Upload
overunder
View
231
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
IMAGINING THE MODERN
BRO
ADSH
EET
002
THE HEINZ ARCHITECTURAL CENTERCARNEGIE MUSEUM OF ART
MARCH 2016H
ACLAB
PITTSBU
RGH
Imagined,Unbuilt,The Golden Triangle
and East Liberty, Mapping Networks,
Robert Pease—Steel City's Civic
Servant.
Pittsburgh Center for the Arts
Panther Hollow
Point Park Civic Center
CA
RN
EG
IE M
US
EU
M O
F A
RT
1
IMAGINED, UNBUILT.
BR
OA
DS
HE
ET
00
2
10
Downtown Street View, n.d.
Allegheny Center Park, n.d.
Civic Arena, 1960
Robert Pease in his office, 1983
Heinz Factory complex, n.d.
Allegheny Center, 1973
Hurricane Agnes, 1972
Carlton House Demo, 1980
CA
RN
EG
IE M
US
EU
M O
F A
RT
9
ROBERT PEASESELECTED IMAGES
Jaye poses with the Lower Hill Models, 1959
Grandview Overlook, c. 1963
In the fall of 2015, artist and photographer
Shamus Fatzinger was driving through his neigh-
borhood of Edgewood when he spotted a moun-
tain of slide boxes out on the curb. Naturally, he
pulled over to investigate. As he was rummaging
through, a voice called down from the dark porch:
"You want me to just tell you what's in there?"
The voice belonged to Robert Pease, director of
the URA during most of Pittsburgh’s Renaissance.
Over 5,000 slides chronicle the life of the Pease
family through more than six decades, celebrating
their lives and their travels. Among these memories
are traces of the city’s evolution, as seen by someone
intimately involved.
BR
OA
DS
HE
ET
00
2
2
FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT AND THE POINT
PARK CIVIC CENTER
Wright was behind two of the unrealized
designs.
In the late 1940s, at the behest of busi-
nessman and booster Edgar Kaufmann,
Pittsburgh approached the celebrated
architect to design a civic center complex
at the Point. It was to have an urban feel,
but Wright was supposed to minimize ve-
hicular congestion and restore the French
and Indian War —era fort that gave the city
its name.
In characteristic form, Wright did neither,
proposing instead an enormous corkscrew
ramp, nearly a quarter mile in diameter,
that would provide access to a number
of ambitious venues, including an opera
house, planetarium, aquarium, exhibition
halls and a sports arena. The complex was
to be connected via two multilevel bridges
to the North Side and the South Side, with
a third connection leading to a 500-foot
tower at the confluence of the three rivers.
Following a muted reaction from the
Point Park Committee, Wright proposed
a second, slightly more subdued version:
two cable bridges hanging from a 100-
foot tower. The mammoth ramp remained
in the plan as a parking podium.
Failing to gain traction, the project was
shelved in favor of Charles Stotz’s land-
scape proposal and the modernist towers
of Gateway Center.
SOM AND THE PITTSBURGH CENTER
FOR THE ARTS
Building on the success of Gateway Center
and other Downtown projects, Pittsburgh’s
civic leaders set their sights on the renewal
of the Lower Hill.
In an attempt to redefine it as the city’s
“cultural Acropolis,” land was cleared for
construction, displacing thousands of
largely African American residents and
hundreds of businesses. The Civic Arena
was the first project built on the site, and
it was to be followed by a Center for the
Arts with a museum of art (relocated from
Oakland) and a new symphony hall (sup-
ported by an $8 million grant from the
Howard Heinz Endowment).
In 1961, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill was
hired to design the project. The firm’s team
was led by Gordon Bunshaft, known for the
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
at Yale University; 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza,
now 28 Liberty, in New York; the elegant
Point State Park portal bridge; and H.J.
Heinz Co’s Vinegar Plant and Warehouse
on the North Side, among other projects.
Bunshaft addressed the sloping site by
designing an enormous plinth with the art
museum and the symphony hall at opposite
ends of a landscaped plaza, affording dra-
matic views. The symphony hall was to be
wrapped in a monumental glass box and
flanked by oversize travertine columns
supporting a waffle-slab roof. The three-
story art museum was to be enlivened with
a crenelated roof structure.
However, within a few years, the coalition
formed to support the project fell apart
in the face of opposition by Hill residents,
who grew increasingly suspicious of the
project, and by Oakland institutions that
did not want to see the art museum relo-
cated. H.J. Heinz II invested in a Downtown
symphony venue, the art museum re-
mained in Oakland, and the Hill waited
decades for additional development.
HARRISON & ABRAMOVITZ AND
PANTHER HOLLOW
In the 1960s Oakland was developing at a
rapid pace, in large part due to the ener-
getic leadership of University of Pittsburgh
Chancellor Edward Litchfield, who upon
taking the reins of Pitt, retained Harrison
& Abramovitz (the Pan Am building in New
York; Empire State Plaza in Albany; Alcoa
Building and, later, US Steel in Pittsburgh)
to consult on campus growth. Among the
many projects overseen by Abramovitz was
the exceedingly ambitious megastructure
to fill Panther Hollow: the nation’s “first
21st Century City.”
Designing for the Oakland Corp., a jointly
owned, Pitt-dominated consortium of
seven institutions, Abramovitz proposed
a structure to fill the entire ravine strad-
dling Pitt, the Carnegie Museums, and
Carnegie Mellon University. Envisioned as
a research city linking Oakland’s academic
and cultural institutions, the mile-long
complex would have filled the hollow to
the brim, expanding Schenley Park with a
series of rooftop terraces and gardens and
culminating in a hanging garden at Panther
Hollow Lake.
The city would have provided its own ser-
vices and amenities and supported a se-
ries of residential developments. Portions
were to be replaced periodically so the
overall city remained up to date.
When presented with great fanfare by the
Oakland Corp. in 1963, the project was
initially estimated to cost more than $250
million, or about $2.6 billion in today’s
dollars. Although the Oakland Corp. con-
tinued to promote the project for a few
years, it was quietly shelved by 1965, the
year Litchfield resigned amid a financial
crisis engendered by the university’s rapid
growth.
While these projects failed to materialize,
they were significant nonetheless. First,
the national attention they garnered help-
ed position Pittsburgh as an important
urban player in the postwar era. Second,
they provided the architects with opportu-
nities to think about large-scale solutions
for modern cities. Third—and perhaps most
important—the discussion surrounding
these projects helped galvanize support
and refine the designs for the projects that
did come to fruition.
THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
FOR THE PIT TSBURGH POST-GA ZET TE ON
THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER , 2015
With the recent unveiling of a new master plan for the Lower Hill by celebrated Danish archi-tecture f irm Bjarke Ingels Group, it is worth looking back at other famous architects who have presented design proposals for Pittsburgh.
Of special interest are those that never took wing, predominately large-scale visions conceived by the biggest names of the era. Had these proposals materialized, several neighborhoods—including Downtown, the Lower Hill, and Oakland —
would be unrecognizable today.
CA
RN
EG
IE M
US
EU
M O
F A
RT
3
In some respects the most visible aspect
of the city’s renewal effort during the
Pittsburgh Renaissance era, the Golden
Triangle boasts several decades of succ-
essful corporate architecture and mod-
ernist public spaces. Led by civic and
business leaders,
this effort included
a series of new
towers that served
as the headquarters for Pittsburgh-based
companies (as well as several branch of-
fice towers for national companies) and
showcased the materials that led to these
companies’ successes.
Among these are 525 William Penn Place,
the Alcoa Building, and the US Steel
Building, all designed by Harrison &
Abramovitz, then the architects of choice
for corporate America. Completed in 1951,
525 William Penn Place represented an
early example of the commercial tower
in Pittsburgh, and originally housed both
the Mellon National Bank and US Steel
companies. Modern, but restrained, the
tower is reminiscent of Rockefeller Tower
in Manhattan, and a fitting headquar-
ters for the Mellon interests in postwar
Pittsburgh.
Far more adventurous is the Alcoa Build-
ing opposite. Here Harrison & Abramovitz
(with local architecture firms Altenhof &
Bown and Mitchell & Ritchey serving as
associate architects) celebrated alumi-
num in new and innovative ways, from the
cladding to the insulation to the wiring
and plumbing.
The second US Steel Building is an archi-
tectural masterpiece that evokes not just
the client in its bold use of material but
the entire city in a formal resolution that
celebrates the Triangle’s two grids.
Between the two buildings sits the mod-
ernist landscape of Mellon Square, which
offered the city a fascinating new proto-
type: the underground garage disguised
as a plaza. The park, including the geo-
metric paving patterns and the cascading
fountains, was designed by Simonds &
Simonds, while Mitchell & Ritchey de-
signed the multistory underground garage
and retail along Smithfield Street.
A number of other architecturally notable
parking garages were built during this
period. Each celeb-
rated the automo-
bile—sometimes
with dramatic gest-
ures—and endeavored to provide effic-
ient means of visiting Downtown by car.
Among these is the Smithfield & Liberty
Garage; here Altenhof & Bown clad the
triangular parking structure in brick along
Liberty Avenue, but choose to express the
poured concrete of the corkscrew exit
ramp. With its support arches recessed,
the ramps’ discs appear to float in the
middle of the Smithfield block.
BUILT
1 525 William Penn Place H A R R I S ON & A B R A M OV I T Z2 Mellon Square S I M ON D S & S I M ON D S M I TCH EL L & R I TCH E Y3 Alcoa Building H A R R I S ON & A B R A M OV I T Z4 Porter Building H A R R I S ON & A B R A M OV I T Z5 US Steel Building H A R R I S ON , A B R A M OV I T Z & A B B E6 Federal Building A LT E N H O F & B OW N7 Smithfield & Liberty Garage A LT E N H O F & B OW N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE
Let them multiply, there is no sky in the world which needs
scraping more than that which arches over the Iron City.Pittsburgh Bulletin 1959
BR
OA
DS
HE
ET
00
2
7Interview with Robert Pease was conducted on December 10, 2015, by Rami el Samahy with Matthew Newton and Shamus Fatzinger. Photograph by Shamus Fatzinger.
ROBERT PEASESTEEL CITY'S CIVIC SERVANT
of knowledge as to the implications of liv-
ing there and working in the city, I don’t
think were foremost in anybody’s thought.
East Liberty is now coming back because
of the rise in commercial activity rather
than people just saying "I want to live in
East Liberty." Now there’s a real reason to
live in East Liberty, with what’s happening
economically. You have companies like
Google coming to East Liberty, stores and
restaurants opening, lots of apartments oc-
cupied and more being built. Today, it has
become a hot center and convenient to a
lot of things. Though I don’t know if anybody
can take any credit for it, it just happens.
PLANNING ALLEGHENY CENTER
How would you characterize the planning
process that led to Allegheny Center?
A study by the regional planning commission
proposed a huge cut through Monument Hill
to get the expressway north, which would’ve
wrecked the neighborhood. We fought and
successfully stopped it. Allegheny looked
like an opportunity for development be-
cause of its location, history, and because it
was surrounded with the Commons. The re-
development was an opportunity to select
a smaller area and try to build something
that was really attractive.
There was a lot of racial tension following
the assassination of Martin Luther King in
1968, and other events occurred that made
it difficult to finish the project. Gradually
there were apartments added. It’s a pretty
good place to live, especially for those who
work in the North Side, work in the hospital,
or even Downtown. I still think the plans
for that project were among the best the
URA produced.
ON CONTEMPORARIES
Could speak about some of your contem-
poraries outside of Pittsburgh with whom
you were in dialogue?
Boston’s Ed Logue and I were very close,
and shared a similar history. He was a bom-
bardier in World War II and I was a naviga-
tor. Charlie Farris ran the program in St.
Louis and he had all kinds of problems. He
had built a lot of new stuff—high rise, slab
building apartments, highly touted at the
beginning but later denigrated as a mistake.
Lawrence Cox from Norfolk, Virginia, had
the first publicly financed renewal project
in the country, which was a small housing
project. The way they charted out the row
houses was fascinating because they’d
back a truck up to the front of the house,
put blocks behind the wheels, put a cable
around the house, and tighten a winch
and tear the house down in five minutes.
It was wild. In San Francisco, the head of
planning, Al Jacobs, came from Pittsburgh.
San Francisco was more complicated, the
mayor was more influential on the planning
commission than Al thought it should be.
Al fought like mad against that triangular
shaped [Transamerica] building, but it was
built in spite of him.
For a while the Ford Foundation supported
an organization of about 12 people who
worked in cities in regional ways. We used
to meet a couple of times a year and just
talk about the issues of urban renewal.
There are some who argue that urban re-
newal was not the right thing to do. I don't
know, I could make a case either way. Given
the lack of building during World War II, the
lack of even maintaining what was built be-
fore the war, I think that the recovery after
the war was important and urban renewal
was part of that excitement.
ON PITTSBURGH EXCEPTIONALISM
What distinguished Pittsburgh in that era
from other cities?
Steel. We were producing for the war ef-
fort, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just
going gangbusters. Fortunes were made.
Pittsburgh became the arsenal of the world;
well that’s an overstatement, but it was.
How would you say the dynamics of working
here differed from Boston or St. Louis?
I think one of the keys here was that we had
a mayor, David Lawrence, who was smart
enough to know where politics belonged
and where politics didn’t belong. For ex-
ample, during the time I was at the URA, he
never once required me to hire anybody.
He kept that separate from his political
life, and he recognized that was important.
The other issue that I think was important
was the complete devotion to the city by
the business leadership. The Allegheny
Conference is a good example where the
executive committee was made up of chief
executives of major corporations. Under
their own rules they had to serve person-
ally, they couldn’t send any substitute to a
meeting. You get those 18 guys in a room
and a decision is made, the decision sticks.
Then the staff knew they had the backing of
that kind of group. Whether it meant raising
money, or policies or action, all that came
together to make Pittsburgh a special city
during that period. It was an interesting time.
I don’t think it’s a Camelot, but you could
get dang close.
PLANNING TODAY
What is your favorite building from this era?
I always liked Alcoa and I liked the US Steel
Building, that external structure was fan-
tastic. I worked there for 10 years when
Allegheny Conference was there. It was a
great place to be, a beautiful building, first
rate. I’ve always liked Gateway Center be-
cause of the open space; the open space is
important, maybe more so than the build-
ings themselves. The buildings aren’t great,
but they were designed at a time when
material was short.
Do you have any regrets?
Any regrets I have would not be about a
huge project but about some little thing
that we might’ve done better, usually with
regard to the small businesses or relocation
of some people. I don’t have huge regrets.
Sometimes I wish things would’ve gone
faster but they never did. Rebuilding an area
is very difficult, it always takes more time
than we think. Gateway Center took over
20 years from beginning to end.
I think Pittsburgh has a lot to be proud of.
I always thought Mellon Square was a great
addition to Downtown Pittsburgh. Living
here is fairly easy compared to other cities.
Commuting is not that difficult; you some-
times have traffic jams but it’s not horrible.
Mass transit is good, could be better, could
be used more. I use it all the time since
I’ve moved to Oakland. My car sits for days
without being touched. It’s a good system.
Any advice to those who are planning and
designing today?
Just keep on keeping on, do your best and
keep trying. Since I first got involved, the
involvement of people has become much
stronger than it used to be and that’s for
the better. In the beginning, it was “here’s
a plan and here’s a hearing for city council
and here’s what we’re going to do and it’s
all approved and let’s start buying prop-
erty.” That’s all been changed. Some folks
say, “Well now it takes longer.” Yes it does,
but it’s a better process. I sometimes think
that the urban renewal process encouraged
citizen involvement and changed a lot, in-
cluding highway development. Maybe that’s
too simple a statement, but I think there’s
some truth to it.
One of the things we’re struck by about this
era is the willingness to think big, really big,
for better and for worse. Afterward, the
pendulum swung towards a timidity on the
part of planners and designers and politi-
cians because they didn’t want to get their
fingers burned again.
I think you’re right. Citizen participation,
particularly if they were against something,
made it difficult for planners. I remember
we had developed big plans for Oakland,
because the schools and health centers
were expanding. I remember a huge public
meeting one night, and I was on the stage,
and some guy way in the back of the room
stood up and raised his hand.“I have a
question: how can we stop this thing?” So I
said, “You all get organized, all decide what
you want and what you don’t want, and let
it be known to the public you’ll stop this
particular project.” And they did.
In those days there was a federal regula-
tion that if a university or hospital spent
money to develop something, we would
get credit for that money against a future
project. So we saw this as a gold mine. In
this case, I think we were greedy and we
failed. But I’m not sorry we failed, it was a
great experience.
There are some who argue that urban renewal was not the
right thing to do. I don't know, I could make a case either way. [...] I think that the recovery after the war was important
and urban renewal was part of that excitement.
CA
RN
EG
IE M
US
EU
M O
F A
RT
7
What were your impressions of Pittsburgh
when you first arrived?
I came to Pittsburgh in August of 1946.
Sometimes I’d get up in the morning—I lived
at the corner of Forbes and Morewood—and
I couldn’t see across the campus because of
the smoke. My upper lip would be grey just
from breathing the air. So Pittsburgh was a
thriving city, industrially, but as a place to
live, I didn’t think much of it. I came from
the midwest with clean air and had no plans
to stay here. I thought I would leave be-
cause the city was a pretty lousy place then,
smoky and dirty, but it never happened.
Of course the winter of ’48 was the last
smoky winter and the change was dramatic.
I’ve often told people that was one of the
reasons Pittsburgh began to have successes
in terms of its rejuvenation; people had the
feeling “well we got rid of the smoke, now
let’s do some more.” At the same time, the
flood control dams were being built, which
meant that the flood of ’36 would never
happen again, and the mills and industries
were going crazy, employment was strong.
It was a great city to be in economically.
So it was almost happenstance that you
stayed here.
I worked at [Carnegie] Tech for four years
after I graduated. A fun job. I tell my kids
and grandkids: "Your life happens, you can’t
even try to make plans. Take advantage of
the messiness."
What drew you to work at the URA?
An accident. I was working on the cam-
pus and Web Jones, who was the dean in
Engineering, called me to his office one day,
and he said, “You know, there’s a friend of
mine who’s head of the Redevelopment
Authority, and he’s looking for an engineer.”
So he called this fellow, Jack Robin, and
said, “I’m talking to a man named Bob Pease.
Here’s his record...he has a distinguished
flying cross and five air medals…” He had
read my war record, not my school grades!
My grades were okay but not great.
I went downtown and I met with Jack, and
after 15 minutes he offered me a job. The
URA was just starting, Jack Robin was the
first executive director, a man named Ted
Hayes was the attorney, and I was the en-
gineer. We were a staff of three, plus clerks.
And it just gradually began to grow to what
it is today.
Was there a sense early on that you were
doing something unprecedented?
Personally, no. I didn’t appreciate that.
As I grew in the job and became head of
the URA, I began to have an appreciation
because I was able to travel with Mayor
Lawrence to different cities, and I realized
we were becoming an example for other
cities to follow. I didn’t have this personal
feeling that I was doing these great things,
but I felt that Pittsburgh was special and
was becoming a good place to live in.
What are some of your proudest achieve-
ments at the URA?
Well, I think one was to collect and man-
age a good staff. In terms of projects, the
Lower Hill was underway when I got in-
volved. Allegheny Center, East Liberty, the
North Side, were other projects we started
ourselves. The Allegheny Center was the
best-designed project we had done.
CHANGE AND THE LOWER HILL
Was there support for the Lower Hill re-
development initially, even from the Hill
community?
There was really no opposition during the
early public hearings. Now that may have
been a sign of the times because that was a
"you can’t fight City Hall" period, but there
was a general consensus that the Hill was
in need of change.
There’s one story I like to tell about a land-
lord who owned two buildings in the Hill
District. He asked me if we would leave
those two houses for him. Four families
were living there and each had three rooms:
basement, first floor, second floor. There
was no plumbing, just an outhouse. The only
heating was through open grates. It was bit-
ter, bitter cold the day I went up there, and
the air quality, the carbon monoxide levels,
was just awful. The saving grace was that the
walls were full of cracks, so they got some
fresh air. There were a lot of buildings like
that in the Hill District. It always interests
me that historians talk about this beautiful
neighborhood that was torn down. If you
walked through there in the summertime,
you could smell the outhouses. I think it was
a slum, by almost any definition.
[Urban critic and historian] Lewis Mumford
visited Pittsburgh, and I took him for a walk
through the Lower Hill one hot summer
afternoon. He told me that he would like to
see old brick houses, to see what could be
saved. At the end of the day, Mumford said,
“You know, I really don’t see any redeeming
grace; I don’t see anything that is worth sav-
ing.” That’s not published, but that’s what
he told me. And being in his company was
kind of a thrill for me.
We were excited by the Pittsburgh Art
Center development at the east end of the
project. [Gordon] Bunshaft was the lead
architect. There was a theater, underground
parking, a sculpture garden, and an art
museum. Several foundations put almost
$2,000,000 into the planning and guaran-
teed that the land would be bought for that
purpose. The land had to be guaranteed in
order to have a development approved for
federal funding.
Why wasn’t a project for a cultural acropo-
lis capable of accepting and incorporating
the culture that was already there, which
included a phenomenal jazz scene?
It’s a hard question and it deserves a hard
answer—but I would surmise that racial
segregation was an issue. The population
to the east was pretty black and there was
growing sensitivity or fright to that. People
would gather from the Hill at the church up
at the corner of Center and Bedford, and
then march Downtown to Mellon Square;
and the head of Mellon Bank would call
me and say, “We got all these blacks out
here in the square, what should we do?” I
said, “Nothing, just keep on doing your busi-
ness.” They meant no harm, they were just
demonstrating and they were developing
strength through the demonstrations. But
that, I think, did a lot to cool off the desire
to build this great art center in that area.
REMAKING EAST LIBERTY
Was the process different in East Liberty?
What lessons did you learn from the Hill
experience?
East Liberty was so big—250 acres—and we
were trying to do so much rehabilitating old
structures, tearing down others and build-
ing new, it was almost too big to handle.
In retrospect, it wasn’t a great success.
Yes, there was some new housing; yes, we
shrank the commercial area, from three
million square feet of commercial space to
about a million-nine, and maybe sometimes
inhumanely to some of the small businesses,
which is a small regret. But I don’t know
what the answer might have been to save
those either.
I think the concept was good; it tried to
organize traffic, to divert the 80% of traf-
fic that was through-traffic, and in doing
so create a viable pedestrian realm. But
people complained about the traffic pat-
tern. They didn’t know how to get from
Point A to Point B by going around the circle.
Pedestrian malls seemed like a good idea
at the time, but they didn’t work because
people didn’t use them that much. In the
end, we couldn’t get the storeowners to
beautify their buildings or build back en-
trances [for access from the new parking
lots]. It just didn’t come off as well as we
thought it might.
Three of the most frequent critiques lev-
eled at the urban renewal era are the
wholesale removal of existing fabric, the
automobile-centric planning, and the lack
of public participation, yet in East Liberty,
the URA engaged in preservation, pedes-
trian-oriented open spaces, and a serious
public engagement process. Is it true that
there were 296 community meetings during
the planning phase?
Something like that, yes.
And the project was initiated at the behest
of the merchants?
The businesses, merchants, right, right.
And it was largely pedestrian. It didn’t fit the
villainous profile of urban renewal—there’s
preservation, there’s public engagement,
there’s public realm—and yet it’s seen as
this
colossal failure, as some people say.
Would you agree that its failure was part of
something larger, chiefly the suburbaniza-
tion of America and the building of malls
outside of the city? Those who could were
leaving in large numbers, choosing to live
and shop elsewhere. It was a problem larger
than city planning could solve.
I think that’s exactly what happened. People
wanted something new; they wanted ei-
ther a new house or a new road or a new
playground or a new school, and that was
all available in the suburbs. It was also af-
fordable; through FHA you could borrow
money and buy a house. People moved to
the suburbs for those things, but the lack
Robert B. Pease was born in Nebraska in 1925.
He served during World War II as an Air Force
navigator before coming to Pit tsburgh to
study engineering at the Carnegie Institute
o f Tech no lo g y (n ow C a r neg i e M ellon
University). Upon graduating, he worked for the
university, working with a group that focused on
postwar development of the campus.
In 1953, he joined the Urban Redevelopment
Authority of Pittsburgh (URA) and by 1958
became its Executive Director. During his tenure
at the URA Pease worked on more than 40 pro-
jects in the city, including the neighborhoods
of the Lower Hill and East Liberty. Pease sub-
sequently became the Executive Director of
the Allegheny Conference on Community
Development (ACCD) in the late 1960s. Under
his leadership, the organization secured grants
for public schools and the expansion of the
Pittsburgh International Airport.
After leaving the ACCD in 1991, Pease became
the Senior Vice President of the National
Development Corporation, a private real est-
ate development and construction firm. He also
served as a consultant for urban redevelopment
projects around the world, including in Japan,
India, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. He has
won several awards for his work, including being
named an Honorary Member by the American
Society of Civic Engineers in 1994.
BR
OA
DS
HE
ET
00
2
4
I am not in favor of the destruction of automobiles, not even nec-
essarily of the diminution of the automotive population, but I am
most definitely in favor of domesticating it, and making it useful
to the human race, just as we did with the horse and the cow and
various types of poultry...
EAST LIBERTY
BUILT
1 East Liberty Pedestrian Mall S I M ON D S & S I M ON D S W I T H PM M A2 East Mall Residential Tower
Apartments TA SS O K AT S EL A S3 Penn Plaza Apartments TA SS O K AT S EL A S4 Pennley Park TA SS O K AT S EL A S5 Friendship Plaza Building H OWA R D, B UR T A N D H I L L6 Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh L I F F, J US T H & CH E T L I N7 Penn Circle Tower Apartments TA SS O K AT S EL A S8 Liberty Park Apartments TA SS O K AT S EL A S
1
23
3
4
4
5
6 7
8
7
Victor Gruen The Heart of Our Cities,
The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure, 1964
Long considered Pittsburgh’s second
downtown, East Liberty was the com-
mercial core of the East End, historically
a preferred location for the city’s upper
and middle classes. As those with means
increasingly relocated to the suburbs in
the postwar era, lo-
cal merchants and
other civic leaders
asked the Urban
Redevelopment
Authority (URA) for
assistance in saving
East Liberty from
through - traffic
congestion, a high rate of commercial
vacancies, and deteriorating housing stock.
In 1960, following its successes with the
downtown Renaissance and its challenges
with redeveloping the Lower Hill, the URA
took on its largest redevelopment project
to date with an unprecedented amount
of community input. Absorbing Victor
Gruen’s ideas of reestablishing human-
centric social spaces in the face of grow-
ing sprawl, through-traffic was diverted
via a boulevard looped around the com-
mercial core, with surface parking lots
available for those intending to shop. The
business corridor was transformed into the
East Liberty Pedestrian Mall, designed by
landscape architects Simonds & Simonds,
with wayfinding and signage by Peter
Muller-Munk Associates (PMMA). Tasso
Katselas was tasked to design 1,800 new
residential units in a mix of townhouses,
mid-rise apartments, and towers, including
the heroic East Mall Residential Tower that
spanned Pennsylvania Avenue.
Built by private developers who benefited
from government subsidies for building
affordable housing, the new residences
changed the economic demographic of
the area, but did nothing to stem the
tide of middle-class flight. Many retail-
ers relocated, further contributing to the
downward slump. The success of the road
loop hinged upon a new highway from East
Liberty to Downtown, which never ma-
terialized, and East
Liberty Boulevard
became famously
known as the “road
to nowhere.” Today,
most of the built
plans of this era
have been undone.
With the formerly
malled streets reopened, residential
towers demolished, new housing in place,
and the loop road gradually reintegrated
into the street grid, East Liberty is again
looking at revitalization.
CA
RN
EG
IE M
US
EU
M O
F A
RT
5
MAPPING NETWORKS OF MODERN ARCHITECTUREINSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
P. SCHWEIKHER
194
6
194
5
1947
194
8
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
B.K. JOHNSTONE ET AL.
C. LUCKMAN CELLI-FLYNN CURRY & MARTIN
E.L. BARNES HARRISON & ABRAMOVITZ
HOK J. PEKRUHN LAWRIE & GREEN
LIFF, JUSTH & CHETLIN
M. COZZA MIES VAN DER ROHE
SOM T. KATSELAS UDA W. ROBERTS WTW
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY WQEDUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
CARNEGIE LIBRARY OF PITTSBURGH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY / CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY
CHATHAM COLLEGE GRAPHIC ARTS TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION MUSEUM OF ART, CARNEGIE INSTITUTE
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Tow
er R
esid
ence
Hal
ls
MITCHELL & RITCHEY / D.R.S.
P. SCHWEIKHER
194
6
194
5
1947
194
8
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
B.K. JOHNSTONE ET AL.
C. LUCKMAN CELLI-FLYNN CURRY & MARTIN
E.L. BARNES HARRISON & ABRAMOVITZ
HOK J. PEKRUHN LAWRIE & GREEN
LIFF, JUSTH & CHETLIN
M. COZZA MIES VAN DER ROHE
SOM T. KATSELAS UDA W. ROBERTS WTW
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY WQEDUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
CARNEGIE LIBRARY OF PITTSBURGH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY / CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY
CHATHAM COLLEGE GRAPHIC ARTS TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION MUSEUM OF ART, CARNEGIE INSTITUTE
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Tow
er R
esid
ence
Hal
ls
MITCHELL & RITCHEY / D.R.S.
BR
OA
DS
HE
ET
00
2
P. SCHWEIKHER
194
6
194
5
1947
194
8
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
B.K. JOHNSTONE ET AL.
C. LUCKMAN CELLI-FLYNN CURRY & MARTIN
E.L. BARNES HARRISON & ABRAMOVITZ
HOK J. PEKRUHN LAWRIE & GREEN
LIFF, JUSTH & CHETLIN
M. COZZA MIES VAN DER ROHE
SOM T. KATSELAS UDA W. ROBERTS WTW
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY WQEDUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
CARNEGIE LIBRARY OF PITTSBURGH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY / CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY
CHATHAM COLLEGE GRAPHIC ARTS TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION MUSEUM OF ART, CARNEGIE INSTITUTE
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Tow
er R
esid
ence
Hal
ls
MITCHELL & RITCHEY / D.R.S.
6
BUILT
UNBUILT
DEMOLISHED
COMMISION
ASSOCIATION
This diagram, based on research by
Martin Aurand, connects the major pa-
trons and architects behind Pittsburgh’s
modern institutional architecture with
their projects and with each other
(similar diagrams mapping civic bod-
ies and corporations can be found in
the exhibition). The extensive array un-
derscores the breadth of Pittsburgh’s
patronage of modern architecture. The
roster of architects includes many names,
but reveals that a few key firms—both
local (Mitchell & Ritchey/Deeter Ritchey
Sippel, Tasso Katselas) and national
(Harrison & Abramovitz, Skidmore Ow-
ings & Merrill [SOM])—played an outsiz-
ed role in reshaping the city during the
Renaissance era.
Institutions (University of Pittsburgh,
Carnegie Institute of Technology/
Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie
Library of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Board
of Public Education) introduced modern
architecture into the academy and the
neighborhood in the form of university
buildings, schools, and libraries. The
diagram also records a number of aspi-
rational projects—like SOM’s Pittsburgh
Center for the Arts and Harrison &
Abramovitz’s Panther Hollow Project—
that never quite got off the ground; and
reveals the limited life spans of some
built projects—like Walter Roberts’
Reizenstein School—that proved suscep-
tible to obsolescence, evolving social and
economic forces, and changing taste.
P. SCHWEIKHER
194
6
194
5
1947
194
8
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
B.K. JOHNSTONE ET AL.
C. LUCKMAN CELLI-FLYNN CURRY & MARTIN
E.L. BARNES HARRISON & ABRAMOVITZ
HOK J. PEKRUHN LAWRIE & GREEN
LIFF, JUSTH & CHETLIN
M. COZZA MIES VAN DER ROHE
SOM T. KATSELAS UDA W. ROBERTS WTW
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY WQEDUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
CARNEGIE LIBRARY OF PITTSBURGH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY / CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY
CHATHAM COLLEGE GRAPHIC ARTS TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION MUSEUM OF ART, CARNEGIE INSTITUTE
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Tow
er R
esid
ence
Hal
ls
MITCHELL & RITCHEY / D.R.S.
HACLAB EVENTS SPRING 2016
The HACLab salons are informal but informed
discussions around a set of key topics, for the
entertainment and education of invited par-
ticipants and audience alike. All present will
be encouraged to participate. Salons will take
place in the HAC galleries on Thursday eve-
nings between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
OUR MODERN CITY
Thursday, April 7
It’s important that we understand not just the products created by modernism (books, buildings, and urban blocks) but also the processes and policies that brought about their creation. What lessons can Pittsburgh learn from their city’s recent history? Can past experience be recalibrated to make the architecture and urbanism needed for tomorrow?
LASHAWN BURTON-FAULK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MANCHESTER CITIZENS CORPORATION); CHRISTINE MONDOR (CHAIR, PITTS-BURGH PLANNING COMMISSION); COREY ZEHNGEBOT (BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AREA); AND JUSTIN P. GREENAWALT (PRESERVA-
TION PITTSBURGH)
WHERE TO NEXT?
Thursday, April 28
A selection of previously invited salon speakers are asked to return to help us review the exhibit and related events, and to assist in determining what, if anything, should be done next.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN HAC GALLERIES WITH MIMI ZEIGER (CRITIC, CURATOR); CHARLES L. ROSENBLUM (CRITIC); AND SELECT SALON
PARTICIPANTS.
Quantum Theatre is staging a production
of Henrik Ibsen’s The Master Builder in col-
laboration with the Heinz Architectural
Center. Directed by Martin Giles, the play
will take audiences inside an iconic modern-
ist structure of some controversy: the soon-
to-be-reimagined Nova Place. The play runs
April 8–May 1, 2016. For more information visit
www.quantumtheatre.com.
PRE-SHOW CONVERSATION
Friday, April 29
HACLab curators will participate in a pre-show conversation to discuss modernism, morality, and the role of ambition in design.
RAMI EL SAMAHY, CHRIS GRIMLEY, AND MICHAEL KUBO. CON-VERSATION AND PERFORMANCE WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE FOR-MER ALLEGHENY CENTER COMPLEX, NOW NOVA PLACE: 100 S. COMMONS STREET, 15212.