PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[PITairport]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I hope we have suspended gondolas on a monorail! It looks so cool in Memphis:

Looks like a huge eyesore (the guideway, not the train). Perhaps the Memphis skyline isn't much to look at, but the last thing we need is the concrete boondoggle Memphis built obscuring our great skyline.

[Wave]

Below re: the Highland-Wallace Project...So much going on in East Liberty. Anyone hear anything new about the Odeon Building at Penn & Highland?

Highland Developers Break Ground
(Pittsburgh Business Times)

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...s.html?s=print

Amid gusting winds that threatened to launch airborne any turned-up dirt from the ceremonial ground breaking, the developers of Walnut on Highland celebrated their plan to get started on converting the 13-story Highland building in the heart of East Liberty into a 127-unit apartment building.

With the essential help of a $4.5 million state grant, the team of Walnut Capital Partners and Massaro Properties are now ready to begin the more than $31 million historic renovation of the Daniel Burnham-designed building, a project that includes renovating its neighboring Wallace building and building a 180-space parking garage between them. The project is seen as a focal redevelopment in the East Liberty’s revitalization since it brings new investment to the heart of the neighborhood after previous projects such as the development of Whole Foods and Home Depot have come at the edges of the community.

“The whole community is invested in this development,” said Gregg Perelman, principal of Walnut Capital Partners, perhaps the city’s largest apartment owners, thanking a host of local public officials, organizations and funders of the development.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl noted that six developers have tried and failed to redevelop the former office building, which has been largely empty for more than 25 years. The development plan by Walnut Capital and Massaro was facilitated by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which acquired the Highland building in 2004 and the Wallace building in 2009. Last fall, The URA sold the Highland and Wallace buildings as well as two adjacent lots to Highland-Wallace Joint Venture, under which Walnut Capital and Massaro operate, for $1.875 million last January. Along with private financing from WesBanco Inc., Tri-State Capital and Dollar Bank, the redevelopment project also is expected to receive $4 million in historic tax credits and a facade loan and secondary financing from the URA.

Ravenstahl thanked former Gov. Ed Rendell for initially pledging to provide the $4.5 million RACP grant as well as governor Tom Corbett with following through on the funding.

The project is expected to be completed within a year and the first units available for lease in Spring 2013. The building is expected to include a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments, as well as 10 penthouse units, an exercise facility, indoor parking access and other amenities.

The city described the Highland building redevelopment as an essential part of East Liberty’s larger master plan that it projects will bring $400 million in investment into a 17-acre stretch of the East End community.

State senator Jim Ferlo, also a URA board member, was happy to see such a prominent building be preserved as opposed to the “urban removal” policies that sought to tear such buildings in the past.

David Massaro pointed out the project was something of a homecoming for his family-owned company, since his father grew up in nearby Larimer and had lead the redevelopment of Motor Square Garden in the 1980s, quoting him from a newspaper article from 26 years ago about how he expected East Liberty to rebound after a generation or two of decline.

“Dad, you were ahead of your time,” Massaro said. “But you had a vision.”

Also in attendance were Allegheny County chief executive Rich Fitzgerald, city councilman Ricky Burgess, and the leadership of East Liberty Development Inc., among others.

Tim Schooley covers retail, real estate, small business, hospitality and media. Contact him at tschooley@bizjournals.com or (412) 208-3826.

[michaelsouellette]

Found this in the Post-Gazette website. I know something has been mentioned before about Chevron possibly locating downtown but I didn't hear anything about Shell and Exxon. It would be nice to see some larger companies make downtown their home which, hopefully, will spur further office development.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...-firms-631752/

[diesel21]

Getting back to the idea of expanding the T to Oakland and East End, I agree with previous posters that replacing the East Busway with rail would be less expensive than other alternatives, but also result in the least gain. It is already an effectively used bus route, so why spend the money to convert it to rail?

In my opinion, thinking long term and past short-term inconveniences, the most effective way to connect Downtown to Oakland and beyond is by underground rail following the 5th Ave corridor. My reasoning is as follows (sorry for the long post):

1. Right-of-Way. 5th Ave has a wide enough right-of-way (minimum 50', typically more) to do this from Downtown through Oakland to the Port Authority garage in East Liberty (more on this in a moment).

2. Digging. Almost all of the length could be done via cut-and-cover methods, which is cost-effective both in direct construction and future O&M costs. This could be done in 2 or 3 block segments to minimize disturbance, as 5th ave has parallel streets (mostly Forbes) for most of it's length for detours. Sure, there would be traffic issues, but keeping disturbance to a minimum would help mitigate this. Besides, some said that closing the Fort Pitt Bridge would be catastrophic, but we survived. An added benefit of cut-and-cover would be that the whole 5th ave corridor would get some much-needed roadway, sidewalk, and utility upgrades.

3. Population Density and Future Expansion. A good first phase heading East would be to run the line all the way down 5th with a terminus at the current Port Authority garage in East Liberty. There, you could have turnarounds, maintenance facilities, etc on land that is already owned. Along the way, there are several places that you could expand further East at a later date (down Penn Ave?). But to start, you've got approximately 5 miles of subway connecting Downtown, Duquesne University, Uptown (good potential for development), Carlow, Oakland (Pitt, UPMC), CMU, Shadyside, and the edge of East Liberty (Bakery Square). We're talking about the 2 largest business centers, 3 universities, and a significant amount of densely populated residential.

4. Topography. There are not a lot of alignments in Pittsburgh that work for rail due to our varying topography. I ran a profile for the 5th ave route using LiDAR contours and this alignment never has more than approximately a 6% grade, which is definitely doable for rail. Also, the turns along the route are certainly manageable.

Those are my thoughts. Feel free to critique. I can post images of the alignment, profile, radii of curvature for turns, possible station locations, etc if anybody is curious. Obviously this would come at a very steep cost, but I think the argument can be made that this would serve enough people, areas, and business districts that it could justify a bid for future federal funding, should it become available. It would be nice if Port Authority was forward-thinking enough to have a plan like this on the shelf in the event that money became available! But that would require too much common sense for them :/

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by michaelsouellette

Found this in the Post-Gazette website. I know something has been mentioned before about Chevron possibly locating downtown but I didn't hear anything about Shell and Exxon. It would be nice to see some larger companies make downtown their home which, hopefully, will spur further office development.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...-firms-631752/

Good read. I would like to see more of a committment toward downtown commercial real estate rather than locating to the suburbs. Downtown is the hub of the region in terms of economic activity. Not to mention, as this article somewhat sugggests (and as you suggest as well), demand for downtown office space could possibly spur further development.

Originally Posted by diesel21

Getting back to the idea of expanding the T to Oakland and East End, I agree with previous posters that replacing the East Busway with rail would be less expensive than other alternatives, but also result in the least gain. It is already an effectively used bus route, so why spend the money to convert it to rail?

In my opinion, thinking long term and past short-term inconveniences, the most effective way to connect Downtown to Oakland and beyond is by underground rail following the 5th Ave corridor. My reasoning is as follows (sorry for the long post):

1. Right-of-Way. 5th Ave has a wide enough right-of-way (minimum 50', typically more) to do this from Downtown through Oakland to the Port Authority garage in East Liberty (more on this in a moment).

2. Digging. Almost all of the length could be done via cut-and-cover methods, which is cost-effective both in direct construction and future O&M costs. This could be done in 2 or 3 block segments to minimize disturbance, as 5th ave has parallel streets (mostly Forbes) for most of it's length for detours. Sure, there would be traffic issues, but keeping disturbance to a minimum would help mitigate this. Besides, some said that closing the Fort Pitt Bridge would be catastrophic, but we survived. An added benefit of cut-and-cover would be that the whole 5th ave corridor would get some much-needed roadway, sidewalk, and utility upgrades.

3. Population Density and Future Expansion. A good first phase heading East would be to run the line all the way down 5th with a terminus at the current Port Authority garage in East Liberty. There, you could have turnarounds, maintenance facilities, etc on land that is already owned. Along the way, there are several places that you could expand further East at a later date (down Penn Ave?). But to start, you've got approximately 5 miles of subway connecting Downtown, Duquesne University, Uptown (good potential for development), Carlow, Oakland (Pitt, UPMC), CMU, Shadyside, and the edge of East Liberty (Bakery Square). We're talking about the 2 largest business centers, 3 universities, and a significant amount of densely populated residential.

4. Topography. There are not a lot of alignments in Pittsburgh that work for rail due to our varying topography. I ran a profile for the 5th ave route using LiDAR contours and this alignment never has more than approximately a 6% grade, which is definitely doable for rail. Also, the turns along the route are certainly manageable.

Those are my thoughts. Feel free to critique. I can post images of the alignment, profile, radii of curvature for turns, possible station locations, etc if anybody is curious. Obviously this would come at a very steep cost, but I think the argument can be made that this would serve enough people, areas, and business districts that it could justify a bid for future federal funding, should it become available. It would be nice if Port Authority was forward-thinking enough to have a plan like this on the shelf in the event that money became available! But that would require too much common sense for them :/

Good remarks. I've considered the 5th Avenue corridor as well; I was torn between this and the Centre Avenue corridor. Didn't someone post that the Port Authority already owns ROW along 5th Avenue all the way to East Liberty? So, all that would really cost then is just the construction of the tunnel and track laying.

Would this be a LRT extension or would this be more of a metro/subway rail? It would be sweet if Pittsburgh had a true subway like what Philly and Baltimore have. Not to mention, this option would definitely provide the capacity that this corridor demands. Of course, it would likely make more sense to just extend LRT along this alignment...

[diesel21]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Good remarks. I've considered the 5th Avenue corridor as well; I was torn between this and the Centre Avenue corridor. Didn't someone post that the Port Authority already owns ROW along 5th Avenue all the way to East Liberty? So, all that would really cost then is just the construction of the tunnel and track laying.

Would this be a LRT extension or would this be more of a metro/subway rail? It would be sweet if Pittsburgh had a true subway like what Philly and Baltimore have. Not to mention, this option would definitely provide the capacity that this corridor demands. Of course, it would likely make more sense to just extend LRT along this alignment...

I considered the Centre corridor, but ruled it out for an initial alignment due to 3 factors:
1. It doesn't directly reach the heart of Oakland without some difficulty.
2. The terrain to do this is prohibitive.
3. The 5th ave corridor connects more people/businesses/locations with longer straight lines (read: more speed and efficiency, less time lost to 90 degree turns)

As for the type of train, I would say that if the radii of curvature along the alignment allow for high enough speeds, go for a heavy rail subway like Philly or NYC. Several cities have a mix of heavy rail subway and light rail. It's just important that you make the fare system simple from one to the other (the infrastructure to do this is in place with the new fare system, it just needs to be implemented properly). If you are concerned with it interfacing with the current T system, then running higher speed (45mph or so) light rail trains for the new alignment could be a fair compromise.

[Jonboy1983]

I'm really not at all concerned with this interfacing with the T service. There are connection points in other cities that link one or more modes of Transit (i.e. SETPA's Suburban Station (regional rail) at 15th Street (MFL subway) and City Hall (BSS subway).

I also think that heavy rail/subway needs to be pursued here, and I somewhat think that this line should actually extend further into Downtown but along an alignment taking it closer to the Mon River. This probably isn't necessary considering that people could just transfer over to the T to get virtually anywhere in Downtown and vise versa for people Oakland bound.

In terms of its orientation with Steel Plaza's existing tracks. Where do you have the access? Would it be just below street level but still one level above the current platforms, the same level as the existing tracks and platforms, or below them? Coming back to my statement above regarding possible extension into Downtown, I believe there were some proposals (not necessarily official) of possibly having another downtown alignment for a spine line linking the two business centers. Given that, I guess new tracks would have to be located on a different level (above or below) the existing tracks and platforms of Steel Plaza.

[diesel21]

I think that you have to end the line at Steel Plaza, and make it one level below the T. It might be possible to connect it to the unused platform but, thinking long term, if they build the commuter rail in from New Kensington and connect it at Steel Plaza on the unused platforms, then you have 3 rail connections ending at one place.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by diesel21

I think that you have to end the line at Steel Plaza, and make it one level below the T. It might be possible to connect it to the unused platform but, thinking long term, if they build the commuter rail in from New Kensington and connect it at Steel Plaza on the unused platforms, then you have 3 rail connections ending at one place.

That actually brings up a question about the commuter rail. I wonder what track gauge they'd use. If they're going to assume standard gauge, that might be a problem. I assume they'd use PA trolley gauge, 5-foot, 2.5-inches since that's the gauge used throughout the T.

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by michaelsouellette

Found this in the Post-Gazette website. I know something has been mentioned before about Chevron possibly locating downtown but I didn't hear anything about Shell and Exxon. It would be nice to see some larger companies make downtown their home which, hopefully, will spur further office development.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...-firms-631752/

There is still a lot of space for business expansion downtown. But the city has such a small downtown. Most other major cities don't have this problem. Even the city of Pittsburgh is small in comparison(sq mi). For example if X corp does not want to locate their business in downtown St. Louis. They may build out side of the downtown business district but still be in the city of st.louis. But in Pittsburgh Most of the city is so dense with residencial development they are forced to look at the burbs or outside the county. Not sure there is a solution to this other than taking over the hill district. (but that would get ugly)

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by daviderik

There is still a lot of space for business expansion downtown. But the city has such a small downtown. Most other major cities don't have this problem. Even the city of Pittsburgh is small in comparison(sq mi). For example if X corp does not want to locate their business in downtown St. Louis. They may build out side of the downtown business district but still be in the city of st.louis. But in Pittsburgh Most of the city is so dense with residencial development they are forced to look at the burbs or outside the county. Not sure there is a solution to this other than taking over the hill district. (but that would get ugly)

Good point. I would say the strip district has a good amount of locations that could still be buildable. Brownfields would be our best bet for future office park/business growth.

[Minivan Werner]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Good point. I would say the strip district has a good amount of locations that could still be buildable. Brownfields would be our best bet for future office park/business growth.

The Bluff to the northeast of Duquesne would be ideal for a commercial zone expansion too, and would be spurred even more by the T extension above/along/under 5th Ave that we've discussed. Plus it's smack in the middle of Oakland & downtown.

I've also always envisioned the Allegheny Center area being a 2nd skyline for the city once all the garbage (mall, public housing, surface parking), is cleared and the street grid is reconnected.

[themaguffin]

this is why building tiny suburban buildings on the north shore was a wasted opportunity.

I realize that you have to build based on the market, but you build one building at a time.

At this point there are 3 main areas for buildings of some size outside downtown:

1 If someone had at least one anchor and a vision to redo Allegheny Ctr. This would also require moving the main building which would be costly.

2 The arena site

3 Oakland - the lack of vision and use of Oakland is amazing. There could be dynamic districts in both South and North Oakland.

And whatever happened with progress on Baum??

I don't see the Bluff as viable, but I do see that Fifth/Forbes Uptown area as viable.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Good point. I would say the strip district has a good amount of locations that could still be buildable. Brownfields would be our best bet for future office park/business growth.

What about Chateau? We've got the subway right near now and a lot of undeveloped or underdeveloped land. The URA cleared out the old Pittsburgh Annealing Box company building a few months ago, right on the bike trail, just past the West End Bridge but so far there aren't any plans for development. That site combined with the old J. Allen Steel site right on the other side of the bike path would make a great place for offices.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

this is why building tiny suburban buildings on the north shore was a wasted opportunity.

I realize that you have to build based on the market, but you build one building at a time.

At this point there are 3 main areas for buildings of some size outside downtown:

1 If someone had at least one anchor and a vision to redo Allegheny Ctr. This would also require moving the main building which would be costly.

2 The arena site

3 Oakland - the lack of vision and use of Oakland is amazing. There could be dynamic districts in both South and North Oakland.

And whatever happened with progress on Baum??

I don't see the Bluff as viable, but I do see that Fifth/Forbes Uptown area as viable.

If someone had at least one anchor and a vision for Allegheny Center. Well, I have a vision for it. I've been working on one in SketchUp. It includes a couple of 30-story buildings, new train station (intercity rail, commuter rail, extension of LRT to the North Hills), expanded Commons Park, a high-rise hotel, and an abundance of residential high-rises.

Unfortunately, I'm not exactly in the real estate business, so no, I don't have any tenants lined up...

[BrianTH]

I don't recall if this was posted before, but there is an umbrella organization and website devoted to the ongoing BRT planning process in Pittsburgh:

getherepgh.org

To briefly review, the professional consultants brought in to come up with the Transit Development Plan for PAT (TDP) recommended a BRT network for the East End and out into the Mon Valley, funneling into the Oakland/Downtown corridor, which was known as Rapid Bus. Here is a presentation with a couple pages on Rapid Bus:

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/po...ion/index.html

The umbrella group has since hired a consultant to perform an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment, which are supposed to be completed this summer, which is setting up an application for a federal New Starts grant:

http://gettherepgh.org/get-where/steps-to-completion/

They are holding community meetings and such as part of this process. A presentation from the first meeting is now available:

http://gettherepgh.org/get-where/research-progress/

We'll have to see what happens at the funding stage, but obviously this is the farthest-along effort to invest in new rapid transit in Pittsburgh currently in progress.

Just to give my two cents, I think it is very unfortunate a lot of their pitch involves the old line about BRT proving a rail-like service at a lower cost. A much better pitch for BRT (at least from my perspective) is that it is a cost-effective way to provide better and more efficient transit service than ordinary bus service, and while rail technologies are better choices in some applications, BRT is a better choice in other applications.

The most notable case in which BRT is a good choice is when you are trying to serve a lot of different areas that funnel into a common corridor. With BRT, you can have transferless feeder-to-trunk routes, rather than using feeder/shuttle buses requiring a transfer to the trunk service. This sort of thing is being done with the East Busway already, and it also makes sense for a system that would collect feeder routes from the East End and beyond into a trunk service from Oakland to Downtown. So BRT is a good choice for this application--not as a poor man's rail, but as the best technology for that particular job.

Note this does not necessarily mean there should be no other rapid transit from Downtown to Oakland. But it may have an impact on preferred alignments--for example, if this BRT service runs along the Fifth/Forbes corridor, it may make sense to prefer other rapid transit follow a Centre Avenue alignment.

[Jonboy1983]

There, I can see how BRT would make sense in that it would provide more express or flyer service. You have several bus routes that would use the the transit-designated ROW with running speeds of 50 or 60-plus mph and you wouldn't necessarily have to change buses or equipment like you would otherwise with different modes of transit.

The trouble with choosing the 5th/Forbes Ave corridors for this and designating other modes of transit to another corridor such as Centre Avenue is that Centre Avenue is prohibitive toward alternative modes (i.e. rail, altho I guess LRT might work, how about a surface trolley route?). I still favor more of a heavy rail line along 5th Avenue really, but I guess I'm one of a select few. Whatever mode they choose, I just hope it leads to the necessary and adequate development not just along the corridors they serve, but also at their endpoints, primarily in Oakland and the east end...

[dcesar716]

[dcesar716]

[dcesar716]