PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by dfiler

Even if there is a high lab to office ratio, Technology drive is still a horrible development. It is an island of suburban sprawl in the middle of a city. It is completely incompatible with the rest of the city structure of Pittsburgh.

While better in the short term than a rubble strewn field, I would still characterize it as the worst type of development possible in the city of Pittsburgh. Only time will tell for sure, but it seems analogous to the urban planning blunder that is Allegheny Center. If more of these developments are built, public transit will be totally infeasible and walkability is completely out the window.

I could be swayed though. Is there a worse type of development, in terms of urban structure, that could be built in Pittsburgh?

Walkable? Well, I guess that area would be walkable to places on the South Side across the Hot Metal Bridge. That section of Second Ave. isn't exactly full of dense residential, restaurant and bar space. Not to mention that this was a huge brownfield development, and that COULD HAVE had something to do with the fact that laboratory-style office space was built there as opposed to dense residential development, though I'm not certain about that. Was there a difference in the level of EPA-mandated cleanup between the the north and south sides of the former J&L facility? I haven't lived here long enough to know that with any level of certainty.

Face it, there are certain areas that SHOULD BE high-density and certain areas that aren't likely to ever be high-density. SSW is higher density because of its location in the South Side Flats, one of the densest areas of the city. On the north side of the Mon, Second Ave. is more or less just a commuter road with little to no development along it outside of the laboratory office space that is Technology Drive more or less between Uptown to Greenfield. The existing cement/concrete plant along Second adjacent and under the Birmingham Bridge certainly doesn't add to the appeal of the area, either. It's an industrial area, no question about it.

Let's focus on the Strip District, let's focus on Uptown, North Shore, among other areas, not to mention Station Square. By the time enough demand for high-density development reaches the Technology Drive/Second Ave. area, those existing buildings will be ready to be redeveloped anyhow!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Retail is tough everywhere right now, Southside Works isn't unique in its struggle.

I tend to agree with you on this one.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

10+ story buildings, or even 8+ story buildings, would be OK with me in the near Strip. What I would like to avoid is a bunch of surface parking surrounding the buildings.

Originally Posted by glowrock

I completely agree, BrianTH. As I said, how about a campus-style development along the lines of American Eagle's in SSW, perhaps just a few floors higher? It's dense, it's got structured parking, and it fits in very well with the rest of the development.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Guys, I really don't think corporate campuses are that bad in an urban environment. Check out the Gates Foundation in downtown Seattle. What an incredible asset to the city.








Source: http://www.arup.com/Projects/Gates_Foundation/Exterior_Images.aspx




I really think something well thought out like that would really be great, in the vein of Alcoa's headquarters and the Gates Hillman Center in Oakland.

[Private Dick]

I'm of the mindset that riverfront land in the core of the city should never be utilized for something like laboratory space. Pittsburgh missed the boat with that development -- incredibly shortsighted. If anything, the first low-slung "office park" PTC buildings that we have now should have been built fronting 2nd Ave, NOT the riverfront -- a TERRIBLE use of the land.

When they designed and built the PTC in the manner it exists, the URA basically sealed the fate of the 2nd Ave corridor to remain industrial and a virtual ghost town -- which in turn, has long delayed and continues to stifle the redevelopment of Uptown. They had a prime opportunity to create an actual neighborhood -- extending Oakland to the river. You couldn't find a better-situated swath of waterfront land which allows easy, direct access to Pittsburgh's two largest hubs of employment (including its 3 main universities) and to its main entertainment neighborhood directly across the river. But a suburban office park was built instead. A glaring squandered opportunity. But then again, Pittsburgh built a prison on prime waterfront property as well

It seems as if the Almono site just up the river may do it right... but, it's just that... up the river.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Guys, I really don't think corporate campuses are that bad in an urban environment. Check out the Gates Foundation in downtown Seattle. What an incredible asset to the city.








Source: http://www.arup.com/Projects/Gates_Foundation/Exterior_Images.aspx

I really think something well thought out like that would really be great, in the vein of Alcoa's headquarters and the Gates Hillman Center in Oakland.

Pretty to look at and nice to work at, but completely underused on a daily basis by the public. Akin to skyscrapers with large plazas in core downtown areas -- they have the same effect... and I think think you actually even mentioned this and provided us with examples.

[Jonboy1983]

Something like that, coupled with something a little taller and could somehow incorprate some retail and/or restaurant use I think would be better use. Yeah, I know, the retail/restaurant part is a little too much to ask for. US Steel used to have that until the restaurant closed and 9-11 happened.

What's wrong with One Oxford Center or Fifth Avenue Place? Both of those have a shopping complex within their bases...

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I'm of the mindset that riverfront land in the core of the city should never be utilized for something like laboratory space. Pittsburgh missed the boat with that development -- incredibly shortsighted. If anything, the first low-slung "office park" PTC buildings that we have now should have been built fronting 2nd Ave, NOT the riverfront -- a TERRIBLE use of the land.

When they designed and built the PTC in the manner it exists, the URA basically sealed the fate of the 2nd Ave corridor to remain industrial and a virtual ghost town -- which in turn, has long delayed and continues to stifle the redevelopment of Uptown. They had a prime opportunity to create an actual neighborhood -- extending Oakland to the river. You couldn't find a better-situated swath of waterfront land which allows easy, direct access to Pittsburgh's two largest hubs of employment (including its 3 main universities) and to its main entertainment neighborhood directly across the river. But a suburban office park was built instead. A glaring squandered opportunity. But then again, Pittsburgh built a prison on prime waterfront property as well

It seems as if the Almono site just up the river may do it right... but, it's just that... up the river.

Stupid question for you, but if you read my response to the PTC site, I mentioned that perhaps the required EPA cleanup for office/laboratory space as opposed to residential/commercial was attained for the north side of the J&L site. Do you know if there was any difference in terms of the environmental cleanup between the two sides of the river? Again, I don't know one way or the other, but I figure perhaps something like that might have come into play when it came to the different development style of the area.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Stupid question for you, but if you read my response to the PTC site, I mentioned that perhaps the required EPA cleanup for office/laboratory space as opposed to residential/commercial was attained for the north side of the J&L site. Do you know if there was any difference in terms of the environmental cleanup between the two sides of the river? Again, I don't know one way or the other, but I figure perhaps something like that might have come into play when it came to the different development style of the area.

Aaron (Glowrock)

From what I know, the site was planned to be a research/tech park from its acquisition back in the 1980s... and the necessary remediation for those purposes was performed. It didn't require as comprehensive a cleanup as land slated for residential, schools, etc. does. Given the past use of the SSW side vs. the PTC side, I'm certain that the environmental remediation was much more involved on the SSW site. And I'm pretty sure there are still some buried disposal pits on the PTC site. So basically, the planned use of a property (and the contaminants and their levels present) determines the extent of cleanup.

Since it was basically decided to put the PTC site to use specifically as an R&D/tech center early on (with strong influence of state govt, Pitt, CMU, and some of the locals tied to state govt making that decision), that's the level of remediation that was conducted. This is also before the trend of moving back into urban cores (particularly in Pittsburgh's case) gained the steam it has now... so, the demand for developing this prime property into more of a mixed use area -- rather than remaining industrial/light industrial/laboratory -- really didn't exist yet. But still, it's one of those developments that displays a real lack of foresight when you consider the site's surroundings and potential.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

From what I know, the site was planned to be a research/tech park from its acquisition back in the 1980s... and the necessary remediation for those purposes was performed. It didn't require as comprehensive a cleanup as land slated for residential, schools, etc. does. Given the past use of the SSW side vs. the PTC side, I'm certain that the environmental remediation was much more involved on the SSW site. And I'm pretty sure there are still some buried disposal pits on the PTC site. So basically, the planned use of a property (and the contaminants and their levels present) determines the extent of cleanup.

Since it was basically decided to put the PTC site to use specifically as an R&D/tech center early on (with strong influence of state govt, Pitt, CMU, and some of the locals tied to state govt making that decision), that's the level of remediation that was conducted. This is also before the trend of moving back into urban cores (particularly in Pittsburgh's case) gained the steam it has now... so, the demand for developing this prime property into more of a mixed use area -- rather than remaining industrial/light industrial/laboratory -- really didn't exist yet. But still, it's one of those developments that displays a real lack of foresight when you consider the site's surroundings and potential.

Thanks for the explanation on this, Private Dick. I had a hunch that the environmental remediation requirements had something to do with the original decision to develop the property into a technology/laboratory park. While I agree that it could obviously be better, I doubt there was any way at all to justify the substantial additional costs of environmental remediation for commericial/residential development at the time. Even now there are substantial numbers of sites that are probably better suited for dense mixed-use development than the PTC, and these are difficult to develop even in much different times like today where urban mixed-use redevelopment is very much chic and en vogue.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[markson33]

Most of these sites get Act II clearance, which is a release of liability from the Commonwealth. I know that's what the SSW received, and I'm pretty confident that's the same for PTC.

While high density, high-rise residential is sexy, and what we all get excited about, there is nothing wrong with a development like PTC. The lab space at PTC includes CMU's gaming center and the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse.

[Ghost1454]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Regarding the Second Ave./Technology corridor, people here do realize that much of that office space is really more laboratory space in nature, correct? The facility uses there don't readily lend themselves to high-rise uses because of the laboratory/floorplate requirements. I'm not saying that it's some amazing use of space (it's not), but it still is pretty decent. Definitely needs to be denser in terms of overall numbers of buildings (I believe there are a few parcels that can still be built upon there), but overall it's not terrible. The denser side is SSW, as well it should be. SSW has had its issues with retail, but certainly not in terms of its office and its residential components. And frankly, the retail's not that bad, either. It had bad luck with the number of regional/national chains that left the market or shut down entirely, just like so many other places. Overall I still think it's a pretty vibrant area, and the new Hyatt hotel is only going to help that along.

Aaron (Glowrock)

You make a very solid argument with the laboratory use. I formerly worked in Bridgeside Point II and our entire building as well as the rest owned by Pitt and CMU are high end molecular biology and bio-technology labs that absolutely need to be set on moderate-large floor plates given the amount of space the equipment and support systems take up... not to mention bench space. For instance, the entire first floor of BSPII is taken up by an animal research facility with specialized feeding, isolation, ventilation, and airlock requirements that could never be effectively stacked up in a high rise structure. From a broader perspective, having high end, university driven R&D going on in Pittsburgh is a tremendous boon to the area. I agree with the sentiment that a well positioned urban space like Technology drive could have had a more "urban" and 24/7 usage but the flip side is that academic returns on collaboration within a university diminish with distance of a lab from the parent institution and Oakland is becoming increasingly built out.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Thanks for the explanation on this, Private Dick. I had a hunch that the environmental remediation requirements had something to do with the original decision to develop the property into a technology/laboratory park. While I agree that it could obviously be better, I doubt there was any way at all to justify the substantial additional costs of environmental remediation for commericial/residential development at the time. Even now there are substantial numbers of sites that are probably better suited for dense mixed-use development than the PTC, and these are difficult to develop even in much different times like today where urban mixed-use redevelopment is very much chic and en vogue.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Well, the remediation requirements really didn't guide the decision about what to build. It was pretty much decided that the development would be a technology park affiliated with Pitt and CMU before the land was cleaned up.

The SSW site was actually more contaminated and required greater cleanup efforts, due PCBs in the soils throughout the property... and because the development was going to consist of residential/commercial/public use/etc. I was actually involved in some of the later environmental design associated with the groundwater of the site.

With the PTC development, the idea was "out with the old, in with the new"... dirty blast furnace land to clean high technology R&D park. I think there were good intentions in this brownfield development, and the desire to showcase Pittsburgh moving into the future from its steel past. I just think that it's a product of what was going on in Pittsburgh in the 90s... and big demand for urban residential and/or mixed use developments (riverfront or not) just didn't exist at the time.

Still, it's not the best use of waterfront property and it could have been developed much better if they had a little bit more foresight... increased density and lab buildings on 2nd Ave rather than the river (thus allowing the waterfront property to developed later or preserved as a public park), relocation of the metal fabrication shop that occupied the only remaining LTV structure and relocation of the concrete operation (neither one of these requires a riverfront location and are major detractors to investment and revitalization in the area).

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by markson33

Most of these sites get Act II clearance, which is a release of liability from the Commonwealth. I know that's what the SSW received, and I'm pretty confident that's the same for PTC.

While high density, high-rise residential is sexy, and what we all get excited about, there is nothing wrong with a development like PTC. The lab space at PTC includes CMU's gaming center and the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse.

Act II clearance encourages the redevelopment of brownfields in the state by limiting liability and providing funding, but remediation requirements for contaminated sites are still determined by the extent of contamination and planned reuse of the land. Act II provisions follow from that.

And there's actually a good bit "wrong" with the PTC development. I have no problem at all with the companies/organizations on the site... and I think we all realize that high rise residential is obviously not that realistic in Pittsburgh (especially not when this development started). But that doesn't discount the issue brought up about the PT's shortcomings from an urban planning standpoint. Planning which made better and more efficient use of valuable riverfront land in the core of the city and integrated the site with adjacent areas could have provided us with a far different result than the isolated, seemingly vacant, suburban office complex we have now.

Which is why I said the Almono development just up the river seems to be doing it "right".


http://almono.org/

[BrianTH]

I don't love the PTC, but I don't have a huge problem with it either. It isn't really between Downtown and Oakland in the same sense as Uptown/Bluff because of the elevation change, and in fact it isn't really continuous with anything else. It isn't impossible to imagine an entirely new neighborhood being built there, but I'm not sure that time has arrived even now, and certainly not back when it was started. And in the meantime, it does provide a lot of excellent jobs in a central location.

But I would sure hate to see something like that in the Near Strip, because the Near Strip is in fact a missing link between Downtown and the rest of the Strip, which itself has such great potential. Again, I can imagine a cluster of office buildings in the Near Strip all occupied by one large firm, but I could also imagine such a thing remaining a relative dead zone (even if it looked OK from an abstract perspective).

[Private Dick]

^ Yeah, I don't really have a problem with the idea of the PTC at all. In fact, I think it's great in some respects. I just have an issue with the execution -- the inefficient use of urban, waterfront land, in my opinion.

And yes, Uptown is absolutely more "between" downtown and Oakland. I was saying that the PTC site is the riverfront location that shares that distinction in the city.

Originally Posted by Ghost1454

... From a broader perspective, having high end, university driven R&D going on in Pittsburgh is a tremendous boon to the area. I agree with the sentiment that a well positioned urban space like Technology drive could have had a more "urban" and 24/7 usage but the flip side is that academic returns on collaboration within a university diminish with distance of a lab from the parent institution and Oakland is becoming increasingly built out.

This is exactly my issue. I don't think the two aren't mutually exclusive. Making the PTC site the "Oakland waterfront" would have only built closer connection/collaboration. Developing housing options there as well for professors, researchers, engineers, tech workers, etc. who are involved with the operations at the PTC serves to build an even more collaborative hub for innovation and would build even stronger connections with the campuses in Oakland proper.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Act II clearance encourages the redevelopment of brownfields in the state by limiting liability and providing funding, but remediation requirements for contaminated sites are still determined by the extent of contamination and planned reuse of the land. Act II provisions follow from that.

And there's actually a good bit "wrong" with the PTC development. I have no problem at all with the companies/organizations on the site... and I think we all realize that high rise residential is obviously not that realistic in Pittsburgh (especially not when this development started). But that doesn't discount the issue brought up about the PT's shortcomings from an urban planning standpoint. Planning which made better and more efficient use of valuable riverfront land in the core of the city and integrated the site with adjacent areas could have provided us with a far different result than the isolated, seemingly vacant, suburban office complex we have now.

Which is why I said the Almono development just up the river seems to be doing it "right".


http://almono.org/

I really hope that development turns out LOOKING that dense. We'll see.

[markson33]

Almono's not any more dense than PTC, until you get to the residential components farther into Hazelwood. There are a number of vacant lots at PTC that would fill it in.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I really hope that development turns out LOOKING that dense. We'll see.

Yeah, i hope so too. It's not only about the density aspect in my opinion though. It seems that Almono is taking a much more comprehensive and forward-thinking view in development plans for the site; i.e. - connecting it to the surrounding community via physical design, transit, opportunity, etc., creating a publicly-accessible riverfront park/promenade, overall plan and building design to encourage collaboration between different companies/organizations/workers/residents...

... it just looks like they are taking the long-term view into account -- basically, they are planning for growth, creation, and integration. Whereas with the PTC, it was like, ok, the land is cleared... let's put up some buildings for Pitt and CMU and see what happens. And 20 years later, we see what has happened... a handful more buildings (which is not bad), but still a generally dull, inactive development on a great riverfront site.

And I think in comparison to how the Almono site could turn out, it would present a remarkable case study to view both developments right next to each other... displaying the all to apparent differences when deep-pocketed private foundations undertake a major development versus when a public bureaucracy does... Almono vs. URA, et al.

Originally Posted by markson33

Almono's not any more dense than PTC, until you get to the residential components farther into Hazelwood. There are a number of vacant lots at PTC that would fill it in.

My comments earlier were probably too negative about the PTC site, because I do think the PTC can still be salvaged, and actually thrive as a vibrant and interesting area of the city if the lots you mention are developed, and developed as more than just additional "office park" space. It will be interesting to see if the adjacent PTC and Almono sites spur activity/development between each other.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yeah, i hope so too. It's not only about the density aspect in my opinion though. It seems that Almono is taking a much more comprehensive and forward-thinking view in development plans for the site; i.e. - connecting it to the surrounding community via physical design, transit, opportunity, etc., creating a publicly-accessible riverfront park/promenade, overall plan and building design to encourage collaboration between different companies/organizations/workers/residents...

... it just looks like they are taking the long-term view into account -- basically, they are planning for growth, creation, and integration. Whereas with the PTC, it was like, ok, the land is cleared... let's put up some buildings for Pitt and CMU and see what happens. And 20 years later, we see what has happened... a handful more buildings (which is not bad), but still a generally dull, inactive development on a great riverfront site.

And I think in comparison to how the Almono site could turn out, it would present a remarkable case study to view both developments right next to each other... displaying the all to apparent differences when deep-pocketed private foundations undertake a major development versus when a public bureaucracy does... Almono vs. URA, et al.



My comments earlier were probably too negative about the PTC site, because I do think the PTC can still be salvaged, and actually thrive as a vibrant and interesting area of the city if the lots you mention are developed, and developed as more than just additional "office park" space. It will be interesting to see if the adjacent PTC and Almono sites spur activity/development between each other.

The context I have highlighted here in bold is pretty much the emphasis of what planning SHOULD be. When you plan to develop ANY parcel of space, you as a planner need to take into consideration what the demand will call for in the next 20 years based on current trends determined by, well, the historical trends of your particular area.

Instead, the short-sited bureaucrats who call themselves planning professionals didn't take future demand into account. Therefore, we have prime riverfront space with no-so-prime use of the land.

Why do the self-proclaimed planning professionals that are essentially our buraucracy do the planning instead of leaving it up to the actual, accomplished certified professionals anyhow?

[BrianTH]

Of course the ALMONO site actually has an existing neighborhood to integrate with. And the part closer to Downtown without such a neighborhood to integrate with doesn't seem all that different to me than the PTC.

Incidentally, the predicted trends at the time the PTC was being planned were not so good. In fact, in terms of things like residential demand, we're ahead of predictions people were making just a few years ago.

I'm all for planning taking a best guess at the future, but no one has a crystal ball, and I think we have to account for the best guess at the time often getting it wrong (once we have the benefit of hindsight).