Talk:List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complete list?[edit]

Regarding the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks, I have a feeling there are a lot more places that are recognized as such by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) than just the items on this list. The reason I say this is because there are a number of old buildings in this town that have PHLF markers on them that are not included on the list. For example, when I took the picture of the B. F. Jones House (aka Jones Hall), I noticed that the building beside it, West Hall, has a PHLF marker on it that says, "Historic Landmark - West Hall - 1911-1912 - Thomas Hannah, Architect - Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation". This building has a PHLF marker, but is not on the list. I figure that Dudemanfellabra "created" the list on Wikipedia simply by copying it from the PHLF website. Well, this is something that I had planned to do months ago, but did not because of lingering questions I had as to whether or not this was the complete list of Pittsburgh Landmarks. For other examples, if you go to Category:Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks, you will see a number of places that are not on this list. Here's an example, First Church of Christ, Scientist (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), on its Wikipedia pages says, "In 1977, First Church of Christ, Scientist, was designated a Pittsburgh Historic Landmark by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation." The building is still there, and I see no reason why it would have been removed from the list. I also doubt that all the other places with markers on them have been removed from the list too. If you drive through Pittsburgh, you will see numerous other places with the PHLF markers on them, and many are not on the list. Most of the sites on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania also have PHLF markers on them. Not only that, but I think there are even some sites with PHLF markers on them that are outside Pittsburgh city limits too. So, I've always wondered about that list on the PHLF's website, as to whether or not it's complete, and I should probably write to them and ask if they have a complete list of ALL the places that have markers on them that are considered to be Pittsburgh Landmarks. Leepaxton (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understood it, PHLF recognizes many more landmarks than are on this page. PHLF puts a plaque on all buildings that are city landmarks, state landmarks, NRHP-listed landmarks, and NHLs... of which combined apparently equal 525, according to the PHLF website. When I made this list, I intended for it to only be "Pittsburgh Landmarks", which I understood to mean local historic designations (i.e. not state, nrhp, or nhl designations). There is already a list of National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and it's linked in the See Also section of this page.. the only thing that's missing is a list of state landmarks (and I haven't searched for it). While all these designations are under the "scope" of PHLF, I believe all of them are noteworthy in their own right and are sizeable enough to justify giving each one its own list. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured there were probably hundreds of sites recognized by the PHLF as Pittsburgh Landmarks. 525 you say, according to the PHLF website. Well, I believe it. Of course I think all should be listed, but that would include all of the State Landmarks as well as the National Landmarks and whatnot. I know there is already a list for the National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and many of my photographs are there also, but I think it's honest to say that a number of those sites are also on this list. I mean, it's a bit redundant in some places. Nevertheless, it is what it is. What I'm interested in here is the actual number of sites though. So, here it goes:
The PHLF website says there are 525 "Pittsburgh Landmark" sites. Well, according to the National Register list for Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, there are 207 properties and districts listed on the National Register for the county and the city of Pittsburgh, including 10 National Historic Landmarks. All 10 of the sites listed as National Historic Landmarks are also on the National Register of Historic Places. So, that total is 207. Well, the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks page says there are 11 designated districts in the city and 62 individual structures (though there are 65 individual structures on the list). That makes 73 total (or 76 total). But, 41 of those sites are also on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There are only 3 Historic Districts listed on the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks that are not on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, and those are: Market Square Historic District, Murray Hill Avenue Historic District, and Oakland Civic Center Historic District. As for the individual properties, 38 of those are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places for Pittsburgh. So, that means there are only 24 (or 27) individual structures that don't overlap between those two lists. Therefore, there are only 32 (or 35) different sites for the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks. Add that to 207, and you get 239 (or 242). Which means, there are still 286 (or 283) Pittsburgh Landmark sites that are not counted between both lists (The National Register and the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks). Perhaps all 286 (or 283) of those are listed on some other sort of "Pennsylvania State Historic Landmarks" list that I've never heard of, and I'm not sure if one exists or not, or those are the other sites around town considered "Pittsburgh Landmarks" with the PHLF markers on them designated by someone other than the PHLF (?) or designated by the PHLF? Anyway you slice it, that's a gap of a lot of sites and that is why I am a bit confused by all of this. I mean, I doubt that West Hall, the place beside Jones Hall that I mentioned in my previous post, is listed as a local Pittsburgh Landmark by anyone other than the folks who put that PHLF marker on the building (which was most likely the PHLF). Nevertheless, West Hall isn't on their "List of Pittsburgh Landmarks". West Hall is not on the National Register, and I can't think of anyone else who would put a PHLF marker on a building other than the PHLF. There may be over 200 more sites around town with PHLF markers on them too. That is why I wonder whether the list on the PHLF website (and this list) is complete or not. Leepaxton (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church[edit]

I removed this image of St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church, because that's not the one located at 1326 East Ohio Street. The church in that picture is located at 24 Maryland Avenue in Millvale, Pennsylvania. The one in Millvale is on the National Register of Historic Places. But there's a different, older church with the same name located at 1326 East Ohio Street (this was the original location of the congregation, which later moved farther down the road to the other church in Millvale). The one on East Ohio Street is on the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks. It also was in the news not that long ago, because a road project is being discussed nearby and some people want to make sure it gets saved because it's supposedly the site of the first Croatian Catholic Church in the United States, and some folks want to turn it into a museum. Geneisner (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. My mistake. I'm not from around the Pittsburgh area, so I just did a search for images and found that one.. in fact, that's how I found all the images for the redlinks on this page. If you see any others that don't look quite right, please correct them. Thanks for clearing that up! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHLF list[edit]

I started compiling a chart for PHLF designated landmarks ripped straight from their new updated list (found here). There are several hundred, so it will take a while to complete, but I think the information in a sortable table will be invaluable. The images sizes are small because there will be so many entries I thought large images might make it unmanageable to peruse or sort. The model I used is List of University of Pittsburgh buildings, but perhaps I should use something similar to the NRHP tables like the exiting charts with larger photos. I've reverted to using the size/style of the NHRP tables.

Eventually, when it is completed, I envision combining the City Designated Landmarks table into to it. For this, an extra City designation date column can be easily added. Likewise, columns for Pennsylvania historical markers and NRHP, etc., can be added along the lines of List of Chicago Landmarks. Let me know what you think, hopefully before I get much further with entries to the PHLF table. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're moving things in a better direction now. I'll see what other images I can find as far as ones I've already taken. Then, I'll try and see which ones I can go out and photograph when I have the time. Leepaxton (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, I was about to leave you a message since it seems you enjoy photographing these historic sites. (great photos by the way, they really are nice) I was waiting until I got a little more through adding the PHLF nominations, but I think it is fairly obvious there are a lot of missing PHLF photos that can be acquired. I live in San Francisco now so I won't be able to help in that regard. Please let me know of any comments that you have regarding the table that I'm trying to put together. I'm sticking pretty much to the nomenclature, etc, on the PHLF list for uniformity purposes. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic list updated and complete[edit]

I've updated both the City of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation landmark designation tables. The PHLF listing was entered to match as closely as possible to the listing in their Historic Landmark Plaques booklet. All the tables should be up to date as of July 14, 2010. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I personally think that the PHLF section should be split out as its own article to better distinguish the difference between city landmarks and PHLF designations.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that as well, as it is a very long list. The advantage of not splitting is that there are a lot of wikilinks just to Pittsburgh Landmarks that don't naecessarily differentiate between the two, and it is convenient to keep it together for that reasoning. Let's see what others think. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only three pages link to Pittsburgh Landmarks... --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus another 7 to Pittsburgh Landmark. That's less than I thought. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And of those 7 (which is now 8 because of this talk page), 6 are disambiguation pages. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue as far as linking pages, is that the Historic site infobox field for Pittsburgh Landmarks links to the this list. That includes both City and PHLF landmarks and includes 100s of articles. A lot of those could be from the Pittsburgh template, but it might be hard to weed through which list each link should point to, especially when a property is listed by both the City and PHLF. Splitting would probably require a new field specifically for PHLF to be entered in the historic sites infobox. That could be done I suppose. Perhaps PHLF could have its own infobox for landmarks, since there are probably 300+ that aren't NHRP or City designations. Thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually the person that created and maintains {{Infobox Historic Site}} and it's underlying designation structure, Template:Designation. It's a simple fix to add in a PHLF designation and distinguish the two different titles. (Click here for information about how to add a designation.)
If the article is split out (which I'll leave up to you guys to decide), don't worry about the infobox haha. I can take care of that. As for Template:Pittsburgh, all that takes is a single edit to add two lists (or a single edit to remove the lists all together temporarily so we can sort out the actual page links..). The logistics behind the split can be dealt with fairly simply..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of a question independent from the issue of splitting the article, but I'm a little confused with the best way to go here, and also with the hierarchy of the historic wikiprojects, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. The Historic Site infobox seems the way to go with properties listed by multiple organizations, particularly foreign and international organizations like UNESCO. But then the NRHP has its own infobox (as does UNESCO). When U.S. NRHP is the highest listing for a property, the NRHP infobox, with lower local listings also included, seems to be the way to go. So it seems like Historic Site infobox (for multiple listings with at least one being above US national level) and then NRHP infobox (for so listed properties). Since Pittsburgh has around 400 or so listings that are unique from NRHP, none of which really have a chance for UNESCO listing, would it just make sense to make a new Pittsburgh-specific landmark infobox template modeled on the NRHP one? Such an infobox could be customized for Pittsburgh with designations for PHLF Historic Landmarks as well as City of Pittsburgh Historic Structures, Districts and Objects, as well as, perhaps, a field for neighborhoods. Honestly, there are a lot of Leepaxton's photos that have pretty thorough descriptions and could be turned into full fledge articles with little effort if he was willing. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a place is listed on the NRHP and other designations, it's probably better to use the NRHP infobox. The whole point behind the Historic Sites infobox, though, was for places not on the NRHP – regardless of their scope. I believe a Pittsburgh infobox would be unnecessary because everything you want it to do is basically covered in the Historic Sites infobox.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There probably also needs to be a Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission historical marker designation. There is some overlap between Pittsburgh landmarks and the state markers, Salk Hall being an non-NRHP one off the top of my head. There are 1000+ state markers, with 384 in Allegheny County and Philadelphia County alone. So it seems like the Historic Site Infobox should be set up with three designations: PHMC Historical Marker; City of Pittsburgh Designated Historic Landmark (District, Site or Object); and PHLF Historic Landmarks? CrazyPaco (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with splitting them or not splitting them. I'm interested with leepaxton's opinion since he has contributed so many of the photos. I'm also wondering if there is a split whether the current list article should be turned into a disambiguous page pointing to both List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks and List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations? CrazyPaco (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really mind too much either way, but for some reason I kind of like having it as one big list for now. It doesn't take long to load, perhaps because it isn't linked to too much at this time (The List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania seems to take longer to load, but it's actually a little bit smaller in byte size compared to this PHLF list. Do you think this is because it gets more traffic?). In time this list might be linked to more pages and get more traffic, and then it will likely load slower if its size is not reduced (if the previously mentioned hypothesis is correct), so then splitting it up would probably be the thing to do. But, for now, there's something kind of neat about looking at the vast multitude of Pittsburgh Landmarks recognized by the PHLF all on one page. Also, for picture taking, it's kinda nice to be able to scroll down a complete list and see what needs photographed next. I know where a lot of these places are, and I've passed a number of them while out taking pictures. Some of these places on private property will probably require waiting until the leaves drop in the fall in order to get good images. I've already tried to take a picture of the Lark Inn in Leetsdale, but all I could get was the old stone spring house beside it because the old Inn has trees all around it and isn't visible from the street. Then nearby there's Sewickley... I don't think it's usually as pleasant to take pictures of private property in hoity-toity neighborhoods, the people aren't usually as friendly as those in middle-class and working-class neighborhoods. Honestly, I would rather take pictures in the Hill District than Sewickley, but I will try my best to get as many as I can there anyway. As for the Evergreen Hamlet houses, I got the picture of the Hill-McCallam-Davies house, and I saw the other houses when I was up there, but it's not easy to get good photos there (it's a rather steep hill, and private property signs are posted so people don't stray from the road). Anyhow, I've strayed from the topic at hand, so, basically, it's up to you guys as far as how you think the list (or lists) should be displayed and organized. Leepaxton (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the issue wasn't whether to split the PHLF table up, but rather to split it off, as a complete list, into its own article. PHLF landmarks and City of Pittsburgh designated landmarks (which I think we would then move to a more specific name) would then each have their own articles. Since you are doing the ground work with photos, and that is a big job to undertake, I think anything that makes your job easier should get strong consideration, so I would lean toward no splitting based on your comments. The two designations have less overlap than I thought they would going into to this, and they also seem to have different purposes/qualities. The City designations seem to be given out in a lot of cases to protect the the properties where eminent sale or demolition (Malta Temple, St. Nich, Paramount building) is trying to be prevented. Honestly, some of the City designations are pretty weak historical landmarks on the overall scale of historical structures in the city, where you'd have to put something like the blockhouse at the top of the list. Combining both in one article thus gives a nice overview of different property qualities, so to some extent, it is nice to keep them together. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, or perhaps we could just change the name of the page to "Places Recognized by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation", and that should cover everything in all the different tables on one list. I always thought the title "Pittsburgh Landmarks" was too unspecific, I mean, I think Mancini's Bread is a "Pittsburgh Landmark", in some ways, but it's not on the list compiled by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation. So, I think stating that qualifier in the title could help (though the page explains that stuff anyway). I don't know, you guys probably know more about this type of Wiki stuff. Leepaxton (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really rename it to that without splitting the City designated landmark tables from the PHLF table. There are two different entities (City Council and PHLF) that have made separate designations and their lists of recognized historic landmarks are not mutually inclusive. The proposal would be to have one article named List of City of Pittsburgh designated historic landmarks and the other one named List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation designated Historic Landmarks. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok, so maybe they should be split into separate lists, but then again, maybe not because it's confusing enough as it is. The tables basically explain what is what on the page well enough already, and I do think it's nice to have them all on one page for ease and access. Since "Pittsburgh Landmarks" covers both City Council designations as well as PHLF designations, then it seems all right to have them all together on one page. So, ultimately, I guess I'm for keeping this as one page in order to reduce confusion. Leepaxton (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHLF discrepancies[edit]

The PHLF website says 525 plaques have been awarded. I've entered 537 unique entries according to how they are listed in this booklet. Also, this photo appears on their website shows a plaque for the Fort Pitt blockhouse that isn't listed in their booklet. Anyone have any explanations for these discrepancies? CrazyPaco (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered if some sites were considered "contributing properties" to districts or other sites, but I had also thought the discrepancies would've been more the other way (less than 525 entries rather than more), perhaps because of something like this: Engine Company No. 1 and No. 30 are sort of like two places in one, though are listed as one. Leepaxton (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into it a little more, I think they are just not counting consistently like you mention (like counting all the CMU buildings as one). Also, on their old on-line list here, they admit they probably have omissions (and I think the block house is an obvious one so I entered it in the table). CrazyPaco (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Fort Pitt Blockhouse is probably one of the most important Pittsburgh Landmarks out there, if not the most important, and no list of Pittsburgh Landmarks would be complete without it. Built in 1764, it's probably the oldest structure in the region as well. Though there is some question as to whether the Old Stone Inn (1756?) in the West End predates it or not, though its date hasn't been verified yet. I think the Old Stone Inn should be on the list too, and hopefully someday soon it will be included. Leepaxton (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently the blockhouse is on PHLF's list, although they don't know it, but it is not on the City's list. The Old Stone Tavern is on the city's list, but not yet on PHLF's. I'd assume the Old Stone Tavern would get on PHLF's in the next round of additions. The city's designation, as I mentioned elsewhere, seems to serve more of a purpose to protect properties that are imminently being threatened by development, as the city's designation carries the weight of legal protection. I mean, if it was a pure list just for landmarks, like you said, no way is the blockhouse would not be on it...and there are many other such examples. The PHLF list, on the other hand, seems to be just a much more pure list of the best historic and architecturally important structures in the entire county.CrazyPaco (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right about that. Leepaxton (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting[edit]

Since there was not strong resistance to the suggestion, and to best integrate these landmark listings into the Historic Sites WikiProject, I'm going to split the City and PHLF designations into two articles while this page will be left as a disambiguating pointer. At least it will be good to see as a trial run. Let me know if there are any issues. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New PAhistoric infobox template for Pittsburgh[edit]

For anyone interested in creating or editing articles on Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh historic sites or landmarks, I have created a new Pennsylvania historic infobox modeled on the National Registry of Historic Places infobox. This infobox is intended for state or local historic sites and landmarks that are not listed on the national registry, but are designated as historic by Pennsylvania and/or regional or local authorities and organizations. Like the NRHP infobox, the PAhistoric infobox will place color-coded banners signifying the historical significance of the subject at the top of the infobox, can handle both local Pittsburgh designations (City designated and PH&LF designated) that are already thoroughly covered in Wikipedia articles/lists, and also provides the ability for other fully-customizeable local designations. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City documents: links broken[edit]

All the links (?) to City of Pittsburgh documents produce 404s and need to be fixed. Aolivex (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_City_of_Pittsburgh_historic_designations&oldid=1208221425"