PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

They may have exaggerated walk times, but their main criticisms about the project are 100% dead on.

I disagree. I'm not going to fisk the whole thing, but he claims it is a "suburban" project, but the suburbs are not characterized by tight grids filled with multi-level apartment blocks. He claims the buildings are set up on parking podiums all around the buildings, but that is not what is in the renderings:

http://www.dlastorino.com/portfolio/?cid=1

I could go on, but I think there is simply no credibility in the way the project is being described in this piece.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yet, Uptown is seeing more investment currently...

Right, but just now. Even as little as two years ago, and you couldn't have said that.

This shifting of fortunes is precisely what suggests to me this is not really about something like road access to Downtown, which was a constant through this period.

I'm not talking about road access in general though. I'm talking about it in terms of how potential financiers of a major hotel project are looking at it.

Note that aside from the Consol-related project, there hasn't been a hotel project in Uptown yet either.

I just think you are looking at the wrong factors. In particular, I'd say the current locational decisions of hotel projects is more about walkability than road access, which would explain why right Downtown, the North Shore, and South Side Works have been the "hot" locations.

But like I said earlier, if developers saw it the same way, Mt. Washington would be far more developed and higher rent than it is.

That just isn't a valid argument. There are many possible factors that can explain why a particular area hasn't gotten hot for development (yet). So you can't claim your particular hypothesis about Mt. Washington has been proven true by a lack of recent development activity, because there are many alternative explanations.

And as far as Pittsburgh's "spectacular locations" for development go, I don't think anyone could argue that Mt. Washington isn't the most spectacular by far.

Off Grandview? Of course you could make that argument. Even if you are just talking about scenery, obviously places like Downtown itself and the North Shore have better scenery once you are comparing them to off Grandview, and then there is all you can see once you are out and walking.

Again, you are trying to make it sound like Mt Washington has everything going for it BUT better road access, which is the only way to make your argument look respectable (by process of elimination). But that simply is not accurate.

It won't stay as parking lots for perpetuity if Pittsburgh is undergoing the economic resurgence that we are believing it is.

Oh, it sure could. There will always be NIMBYism, always be people thinking it is possible to do even better, always be people looking to score political points, always be people opposed to any sort of environmental impact, and so on. It is entirely possible for such people to block economically viable development indefinitely, unless you create a process in which such people, to the extent they are sincere, get an opportunity to contribute to planning, but the project still gets done. If their mode of participation instead is purely to try to veto things--the "Let’s not" approach as articulated in the editorial--then there is really no guarantee that land like this will be utilized appropriately.

Of course that is why I am fine with people making the point that this project must be integrated with the ongoing master-planning for the Allegheny Riverfront and proposed transportation corridor. But if citing those planning processes just becomes an excuse for saying "Let's not" because we want to take some flesh out of "the child mayor and his pals", that's not constructive.

[Private Dick]

^ I was talking about access to and from Mt. Washington anywhere, not just downtown. Other areas have simply been much better situated for development and redevelopment. Mt. Washington has not developed now, two years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago... ever... into the type of comprehensive residential, commercial, and institutional neighborhood we see elsewhere in the city. It has never developed like that. It's not about "shifting of fortunes". It's about being unsuitable for that type of development compared to other spots in the city. It's about being a highly risky bet for investors -- we're seeing that played out as we have this discussion, as a rookie developer is now trying his hand at it.

For all of Mt. Washington's wonderful views, there's a reason the former Edge Restaurant sat like this for 3 decades in the midst of one of Pittsburgh's most visited destinations:



There's a reason that it has served primarily as a "destination" location and residential area, rather than a fully functioning "everyday" city neighborhood. It's at the top of a mountain. I don't think it has everything going for it besides adequate road access -- it has great views, but I said there's never really been much else up there... certainly not in comparison to just about any of the other areas surrounding Pittsburgh's core. It's never developed the same kind of infrastructure other neighborhoods have because of its comparatively remote location caused by its challenging terrain. That's why there are so few ways to get up there -- McArdle Rdwy and Sycamore St. hardly being adequate routes to handle the traffic which greater commercial development there would require.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I was talking about access to and from Mt. Washington anywhere, not just downtown.

Right, it is important to realize there is more than one side to Mt. Washington, and as I pointed out before, Mt Washington actually has the great virtue of avoiding the need to use the Fort Pitt tunnel.

Mt. Washington has not developed now, two years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago... ever... into the type of comprehensive residential, commercial, and institutional neighborhood we see elsewhere in the city.

Again, it ranks somewhere in the middle: it hasn't seen as much investment as some areas, but it has seen more investment than other areas. Given the general dynamic of recent decades, that doesn't really prove anything about its fundamental prospects.

It's about being unsuitable for that type of development compared to other spots in the city.

If you were only saying "less suitable" as compared to "some other spots in the city", you would be on much firmer ground. You are trying to squeeze a conclusion out of its middling history--that it is fundamentally flawed--that its history doesn't really support.

For all of Mt. Washington's wonderful views, there's a reason the former Edge Restaurant sat like this for 3 decades in the midst of one of Pittsburgh's most visited destinations

Yes, there were a whole bunch of issues very specific to that particular parcel. Of course meanwhile in that time, there were a bunch of other restaurants open along Grandview and now Shiloh--as you say, it is one of Pittsburgh's most visited destinations.

It's at the top of a mountain.

Let's not overemphasize the name. It is really just a section of old plateau between valleys, like most of the developed parts of the Pittsburgh region (outside of the flats along the rivers). It happens to be across a big valley from Downtown, which gives it the nice views from Grandview, but it is not really topographically distinct from Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and so on.

but I said there's never really been much else up there... certainly not in comparison to just about any of the other areas surrounding Pittsburgh's core.

Yeah, if you don't count Uptown, the Hill, the North Shore, the Point . . . wait, that is most of what is surrounding Downtown!

There are actually reasons why the areas around Downtown experienced relative decline despite what you would think was a pretty good location. If you were willing to consider more factors than road access, you could perhaps develop an interesting model that explains why Mt. Washington for a long period actually did better than most of the other parts of that zone, but why it also is not (yet) doing better still.

That's why there are so few ways to get up there -- McArdle Rdwy and Sycamore St. hardly being adequate routes to handle the traffic which greater commercial development there would require.

First, what happened to not just looking at the Downtown side?

Second, I don't know what you are imagining, but we are talking about a moderate-sized hotel and condo project. The existing roads are more than adequate.

[mackymicah]

Hi, everyone. Been following this thread for awhile. I work in the Strip District area and have noticed that some work is beginning on the American Equipment Company building (near Crystal's, across from Buncher on Penn and behind Heinz History Center). It's about an 8 story building with a horrible looking street-level facade. Does anybody know what's going on there? It's being done by Mascaro. I remember Heinz History Center was supposed to buy a building to connect to it for storage and such but I thought that was the Sack building down the block. Curious if anyone has heard anything about it.

Also, Pittsburgh Parks has a flikr site for ongoing construction at the Mellon Square site. It's nice to see them rebuilding a park that had fallen into bad shape. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pghparks

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Let's not overemphasize the name. It is really just a section of old plateau between valleys, like most of the developed parts of the Pittsburgh region (outside of the flats along the rivers). It happens to be across a big valley from Downtown, which gives it the nice views from Grandview, but it is not really topographically distinct from Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and so on.

Yeah, if you don't count Uptown, the Hill, the North Shore, the Point . . . wait, that is most of what is surrounding Downtown!

I think we'll disagree on this topic in general, and I'm certainly not to go into explanations based on minor changes in word choice ("unsuitable compared to" vs. "less suitable compared to"), but the two above points are glaring.

I obviously know that Mt. Washington isn't truly a mountain, but it most certainly is topographically distinct from places like Oakland, Squirrel Hill... etc. From a geologic and physical feature standpoint and also in its spatial and transit relations to downtown and other areas of the city, it undoubtedly distinct. The fact that two inclines traverse its face should be proof enough of that.

And, all of the areas surrounding the downtown core (Uptown/Hill, Northside/North Shore, Southside... have all been more developed and integral parts of the city's core historically than Mt. Washington has. Mt. Washington has never seen the types of development that any of those areas have -- and for good reason. It has always been a more remote, less developed part of the city, which is made more remarkable since it in such close proximity actual distance-wise.

[Evergrey]

You both make compelling arguments. I don't know which viewpoint to support.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

The fact that two inclines traverse its face should be proof enough of that.

Nope. Pittsburgh used to have inclines in a lot of other places beside Mt. Washington, including the Hill and Uptown. Of course the automobile pretty much killed interest in inclines as a practical transportation technology, hence the failure to build new ones and the disappearance of old ones in the 20th Century. The reason those two on Mt Washington in particular lasted is precisely because of the view, not because of the unique topography of Mt. Washington.

And, all of the areas surrounding the downtown core (Uptown/Hill, Northside/North Shore, Southside... have all been more developed and integral parts of the city's core historically than Mt. Washington has.

If you are talking in recent decades, that simply isn't true. Again, your supposedly fundamental factors have an odd tendency to come and go.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Ahhh, the dreaded "It's better than what's there now" response! As a rustbelt native, these are some of the most vile words anyone interested in the urban environment can hear. That mindset kills us! The editorial says it right, "... But, the fact is, the mayor and his agencies, despite their obvious zeal for almost any developer’s investment in the city, deserve better plans than these. And so do the rest of us."

It won't stay as parking lots for perpetuity if Pittsburgh is undergoing the economic resurgence that we are believing it is. A company like Buncher needs to be pushed or it will undoubtedly construct something that will be very hard for the city to take pride in. Pittsburgh will get Buncher's bare minimum... we can all be certain of that, if they are not given a bit of pressure. It's a good thing that a few of the city council members who actually have brain function are saying wait a minute to the child mayor and his pals.

So exactly what do you want to see instead of the Buncher proposal? 30 story towers? Absolutely zero parking? More than 1500 residential units? Is it the fact that they're not just a bunch of highrises? Is it the 1/3 of the Produce Terminal? What is it? I've never once said that the Buncher proposal was/is perfect, and I'm perfectly happy with the city wanting to look over the proposal with a fine-tooth comb and make improvements to it. But at the same time, how long has this land lied fallow as surface parking? Do we really think that Buncher would sell the property instead of keeping it as profitable surface parking forever? I think we need to look at the big picture, which is that the connection between Downtown and The Strip needs a lot of work currently, and adding a thousand or more residences, additional office and commercial space, a decent riverfront park/trail, etc., would be exponentially better than the current surface sea of parking lots. I guess I just want to know exactly what you guys think would make Buncher's proposal much improved, that's all.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That would be a huge public market. I suppose it is conceivable that could happen eventually, but I doubt it would be likely any time soon, and I don't see why a public market that was merely very large would be "destroying" it.

Granted, that public market would be quite large in my vision, but there are at least a few small-to-medium-sized cities with sizable public markets. Two that come to mind are Seattle's Pikes Place and Baltimore's market place. I was in Pittsburgh's public market as well as Seattle's, and Pittsburgh's is rather limited in both size and in goods. I could see a plethora of ethnic and international food vendors and other merchandise vendors encompassing the whole building. I know that an art gallery is at the other end. It could be an even bigger tourist attraction and tie in very nicely with the rest of the Strip. Granted, there are numerous other vendors in the strip, and I think multiple vendors selling similar goods would provide more of a variety.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nope. Pittsburgh used to have inclines in a lot of other places beside Mt. Washington, including the Hill and Uptown. Of course the automobile pretty much killed interest in inclines as a practical transportation technology, hence the failure to build new ones and the disappearance of old ones in the 20th Century. The reason those two on Mt Washington in particular lasted is precisely because of the view, not because of the unique topography of Mt. Washington.

If you are talking in recent decades, that simply isn't true. Again, your supposedly fundamental factors have an odd tendency to come and go.

Figured you might pick out that last sentence. I was responding with mention of the inclines to you claiming that Mt. Washington "not really topographically distinct from Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and so on". There are blatantly obvious topographical differences between Mt. Washington and Oakland or Squirrel Hill and other areas.

I realize the inclines have remained because of the view/tourist attraction, and I know that inclines existed elsewhere in areas surrounding the core. The difference is that those other areas were (are) directly connected to downtown and adjacent neighborhoods by streets and contiguous development. Because that was actually possible there. These areas developed earlier than Mt. Washington, connected by roads, rail, and then even streetcar lines. Places like the Hill and Uptown were more important parts of Pittsburgh than Mt. Washington (which didn't even develop any residential until the Mon Incline was constructed) -- even if only to provide transit between downtown and elsewhere -- because they were not isolated, sparse residential and farmland areas on the top of a "mountain" that rises a steep 400 feet right up from the riverbank.

Which brings me to the second part of your response... I stated that "all of the areas surrounding the downtown core (Uptown/Hill, Northside/North Shore, Southside... have all been more developed and integral parts of the city's core historically than Mt. Washington has. Mt. Washington has never seen the types of development that any of those areas have" ... you omitted that second part above. Mt. Washington has never been the integral part of the city like any of those other parts surrounding the core have. Have they fallen on hard times through out their histories? Sure, but Mt. Washington has never even made it to their levels as far as level of importance to the city goes. In Pittsburgh's long history, Mt. Washington never became a Northside, a Southside, a Hill District, not even an Uptown. Why? "Shifting fortunes"? The terrain posed greater challenges to settlement, access, and development then and it still does to an extent today.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by glowrock

So exactly what do you want to see instead of the Buncher proposal?... What is it?... I guess I just want to know exactly what you guys think would make Buncher's proposal much improved, that's all.

Aaron (Glowrock)

All I want is for people to stop saying "it's better than what's there now" and accepting crap development. Not you particularly, glowrock... just the collective attitude that has plagued us since manufacturing collapsed because we are such sad sacks that we'll take whatever shit we can get, no matter how much it stinks.

And this:

Originally Posted by glowrock

... the city wanting to look over the proposal with a fine-tooth comb and make improvements to it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I was in Pittsburgh's public market as well as Seattle's, and Pittsburgh's is rather limited in both size and in goods.

So of course the Public Market could be considerably bigger than it is now, and still not take the whole structure, or even the 2/3rds that they plan to keep. And I actually think my vision would be more to have it spill out more into the Smallman Street space, if anything (to make it more square than elongated, and help it tie in with the rest of the Strip shopping experience).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

These areas developed earlier than Mt. Washington . . . (which didn't even develop any residential until the Mon Incline was constructed)

Immigrants working in the valley were already living on Mt Washington before the Mon Incline was built in 1870. That is in large part WHY the passenger inclines on Mt Washington were built--not speculatively, but to serve an already growing need.

Generally, though, I would agree Mt Washington's most intense development phase as a residential neighborhood happened in the early-20th Century, along with places like Oakland and Squirrel Hill in fact, and ironically once access for motorized vehicles became the prime driver of residential development in the core area (motorized vehicles for the masses made intense residential development of plateau areas away from the railroads more viable).

So the actual history doesn't support your thesis that Mt Washington is somehow topographically distinct from all those other places in Pittsburgh located on plateaus when it comes to motorized vehicle access, but it does support what I noted before, which is that the winding road access to Mt Washington has made it function as if it was a bit farther from Downtown than as the crow flies would suggest.

In Pittsburgh's long history, Mt. Washington never became a Northside, a Southside, a Hill District, not even an Uptown. Why?

I'm not sure I would agree about the Hill District, and it is really only recently that the South Side became the standout neighborhood it is today.

And I would emphasize that I have never disputed that the North Side and Uptown are in better locations relative to Downtown than Mt Washington. What I have disputed is your theory that this is a matter of road access for motorized vehicles, and that history PROVES it is a matter of road access for motorized vehicles, particularly since motorized vehicles were not even available for much of the period in which these particular neighborhoods were clearly more successful than Mt Washington.

That is why I have kept noting you really need to expand your list of possible factors in order to explain the observable history. In fact, what the North Side and Uptown had, and still have, is walkability to Downtown (simple walking was the dominant form of urban passenger transportation for quite a while). The North Side and South Side also have direct river access, which was crucial in the earlier development phases of Pittsburgh. And rail, which for a long period was the dominant form of intercity transportation, played a large part in the development of many of these areas in certain decades, and the main rail routes ran through the valleys and along the rivers. And so on--the real history of Pittsburgh development does not allow your argument by process of elimination.

In any event, I guess we shall see. It may not yet be Mt Washington's time for something like a major hotel project, but I suspect that time is in fact coming, if not now. If and when it gets built, we can then see if your dire predictions prove true.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So of course the Public Market could be considerably bigger than it is now, and still not take the whole structure, or even the 2/3rds that they plan to keep. And I actually think my vision would be more to have it spill out more into the Smallman Street space, if anything (to make it more square than elongated, and help it tie in with the rest of the Strip shopping experience).

Forgive me, but I'm a little perplexed with what you mean about it spilling into the Smallman Street space. Do you mean build an addition more or less or that it should occupy the ground level(s) of the warehouse buildings across the street?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Forgive me, but I'm a little perplexed with what you mean about it spilling into the Smallman Street space. Do you mean build an addition more or less or that it should occupy the ground level(s) of the warehouse buildings across the street?

There are a few different approaches you could take. The simplest would just be to have a zone for market tents/stalls, with some distinctive paving and such. Part of my inspiration is Piazza delle Erbe in Verona, which we happened to visit recently:







Something like that in the area in front of St Stanislaus could be really cool (it is actually a very similar size):


St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church, Pittsburgh, PA by catholicsanctuaries, on Flickr

[Jonboy1983]

Ohh, I see what you're getting at.

I actually thought that something needs to be done with Smallman Street and that parking. It looks awful. I think if they were to dig that up and replace it with some type of pavement similar to what they have in Market Square and then fill that in with vendors on either side of the street, that would make that part of the Strip rather interesting; the Public Market could be part in-doors and part outdoors and really blend in with the fabric of the Strip. I see what you mean.

[Austinlee]

I think that's a sick ass idea BrianTH and your last two photos really make a compelling point of similarity.

[Wave]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There are a few different approaches you could take. The simplest would just be to have a zone for market tents/stalls, with some distinctive paving and such. Part of my inspiration is Piazza delle Erbe in Verona, which we happened to visit recently:







Something like that in the area in front of St Stanislaus could be really cool (it is actually a very similar size):


St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church, Pittsburgh, PA by catholicsanctuaries, on Flickr

Wow. I think you are totally on to something. Those two locations are shockingly similar in scale. The analogy is dead-on and the perspective of the two photos clearly describes exactly the vision you're pitching. I think the outdoor piazza-market idea there is literally perfect for that space.

[BrianTH]

I'm sorta obsessed with the idea of turning that part of Smallman into a European-style market square. It would leverage the iconic church, provide a central gathering point sufficiently far from Downtown to work as a destination, and reference Pittsburgh/Strip history. Fortunately I believe this vision is consistent with the current master planning process for the Strip, including the transportation planning, and really wouldn't take much to realize.

By the way, the Produce Terminal has long reminded me of the Cloth Hall in Krakow, although obviously that is on a bit bigger scale and far more ornate. Same idea, though--you'd have that Produce Terminal/Fruit Auction/Indoor Market anchoring one side of the proposed square: