PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by Private 🞵🞵🞵🞵

That Lawrenceville development is great. I like skyscrapers and all, but this type of redevelopment/reinvestment in the core, on the human/neighborhood scale, is what really licks my 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

I totally agree.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

nor can it realistically be viewed as an "extension of Oakland".

I stand by that comment. Sure, it is separated from the main/central portion of Oakland by an elevation change--this is Pittsburgh, after all--but it literally shares a border with South Oakland, and there are currently a couple different direct (by Pittsburgh standards) road paths from Oakland into the site, plus at least some talk of providing some sort of circulator service that would include both Oakland and this site. And while I agree one needs to take RIDC's self-promotional claims with a grain of salt, the sorts of tenants they are describing are very Oakland-y, which makes sense because a similar mix of tenants (many with Oakland connections) have occupied the PTC.

Of course this is ultimately just semantics--I used "extension" because I think that captures the way this site starts with a direct border with Oakland but then "extends" out from it, but others may prefer a different term. But regardless of what terms you want to use, the fact of the matter is that it will be a very short hop (potentially by circulator, if they ever get it up and running) from this site to Oakland.

The potential is with the site itself, and therefore access to it is tantamout to its development success. Second Avenue for its entire length from the 10th St Bridge on through Hazelwood and this site to the Glenwood Bridge MUST be drastically improved if this development is to reach its full potential

This strikes me as a pretty self-contradictory statement. I think we can agree that improving access to this site is important, and they are in fact planning not only for an improved Second Avenue route into and through the site (that's a big chunk of what the TIF is for, in fact), but also talking about possible circulators (as I mentioned before), riverfront access for pedestrians and bikes, and so forth.

But all that is being done in the context of this site's specific location. It is not, for example, like a greenfield site in the middle of rural land being converted to sprawl, where the only access issue is a path to the nearest highway interchange. In this case, it is obvious the primary access goals are improved paths between this site and Oakland, the South Side, Downtown, and other nearby neighborhoods, precisely because it is in fact embedded in the midst of all that.

[Topher51]

I realize the Mon-Fayette connection to I-376 is probably 20 years from completion, but based on this map, there should be an exit at Hazelwood. That will definitely allow for better access to the area. The exits at Braddock, Duquesne and North Versailles should help spur growth in those areas too.



http://www.paturnpike.com/MonFaySB/51to376/maps.htm

[markson33]

Brian, I've got to disagree with you regarding the access to Hazelwood. The access to the site is severly lacking, and probably always will be. Companies make decisions on how accessible a location is by car and how much parking is available. Things like pedestrian walkways and paths are nice, but they are amenities - while vehicular access is a requirement. There really is never going to be an alternative access to the site other than 2nd Avenue (unless the Mon-Fayette expressway gets built), and access to 2nd Avenue isn't that good.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Topher51

I realize the Mon-Fayette connection to I-376 is probably 20 years from completion, but based on this map, there should be an exit at Hazelwood.

The assumption behind this development is that the idea of completing the MFE to Downtown is either dead already, or that it will be once developments like this are in place.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

Brian, I've got to disagree with you regarding the access to Hazelwood. The access to the site is severly lacking, and probably always will be.

Note that I implicitly agreed above the current access to the site is poor and will require improvement. I don't think anyone disagrees with that proposition, and again that is part of what the TIF is for. I don't believe I have taken a stance on how access will be in the future--obviously it is unlikely to be as good as many places, but it wouldn't be hard for it to be much better than it is now. In any event, limits on how good access will be in the future only underscore the importance of maximizing the access that CAN be provided.

Things like pedestrian walkways and paths are nice, but they are amenities - while vehicular access is a requirement. There really is never going to be an alternative access to the site other than 2nd Avenue (unless the Mon-Fayette expressway gets built), and access to 2nd Avenue isn't that good.

The plans, as you might expect from looking at a map of current conditions, appear to have car access at:

(1) Second Avenue #1 (NW corner);

(2) Greenfield Avenue;

(3) Hazelwood Avenue; and

(4) Second Avenue #2 (SE corner)/Tecumseh Street (and related grid).

Overall that's more limited than you would expect in most urban-grid settings (again, though, this is Pittsburgh), but not so different from, say, many suburban office parks with only a few access points from the outside to an internal ring road.

Incidentally, particularly when it comes to providing access to locations as close as Oakland and Downtown, I don't think it actually makes sense to completely ignore non-car modes of transportation. I certainly think a circulator service including Oakland could be significant, as would bus routes to Downtown, and even bike access along the river.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Note that I implicitly agreed above the current access to the site is poor and will require improvement. I don't think anyone disagrees with that proposition, and again that is part of what the TIF is for. I don't believe I have taken a stance on how access will be in the future--obviously it is unlikely to be as good as many places, but it wouldn't be hard for it to be much better than it is now. In any event, limits on how good access will be in the future only underscore the importance of maximizing the access that CAN be provided.



The plans, as you might expect from looking at a map of current conditions, appear to have car access at:

(1) Second Avenue #1 (NW corner);

(2) Greenfield Avenue;

(3) Hazelwood Avenue; and

(4) Second Avenue #2 (SE corner)/Tecumseh Street (and related grid).

Overall that's more limited than you would expect in most urban-grid settings (again, though, this is Pittsburgh), but not so different from, say, many suburban office parks with only a few access points from the outside to an internal ring road.

Incidentally, particularly when it comes to providing access to locations as close as Oakland and Downtown, I don't think it actually makes sense to completely ignore non-car modes of transportation. I certainly think a circulator service including Oakland could be significant, as would bus routes to Downtown, and even bike access along the river.

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3265103-74/site-almono-hazelwood#axzz2Ii6ijg4l

Councilman Bill Peduto, a mayoral candidate, said access to the site is “extremely limited,” a drawback that could impede would-be developers. “There are no major corridors that connect from Hazelwood to anywhere,” he said.

Peduto said missing from the early discussion of TIF funding is the potential for a commuter rail link via Allegheny Valley Railroad tracks that run near the site and CMU’s campus in Oakland.

...


some investors might hesitate because of the possibility — albeit remote — that the Pennsylvania Turnpike might still want to extend the Mon/Fayette Expressway to the city through the site. Turnpike Commission officials said those plans are on hold because of a lack of funding.

“They’ve never actually ruled it out,” Lamb said.

The paradox for those clamoring for the MFX to provide access to the Almono site... is construction of such a highway would consume the developable land (not to mention eliminating many riverfront towns and neighborhoods along the route). I agree that Second Avenue requires an upgrade... but an urban boulevard would be a better solution.

Mon Valley Vision Plan

[chiaroscuro]

Can someone explain the situation with the old arena site? The Penguins have to develop a certain amount each year or lose it, right? There is a parking lot there now, is that considered development? Does the clock start ticking now on the rest of it?

[BrianTH]

I agree the site could really use some sort of rapid transit link. But I'm not at all convinced Peduto's commuter rail plan is the right approach. In any event, as I understand it the TIF so far is in the preliminary stages and looking at options, so I don't think it has necessarily ruled out a transit component.

And yes, the MFE would be a disaster for this site, as well as the Carrie Furnace site, and a bunch of other locations.

As a final random thought, recent Oakland plans have discussed improving the Bates/BoA intersection, which I think would reverberate to the benefit of this site.

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by glowrock

It's simply amazing how much redevelopment and new construction is going on around the immediate Pittsburgh area nearly under everyone's radar. One of the few obvious things is PNC's new tower, but wow, the total investment here is simply shocking nowadays!

Aaron (Glowrock)

I totally agree. It is shocking! It makes me feel so good that such a wonderful city and metro area is right here for us to enjoy every day and see it flourish. The city is so unique and has such of a sense of place, soul and tradition with fine and historic institutions that many cities could only dream of.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by chiaroscuro

Can someone explain the situation with the old arena site? The Penguins have to develop a certain amount each year or lose it, right? There is a parking lot there now, is that considered development? Does the clock start ticking now on the rest of it?

This might help:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...n-the-clock-for-civic-arena-site-641318/

In a nutshell, the completion of the parking lot in July 2012 actually started the clock on real development. The ten-year period begins one year later (so July 2013), and in turn they should be starting work on the first parcel a year after that (so by July 2014). The penalty is a loss of 10% of the development rights (2.8 acres) for each year they lag behind schedule, so if nothing happens after ten years total, they lose the whole thing.

[themaguffin]

Hazelwood sits in an awkward location with challenging access.

I don't know the best way to improve it, but it seems to me that we should be reading articles with such proposals if not before massive plans for the area, then shortly after making an announcement for bold development, since success is contingent upon accessibility.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Hazelwood sits in an awkward location with challenging access.

I don't know the best way to improve it, but it seems to me that we should be reading articles with such proposals if not before massive plans for the area, then shortly after making an announcement for bold development, since success is contingent upon accessibility.

If anything, access would be much, much strengthened into the area if the Parkway East exit at Bates St. would be expanded so you can exit for the Hot Metal Bridge going eastbound and enter the Parkway westbound from Bates. Obviously there's an extreme lack of space in the area and I have no idea how the additional ramps could be placed, but if the interchange were improved, I think overall access to the LTV site would be drastically improved. And yes, I'm assuming a full rebuild of Second Ave. as well...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[markson33]

I love the idea of an urban boulevard/parkway through Hazelwood. I wish Pittsburgh had more of those. 2nd Avenue, Route 51 and Ohio River Boulevard seem like the most obvious choices.

If you combined an urban boulevard with the reconstruction of the Bates Street interchange it could really help Hazelwood.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I stand by that comment. Sure, it is separated from the main/central portion of Oakland by an elevation change--this is Pittsburgh, after all--but it literally shares a border with South Oakland, and there are currently a couple different direct (by Pittsburgh standards) road paths from Oakland into the site, plus at least some talk of providing some sort of circulator service that would include both Oakland and this site. And while I agree one needs to take RIDC's self-promotional claims with a grain of salt, the sorts of tenants they are describing are very Oakland-y, which makes sense because a similar mix of tenants (many with Oakland connections) have occupied the PTC.

Of course this is ultimately just semantics--I used "extension" because I think that captures the way this site starts with a direct border with Oakland but then "extends" out from it, but others may prefer a different term. But regardless of what terms you want to use, the fact of the matter is that it will be a very short hop (potentially by circulator, if they ever get it up and running) from this site to Oakland.



This strikes me as a pretty self-contradictory statement. I think we can agree that improving access to this site is important, and they are in fact planning not only for an improved Second Avenue route into and through the site (that's a big chunk of what the TIF is for, in fact), but also talking about possible circulators (as I mentioned before), riverfront access for pedestrians and bikes, and so forth.

But all that is being done in the context of this site's specific location. It is not, for example, like a greenfield site in the middle of rural land being converted to sprawl, where the only access issue is a path to the nearest highway interchange. In this case, it is obvious the primary access goals are improved paths between this site and Oakland, the South Side, Downtown, and other nearby neighborhoods, precisely because it is in fact embedded in the midst of all that.

I understand what you're saying, and I do realize that the proposed uses/potential tenant types go right in line with the activities in Oakland (tech, R&D, etc.)... so I can certainly see the "extension" of Oakland view. My main point is that the site is really not quite as close, and definitely not "right next to", as many people probably think. While I can see how it can be viewed as an extension of Oakland due to proposed use and the fact that transit buses will serve it from Oakland, the extension geographically from the part of Oakland that actually matters in this case, is just not there. And from a development perspective, attempting to view it that way is going to prove very difficult in first getting it off the ground and ultimately making it a success.

I know you make the claim that "it literally shares a border with South Oakland, and there are currently a couple different direct (by Pittsburgh standards) road paths from Oakland into the site"... but in actuality, that is not completely valid... because the "bordering" part of Oakland is the residential neighborhood south of the Boulevard (which itself is highly isolated from Oakland proper and the surrounding area as a whole), and it only borders (actually highly separated by a steep hillside and 376) the narrowest neck at the beginning of the property anyway. The only street offering indirect access to that most westward neck is Bates, which is totally inadequate as it is now, and difficult to improve given its path through a former creek valley cut.

I just feel it's necessary to emphasize that this is a huge piece of FLAT riverfront property... located in an area that has long been the most isolated part of Pittsburgh's core, but which has the potential to be an enormous asset to the city specifically because it is a huge blank slate right on the river... and not because of its perceived proximity to Oakland or anywhere else. Looking at it based on this perceived proximity to Oakland will primarily serve to turn this area into just another extension of the (in my view, failed) PTC, with a townhouse development tacked onto the far, isolated end.

The prime way to incorporate it into the city (which this area NEVER has been throughout the history of Pittsburgh) is via a transformation of Second Avenue... far from just the proposed improvements to it. Again, the focus needs to be placed on the riverfront... and the transformation of Second Avenue from an industrial, hemmed-in no-mans land into a riverfront parkway along its full course. That is what will connect this site with everything else... Downtown and Oakland particularly... and something I've been a proponent of as a transformative project for Pittsburgh's core for a long time (and ranted on here about, of course ). Overall, I don't think we're really that far apart at all in our ideas about the project and access to it... as you said, it may be just semantics... my focus just seems to be more on the riverfront and the site's relation to it, rather than it's relation to Oakland and other, what I feel are non-bordering, neighborhoods.

[KINGPIN]

In response to evz992 question a few posts ago about the oxford 350 5th ave development, this pg article from oct. might shed some light. Take the article at face value I guess...As much as I would like to see it built, it's unlikely it will happen.

Site's Downtown redevelopment marketed amid high-rise plans
October 6, 2012 12:14 am
Share with others:
0
inShare
By Mark Belko / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Oxford Development Co. has begun marketing a $40 million redevelopment of a seven-story building at 441 Smithfield St., Downtown, but that doesn't mean the firm has given up on plans for a $238 million, 33-story skyscraper at the site, a spokesman said.

Oxford Realty Services sent out marketing material Friday for the 175,000-square-foot redevelopment, called 350 Fifth Avenue, which would feature a redesigned entrance on Fifth, new mechanical systems and Class A office finishes.

While the marketing of the renovations might suggest that Oxford has ditched plans for the costly high-rise, which is in need of an anchor tenant, spokesman Mark Grasso said that is not the case. As the Oxford Realty division markets the redevelopment, Oxford Development will continue to promote the high-rise and search for an anchor tenant.

"It's just better for us to market the concept of the two options," he said. "This way, we don't have the same people trying to market both of them at the same time."

Mr. Grasso said Oxford still is on target to make a decision on which path to follow -- high-rise vs. redevelopment -- by the end of the year.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...id-high-rise-plans-656400/#ixzz2J7AzZqDu

[markson33]

I think it's a great sign that Oxford extended their decision period by three months. Clearly that implies that they are in serious discussions with a tenant about the high rise. I wonder what US Steels new skyscraper will look like! Hopefully not like the originally proposed rendering.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

but in actuality, that is not completely valid... because the "bordering" part of Oakland is the residential neighborhood south of the Boulevard (which itself is highly isolated from Oakland proper and the surrounding area as a whole), and it only borders (actually highly separated by a steep hillside and 376) the narrowest neck at the beginning of the property anyway.

South Oakland goes all the way to the river, and includes the PTC site:

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/maps/south_oakland.html

So Second Avenue actually goes through South Oakland and then on into the Hazelwood LTV site. The second path from Oakland to the site is Swinburne Street over the Swinburne Bridge and down Greenfield Ave.

I just feel it's necessary to emphasize that this is a huge piece of FLAT riverfront property... located in an area that has long been the most isolated part of Pittsburgh's core, but which has the potential to be an enormous asset to the city specifically because it is a huge blank slate right on the river... and not because of its perceived proximity to Oakland or anywhere else.

That's really just not right. If this same site was somewhere far from the core area of Pittsburgh, say way farther up the Mon Valley, it wouldn't be nearly as attractive for this sort of development, and might well languish indefinitely.

That is what will connect this site with everything else... Downtown and Oakland particularly... my focus just seems to be more on the riverfront and the site's relation to it, rather than it's relation to Oakland . . .

This is seriously self-contradictory. I'm fine with advocating big changes to Second Avenue, but that matters because Second Avenue provides access between this site and Oakland, Downtown, and also points east. In short, it makes no sense to say this site's location doesn't matter at all, then talk about how important it is to build a better road to the things nearby.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

South Oakland goes all the way to the river, and includes the PTC site:

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/maps/south_oakland.html

So Second Avenue actually goes through South Oakland and then on into the Hazelwood LTV site. The second path from Oakland to the site is Swinburne Street over the Swinburne Bridge and down Greenfield Ave.

Come on now. Yes, technically the PTC is part of South Oakland according to city maps, but no one considers it to be South Oakland. That's just not reality. And bordering with the part (south of the Boulevard of the Allies) of what we all consider to really be South Oakland is irrelevant when talking about connection to Oakland anyway.

And yeah... Second Avenue goes through South Oakland just like 376 goes through South Oakland

As for the route of Greenfield Ave, across the Swinburne Bridge, and narrowly winding up through the woods into South Oakland as some sort of realistic route connecting the narrow edge of the site with Oakland... silliness... and anyone who is familiar with that route fully understands how silly that is, if considering it as a realistic path for access between the Almono site and Oakland (and by Oakland, I mean Oakland, as in Pitt, Forbes Ave, Fifth Ave, etc... not Dan Marino Field).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's really just not right. If this same site was somewhere far from the core area of Pittsburgh, say way farther up the Mon Valley, it wouldn't be nearly as attractive for this sort of development, and might well languish indefinitely.

Well... yeah... I think that's pretty obvious. The point is that the enormous potential is there because it is riverfront land in the core of the region, not specifically because of its connection to Oakland. We've already seen the woeful results of what can be done with prime riverfront property when developed based on a connection to Oakland that doesn't naturally and realistically exist... the PTC.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

This is seriously self-contradictory. I'm fine with advocating big changes to Second Avenue, but that matters because Second Avenue provides access between this site and Oakland, Downtown, and also points east. In short, it makes no sense to say this site's location doesn't matter at all, then talk about how important it is to build a better road to the things nearby.

No, not at all. I never said the "location doesn't matter at all". The fact that it is a very large tract of riverfront land with location in the city is primary among what matters, in my opinion, and not specifically it's relation to Oakland proper (because that geographic relation or "extension" is tenuous at best). Road access is certainly important for any proposed development's success, and my thoughts on plans for Second Ave. address and encourage much easier access to Hazelwood from anywhere, and therefore incorporate it into the city... but certainly with Downtown and Oakland being the two most important centers. Still, that cannot magically turn Hazelwood and the Almono site into an extension of Oakland, unless one's definition of Oakland (the part that is relevant to employment/activity/commerce/etc.) is so generous as to make it meaningless... OR... we actually get a light rail line running up into Oakland via Junction Hollow.

But I'm not looking to wait until I'm in my 70s for that to happen. Focus on the riverfront, transform the course of Second Ave. in order to transform the Mon waterfront, and this Almono site/Hazelwood can reach its potential (and likely spur other major connections, like the long-envisioned Hazelwood Bridge to E Carson at Beck's Run Rd) -- because simply looking at a map displays that the extension of Oakland mindset ain't gonna do it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Come on now. Yes, technically the PTC is part of South Oakland according to city maps, but no one considers it to be South Oakland. That's just not reality.

So what neighborhood would you say the PTC is in if not South Oakland?

Anyway, it is obvious that this site's proximity to Oakland does in fact matter quite a bit, which actually makes the case for improving Second Avenue, so I think the rest of this quibbling is just pointless semantics.

By the way, recognizing the PTC was close to Oakland and would likely have appeal to Oakland-related tenants (which in fact it did) is not what is wrong with the PTC. The basic problems with the PTC are:

(1) It was laid out poorly, including with no riverfront trails; and

(2) With the benefit of hindsight, it would be nice if it had a residential component.

Fixing those sorts of issues when planning the Hazelwood LTV won't require denying that its proximity to Oakland matters, and in fact that is exactly what has happened.