightedness. It was a misguided vision that filled downtown with department stores, ignorance that put towers in East Liberty, and now negligence that's lining Penn Avenue with Alucobond and Dryvit.
This stuff should be better. And not just better for now, but better for the next 50, 100 years. Do we think about what some of these building will look like in 20 years? or whether they will be standing in 50? Their aesthetic role within our urban fabric is, at best, unclear and, at worst, debasing. Their energetic agenda is that of throwaway objects. They are disposable cameras; they take pretty pictures, but then we toss then. I am no classicist, but will we never see another Union Trust, a PAA? Sadly, one of the best civic buildings this city has produced in the past 20 years doesn't have a roof and we play baseball inside it.
This city is full of great architects. Yeah, the budgets are tight. Yeah, it's not New York. But don't we harp on the merit of constraints? Can't we build well within them? "I have never been forced to accept compromises but I have willingly accepted constraints." Charles Eames made it work.
City planning exists as a check against the motivations of developers; they have license to speak on behalf of the community. I'm glad to see them taking a stance about the future of this city. Our architects should follow in kind. The work they do matters for Pittsburgh's future. Let's put on our Big City Pants and do something of meaning.