By "freely", I certainly wasn't talking from a monetary point of view, but one of physical obstructions.

I don't see what would have been at all wrong with keeping that lot master planned for the convention center, while being a park in the mean time. In 20-30 years it may be deemed too small, then what?

If there were no other areas to build on and fill in, then it would be a different story, but that's not at all the case.

You're talking about leaving idle for 20-30 years a large amount of extremely valuable, extremely well-located, land, all for a speculative purpose that may never materialize, in part because a convention center isn't necessarily a great use of such land in the first place.

The total opportunity costs of such a plan in terms of lost land-use value, lost tax revenues, lost transportation efficiencies, lost market-building for other local economic activities, and so on for those 20-30 years would be very, very high, and then you would have the ongoing opportunity costs of using that land for a convention center instead of its other potential uses.

So I highly doubt this plan would be worth it even if you could guarantee me that in 30 years we would somewhat wish we could expand the convention center, and of course there are no such guarantees.

This particular area is located along the river directly between Downtown and the Strip, which does not make it any old parcel. And in fact its current state of dramatic underutilization creates an artificial barrier between those two neighborhoods. There may be a few other areas adjacent to Downtown that are as important to infill, but I'm not sure there are any that are more important.

Private Dick, I have for years wondered why that horrible warehouse has to be located there, especially when they're trying to build a new footbridge either adjacent to or part of the West End Bridge. Who in their right mind would want to walk next to that horrible thing PERIOD let alone to access the bridge to cross the Ohio River?

I think the best thing they could do there is move that shit hole out to Robinson or Moon, you know, where it acutally MAKES SENSE(???) and to convert that to mid-rise hotel and residential use (7-to-12-stories for both roughly). and fill in the rest of the space there with park space. Also, build a better footbridge over Carson Street for the Duquesne Incline and link that directly with this park.

Then, promote the rest of the land in between this parcel and Station Square for some type of suitable infill development. Then, you'd have a huge walkable area linking Station Square with the North Shore as well as Downtown.

BTW, whatever happened to that project for the pedestrian bridge over the Ohio? Did that die like just about everything else considered good for the city?!!

Whether the need for an expanded convention center in the future is speculative or not is certainly up for debate. There are those which insist it is already too small considering other similar cities have facilities much larger (and I'm not talking about traditional convention cities such as Las Vegas or Orlando), then there are those that would have been fine if the new center wasn't built at all.

All I'm suggesting is that a Hampton Inn or the Seagate building could have been built anywhere in that general area and it would not have mattered, but that parcel would afford a unique opportunity to expand the convention center in the future if desired all while not hindering the other development that has happened as there are other parcels available.

Personally I think it would have been a great location for the new arena, as it could then be used in conjunction with the existing convention center (as done in many cities) so Pittsburgh can host some of the larger events. It would also have given the arena more use than just hockey games and a few concerts. But that ship has sailed.

Um, guys... you know that Buncher has set aside more than enough room to expand the convention center? There are two lots between the convention center and the Seagate building that would probably be enough land to almost double the convention center in size. I would imagine that they will remain parking lots into perpetuity.

Gateway View Plaza is certainly ugly, but it is also a very successful development. The building is full. When and if the property ever reaches a point where it would be more valuable as something else, I would think Buncher would do that.

Saying that that building, or Buncher's buildings in the strip are poor uses of land is revisionist history. For many years nobody would have had any interest in those sites for other uses. I'm not trying to make the argument that they aren't ugly, just that, when they were built, they both served their purpose and have been successful investments for Buncher (and provided a fair amount of real estate taxes for the city).

Certainly there is an ongoing debate about the wisdom of publicly-subsidized downtown convention centers, and conversely I am sure it is true some might want the convention center to be expanded today.

But you didn't propose immediately expanding the convention center, which would at least make use of that land. You proposed leaving that land undeveloped for 20-30 years, in the apparent hope the terms of that debate might shift in favor of expanding the convention center by that time. That specific notion--that waiting 20-30 years will make expanding the convention center seem like a better idea than it is now--is indeed speculative.

And I am pointing out that particular land has a unique location along the river and between Downtown and the Strip which makes leaving it undeveloped for 20-30 years a particularly costly proposal. In general, I think it will be less than 20-30 years before the idea of leaving any such large parcels adjacent to Downtown undeveloped will have unquestionably high opportunity costs.

Yes, I pointed out previously that you would have to assume the convention center was doubling in size in order to think it would need the land occupied by the Seagate building. It is also possible you could approximately double its square footage by taking it all the way from the river to Smallman, but that would require a significantly different design.

That said, all that I have argued applies to the entire area, and I hope that the parts of the area closer to 11th get developed sooner rather than later.

I hope Gateway View Plaza is inching its way in that direction where it would be more valuable as something else.

As for this talk about expanding the convention center, why not construct a massive hotel on the other side of the NS tracks there and have it connect to the convention center via a skywalk over the tracks? I could see a 30-plus story building going up there. I know there were plans for a hotel directly behind the convention center abutting Penn Avenue, but that, to me, looked like a physically limiting location for such a use. I think there still are plans for one there if I'm not mistaken. Last I heard, Omni, among others, was the latest hotel chain to state interest in operating a hotel.

There is still a long stretch of empty buildings and vacant lots on the south side of Carson.. I think if that land has the value that we think it should then developers should be scrambling for that property.

Interesting idea. Now that I think about it, that location would be far superior for the arena.

See, as long as it is making money for Buncher, they have little incentive to change things.
And as long as a misplaced, monstrous building like gateway view remains on that riverfront property in one of the most prime spots that exist in the city, there will be no other high value devlopment will take place in proximity. That's the issue -- they built these behemoths without any concern about the negative effects that would persist. Gateway view occupies what is arguably the most valuable piece of real estate in Pittsburgh's core, yet its used as a truck distribution warehouse.

No one would ever build on that narrow strip of land as long as the Buncher building stretching over a quarter mile on the riverfront across the street remains.

Buncher has a track record of developing exciting and architecturally distinctive urban properties that maximize the value of the land and yield numerous positive externalities to the adjacent cityscape. I am confident Buncher will move forward with a dynamic vision for the Allegheny waterfront with development that is sensitive to the existing architectural heritage while unleashing the potential of a Strip District currently plagued by excessive riverfront parking lots.

Evergrey, you must work for Buncher - that quote almost looks like a press release.

I like Buncher as a company. They are smart and the people are good to work with. That being said, I don't think any of their properties are exciting or architecturally distinctive. The Seagate building is their best building architecturally speaking (although I don't think there is a single TKA design that I like). The hotel fits within the fabric of the Strip well.

People often don't like industrial buildings, but these types of buildings fill a need. Not every light industrial tenant wants to be in Moon. When and if those properties have a higher and better use then it will be redeveloped. Not every development can be a modern mid rise residential tower.

Thankfully I have an excellent internet sarcasm detector! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

Lot 24 from yesterday. They had 2 flatbeds of framing delivered on Tuesday.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/7...7b99ac9c_b.jpg

Ok, that may be that not everyone wants to develop/own/etc an industrial warehouse building in Moon or Robinson, Monroeville, etc., but to me those would all be more desirable locations logistically. With East Carson Street, there really is no access to a major highway or rail way (with maybe the exception of Route 51 south of the West End Bridge). Granted, a CSX line passes right by the Gateway View Plaza, but there are no rails leading to any loading docks. Those are two tracks carrying main train traffic.

Did anyone post the articles regarding Bakery Square 2.0?

http://triblive.com/home/1817828-74/...tial-residents

I agree with Peduto (a real shocker... right?); I don't think a zoning change to urban industrial would be the best choice. I also would recommend changing it to combined commercial/residential or special planning. That's pretty much what they're trying to put in there. U.I. allows for some undesirable uses such as the aforementioned gas station from the article...

Oh yes, I read about Bakery Square 2.0! Happy to see the next phase progressing, hopefully the zoning will be changed to allow uses such as the developers are planning, yet also restricts undesirable uses as well. Seems the developers are more than willing to accept certain use restrictions, so that's always a positive!

Aaron (Glowrock)

I just hope NIMBYism doesn't interfere with the office buildings along Penn:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lw0n77.jpg

I applaud the lack of surface parking lots!:banana:

Here are some more renderings I came across:

http://www.stradallc.com/files/bakerysq2.0_5.gif

http://www.stradallc.com/files/bakerysq2.0_3.jpg

http://www.stradallc.com/files/bakerysq2.0_4.jpg

Image Credit: Strada Architecture

That is a really nice development.

The Odeon is now apartments, and would be another great project along Penn:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...partments.html

From its office days:

http://www.theodeonbuilding.com/

http://www.theodeonbuilding.com/wp-c...LL-SIGNAGE.jpg

Now to do something about those strip malls . . . .