Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
But compared to a place like Uptown, with much better road access to Downtown, just being relatively stable still makes Mt Washington the winner.
All this is pointing out is that relative road access doesn't really do much to explain how neighborhoods have fared in Pittsburgh over recent decades. And I honestly thinking you are exaggerating how difficult it is to get to Mt Washington by road--I think the most one could say is that it functions like it is a bit farther from Downtown than you would think by looking at it as the crow flies.
This is where understanding that Pittsburgh still has an overabundance of "spectacular locations" with "great potential" available for development is quite important. There is a practical limit to how many projects are going to happen in any given time period, and so the fact that a given location hasn't yet been developed doesn't necessarily mean there is something fundamentally wrong with that location.
|
Yet, Uptown is seeing more investment currently...
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. I don't think I'm exaggerating the lack of access to Mt. Washington in terms of where to site a major hotel. For someone who lives in Pittsburgh and is familiar with the maze of bridges, tunnels, and streets, it may not seem very difficult at all to get up there. 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. Other than right along that eastern stretch of Grandview Ave, Mt. Washington is just not a desirable place to be. There's really not much up there, and much of that is due to its rather isolated location.
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. It hasn't developed like other neighborhoods have with vibrant business districts in its history specifically due to its terrain and location. It's nothing new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock
Give me a break, guys. While I certainly agree that the Buncher proposal isn't the most incredible project I can think of for that enormous swath of parking lots, it's a hell of a lot better than it STAYING parking lots for perpetuity. I'm all in favor of negotiating with Buncher for as much as possible, but in the end, I think the end result will certainly deserve TIF funding. And let's face it, TIF funding is going to be needed for just about ANY project in that area due to the infrastructure costs involved.
Aaron (Glowrock)
|
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.
"
Finally, a city-sponsored master planning process for all of the Allegheny riverfront, up through Lawrenceville to the city limits is under way.
The first stage of this planning evaluated transportation and ecological needs and commercial, cultural and recreational opportunities for the entire corridor. Completed last year, this was a “visioning” process to produce ideas. Subsequently, a design consultant was hired with $1.5 million of mostly federal money to further develop those ideas for parts of this area — including some that would involve Buncher’s land. Public meetings to gather input are already being held.
Let’s not let Buncher short-circuit that process just because they have a fistful of dollars. If they want public-financing assistance — and they obviously claim to need it — let’s have them pause and participate fully in this planning process."
Prev
Ever since this project became known, I've often wondered why they couldn't just add floors on top of this building. I guess the early 1900s construction would not be able to support another 20 stories or so of sleek modern space...?
), and then maybe the public can lend a hand with the financing part of it.
Linear Mode
