PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Unregulated? Seriously? You have not a clue as to what you're talking about.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Does it really matter what I think? It's not like I'm personally involved in any part of the industry whatsoever.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

but you should be able to find evidence available out there in the form of best practice literature from planning/design, architecture, and real estate firms.

I took a quick look around, and I did not. There is ample literature on the importance of mixed-use development, which I already knew. I also found lots of references to the general importance of waterfront development, which I also already knew. I did not find anything on the specific question at hand, however (specifically riverfront development, and specifically that the upper floors on all the buildings immediately next to the river should be residential and not office).

What I can offer are examples of a number of projects I've been fortunate to work on (DC Yards, Boston's Fan Pier) and others that I am currently working on... that display the exact design attributes I am pointing to.

Actually, I was really puzzled by your citation of Fan Pier, since I would say the opposite.

One obvious point is just that Fan Pier is not a riverfront location. I think I was clear from the outset that I didn't think all waterfront locations were alike, so citing a non-riverfront project isn't very helpful.

Moreover, judging from your posted plan, Fan Pier doesn't actually fit your stated requirements. It is true two of the buildings along the "fan" part are residential, but about half the fan is actually taken up by Moakley Courthouse, which is basically office. Then on the marina side, there is the aforementioned residential building on the top corner, but the rest could have little or no residential and a lot of office.

So since only the stuff within the red oval in this rendering is actually dedicated to residential, I am having a hard time understanding how this project supports the thesis that ALL waterfront buildings must be residential:

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

I still think that there should be waterfront residential developed at SSW and on other riverfront parcels in the city, as there is definitely a market for it and currently there exists a dearth of buildings in that market.

I agree. We have a ton of riverfront parcels available for redevelopment, and while I don't think all of them need to be residential, I definitely think many of them should.

Now the part of the SSW that desperately needs residential development, waterfront or otherwise, would obviously be the eastern section across Hot Metal street.

The good news is that is coming in the current phase (including along the water).

[themaguffin]

I do think it's shame that nobody has capitalized on water front property for a residential tower of some size. Water won't be the biggest draw
as that would be the view of downtown (obstruction would be next to impossible since the river is there)

...coupled with proximity to amenities and easy commuting etc.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I do think it's shame that nobody has capitalized on water front property for a residential tower of some size. Water won't be the biggest draw as that would be the view of downtown (obstruction would be next to impossible since the river is there) ...coupled with proximity to amenities and easy commuting etc.

Station Square's east parking lot (newly expanded with the demolition of the warehouse) seems ideal for that sort of thing. Hopefully Forest City shows the same sort of ambition here as they have in DC.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I took a quick look around, and I did not. There is ample literature on the importance of mixed-use development, which I already knew. I also found lots of references to the general importance of waterfront development, which I also already knew. I did not find anything on the specific question at hand, however (specifically riverfront development, and specifically that the upper floors on all the buildings immediately next to the river should be residential and not office).



Actually, I was really puzzled by your citation of Fan Pier, since I would say the opposite.

One obvious point is just that Fan Pier is not a riverfront location. I think I was clear from the outset that I didn't think all waterfront locations were alike, so citing a non-riverfront project isn't very helpful.

Moreover, judging from your posted plan, Fan Pier doesn't actually fit your stated requirements. It is true two of the buildings along the "fan" part are residential, but about half the fan is actually taken up by Moakley Courthouse, which is basically office. Then on the marina side, there is the aforementioned residential building on the top corner, but the rest could have little or no residential and a lot of office.

So since only the stuff within the red oval in this rendering is actually dedicated to residential, I am having a hard time understanding how this project supports the thesis that ALL waterfront buildings must be residential:

Waterfront property... definitely not all alike, but whether riverfront, harborfront, bayfront, etc... mixed-use redevelopment design best practices still hold.

The courthouse has been there since the 90s -- it's not part of the development.

The photo you posted is from awhile ago; it's not the current rendering, but regardless, the 2 harborfront buildings are residential, the building behind the eastern residential tower on the marina is mixed use (office on lower floors, hotel and residences upper) and the building on the marina next to the park is planned residential (potentially hotel also).

What you have circled in red is NOT the only residential as you claim (far from it). And the "thesis" is not that ALL waterfront buildings must be residential -- that is a strawman. I've never claimed that.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

but whether riverfront, harborfront, bayfront, etc... mixed-use redevelopment design best practices still hold.

That's precisely one of the things I am questioning, that potential residential demand for the closest properties will be the same for any sort of waterfront.

The courthouse has been there since the 90s -- it's not part of the development.

Not part of the new development, but certainly part of the same area. I would tend to agree that a mix of uses along the rivers would likely be best (more on that below), and so if you were in an area that already had some office along the rivers, it might make sense to prefer more residential in the next phase. It seems to me that is what might be happening with Fan Pier.

but regardless, the 2 harborfront buildings are residential, the building behind the eastern residential tower on the marina is mixed use (office on lower floors, hotel and residences upper) and the building on the marina next to the park is planned residential (potentially hotel also).

Are you saying what you posted earlier is inaccurate? Because in that plan, as you work around the harbor and marina, you have the Courthouse (office); residential; residential; mixed use (office, hotel, and/or residential); office; mixed use (residential or hotel); and finally another office. So even not including the Courthouse, you have a mix along the water--two office buildings, two residential buildings, and two mixed-used buildings (including at least one with office). So I don't see why that is inconsistent with a vision of a mix of uses, including some office buildings, along the rivers.

And the "thesis" is not that ALL waterfront buildings must be residential -- that is a strawman. I've never claimed that.

If we are both just saying it would be good to have a mix of office and residential uses along the riverfronts, then maybe we are not arguing about anything at all!

[Evergrey]

[summersm343]

I think this conversation has run its course. Don't you guys? Agree that you have different opinions on what should be and should not be built along the waterfront. Let's move on before things start getting testy

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think this conversation has run its course. Don't you guys? Agree that you have different opinions on what should be and should not be built along the waterfront. Let's move on before things start getting testy

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's precisely one of the things I am questioning, that potential residential demand for the closest properties will be the same for any sort of waterfront.



Not part of the new development, but certainly part of the same area. I would tend to agree that a mix of uses along the rivers would likely be best (more on that below), and so if you were in an area that already had some office along the rivers, it might make sense to prefer more residential in the next phase. It seems to me that is what might be happening with Fan Pier.



Are you saying what you posted earlier is inaccurate? Because in that plan, as you work around the harbor and marina, you have the Courthouse (office); residential; residential; mixed use (office, hotel, and/or residential); office; mixed use (residential or hotel); and finally another office. So even not including the Courthouse, you have a mix along the water--two office buildings, two residential buildings, and two mixed-used buildings (including at least one with office). So I don't see why that is inconsistent with a vision of a mix of uses, including some office buildings, along the rivers.



If we are both just saying it would be good to have a mix of office and residential uses along the riverfronts, then maybe we are not arguing about anything at all!

I'm all for mixed-use in the overall waterfront area... and yes, on the direct waterfront itself... as long as residential part of that mixed-use and is significant. With the SSW, there is zero waterfront residential.

I don't think anything is inaccurate with what I posted earlier... maybe I'm not communicating clearly. Again, let's take the courthouse out. It's not part of the development... it was erected there well before any of the final plans were compiled... and the building's use there really had nothing to do with the design of the new development. It is one of those large public projects we often see go in on reclaimed former industrial waterfronts before any private investment does. And I have no problem with the 2 office buildings on the marina (though they really aren't directly on the waterfront since neither really have direct frontage) because the residential buildings and mixed-use with residential buildings are situated in more valuable spots.

Yes, I do think we are probably in agreement overall, in that I fully support a mix. I think residential should take precedence, but if adequate waterfront amounts exist, I welcome mixed-use of riverfront property, including stand alone office (with good ground floor use, of course). This scuffle may not have gone on long at all if we were discussing this over a beer rather than on a forum.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think this conversation has run its course. Don't you guys? Agree that you have different opinions on what should be and should not be built along the waterfront. Let's move on before things start getting testy

It has. And our opinions likely are not that different. Every few months or so, BrianTH and I mix it up pretty good on here. But there is no actual testiness involved. I'll share strong opinions (some of which might make sense) and maybe some jabbing to go along with it in the course of debate on topics. He's got a lot to say and so do I... don't mean to disrupt the forum.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

It has. And our opinions likely are not that different. Every few months or so, BrianTH and I mix it up pretty good on here. But there is no actual testiness involved. I'll share strong opinions (some of which might make sense) and maybe some jabbing to go along with it in the course of debate on topics. He's got a lot to say and so do I... don't mean to disrupt the forum.

As long as we avoid any attacks or over the top remarks, then conversations on urban planning and the likes are welcome. After all, that's what this forum is about, is it not?

I just want to avoid it going further than that. Fight nicely!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yes, I do think we are probably in agreement overall, in that I fully support a mix. I think residential should take precedence, but if adequate waterfront amounts exist, I welcome mixed-use of riverfront property, including stand alone office (with good ground floor use, of course).

Works for me. I will say I am still going to be more upset over the crappy hotel design and restaurant, but I can see why in this case it would be better if the next riverfront project had been residential instead.

This scuffle may not have gone on long at all if we were discussing this over a beer rather than on a forum.

We worked it out in the end--that's not a bad accomplishment on the Internet!

[Jonboy1983]

I think there should be some urban design model when it comes to river/water front development:

Directly on the water:
residential use or hotel use -- can be residential only with ground-level retail, office, or restaurant, or it could be a mix of office and residential or office/hotel or all three. I'd say that residential and/or hotel use should be in the works.

Within a couple of blocks, I think you can have mainly office/commercial use. I think with the buildings further back, maybe these should be somewhat taller than those closest to the water. Let's say that buildings on waterfront land are 12-16 floors. I think the buildings behind these parcels should ideally be as tall if not taller, perhaps in the 20 to 30 story range. I'm going by the images posted earlier in this discussion. I think that would be a good model to use; waterfront development -- and high density development at that -- done right IMHO...

Am I saying that all development should be a minimum of 12 stories? I am not. I'm using that as an example. I do think there should be a minimum height when developing a waterfront parcel in an urban core, and I'd place that minimum at 4 to 6 stories. I'd also add that there should be some buffer for this development. I see there is some recreational space around those buildings in what I am guessing is that Fan Pier development.

How that plays out for Pittsburgh? Well, that part of the North Shore already has park space along the river there, as well as a slew of 5-6-story buildings, mostly office with some hotel use. I know there are now plans for a 10-story residential tower to be built adjacent to PNC Park. I think that all fits this model. If we can incorporate more residential use into the development there and have there be a nice mix of residential, office, retail, hotel etc, then we can really transform the North Shore into a nice extension of Downtown...

[BrianTH]

And in actual news--Almono (speaking of good riverfront sites) is getting a $10M state grant:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...e-funding.html

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz3G7KFnmmW

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And in actual news--Almono (speaking of good riverfront sites) is getting a $10M state grant:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...e-funding.html

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz3G7KFnmmW

Sweet; The funding is now 1/100th complete. ($10,000,000 of $1,000,000,000)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And in actual news--Almono (speaking of good riverfront sites) is getting a $10M state grant:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...e-funding.html

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...#axzz3G7KFnmmW

Not to bring politics into this, but that has to be one of the most pathetic campaign photo ops for Corbett this year. Perfect optics for a postmortem article after he loses to Wolf.

[designer3d712]

[Austinlee]

Is this breaking news? Good stuff

U.S. Steel keeps headquarters in Pennsylvania, invests in Mon Valley

Caroline Gerdes | Wednesday, October 15, 2014

As part of Manufacturing Day, Gov. Tom Corbett and officials from the United States Steel Corporation announced that the company will remain headquartered in Pennsylvania.

The state is committing $30.7 million in grants to U.S. Steel as part of the $187 million initiative to support 4,300 Pennsylvania employees and expand Mon Valley Works operations. The company will re-line one of its Mon Valley Works blast furnaces at its Edgar Thomson Plant in Braddock and make improvements to its railroad transportation infrastructure.

“Pennsylvania is the keystone of American manufacturing,” said Corbett. “By addressing all 15 recommendations of the Governor’s Manufacturing Advisory Council, we’ve worked with the private sector to leverage more than $4.9 billion in total investment to create more than 22,000 manufacturing and related jobs, and retained more than 58,000 manufacturing and related jobs. The backbone of U. S. Steel is its workers, and, today, we're investing in the proud Pennsylvania men and women who forge this iron and who can compete and win against any global competitor. When we ‘Make it In PA,’ you know it's done right."

http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/...lHQ100914.aspx