Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
36 FIGURE 29 Former Pittsburgh passenger terminal complex built in 1952. ian Air and Space Museum. The proposed museum attracted REUSE OPTIONS LIMITED BY BUILDING a lot of community interest; however, by the spring 1993, ABANDONMENT the Smithsonian decided to expand within the Washington, D.C., area. The proposal continued to have local support, Approximately 1 year after the relocation to the Midfield and sponsorship was taken up by the Pittsburgh Airport Terminal Complex, Allegheny County received requests Museum, a not-for-profit group. However, it was not possible from the airlines to terminate utility service to the former to raise all of the estimated $50 million for renovations and terminal building, which was estimated at nearly $1 million exhibits, so the museum initiative failed. per year. The county subsequently stopped general mainte- nance and upkeep and terminated all utilities except limited Partly as a consequence of the publicity around the electricity for emergencies. The building was secured by an museum proposal, the County Board of Commissioners and 8-ft perimeter fence. This action was consistent with a mem- the Departments of Aviation and Economic Development orandum of agreement between Allegheny County and US received many proposals for reuse of the former terminal Airways that stated that if a viable reuse of the former termi- building from private developers, companies, agencies, and nal building was not identified by October 1994, the build- individuals (see Figure 30). In addition, the County Board ing would be demolished in its entirety and the demolition of Commissioners awarded a contract to the National Devel- would be funded by the airlines. This agreement forced an opment Corporation to identify and attract potential devel- early reuse decision and resulted in few resources dedicated opers. National Development Corporation was not able to to keeping the former terminal building alive. find prospects. One problem with keeping the former termi- nal building in place was the estimated cost of $15 million However, for a variety of reasons, the building remained needed to remove asbestos and fuel contamination to ready standing and vacant for 7 more years. It became weathered it for development. This cost of cleanup made most proposed and interior elements of the rotunda were damaged by van- reuses financially infeasible. The county decided that its top dalism. The lack of heating and ventilation resulted in mold priority was to develop the property for aeronautical uses and mildew. A building condition evaluation report esti- compatible with the airport. Under consideration were-- mated that the cost for demolition was $2.5 million. · An FBO, A benefitcost analysis was completed on four alterna- · A laser-based paint coating removal plant for aircraft tives: no action; partial reuse of the former terminal build- paint, ing and cargo development; retention of the former terminal · A new airline, building, a business aviation center, and cargo development; · Air Force/Air National Guard facility, and full demolition of the former terminal building and full · Regional support command army training facility, and development of the Airside Business Park. The last alterna- · Air cargo facility. tive was selected.