PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

By the way, this is a large part of why I think it makes sense to be bullish about the prospects of office/lab developments in and around Downtown, Oakland, East Liberty, and so on:

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/3265810-74/region-mellon-financial#axzz2JBdMvcLZ

This strong regional growth in "pros and techs" employment actually goes back a long time, into the 1990s. The dot com bust slowed it down and Pittsburgh missed most of the mid-2000s financial employment boom, but then starting around 2005 the non-financial "pros and techs" sectors started taking off again locally. The Great Recession only caused a relatively short interruption to this new trend, followed by a return to very strong growth, now with financial jobs contributing as well.

Of course these jobs are located all over, but a lot of them are natural fits for Downtown and/or the East End employment centers. And these jobs tend to create other jobs nearby in support positions, food/entertainment, and so on.

Of course something could happen again to interrupt these trends, but I do think the macro conditions currently seem favorable for putting a lot more office/lab projects in the pipeline.

[bmust71]

Originally Posted by 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.

Since when did us steel propose a new skyscraper?

[chiaroscuro]

Remember Forest City and Harrah's (now Caesar's) plan for Station Square had they won the casino license over the inferior bid by Barden?

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...or-station-square-casino-complex-418657/

[themaguffin]

Station Square made the most sense and hopefully the actual casino would have looked a lot better than what was built, but I remember there were significant logistical concerns over traffic.

I don't know if the concerns were realistic or not (though obviously there would have been a lot more traffic).

Forest City did say that they would move ahead with the other components whether or not they got the casino.

I don't think anyone here really thought they would move ahead without the casino.

In fact, I'm sure that's part of the reason for selling.

If I recall, wasn't Forest City interested in a casino for a long, long time?

Also, do they have in interest in Cleveland's casino?

[Private D]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

It's hard to say that the PTC is part of any neighborhood -- and that's the problem right there. It is quite obvious it has little in common with Oakland (aside from shuttle buses and related R&D workers), much less South Oakland.

My point on the PTC is not about recognizing it is "close" to Oakland and how it would therefore appeal to potential Oakland-related tenants. It is that the PTC was primarily developed as a workplace extension of Oakland, rather than being developed as a prime riverfront location.

The emphasis on it as some sort of R&D extension of Oakland drove development -- and the PTC was designed in a suburban-esque manner to cater to that plan. And two of the basic problems you list are direct results of that. We got a lifeless office park... on the waterfront.

So, we've already gone down that "extension of Oakland" path... and this has been duly noted by the architects and CMU initiative behind what we have in the Almono plan. They made it very clear last September that this new site, while strategically located on the riverfront in the core in proximity to the region's two largest employment centers, is not designed to be an extension of Oakland, nor the PTC... but rather a complete reconstruction of Hazelwood. .. with the greatest challenge facing the project being lack of connectivity.

Potential tenants and others can view the site as an extension of Oakland all they want, but the fact of the matter is, that is not how the site is being planned.

[Jonboy1983]

Any ideas of where to suggest relocating that concrete site underneath the Birmingham Bridge? I think they should get rid of that, widen 2nd Avenue, and incorprate landscaping and bike lanes. It would be really nice if they were to replace the MFE extension with an urban boulevard idea linking the City with Rankin and perhaps McKeesport.

It would be nice to extend the light rail system through here as well, improving transit access to Downtown and driving up propert values in Hazelwood and Rankin, but I doubt it will happen...

Regarding 2nd Avenue, I think a complete overhaul/reconstruction needs to happen.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Any ideas of where to suggest relocating that concrete site underneath the Birmingham Bridge? I think they should get rid of that, widen 2nd Avenue, and incorprate landscaping and bike lanes. It would be really nice if they were to replace the MFE extension with an urban boulevard idea linking the City with Rankin and perhaps McKeesport.

It would be nice to extend the light rail system through here as well, improving transit access to Downtown and driving up propert values in Hazelwood and Rankin, but I doubt it will happen...

Regarding 2nd Avenue, I think a complete overhaul/reconstruction needs to happen.

There are sites all up the Mon where Arrow Concrete could go. They already have another facility in Braddock. Moving that plant out of there is key to the redevelopment of not only the riverfront there, but the Uptown neighborhood as well.

Relocation of the MetalTech plant also is necessary to fully redevelop the area. The seldom-used rail line running through the PTC only still exists because of MetalTech. MetalTech plant relocation is actually one of the major assumptions in the original overall vision for the Almono/Hazelwood site. Another assumption is a light rail line from Oakland down through Junction Hollow to the site... where a riverfront, multi-use TOD would be built.

[markson33]

Originally Posted by bmust71

Since when did us steel propose a new skyscraper?

They didn't, but they are the most likely tenant for Oxford to be talking to.

[themaguffin]

What's the point is a big move (and moving that many corporate employees etc is significant) a few blocks?

Sure, rent cost matters and having consolidated space matters (as growth in existing buildings can lead to employees scattered on floors that are not ideal etc), but sadly I see them moving to the airport corridor before another downtown location unless there's a component to this I'm missing....?

[PGHFan]

I visited the city last week. Check out my slide show titled "A Quick Tour of Pittsburgh" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aIbFp7ocI". Especially see the street gang I saw on the North Side.

[East Edge]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Any ideas of where to suggest relocating that concrete site underneath the Birmingham Bridge? I think they should get rid of that, widen 2nd Avenue, and incorprate landscaping and bike lanes. It would be really nice if they were to replace the MFE extension with an urban boulevard idea linking the City with Rankin and perhaps McKeesport.

It would be nice to extend the light rail system through here as well, improving transit access to Downtown and driving up propert values in Hazelwood and Rankin, but I doubt it will happen...

Regarding 2nd Avenue, I think a complete overhaul/reconstruction needs to happen.

My thoughts exactly!! i know that Pgh is one of the largest in-land ports in the city and we need that industry along our river fronts but i hate looking at that site complete with it's graffiti. Not to mention it sits underneath a sea foam green bridge, a color which i think really — and makes that river's edge look even more industrial. Maybe one day it will go away / relocate somewhere else just like the Rennekamp concrete site on east carson street. I heard that is going to be a high end gas station, whatever that means.

Also, In regards to the recent posts about the Oxford project, i would have to side with the renovation of the existing building. I would hate to see anything with historic architectural detailing be demolished. Pittsburgh is fortunate to has so many of these left that create a context for our city and set it apart from newer cities heading out west like Seattle and Phoenix. I know Oxford doesnt own the site next door on Grant Street where a 1.7 acre parking lot now sits, but that is the place for a 30+ story tower.

(now i cant wait to hear all of the comments of people defending that concrete site being along the rivers edge and that they actually like sea foam green as a bridge color cause some bridge in Chicago is painted sea foam, Or that the frank and cedar building is ugly and should just be torn down. )

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

It's hard to say that the PTC is part of any neighborhood

No, it is really not very hard. If you don't know which neighborhood an area is in, you can look it up on the City's website, and it tells you. You might consider doing that next time you don't know.

It is that the PTC was primarily developed as a workplace extension of Oakland, rather than being developed as a prime riverfront location.

That's an obvious false dichotomy.

and the PTC was designed in a suburban-esque manner to cater to that plan. And two of the basic problems you list are direct results of that.

Nah, that is BS. It was developed the way it was because that is what people at the time thought a good development would look like. Hypothetically if they were doing it somewhere far from Oakland, say way up the Mon Valley, they would have done the same thing. In other words, it was bad planning practices at the time, not acknowledging the PTC's proximity to Oakland, that led to it being deficient by today's standards.

So you are making up a causal chain that doesn't make any sense and did not in fact happen. All because you are trying to defend your ignorance of the City's neighborhood borders, which is sad and pointless.

Potential tenants and others can view the site as an extension of Oakland all they want, but the fact of the matter is, that is not how the site is being planned.

Again, you are depending on a false dichotomy.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

It would be nice to extend the light rail system through here as well, improving transit access to Downtown and driving up propert values in Hazelwood and Rankin, but I doubt it will happen.

I agree that is unlikely, but you could incorporate bus lanes into a redone Second Avenue and do BRT. If you are redoing Second Avenue anyway, the marginal cost for that plan wouldn't be too bad.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

No, it is really not very hard. If you don't know which neighborhood an area is in, you can look it up on the City's website, and it tells you. You might consider doing that next time you don't know.



That's an obvious false dichotomy.



Nah, that is BS. It was developed the way it was because that is what people at the time thought a good development would look like. Hypothetically if they were doing it somewhere far from Oakland, say way up the Mon Valley, they would have done the same thing. In other words, it was bad planning practices at the time, not acknowledging the PTC's proximity to Oakland, that led to it being deficient by today's standards.

So you are making up a causal chain that doesn't make any sense and did not in fact happen. All because you are trying to defend your ignorance of the City's neighborhood borders, which is sad and pointless.



Again, you are depending on a false dichotomy.

No, it's a really a case of you making a claim that is just not accurate -- with the very architects and planners of the site asserting that the viewpoint is not accurate -- but you're unable to admit that you're wrong. No problem, we can move on.

[George Woods]

Brian,

I'm usually very impressed with your grasp of the things you're articulating on this forum, but in this instance, I have to point out that you're grasping at straws.

Never mind the other points you're making about the Hazelwood site vis à vis Oakland and the PTC—with regard to Private —'s assertion that it's hard to really say that the PTC is actually in South Oakland, what he means is that, in reality (despite what the City's official map might show), people "on the ground," as it were, are never gonna view the site as being in Oakland. I think you're feigning ignorance of this to be able to continue arguing over technicalities. That map (drawn up in the 80's, and never altered since), also says that Station Square is located in "South Shore," and Duquesne Universty and Mercy Hospital are located in "Bluff" (and there is no such place as Uptown). It says there are neighborhoods called "Crawford-Roberts," "Bedford Dwellings," and "Middle Hill," although nobody would ever say so in reality—they may refer to "Crawford Square" as a development, but not a neighborhood. The people who identify as Park Place residents would have something to say about being in Point Breeze, especially considering their street signs at major intersections are an official nod by the City to their distinctness. Nobody would realistically argue that Friendship is a mere four blocks wide, from Negley to Graham, and that Aiken, and Atlantic, and Pacific are all firmly, unquestionably in Bloomfield. Have you ever heard a single soul refer for real to a place in "Homewood West," "North," or "South"? And as a Northsider, I can tell you that nobody calls the part of Manchester on the other side of 65 "Chateau"—I sure as hell wouldn't say, "yeah, you know, the Carnegie Science Center, in Chateau," or "after class at CCAC, I'm gonna walk over to that new Taco Bell in Chateau." Everyone knows "Perry South" is called Perry Hilltop, and if anyone were ever to call Observatory Hill "Perry North," nobody would know what they were talking about.

So, yeah, the PTC is in South Oakland, according to that one map. The Hot Metal Bridge connects The Southside with Oakland, according to that map. Nobody actually feels that way in real life. In a city as topographically unique as this one, that later had highways and railroads shot through it, yet whose residents are desperate to make sure every square-inch of land definitively belongs to a neighborhood, sometimes trying to lump a certain place in with one of those neighborhoods is just awkward. Some places in Pittsburgh are no-man's-lands.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by George Woods

with regard to Private —'s assertion that it's hard to really say that the PTC is actually in South Oakland, what he means is that, in reality (despite what the City's official map might show), people "on the ground," as it were, are never gonna view the site as being in Oakland. . . . Some places in Pittsburgh are no-man's-lands.

I don't see the wisdom in insisting on namelessness when there is in fact an official name available. This isn't a case like Friendship, where I agree the borders by common usage vary from the official map, or Uptown/Bluff/SoHo, where there are some different names floating around for the same area, or so on. Here you both admit there is no other alternative, but there is in fact an official name, so why not use it?

Of course it is simple and true and important to point out the PTC is separated from most of Oakland by an elevation change. However, I already pointed that out myself long ago:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5987295&postcount=2642

That was a perfectly accurate description of the situation, and I am going to feel free to keep saying it.

But in any event, that's just a silly semantic issue. The real conceptual problem is the false dichotomy that Private — has asserted, namely that you can only view this site EITHER as an extension of Oakland OR as a prime riverfront location, but not both. But OF COURSE it can be seen as both, which is what the current planning and discussion involving this site actually reflects.

So yes, let's talk about the best planning for the site, the best practices in terms riverfront trails and parks, the best possible version of Second Avenue, the best ideas for other new transportation links, and so on. But it is just silly to deny that proximity to Oakland is part (not all, but part) of what is making this site an attractive location for new development, and there is no real danger in acknowledging as much.

[BrianTH]

By the way, again not that it actually matters, but I believe that area was part of the "Oakland Township" that was incorporated in 1866, then annexed by the City of Pittsburgh in 1868.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree that is unlikely, but you could incorporate bus lanes into a redone Second Avenue and do BRT. If you are redoing Second Avenue anyway, the marginal cost for that plan wouldn't be too bad.

I actually thought of BRT as an alternative to light rail. My other thought pertaining to a light rail extension, tho, was to extend the line through Steel Plaza and along an alignment through the Strip up to Lawrenceville.

On the subject of BRT, this would be more sensible for 2nd Avenue. Widen 2nd and have bus-only dedicated lanes in the center. My dream for 2nd Avenue in Hazelwood tho is to widen it, reconfigure the northern end of the Glenwood Bridge, and build and extension of Second Ave all the way to Rankin or even to McKeesport, at least the BRT segment anyway. McKeesport and Rankin would have direct high-speed transit access to Downtown which could trigger (hopefully) some reinvestment in those municipalities...

East Edge, where is that Rennekamp site that you mentioned?

[BrianTH]

The Commonwealth Building is up for sale:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/commonwealth-building-building-for-sale-672441/

The current owner, Bishoff, appears to be losing interest in investing in Downtown Pittsburgh and has never embarked on the residential conversion they had planned (as discussed in the article, condo sales in their adjacent building have been slow). So hopefully someone interested in actually doing the conversion buys the building.

[glowrock]

Agreed, BrianTH. Hopefully the new buyer will pursue the condo conversion, or perhaps at least go for more apartment units. The more residences in the Golden Triangle the better!

Aaron (Glowrock)