IMAGINING THE MODERN

BRO

ADSH

EET

001

HEINZ ARCHITECTURAL CENTERCARNEGIE MUSEUM OF ART

JANUARY 2016H

ACLAB

PITTSBU

RGH

Downtown Pittsburgh—Evolving

Skyline, Imagining the Point and the Lower

Hill, Troy West—Citizen Architect,

and Allegheny Center Redux.

In the 1950s and ’60s an ambi-

tious program of urban revital-

ization transformed Pittsburgh.

Politicians, civic leaders, and

architects worked together to

reconceive large swaths of the

city—including the Point, the

Lower Hill, and Allegheny Cen-

ter—through wide-ranging lo-

cal and federal initiatives that

aimed to address the urban

problems that confronted the

city’s postwar development.

Pittsburgh’s early and rapid in-

dustrial growth in the previous

century had spawned a series

of environmental and social

catastrophes, including the

notorious pall of smoke that

hung dangerously over the city.

Urban renewal, modern plan-

ning and architecture, were

seen as the appropriate anti-

dotes for a city in crisis. Iconic

Pittsburgh projects such as the

Gateway Center and the Civic

Arena predated those in many

other U.S. cities, and the city’s

renewal efforts were lauded as

an early model for development

elsewhere. In the years since,

both the city’s modern archi-

tecture and the urban planning

that spurred its development

have largely fallen out of favor,

and the built legacy of this era

is disappearing.

HACLab Pittsburgh: Imagining

the Modern presents both an

exhibition and an experimen-

tal laboratory that invites you

to participate in disentangling

the city’s complicated relation-

ship with modern architecture

and planning. Over the dura-

tion of the exhibition, events

and activities in the gallery are

designed to investigate what

took place, what was gained,

and what was lost during Pitts-

burgh’s urban renewal era, and

what these histories might sug-

gest for the city’s future.

HACLab Pittsburgh is con-

ceived in three parts, which

can be visited in any order. An

introductory information space

outlines the major sites of in-

tervention in Pittsburgh—and

the larger national context of

urban renewal in the postwar

era. Three media rooms fea-

ture artifacts from the era—

such as films, documents, and

photographs—that trace the

stories of Pittsburgh’s modern-

ism. The workspace, the site of

live interaction, functioned as

a dynamic architecture studio

during the fall semester (Sep-

tember–December) and now as

the locus of a monthly salon in

the spring (January–May).

HACLab Pittsburgh: Imagining

the Modern is the first in a new

series of critical initiatives at the

Heinz Architectural Center. Each

lab invites a team of visionaries

to examine and present issues

of architectural and planning

importance to Pittsburgh and

the region. For this inaugural

laboratory, the Boston-based

practice over,under interrogates

the Steel City’s remarkable legacy

of midcentury modernism.

Laboratories entail risk as well

as the hope of discovery. This

experimental nature considers

architecture and urbanism as

phenomena in constant change.

Here students from Carnegie

Mellon School of Architecture

envisage future scenarios for

Allegheny Center. Multiple events

are planned to engage and

inform, to elicit information and

opinion as part of this ongoing

research into the heritage and

potential of Pittsburgh.

Raymund Ryan

Curator

THE HEINZ ARCHITECTURAL

CENTER, CARNEGIE MUSEUM

OF ART, PITTSBURGH

Chris Grimley, Rami el Samahy,

and Michael Kubo with Ann Lui

and Martin Aurand.

Curators

OVER,UNDER, BOSTON

CREDITS Architects-in-Residence over,under Curators Chris Grimley, Michael Kubo, Rami el SamahyAssociate Curator Ann LuiCuratorial Consultant Martin Aurand, Carnegie Mellon UniversityDesign Chris Grimley

Heinz Architectural Center Curator Raymund RyanHeinz Architectural Center Program ManagerAlyssum Skjeie

Supported by Heinz History Center, Pittsburgh Courier, Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foun-dation, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The programs of the Heinz Architectural Center are made possible by the generosity of the Drue Heinz Trust. General operating support for Carn-egie Museum of Art is provided by The Heinz En-dowments and Allegheny Regional Asset District. Carnegie Museum of Art receives state arts fund-ing support through a grant from the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, a state agency funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Beginning at the turn of the twentieth century, Brady Stewar t Studio (BSS) served as the lo-cal commercial pho-tography studio in the Steel City. Brady Wilson Stewart, a native Pitts-burgher, opened his business on Liberty Av-enue in 1920 and soon became a fixture at local events, regularly greet-ed by politicians such as Mayor David Law-rence. Under the lead-ership of his son, Brady Stewart Jr., and later his grandsons Brady and Mike, the studio amassed over seven de-cades an archive of the city ’s histor y through wide-ranging commis-sions of commercial produc ts, adver tise-ments, and architec-tural documentation.

The B SS colle c tion also represents the perspectives of local photographers whose side ventures includ-ed regular trips to Mt. Wa shin g t o n — p r o v i d -ing a timeline of annual images of the chang-ing P it tsburgh sk y-line—and photographs of daily life, including church services, phil-anthropic events, and street activity in new suburban communities.

1952

1959

1954

Downtown Pittsburgh: An Evolving Skyline

DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGHAN EVOLVING SKYLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

8

12 A

13

11

BUILT1 One Gateway Center EG G E R S & H I G G I N S WITH C LAVAN2 Two Gateway Center EG G E R S & H I G G I N S WITH C LAVAN3 Three Gateway Center EG G E R S & H I G G I N S WITH C LAVAN4 Four Gateway Center HA R R I SON & A B RAM OVITZ5 Bell Telephone Building D OWLE R & D OWLE R6 IBM Building C U RTI S & DAVI S7 Westinghouse Building HA R R I SON & A B RAM OVITZ8 Equitable Plaza CO LLI N S, S I M ON DS & S I M ON DS9 State Office Building A LTE N H O F & B OWN10 Hilton Hotel WI LLIAM B. TA B LE R11 Gateway Towers E M E RY ROTH & SON S12 Portal Bridge S K I D M O R E, OWI NG S & M E R R I LL13 Point State Park RA LP H G R I SWO LD ET A L.

PROPOSEDA Point Park Civic Center F RAN K LLOYD WR I G HT

The aptly named Point, where Pittsburgh was founded and the Monongahela and the Allegheny Rivers converge to form the Ohio River, developed into a major node in the city’s industrial network. By the 1930s, however, pollution, abandoned railroad structures, underused ware-houses, dilapidated hous-ing, and periodic flooding had brought the Point to a state of disrepair, and it soon became a focus for government and business-led redevelopment efforts.

Following a number of stud-ies, including two bold de-signs by Frank Lloyd Wright and a Robert Moses plan which placed the Point at the center of an automo-bile-driven metropolis, civic lead-ers proposed Point State Park and Gateway Center. The former, a state-designated thirty-six-acre parcel, was

designed by an impressive group of local, national and international land-scape architects, architects and en-gineers, including Ralph Griswold and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s Gordon Bunshaft. Point State Park, which opened in 1974, features an iconic fountain at the Point’s tip.

To the east of the park, Equitable Life, a New York–based insurance compa-ny that was committed to large-scale investment in Pittsburgh, developed twenty-three acres of land. Gateway

Center became a commercial and high-end residential development that epitomized modern life through its ar-chitecture, landscape, and planning. Its distinctive modernist buildings in-cluded three cruciform towers, the IBM Building with its “diagrid” façade of diamond-shaped panels, and the

massive steel Westinghouse Building. Gateway Center was considered a huge success, and became a model for urban renewal throughout the nation. The Point’s revi-talization embodied hopes for a competitive business climate for Pittsburgh, an increased in jobs in the city center, and the potential

spread of this growth to other parts of the city.

[W]hen the air was cleared and the black ugly

confusion of the Point was revealed in full

sunlight, a civic shudder shook the citizens…

A complete new life, urban reincarnation, was

the only hope. This was the challenge—a drastic

challenge requiring equally drastic measures.

Ralph GriswoldLandscape architect

and superintendent of

the Pittsburgh Bureau

of Parks, 1956

IMAGINING THE POINT…

City planners had eyed the redevel-opment of the Lower Hill as early as Robert Moses’ Pittsburgh Arterial Plan of 1939, which advocated clearing the area in order to develop a more ef-ficient highway system and new hous-ing. The site was the com-mercial, institutional, and cultural heart of the city’s African American commu-nity; yet it was characterized by overcrowding, poor sanita-tion, absentee landlords, and property values that were falling faster than anywhere else in the city.

Beginning in 1953, local ar-chitects Mitchell and Ritchey developed a master plan for Pittsburgh’s “Cultural Acropolis.” In 1956, with backing from several civic leaders and foundations, significant federal funding, and some communi-ty support, a large swath of land was cleared for the construction of the

Civic Arena, displacing thousands of residents and hundreds of businesses. Claiming the largest dome in the world at the time of its construction, the Arena was originally intended as an all-purpose facility, including a home for

the Civic Light Opera and local sports teams. Because its acoustics proved incompatible with musical theater, it remained primarily a sports venue.

Subsequent plans to add the equally ambitious Pittsburgh Center for the Arts, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), and Washington Plaza, a three-tower luxury housing project designed by I. M. Pei & Associates, did

not receive the same support. Displacement and failed re-location efforts left the local community deeply distrustful of further development, while a lack of consensus among civic leaders combined with a slow market for high-end housing in the area. Only one of Pei’s three towers was com-pleted, and the SOM project was scrapped completely. The grand project stalled, and the Civic Arena was left stranded

in a sea of parking lots for more than 60 years. With the demolition of the Arena in 2011, the midcentury dream of a cultural district adjacent to down-town was finally put to rest.

1

2

B

C

A

D

E

BUILT 1 Civic Arena M ITC H E LL & R ITC H E Y2 Washington Plaza Apartments I . M. P E I & A S SO C IATE S3 Chatham Center WI LLIAM LE S C AZ E

PROPOSEDA Lower Hill Cultural Center Master Plan M ITC H E LL & R ITC H E YB Center for the Arts S K I D M O R E, OWI NG S & M E R R I LLC Citizens Committee for District

Renewal, Lower Hill Development TROY WE STD Washington Plaza Master Plan I . M. P E IE Our Way Housing CO M M U N ITY D E S I G N A S SO C IATE S

3

Mayor Lawrence… always said that Pittsburgh,

if it’s going to survive in the long run, has to be

a big league city. We have to have major league

ball teams, major league symphonies, major

league governments; and to do that we have to

have major league stadiums and major league

symphony halls.

Robert PeaseLandscape architect

and superintendent of

the Pittsburgh Bureau

of Parks, 1956

...AND THE LOWER HILL

Troy West was born and raised in Pittsburgh. After graduating from

Carnegie Tech he won the prestigious John Stewardson Memorial

Fellowship in Architecture, traveled through Europe, and worked in

Philadelphia with Louis Kahn and Oscar Stonorov. He returned to

Pittsburgh in 1963, a tumultuous period in the city’s evolution, and

was soon drawn to the vibrancy and culture of the Hill District. His

advocacy -style teaching and collaborative practices (under the names

Architecture 2001 and Community Design Associates) presented a

counter-narrative to the more top-down approaches that had developed

the Point and the Golden Triangle. His architecture embraced the

expressive ideologies and forms of modernism, which, when coupled

with his unwavering belief in architecture as a social project, became

powerful forces in their own right to elevate the voices of those not

heard during the Renaissance.

What are your memories about the way that Pittsburgh changed from your childhood to when you came back after your time in Philadelphia?In my youth the city sometimes had to turn

the streetlights on at three o’clock in the

afternoon because the pollution was so bad.

David Lawrence, the Democratic mayor and

Republican Richard King Mellon, by working

together solved the problem. Architecturally

I didn’t come of age until after I left archi-

tecture school, although along the way I had

a few great classmates and teachers—Paul

Schweikher, Han Vetter, and Bob Schmertz.

When I won the John Stewardson Memorial

Fellowship Competition it enabled me to

travel in Europe for five months. The juror

was Oscar Stonorov who designed the Carl

Mackey Homes, the first public housing in

Philadelphia in which the community was in-

volved in the planning. I went to Philadelphia

to meet John Harbeson, head of the

Stewardson Committee. He told me that

Mr. Stonorov wanted to see me in his office

on the nineteenth floor of the Architect’s

Building on Sansom Street. He helped me

plan my trip, arranged introductions, and a

month-long stay at the American Academy

in Rome. He then extended an invitation

I could not resist, “when you are finished

with your travels you will come to work for

me.” I was delighted for this opportunity to

begin the next phase of my career.

In Philadelphia you also worked for Louis Khan.When I arrived in 1961, I believe I was the

youngest among a dozen or so others and

was fortunate enough to work on the Salk

Institute studies component most of the

two years I was there. I became aware that

this was becoming one of, if not, the great-

est building of the twentieth century. Louis

I. Kahn was aware of this, and I was part

of the small intense group devoted to this

challenge. I became very close to Lou and

continued to visit with him in Philadelphia

as often as was possible, up until his death

in 1974.

Then you were invited back to Carnegie Tech to teach under Paul Schweikher’s leadership.It was Brancusi who after only one month

of working for Rodin, left him explaining,

“nothing grows under the shadow of a big

tree.” I think it is probably true in my case. It

gave me the courage to accept the offer to

teach, though prior to this I never imagined I

could or would. I came at the same time that

Paul Scheweikher invited world-renowned

artist, writer and urbanist David Lewis with

two visiting UK urban designers to form the

Urban Design Department that brought the

city into the school. It was a revolution in

architecture education.

So would you say that what we call modern-ism is what was being taught at Carnegie Tech at that time?Under Paul Schweikher it was definitely

modernism. He would have faculty luncheon

meetings every week with freewheeling dis-

cussions about everything. The painting and

design department had an exhibition space

in the Fine Arts Building, so I suggested per-

haps the architecture department could

have a show there. Schweikher, being a larg-

er-than-life figure, would take an idea and

said, “why do you want to have it here, let’s

install it in the museum!” So we mounted

an exhibition and publication, Buildings by Pedagogs at the Carnegie Museum of Art.

There are some great projects in that exhibit. We were fascinated by the breadth of creativity that emerged from some very tight budgets. We don’t see a whole lot of that anymore, especially with respect to public housing, which now seems much more formulaic.In the Sixties, my interests led me to public

and low-income housing. Actually, the first

house I designed and built was for my family

and cost $25,000. Kahn, Stonorov, Dahlen

Ritchey and Norman Rice and other good

firms sought public housing projects and

produced great architecture. I worked on

public housing for Stonorov who based the

designs on what he did with Mackey Homes

in the Thirties, interviewing and involving

people who were to be actual residents.

So when you came back after that the city felt like a different place in terms of it’s fabric?No, the fabric was still intact. The only thing

gone was the Lower Hill. The Civic Arena

was there, surrounded by a sea of asphalt

parking lots. A friend got tickets for me to

see the Rolling Stones at the Civic Arena.

David Lewis was a big hockey fan and had

season tickets for the Arena. It was great

to experience this engineering marvel that

should have continued to be a source of

pride for the Hill and the city. I learned of

Rob Pfaffmann’s fight to save “The Igloo”

and joined with the hundreds of others

protesting the new urbanists’ campaign to

demolish the Arena. We presented ideas for

new uses that would engage and benefit the

residents of the Hill, as well as the city at

large. I wrote a letter to the City Council to

be included in the final debate, but to no

avail. The Civic Arena is gone. Now Pittsburgh

has to bear in its history the shame of de-

molishing one of the twentieth century’s

greatest engineering achievements.

You were offering alternative proposals parallel to the more established efforts of the Renaissance and very distinct from what is happening today, which is a neo-traditional response. I think this part of what interests us in your work. It was mod-ern and unapologetically of the era. When I came back from Philadelphia in 1963,

I went to the Hill District and walked around

drawing in my sketchbook. I was captivated

with all those narrow streets and compact

multi-use buildings. This place had so much

energy! I made many drawings and paintings

up there. My first encounter was while sit-

ting on the curb sketching for a long time,

when a local resident approached me and

said, “we thought that you were from the

FBI, but they wouldn’t sit there for that

long.” I had a little bit of caché then. I was

introduced to and became friends with the

local artists, playwrights and poets. The Hill

was the most interesting and vital cultur-

al scene in Pittsburgh. Many nights were

spent in the Hurricane Bar, Crawford Grill

No. 2 listening to Jimmy Smith, Sonny Stitt,

and Art Blakey—many of the jazz greats. At

the same time I became involved with the

Halfway Art Gallery and the Centre Avenue

Poets Theatre where my sculpture was ex-

hibited alongside poetry by August Wilson,

Rob Penny, Charles P. Williams and Nick

Flournoy. They became friends and col-

leagues along with sculptor Carl Dingbat

Smith. Ed Ellis, Dicky Morton, Chucky Dial,

the organizers at the Risk Youth organiza-

tion, along with Carnegie Mellon architec-

ture students built The Court of Ideas at

Centre Avenue and Devilliers Street, where

local children and adults celebrated being

together. I then got involved in the urban

renewal/removal fight that decimated the

Lower Hill and threatened to spread to the

rest of the community. My first involvement

was with CCHDR (Citizens Committee for

Hill District Renewal), then Architecture

2001 and the progressive planners at the

Urban Redevelopment Authority, David

Bond, Don Bryan and others. We were

awarded the commission to build tempo-

rary relocation houses. It was a profoundly

enlightened program. The URA wanted to

rehab substandard units and at the same

time not displace people from their neigh-

borhood schools or churches. Our first

step was to identify vacant parcels in the

vicinity of the houses to be rehabilitated.

Local contractor Jes Us, Inc. built the first

three temporary relocation houses on the

corner of Bedford and Roberts. These

masonry sturdy three-story buildings had

large windows with secured roof decks.

They were uniquely modern and were well

received. The next project was four mid-

block infill houses on Davenport Street by

local builder James Watts and landscape

contractor Charles Shelton.

In 1971, as Community Design

Associates we received the commission to

design fourteen three-story units on the

Vancroft/Ossippee/Landleiss Place site off

Heron Avenue in the Upper Hill under the

Section-235 National Housing Act. Benjamin

Banneker Homes, Inc., was the non-profit

sponsor with Father Donald McIlvanine,

Acting President, six neighborhood com-

munity board members, and Don Bryon,

Advisor. Community Action Pittsburgh was

the packager selected to implement the

FHA-302 Project. Richard Gensert was

the Structural Engineer. By 1973, General

Analytics, Inc. and Pennsylvania Drilling

Company completed all core boring drill-

ing and all compacted site fills to support

all units. Milan Spanovich, PE of Engineering

Mechanics presented cost estimates for

installing foundations to support all units.

Our office with my partners David Burson

and Raymond Winowich, had completed

the working drawings and specs. In 1974 the

US Congress passed legislation for federal

subsidies to be made available for housing

construction that was vetoed by President

Nixon, thus derailing the project that URA,

FHA, City Planning, and the Hill Citizens

Working Together achieved. Now forty-one

years later, the plans are still in place to build,

if the spirit of 1971 can be revived to realize

the Benjamin Bannaker Homes dream of

affordable community sponsored housing.

TROY WESTACTIVIST ARCHITECT

In late 1968, the Urban Redevelopment

Authority awarded us a contract to de-

velop a large parcel of land between 5th

Avenue and Our Way in the Lower Hill for a

mixed-use development that started with

the first paid study models and drawings

for what became the Our Way Project—our

most complex project undertaken in the

Hill. At this time Architecture 2001 was

coming of age with the completion of the

Court of Ideas, new housing, renovations,

and urban design studies. We were now

able to form Construction 2001 staffed by

the organizers. As the design evolved with

community participation the team included

psychologist Jay Greenfield, and attorney

Paul Titus from the firm Kaufman and Harris.

Paul provided the legal expertise to form

the Our Way 501C3 Community Board with

Ruth Petrell, who lived in the projects as

President. By 1971, we had partnered with

Mellon Stuart Construction Company to

build the structure and the major mechani-

cal systems. Our own Construction 2001

would complete the infill. Architecture 2001

partnered with the firm of Tasso Katselas,

my first mentor from school days who I

greatly admire and is a dear friend today.

The project received national and inter-

national attention including the 1971 issue L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, devoted to a

complete survey of American Architecture.

Everyone has talked about the Hill as this real cultural hotbed, past tense, and the jazz legends; everybody came through Pittsburgh. And at the time the city is attempting to build a cultural acropolis there—with the Civic Arena and the Center for the Arts. These are two very different kinds of culture, it’s almost as if the civic leaders felt that that other definition of culture would be a detriment. Is that your sense of things at that time?

When I won the Progressive Architecture award for the Lower Hill Development for

the Citizens Committee for Hill District

Renewal in 1966, I was working with Mrs.

Frankie Pace, Mattie Addis, and Bob Lavelle,

who were members of the Hill District es-

tablishment. When they proposed to build

the Symphony it was adding insult to injury

because the Civic Arena was already con-

structed, and virtually nobody from the

Hill liked what it stood for. Furthermore,

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill was hired to

build a Center for the Arts on a huge plinth.

That is when an idea for an alternative was

born, and that’s how we ended up designing

the PA award housing.

We had many events in the Court of

Ideas. The Spring Thing event was organized

that brought Bob Goodman, Hans Harms

from MIT, and others from the northeast.

For our annual Christmas party a poster was

made where a child asks “Is Santa Claus re-

ally white?” A notable African American Hill

resident Cornelius Doaks Brown dressed up

as Santa. The Court of Ideas hosted many

events and was a community-gathering

place. Art Blakey and Abbey Lincoln were

among the visitors.

Today The Court of Ideas is covered

with the debris of demolished buildings. In

October, I was invited back to Pittsburgh by

the Hill House to participate in their fiftieth

anniversary celebration. For several days we

conducted talks, workshops and confer-

ences in conjunction with the Pittsburgh

Design Center, attracting intergenerational

audiences and participants. A Thursday af-

ternoon workshop began the ‘archaeologi-

cal dig’ to uncover the long-buried Court of

Ideas.

What’s your favorite project from the time period, both your own and in general in Pittsburgh.Our Way was my favorite, but it has yet to be

built. Buildings by Frederick Scheibler were

masterpieces. Some were close to the Paul

Titus house that was under construction.

To my great pleasure I could observe them

each day I passed by on my way to weekly

supervision of the Titus house. In the Hill

District some of the buildings we tried to

save were the fabulous Passavant Hospital

with its beautifully landscaped grounds.

The Irene Kaufmann Settlement House was

on Centre Avenue, where we use to have

meetings in this phenomenal complex that

had fireplaces, oak-panel meeting rooms,

and art and music studios. It was a tragedy

when it was torn down. Edgar Kaufmann

Jr. was interested in Architecture 2001. He

came to the office often. He asked if there

was anything we could do while it was still

standing. We made alternative sketches, but

it was too late.

Paul Schweikher was instrumental

in getting Mies van der Rohe to design the

science building at Duquesne University.

Schweikher designed the Student Union.

When I won the sculpture prize at the

Three Rivers Arts Festival, it was pur-

chased by Duquesne University and was

installed in their student union. It pleases

me to know that the sculpture sits in a Paul

Schweikher building.

The Schweikher Duquesene Union building was gorgeous. They gummed it a little bit.That happens unfortunately. What was

done to Tasso’s Pittsburgh airport was

heartbreaking.

At a certain point you leave the Hill. Yes, but not by choice.

You were advised? No. I was fired. At that point Architecture

2001 was kicked out of the Hill by Ed Ellis

who had become militantly anti-white. At a

large conference we arranged he took the

opportunity to publicly declare, “Whitey’s

gotta leave the Hill,” indicating my time

was up. Chucky Dial said, “Don’t go!” With

this escalation in racial tension, I knew I

had to go. That’s how we ended up out in

Bloomfield, below the Hill. We were ulti-

mately invited back, and that’s when we

discovered the abandoned Pythian Temple

on Wylie Avenue. We moved in and set up

the office. That is where we produced the

map of the Hill district, which won a 1971

PA Design Award Citation. The final map

was 40 by 24 feet, the size of our work-

space. Richard Ridley and Ed Goff of the

Department of Transportation and SOM

coordinators in Washington, D.C. hired

us. Doug Cooper was the job captain and

included were eleven delineators. Chuck

Culbertson was the information coordi-

nator. Chucky Dial, while in prison was

the spiritual guide. Jay Greenfield, my

Architecture 2001 partner was the psychol-

ogist. Roland Hayes was the community

liaison, with twelve community resident

researchers. The research of the map be-

gan three years before as we explored and

documented the entire Hill with commu-

nity input. We worked with the community

to draw a map of the neighborhood from

the point of view of the residents living in

it. As the deadline approached we spent a

long weekend charrette drawing the map.

Monday when Ridley and Goff arrived along

with Hill community advisors, we were pre-

pared. Individuals were required to take off

shoes and walk all over the Hill on top of

this interactive representative map.

Why did you leave Pittsburgh? I was invited to give a presentation in New

York City. I figured it was an opportunity to

visit with my old friend and colleague from

Lou Kahn’s office Harlyn Thompson at the

Newark College of Engineering, home to

the first East Coast school of architecture

in fifty years. He explained that he was hir-

ing seven architects to start the school.

Each would have an expertise such as his-

tory, structures, landscape, etc. He had

one position open in advocacy and offered

it to me. I went back to Pittsburgh to dis-

cuss this offer with my family, friends and

colleagues and concluded Newark would

be the next challenge in my quest for

bringing the needs of the community into

architecture education.

I was always in two camps even when we had Architecture 2001.

In some ways I was an enfant terrible, but at the same time, we

were working with these extraordinary people at the Urban

Redevelopment Authority. Architecture 2001 was more than

just an office. It was a bridge. Everybody came through, from

Aldo van Eyck and presidential candidate Dick Gregory, to local

church and militant groups.

This interview took place at Mr. West’s farm house in Rhode Island.

Pho

to b

y M

athi

as O

pp

ersd

orff

1 PA Award issue for Lower Hill Development 2 URA Infill housing 3 Community Design Associates map 4 Court of Ideas 5 Lower Hill housing 6 and 7 Our Way sketch and model 8 CDA map in the Pythian Temple

3 4

2

6

5

1

8

7

TROY WESTSELECTED WORK

ALLEGHENY CENTER REDUX

Carnegie Mellon UniversityArchitecture Studio Fall 2015

1 Team & Nouf Aljowasari, Nina Schatz, Anum Shah

2 Team Intersect Kwangpo Cheng, Sabrina Estidullio, Horace Ho,

Liz Madigan 3 Team Flexhub Clara Lee, Jeremy Lu, Victoria

Pai, Kelsey Simpson.

BostonIn mid-September, we took a studio trip to Boston where we were able to visit notable urban architectural proj-ects—ranging from public plazas like the Christian Science Center complex and Dewey Square, to green spaces like the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, and the curious “adult playground” found at Lawn on D. We analyzed the sites we visited and studied them as prec-edents for what could possibly happen at Allegheny Center and its surrounding spaces. Could more green spaces be orchestrated on site to attract more people into Allegheny Center? What if we could import Paul Rudolph’s Government Service Center into our site at full scale? How would other buildings and roads have to adjust? As we grappled with these initial design decisions, we heard from various orga-nizations involved with the site, includ-ing the Buhl Foundation, the Children’s Museum, PENNDOT, City Planning, and significantly, Faros Properties, the new owner of the office complex. The dis-cussion generated from these presen-tations gave us a clearer understanding of the history of the site, transportation issues, and community needs. These organizations served as an important database of resources that was useful in the analysis of the Allegheny Center site. Considering all the voices of the community and implanting ideas from our precedent studies forced us to think outside our standard architec-tural solutions, beyond what is simply the “most realistic answer” and into the realm of “what could this space possi-bly become?” How might we as archi-tects help the community build a vision for the Northside that is transformative for the way they live, work, and travel?

Mid-semester ReviewOur first major milestone as the HAClab studio occurred on October 21, which marked our mid-semester review. At that time our studio presented three schemes addressing issues on the Allegheny Center site in the Northside as three separate groups. The design proposals for Allegheny Center var-ied in scale and scope, ranging from smaller tactical design interventions to grander visions for the Northside. Four

external critics were invited to review our proposals: Hal Hayes and Mary-Lou Arscott from Carnegie Mellon’s School of Architecture; Drew Armstrong, pro-fessor at the University of Pittsburgh; and Ed Shriver, principal of Pittsburgh-based firm, Strada. A second presen-tation occurred the following week with Fred Thieman, President of the Buhl Foundation, and Nick Ross of the Northside Bike/Ped Committee. Mr. Thieman warned us of the strong re-actions that the community might have to any changes in public park spaces, but responded positively to new and creative solutions to issues of connec-tivity through Allegheny Center. Nick Ross was receptive to our more radical ideas of intense densification on site, and was instructive in helping us think through presentation methods when addressing the community as well as other stakeholders. We also received feedback from over,under principals Mark Pasnik and Chris Grimley. All the critics offered constructive and in-sightful comments on our proposals, and cited useful precedents for our respective groups to consider as we moved forward with our designs.

Three Distinct Proposals After receiving feedback on our initial design proposals, we aimed to develop more clarity and resolution in each of the schemes. Some of our ideas were more responsive to real constraints than others; however, we believed that explorations of various extremes in the spectrum of possibilities were invaluable to producing innovative de-sign solutions. In the month following midreview, we spent time reflecting on the critiques we had received and dove into the stages of intensive design and revision. Our final review occurred on December 14, which culminated our semester-long investigations of Allegheny Center in the presentation of our final three proposals. Many of our earlier critics were also present at the final review, which also included guest critics Kelly Hutzell, Chris Grimley, and Michael Kubo. Again, our three groups presented projects of three different scales. Our most modest approach showcased a network of elevated path-ways and ground planes that sought to

create increased pedestrian accessibil-ity both into and through the site as a way to delineate a clear visual identity. The proposal evoked shared qualities with the Highline in New York, a defunct elevated rail line converted into pub-lic space. A second group proposed to reconnect old roads that had been cut off as a result of the 1960s design, thus form strong pedestrian and automobile axes through the site, and proposed the erection of a tower to draw visitors to the site. The last proposal suggested citywide infrastructural changes to es-tablish stronger connectivity through-out Pittsburgh. This would allow the Northshore to become a new transpor-tation hub connecting the Northside to the rest of Pittsburgh through new bus and metro lines, providing grounds for the development of the site in anticipa-tion for densification as the area was established as a primary node in the city. This design proposal used the 2024 Olympic Games as a potential catalyst for infrastructural changes, citing the 1992 Barcelona Games as a precedent for utilizing the Games as a means to an end—in this case, the end being the establishment of Pittsburgh with an in-frastructure to be a city of the future.

Moving ForwardAlthough the semester has ended, we hope that our proposals might spark continued dialogue about the potential of Allegheny Center—and other similar sites in the city. We aim to provoke re-actions from the public with our ideas; in a sense our proposals aim to ask as many questions as they answer. As ar-chitecture and urban design students, we are learning to provide solutions for present-day issues while preparing frameworks for a future that we can really only predict in limited ways; the greater the input, the greater the clar-ity of the vision. Feel free to come by the studio to see our three proposals for Allegheny Center and let us a know your thoughts!

A cohort of eleven Carnegie Mellon University architecture students

joined up to take this unusual studio. It was a unique experience in

a number of ways: first, studio was held at the Heinz Architectural

Center, in the middle of the exhibition; second, we interacted with

a series of stakeholders that made the project feel more “real”; and

third, due to the nature of the project and its location in the museum,

we were constantly switching between large-scale urban design,

architecture and exhibition design.

Our site, the Northside’s Allegheny Center, included the Children’s

Museum, the New Hazlett Theater, several housing structures, and

most notably, the monumental office complex designed in 1965

that was born of modernist urban planning strategies intended to

revitalize an ailing neighborhood. The intriguing yet problematic

building is what many remember as the Allegheny Center mall:

a former shopping center repurposed as back offices for major

banking institutions, the once-thriving retail hub is now sparsely

populated. In form and in function, the office complex presents

a difficult face for those wishing to gain entry to the site. Access is

further challenged by some rather substantial obstacles: a four-lane,

one-way road surrounds the complex that is further disassociated

from neighboring communities by the highway to the south and a

lovely but underused park to the east, north and west. Our challenge

this semester was to examine the nuances of this site and to propose

possible architectural strategies to improve the experience of the

Northside for both existing residents and incoming visitors.

Victoria Shinyu Pai, Class of 2016

The HACLab salons are informal but informed discussions around a set of key topics, for the entertainment and education of invited participants and audience al ike. Al l present wil l be encouraged to participate. Salons wil l take place in the HAC gal leries on Thursday evenings between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.

Live, Work, Move, Play Thursday, February 18The organization of how we live, work, move and play is an essential com-ponent of successful urban design. Landscape and infrastructure were radically reconsidered during the post-war era. In what ways were cit-ies including Pittsburgh reimagined? What drove these changes? What worked? What didn’t?Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy); Joel A. Tarr (Professor Department of History, CMU); Raymond Gastil (Planning Director, City of Pittsburgh); Kai Gutschow (Associate Professor, CMU); and Lizabeth Cohen, (Dean, Radcliffe Institute / Department of History, Harvard)

Preserving ModernismThursday, March 10One consequence of modernism was a burgeoning preservationist move-ment, a largely grass-roots effort to halt the removal of traditional urban fabric as occurred in some areas of Pittsburgh. Today, these modernist projects are increasingly under threat of demolition, couched in efforts

to “re-stitch” the city. Does this removal merely repeat the mistakes of modernism? What is worth saving? At what cost?Arthur Ziegler (PHLF); Matthew Falcone, (Preservation Pittsburgh); Thom-as Saunders (Western PA Conservation); Rob Pfaffman (Pfaffman Associ-ates); and Gwendolyn Wright (Professor, Columbia GSAPP).

Our Modern City Thursday, April 7It’s important that we understand not just the products created by mod-ernism (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 recalibrat-ed to make the architecture and urbanism needed for tomorrow?LaShawn Burton-Faulk (Executive Director, Manchester Citizens Corpora-tion); Christine Mondor (Chair, Pittsburgh Planning Commission); and Co-rey Zehngebot (Boston Redevelopment Area); Justin P. Greenawalt (Pres-ervation Pittsburgh)

Where to Next?Thursday, April 28A 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.

HACLab Pittsburgh includes an information center where visitors can interact

with an iPad application to navigate more than ninety significant examples

of Pittsburgh’s historic, mid-century and contemporary architecture.

This app will soon be available for download on any device, encouraging

exploration not only inside the gallery but outside its walls, in the city itself.

The icons below illustrate some of the modernist projects represented in

the app—and in the exhibition. How many can you identify? Send your best

guesses to haclab@overunder.co by March 10 and be eligible to win a prize!

PITTSBURGH PROJECTS

SALON EVENTS SPRING 2016

1

7

13

19

2

8

14

20

3

9

15

21

4

10

16

22

5

11

17

23

6

12

18

24