PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The state is paying Point Park $5 million to tear down historic facades Downtown and replace them with a low-rise academic building (also known as the Pittsburgh Playhouse project):

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201409250199

"When higher education gets low"

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Just to rant for a moment--

Random comparison, but the other night I was in Philly for business, and we ate dinner at one of the places on this block:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9498...Mp_o21a3Cw!2e0

It was a fantastic area at night--despite the narrow sidewalks and busy streets, people were still filling all the outside tables, and between the eclectic, often historic, architecture and funky restaurants, it was just a very pleasing area.

The thing that frustrates me to no end is that we could have had that on Forbes between Wood and Smithfield. All those historic facades could have fronted more places like the Penn Avenue Fish Company, and such an area would have served basically as an extension of Market Square that bridged the gap up to the "grand boulevard" Peduto envisions on Smithfield.

But now, thanks to the Warner Centre, PNC Tower, the new Oxford building, and Point Park, instead we are going to get a boring, souless, corporate/institutional dead zone.

Oh well.

That area looks amazing.

[mikebarbaro]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The state is paying Point Park $5 million to tear down historic facades Downtown and replace them with a low-rise academic building (also known as the Pittsburgh Playhouse project):

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201409250199

I wouldn't mind this if they added several more floors to the building and made it mixed use.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by mikebarbaro

I wouldn't mind this if they added several more floors to the building and made it mixed use.

Like if they added 10 floors or so of residential use, particularly a dorm? That would be kinda cool IMO.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Like if they added 10 floors or so of residential use, particularly a dorm? That would be kinda cool IMO.

I think they have enough space in their existing dorms right now, but if they built a new one, it would allow them to relocate out of their leased dorms (particularly this building), which could then be converted into apartments. IMHO due to its location overlooking the Mon, the building I linked to would be quite popular as apartments if done right.

[BrianTH]

The original Playhouse project proposal saved the old facades on Forbes AND had a 10-story dorm tower on the Fourth Avenue side. That was a worthy project.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think they have enough space in their existing dorms right now, but if they built a new one, it would allow them to relocate out of their leased dorms (particularly this building), which could then be converted into apartments. IMHO due to its location overlooking the Mon, the building I linked to would be quite popular as apartments if done right.

Point Park does need additional dorm space. Once the Playhouse is relocated, it is expected that about 400 performing arts students (currently living in Oakland to be near the existing Playhouse) will be housed downtown, primarily in a dorm or dorms.

Agreed that a better use of the Conestoga Building (your pictured building overlooking the Mon) would be market rate apartments. Any idea about the duration of the lease? The school might well be amenable to your preference. Recall that the Urban Land Institute recommended that the new Playhouse be built on Smithfield btwn First and Ft Pitt Blvd. The city weighed in, asking that the project be moved away from the river to keep that property (currently One Smithfield Street) available for luxury housing. The school complied and began to assemble the properties on Fourth and Forbes.

My understanding is that the dormitory portion of the project was dropped because of the relative abundance of older buildings which could be more easily, and less expensively, adapted to dorm use.

[Found5dollar]

Look at this i just found.
http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pi...e-Way-We-Were/

1960. Freedom Corner.

we might be complaining about the buildings not being tall enough, but there is nothing more superficial than the height of a building. Hill residents have been fighting for over 50 years. Memory and distrust are powerful things. Could the hill development be better, oh sure, but there are so many interest groups with different views as to what it should be. The current compromise seems to be agreeable to all parties and that in and of itself is an accomplishment.

If the markets called for more tall buildings in Pittsburgh we would be getting them. We can compling about the Lowe Hill and North Shore not being built tall, but honestly the big issue is not Nimbys in these areas, it is that no one is proposing tall buildings. Lets fill in the holes in the urban fabric of Pittsburgh and get a good street level before we complain about no one building tall or iconic.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

The current compromise seems to be agreeable to all parties and that in and of itself is an accomplishment.

I think there is some wisdom in this, but I also think it was an unnecessary, unforced error to have the Penguins be one of the necessary parties to the deal. If all this was going on between the City, Lower Hill community representatives, and normal, for-profit developers competitively bidding to do Lower Hill projects (see, for example, the recent Produce Terminal bidding process), I'd have a lot more confidence in the end result being close to the best deal possible.

And speaking of which . . .

If the markets called for more tall buildings in Pittsburgh we would be getting them. We can compling about the Lowe Hill and North Shore not being built tall, but honestly the big issue is not Nimbys in these areas, it is that no one is proposing tall buildings. Lets fill in the holes in the urban fabric of Pittsburgh and get a good street level before we complain about no one building tall or iconic.

In the case of the North Shore, I'm not blaming NIMBYs, I am blaming the Steelers and Continental, who got handed all those development rights on a no-bid basis. Of course it is hard to know for sure what would have happened if those rights had been bid out instead, but I think it is a very good bet it would have been built out faster and better. In other words, the concept of "the market" means investment opportunities end up going to the entities which value them the most, which they prove by bidding the most for them, which tends to lead to the most aggressive use of those opportunities. When you instead hand out investment opportunities on a no-bid basis, odds are you are not finding the entities that value the opportunities the most, and therefore you will not get the most aggressive use of those opportunities. And that is particularly likely to be true when the entity which gets the rights on a no-bid basis has ulterior motives (like the Steelers wanting to keep parking available for their patrons on game day, including for tailgating purposes).

In fact, although there were some dicey things about this offer, back when the Steelers/Continental were subject to forfeiting their rights due to failure to comply with their required development schedule, Stabile offered to pay $10 million for the site of North Shore I and II and build a 10-story office building instead. But once again, the City (then under Ravenstahl) agreed to give the Steelers/Continental an extension to build their crappy 3-story building. That's what you should expect with this sort of no-bid situation, and even if Stabile was not the right choice, the right choice would very likely have been some other entity that was never allowed to bid.

To sum up--it is bad enough when normal developers have to deal with NIMBYs, particularly NIMBYs with strong allies in local government. But when the City is also handing out development rights on a no-bid basis to entities with ulterior motives for wanting those development rights, it makes the situation much worse than it has to be.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

My understanding is that the dormitory portion of the project was dropped because of the relative abundance of older buildings which could be more easily, and less expensively, adapted to dorm use.

So I understand we cannot actually force land owners to be more ambitious (barring Kelo-style property takings).

But what we can do is:

(A) Not allow entities like the URA to collude with specific developers, but instead generally require them to put their properties out to competitive bid; and

(B) rigorously enforce things like the City's existing Historic Preservation code.

If we had been doing that with Forbes Avenue all along, probably PNC Tower would still have been done, but they would have been forced to preserve the Forbes facades as part of the project.

On the other hand, I don't know if Point Park would still be able to do their Playhouse project under those conditions. If not, though, the right outcome would be for them to have to sell those properties to someone else who could live with those conditions.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The state is paying Point Park $5 million to tear down historic facades Downtown and replace them with a low-rise academic building (also known as the Pittsburgh Playhouse project):

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201409250199

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6...ett-pittsburgh

...

Gov. Tom Corbett announced Friday a $5 million Economic Growth Initiative grant to support the construction of Point Park University's planned performance venue, the Pittsburgh Playhouse.

He said it marked another step in the transformation of Downtown.

“This is a generational event, a multi-generational event,” Corbett said during a ceremony at the site, on the south side of Forbes Avenue between Smithfield and Wood streets. “Being exposed to the arts is extremely important, to our children, to all of us here in Pennsylvania. … It's extremely important to have that well-rounded cultural exposure.”

...

[BrianTH]

Pittsburgh Playhouse will replace the university's current facility in Oakland, which draws 40,000 non-student patrons a year to performances, officials said.

Wow, that is an average of almost 800 visitors a week! That is more than a slow restaurant in a small town might get!

While university officials said the project would attract the best students and teachers from around the country, Corbett touted the economic impact it would have Downtown. It will draw people to another entertainment venue, plus create 600 total jobs from construction and operations in the first five years, he said.

SIX HUNDRED JOBS!!!! That is hundred with an "H" folks! I'm not sure Downtown can HANDLE that much economic impact! And it will just cost the same amount of space as PNC Tower!

I'd call this the soft bigotry of low expectations, but that is sort of an insult to bigotry.

[Evergrey]

I can only hope the Point Park Playhouse block can match the lofty urban design standards established by the Point Park Dance Studio Complex... with its inviting interface and obvious entrance-way onto Blvd of the Allies... spurring vitality throughout the corridor.



...


Farewell friends...

[photoLith]

So those fucking beautiful buildings will for sure be torn down? Fucking assholes. Downtown keeps losing historic buildings it seems every week. And the replacement will be an unexciting turd of a low rise building. Maybe I could justify them being torn down for a skyscraper, but a few story tall building that probably wont hardly be used, thats pretty pathetic. Screw Point Park.

[Evergrey]

http://dsnews.com/news/09-22-2014/em...urgh-cleveland

Employment Gains Spur Housing Growth in Pittsburgh, Cleveland

Author: Krista Franks Brock September 22, 2014 0

...

A burgeoning young, knowledge-based workforce is contributing to housing and overall economic growth in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, according to the latest Home Value Forecast from Pro Teck Valuation Services.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland rank third and eighth on a list of metros with the highest percentage of employed individuals aged 25 to 24 with graduate or professional degrees, according to a recent report from Cleveland State University's Center for Population Dynamics.

These two cities are following in the footsteps of Boston, which notably transformed from a labor-based to a knowledge-based economy in the 1980s, according to the center.

"What metro is the 'next Boston'? Pittsburgh is a likely candidate," the center stated in its report. This transformation to a knowledge-based labor force, specifically focused on technology, has allowed Pittsburgh to bypass the worst of the housing crash, according to Pro Teck.

Cleveland is a few steps behind in its transformation, but it is experiencing growth in knowledge-based jobs. "[I]f you want to act, you go to Hollywood. If you want to practice cardiac care or make medical devices you come to Cleveland," the Center for Population Dynamics researchers stated.

Currently, Cleveland homes remain 30 percent below their pre-crisis highs, although "we are seeing Cleveland home prices on the rise as their relatively new knowledge-based economy takes hold," said Tom O'Grady, CEO of Pro Teck Valuation Services.

"With today's youth looking for work/life balance while struggling to pay off student debt and other obligations, it's easy to see why Pittsburgh, Cleveland and other Rust Belt cities could see a renaissance in the years to come,' O'Grady said.


...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

So those fucking beautiful buildings will for sure be torn down? Fucking assholes. Downtown keeps losing historic buildings it seems every week. And the replacement will be an unexciting turd of a low rise building. Maybe I could justify them being torn down for a skyscraper, but a few story tall building that probably wont hardly be used, thats pretty pathetic. Screw Point Park.

Just one note--those buildings easily qualify for historic designation under the City historic preservation code. I am not a City resident so I cannot personally nominate them, but I have a standing offer to help draft the nomination form if a City resident does want to do it.

Now supposedly Preservation Pittsburgh might do that, but they haven't yet, and I don't know if they have the will for a real fight. The problem, as always, is that the HRC and City Planning could approve the nomination, and then City Council could reverse them anyway (which is what happened with the Produce Terminal).

But again, if any City resident wants to take on that challenge, I'll be happy to help. And who knows--with enough public uproar, maybe Point Park would back down even if they knew they could win with City Council.

[Evergrey]

Peduto seems strangely silent on Point Park University's wholesale demolition of Downtown. I would assume if this was Buncher that wanted to tear this block down for a low-rise... there would be an avalanche of opposition... but since it's a university... we'll let them do whatever they want.

[eschaton]

One of my biggest concerns about Point Park expansion is because I expect when the "college bubble" bursts within the next 10-20 years* it will be one of the schools hit harder by declining enrollments. I do think the performance-related side of the school will be fairly secure if spun off, but in general I expect that enrollment in private, relatively non-selective schools for liberal arts and random business degrees is going to begin falling through the floor. So we will have demolished structures which could have remained indefinitely for the sake of an organization which may very well not survive another generation.

* It's not really on-topic for the forum, but the primary reason I expect the college bubble to burst is not due to fiscal issues, but the development of "people metrics" by Big Data companies. Employers are developing better ways to determine who will be a qualified worker for a job than their prior educational experience. One these tests are widely used, it will completely wipe away the empty credentialing part of higher education. Once most employers stop demanding educational background, young adults will mostly stop getting college or graduate degrees unless it's for their own personal edification, or because they want a traditional "college experience" and can afford it. Big research universities will be able to survive this, as will traditional small liberal arts campuses. The rest, I'm very doubtful for.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by eschaton

One of my biggest concerns about Point Park expansion is because I expect when the "college bubble" bursts within the next 10-20 years* it will be one of the schools hit harder by declining enrollments. I do think the performance-related side of the school will be fairly secure if spun off, but in general I expect that enrollment in private, relatively non-selective schools for liberal arts and random business degrees is going to begin falling through the floor. So we will have demolished structures which could have remained indefinitely for the sake of an organization which may very well not survive another generation.

* It's not really on-topic for the forum, but the primary reason I expect the college bubble to burst is not due to fiscal issues, but the development of "people metrics" by Big Data companies. Employers are developing better ways to determine who will be a qualified worker for a job than their prior educational experience. One these tests are widely used, it will completely wipe away the empty credentialing part of higher education. Once most employers stop demanding educational background, young adults will mostly stop getting college or graduate degrees unless it's for their own personal edification, or because they want a traditional "college experience" and can afford it. Big research universities will be able to survive this, as will traditional small liberal arts campuses. The rest, I'm very doubtful for.

I'd like to know what field actually DID prefer college education rather than experience. It seems to me that most of the jobs I apply for are looking for folks with years and years of experience. I wish it was the other way around. Maybe I would have been luckier at finding something rather than clawing and pining for a dream job for seven years that would ultimately never come to fruition...

I'm happily employed at my father-in-law's business. If nobody really is interested in me for a possible planning job, fine by me. I could care less at this point...

Now, bringing this discussion back to PPU, it really is a shame that they're going to get away with tearing that block (or blocks) down for that uninspiring architectural abomination. Those old buildings do have a ton of character, and I don't see how they could not be incorporated into the playhouse.

[BrianTH]

Point Park's excuse is apparently that in a project the width of an entire block, they just can't spare a foot and a half for the facades.

[East Edge]

Does anyone have any images of what is being proposed for the Parkway Center Mall site? I was reading an article from March of this year will Councilwoman Smith is quoted as saying she has met with developers and reviewed drawings...that they will look similar to Settlers Ridge and the Waterfront...and the the community is involved. I haven't found any images, plans, etc for any of this. The article also said that the public will be able to start enjoying the development within a few years time, so i would think there has to be some pretty detailed design development on this project. Any news people may have would be helpful. Thanks!