PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I don't know about in general, but I brought up Cleveland a few pages back because their development was similar in size (units) and also a significant project.

Yes i have notice that and seen articles of Cleveland looking at Pittsburgh as a blueprint on how to revive a city. On their forum they seem to bring us up and compare and contrast. They seem to be jealous of our Pnc Tower until they got their new hotel renderings.

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

A friend close to things explained to me that BIG usually manages to make their visions happen because investors like to follow their projects around and fund them. They have a good track record.

I hope so i think their work is great.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by gg1

I do like the new bike racks and as a long time resident of this region, it just has a feeling of progression. As the top 1% takes more and more, I think we need to realize that the middle and lower will just have less and less and cycling is a way to not only save a ton of money, but gets you in shape. The more cycling amenities the more young people will consider Pittsburgh, because they have massive debt to the bank/lobby mess from the start of their lives. Something that those of us on our 50's and older have trouble understanding. I have no idea how the young folks will start families and have a home, but maybe if they have a great job and don't mind increasing their debt ceilings as much as possible, they can have it like my generation did. The point being, the leaders need to recognize what the young people need and that is cheap transportation. Sure, we are just talking about bike racks, but it has a good feel about it.

Hahahaha so true.

[gg1]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Finally they tear down an ugly ass building instead of something beautiful and historic.

There maybe some truth in this, BUT I have a bit of an empty feeling that a Saks can't make it downtown. We lost Kaufmann's, which was the best of the best, Gimbel's is gone and now Macy's is done. Then there is Nordstrom and others doing great in the burbs. Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm having a nice store shut its doors downtown, but can operate wonderfully in the burbs. Why?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think there are actually a lot of points you can make a difference. Increasing the retention rate at the point at which young adults are aging and forming families is one such point, but even if all you did was push more young adults into the front of the pipeline and the retention rates remained the same percentage-wise, you'd still end up with more families and such because the same percentage of a higher base number is a higher number.

And then there is the empty-nester point of life. This is pure anecdote, but I know a couple who lived in Shadyside until they started having kids, and then they moved to Upper St. Clair. But now their two kids are high school age, and they are already starting to drag their kids to look at houses in Shadyside for when they are both in college.

And then there is the retirement point of life, which could come after the empty-nester point depending on when you had kids. The couple above had their kids in their late 20s and both work Downtown, so can still benefit from a shorter commute if they move back as empty-nesters. But there are other people who may not work in the City that would prefer to keep their commute as it is, but once they retire the lure of easy access to City amenities could become a lot stronger.

The point is that there are really many different opportunities to attract more people to cities, and all of them can work independently. And if you are actually doing all of them, then the effect can compound, particularly since a lot of the amenities that will follow can appeal to multiple types of people.

And personally, I very much believe all this is going to keep building on itself for the next generation or two, as the urban crime wave era that peaked in the early 1990s recedes farther and farther into the past.

I agree that anecdotally speaking we can all come up with examples of people at every stage of life moving back to the city. That said, the one study I remember from a few years back which tracked migration patterns of college-educated people at different age brackets concluded that while the millennial in-migration was a real thing (and that younger Xers were also staying in cities in slightly higher numbers as well) there was no evidence of a substantial movement of empty nesters into cities, and that the number of retirees was actually falling.

Now, it may be that there's fine-grained elements in here statistical studies are missing out on. For example, there simply could be a greater loss of empty nesters from outer city neighborhoods (probably moving out of their home region entirely) which in most metropolitan areas blunts the effect of other empty nesters moving into core city neighborhoods. Pittsburgh also may buck this trend (but my recollection is it didn't, at least within the surveyed period). Regardless, there's quite a ways to go before inward movement of older people will play a substantial role in Pittsburgh's population growth.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by gg1

There maybe some truth in this, BUT I have a bit of an empty feeling that a Saks can't make it downtown. We lost Kaufmann's, which was the best of the best, Gimbel's is gone and now Macy's is done. Then there is Nordstrom and others doing great in the burbs. Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm having a nice store shut its doors downtown, but can operate wonderfully in the burbs. Why?

People just don't take street cars to department stores in downtown anymore. Different consumer patterns. A lot of online shopping too.

And we were happy to see an ugly stubby building in a prime location meet the wrecking ball. Just an ugly building.

[BrianTH]

Assuming it all gets built out (and we need to watch this), the low-rise Saks building is going to be replaced with a mid-rise building that combines ground floor retail, upper floor residences, and mid-floor parking. The parking is not that exciting, but the combination of ground floor retail and residences will be nice.

We've talked about the changing patterns in retail before, but the bottom line from a development perspective is that if the Downtown market isn't supporting department stores, then conversely that means replacing Downtown department stores with things the Downtown market actually wants should be a net positive for Downtown development.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by gg1

There maybe some truth in this, BUT I have a bit of an empty feeling that a Saks can't make it downtown. We lost Kaufmann's, which was the best of the best, Gimbel's is gone and now Macy's is done. Then there is Nordstrom and others doing great in the burbs. Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm having a nice store shut its doors downtown, but can operate wonderfully in the burbs. Why?

I'm not sure that department stores have much of a future ahead of them in the 'burbs either. None of them are doing very well right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them close up show in the next few years. I certainly can't see Sears, Penny's or K-Mart surviving and it doesn't look like Macys has much life in it either.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

That said, the one study I remember from a few years back which tracked migration patterns of college-educated people at different age brackets concluded that while the millennial in-migration was a real thing (and that younger Xers were also staying in cities in slightly higher numbers as well) there was no evidence of a substantial movement of empty nesters into cities, and that the number of retirees was actually falling.

So what I recall seeing on this subject is that empty nester and retiring Baby Boomers do appear to be interested in moving to more walkable areas, but often times those end up being planned communities (often out of state), college towns, or suburban "town center" areas rather than large city centers.

I'm sure all those sorts of places will continue to get a share of empty nesters and retirees, but again I wonder how much of that is still a generational effect dependent on crime patterns. A 65 year old person today was born around 1950, and so lived the first 40+ years of their life with increasing crime rates and a widening urban/suburban crime rate gap.

That has been changing over the last 20+ years, however--here is one illustrative chart:

The top line is average rate of violent crime for every city in America with a population greater than 1 million. (Only Chicago is missing, because it lacks complete data.) The bottom line is the average rate of violent crime for cities with a population between 100,000 and 250,000.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ous-small-ones

You can see why a person who formed long term life plans around 1990 might have a stronger preference for college towns or suburban "town centers" than a person who was forming such life plans just now.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm not sure that department stores have much of a future ahead of them in the 'burbs either. None of them are doing very well right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them close up show in the next few years. I certainly can't see Sears, Penny's or K-Mart surviving and it doesn't look like Macys has much life in it either.

I think online shopping is coming for all of them eventually due to cohort replacement. As discussed a bit in that article, I think the observed "recovery" in higher-end department stores was largely a product just of the fact that wealthier people tend to be older and older people tend to be more reluctant to make expensive purchases on the Internet. But that reluctance is going to inevitably decline with time. And there was the foreign/tourist segment, but in addition to the short term global slowdown effect described in the article, I think sooner or later online shopping will eat up more of those folks too.

Anyway, I still come back to the same place--if the Downtown market isn't supporting these sorts of stores these days, then there is no reason to believe they are important to the future of Downtown development.

[BrianTH]

No real news here, but interesting article on Concord's affinity for building hotels in Pittsburgh, and whether that might slow down:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201511260016

[Brentsters]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm not sure that department stores have much of a future ahead of them in the 'burbs either. None of them are doing very well right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them close up show in the next few years. I certainly can't see Sears, Penny's or K-Mart surviving and it doesn't look like Macys has much life in it either.

Macy's is looking into cutting back their big ass flagship on State St. in Chicago aka the old marshall fields. They're basically cutting back on all their properties, even the big boys.

Macy's said it would also continue to consider unloading certain real estate. Macy's recently sold "underutilized portions" of properties in Brooklyn and in downtown Seattle. It might also sell properties where "the value of real estate significantly outweighs the value of the retail business, such as the recent sale of Macy's stores in Cupertino and downtown Pittsburgh."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...111-story.html

[gg1]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm not sure that department stores have much of a future ahead of them in the 'burbs either. None of them are doing very well right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them close up show in the next few years. I certainly can't see Sears, Penny's or K-Mart surviving and it doesn't look like Macys has much life in it either.

That is a pretty good article. As I have stated over and over, city planners need to be on the ball and ALWAYS keep on thing in mind. From the article you posted:
As for the millennials, retail analysts say they’re not only suffering from record amounts of student debt, but many never acquired the department-store habit at all. The student debt mess is going to have a profound impact on what young people will need to survive. Public transportation, living close to work and small housing or shared housing. Young people are going to be poor for the most part. Starting out life with over $100,000 debt, unless parents are paying needs to be paid attention to. Pittsburgh seems to be building a lot of higher end apartments. I guess that is okay so long as they have a couple of bedrooms or are designed for shared living. Some graduates will make a lot of money, but many won't and add the massive bills they have as fixed expenses, they are mostly poor.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So what I recall seeing on this subject is that empty nester and retiring Baby Boomers do appear to be interested in moving to more walkable areas, but often times those end up being planned communities (often out of state), college towns, or suburban "town center" areas rather than large city centers.

...

You can see why a person who formed long term life plans around 1990 might have a stronger preference for college towns or suburban "town centers" than a person who was forming such life plans just now.

Sorry, but wasn't this pretty much my point? We're waiting for generational preferences to shift, which means mostly waiting until a new cohort of empty nesters comes along. Just the same way that trying to hold onto the cohort of younger families currently in cities will be easier than trying to convince slightly older, more established families to relocate.

[JVC]

Originally Posted by Brentsters

Macy's is looking into cutting back their big ass flagship on State St. in Chicago aka the old marshall fields. They're basically cutting back on all their properties, even the big boys.

this is the new face of retail in pittsburgh - amazon distribution center

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Sorry, but wasn't this pretty much my point? We're waiting for generational preferences to shift, which means mostly waiting until a new cohort of empty nesters comes along. Just the same way that trying to hold onto the cohort of younger families currently in cities will be easier than trying to convince slightly older, more established families to relocate.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest there is widespread disagreement here about the importance of shifting attitudes towards cities over time. My point was just that as we move forward in time, all these mechanisms could grow more viable.

For example, my anecdote was about peers of mine, who (like me) are in Gen X. Most Gen X folks have already formed families if they are going to, and many of them who started off living as young adults in cities have already moved to suburbs as they had kids. So, currently, these Gen X folks are mostly in your category of "slightly older, more established families," and I agree that at the moment, it will not be too easy to persuade many of these families to move back into the city if they have already left.

However, as the years roll on, many of these Gen X folks are going to start becoming empty nesters, and eventually retirees. And at that point, I think they may choose city neighborhoods at a higher rate than the Baby Boomers, who at the moment have been dominating the studies you referenced.

Of course by the time the Millenials are becoming empty nesters and retiring, they may be even more likely to live in city neighborhoods (assuming we are correct about all this, some of that could just be them staying in the city all along). But I suspect we will not need to wait all the way until then to see such an effect begin, because I do think the Gen X folks are likely to at least slot somewhere between the Boomers and the Millenials when it comes to such things.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by gg1

That is a pretty good article. As I have stated over and over, city planners need to be on the ball and ALWAYS keep on thing in mind. From the article you posted:
As for the millennials, retail analysts say they’re not only suffering from record amounts of student debt, but many never acquired the department-store habit at all. The student debt mess is going to have a profound impact on what young people will need to survive. Public transportation, living close to work and small housing or shared housing. Young people are going to be poor for the most part. Starting out life with over $100,000 debt, unless parents are paying needs to be paid attention to. Pittsburgh seems to be building a lot of higher end apartments. I guess that is okay so long as they have a couple of bedrooms or are designed for shared living. Some graduates will make a lot of money, but many won't and add the massive bills they have as fixed expenses, they are mostly poor.

I went to college, biggest mistake of my life. Nothing but horrible low pay temp jobs for anyone with college degrees anymore and couple that with student loan debt and insane costs of healthcare well you got yourself the makings of a new third world country and crushing poverty for nearly everyone my age or younger.

[gg1]

Originally Posted by photoLith

I went to college, biggest mistake of my life. Nothing but horrible low pay temp jobs for anyone with college degrees anymore and couple that with student loan debt and insane costs of healthcare well you got yourself the makings of a new third world country and crushing poverty for nearly everyone my age or younger.

This is true, but to keep it in context, I would hope city planners will try and make city living as comfortable as they can for the young people who will most likely be poor all their lives, unless they can really chip away at getting out of debt. I have no good answer, but young people will be going to second hand stores/Goodwill and Walmart for clothes, not Macy's. Public transportation and cycling/walking infrastructure should be a primary focus if we want to attract young people. Pittsburgh is sitting in a VERY good position compared to a lot of eastern cities. It is still cheap here in comparison and young people just can't afford to live in the expensive cities out east. Hope city planners can keep the focus on very streamlined living, because that is where the demand will be for the next 10 years at least.

[photoLith]

DSC_1812
Photo I recently took of downtown showing how nicely the new tower filled in a gap in the skyline, and you can also see the Gardens topped out.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by photoLith

I went to college, biggest mistake of my life. Nothing but horrible low pay temp jobs for anyone with college degrees anymore and couple that with student loan debt and insane costs of healthcare well you got yourself the makings of a new third world country and crushing poverty for nearly everyone my age or younger.

There is some truth to that. I experienced that myself. Try having a MASTERS degree and still finding only "bottom-of-the-barrel" low income crap jobs for the highly educated.

Sadly, with liberals in charge, this country doesn't believe in any future involving good paying jobs that offer the PRIVILAGE of decent healthcare. Instead, they'd rather tax us into poverty while those IN poverty can have a free ride. Education? HA! Who needs that when you get a big welfare check every week!

But... I guess I'm wrong. I only call it like I see it, but I guess I'm just blind and/or have my head up my ass. [end sarcastic rant]

That aside, I've been meaning to post my two-cents on the BIG project. Let me just say this: I want to see it built! I love the height on those buildings, especially the ones closest to downtown. The ones near Crawford Square are of good height as well; in the 8-to-10 story range. The overall design just screams of something you'd find over in a densely developed European city.

I do wish Crawford Square wasn't built -- or if it was, if it could have been redesigned as something NOT low-density.