PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Gilamonster]

[BrianTH]

Article about the Overbrook Middle School conversion project moving forward:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/01/16/ura-board-grants-funds-for-new.html?page=all

The early plan calls for Valcott to convert the school building into a 90-bed senior living residential property and for NRP to build a 50-unit independent living apartment building. The project seeks to establish infrastructure improvements such as a pedestrian bridge to access a nearby T station and bus line.

Older article:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3336082-74/overbrook-valcott-development#axzz2qM0vu1BX


Valcott page:

http://www.valcott.com/overbrook-estates.aspx

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Article about the Overbrook Middle School conversion project moving forward:

I really wish someone would do something like this with the old Morningside and Rogers schools, they're in really nice neighborhoods and are beautiful buildings.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

I really wish someone would do something like this with the old Morningside and Rogers schools, they're in really nice neighborhoods and are beautiful buildings.

I know the Morningside school was recently sold to the URA for the purposes of a residential conversion project.

[Jonboy1983]

Considering the accessibility to the T and busway, why not push for apartments as opposed to senior living? To me, and maybe I'm being cynical, but I consider that to be very ripe for TOD. Is senior living considered TOD? Then again, it would give employees the option to use public transit, and the access points themselves are handicapped-accessible...

The other issue is how much does this area flood? Was flood-prevention engineering work already done or is it scheduled to be completed?

[BrianTH]

So I could play around with the linked spreadsheet here all day:

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/pop_pro.html

It allows you to graph population and population density by distance from City Hall for two different metros, or the same metro in 2000 versus 2010. Lots of interesting things become apparent if you look at the Pittsburgh Metro in such comparisons. One obvious thing is its density within a mile of City Hall has increased since 2000--that would be the Downtown residential development boom in action.

Another interesting thing I am finding is that the Pittsburgh population count peaks sharply at around 5 miles from City Hall, then starts a more or less steady decline (although with various interesting peaks and valleys along the way). Comparing Pittsburgh to a lot of other similar-sized metros, that's actually pretty unusual--usually they have a peak at least a little farther away, and sometimes it is more a plateau, but then they often decline more rapidly at around the 15 or 20 mile mark. Look for example at Denver, Columbus, Portland, San Antonio, or Kansas City. For really dramatic examples of metros with farther-out plateaus (albeit at a higher overall scale), look at Phoenix or Atlanta.

The one metro I have found so far that looks closest to me to Pittsburgh is Cincinnati. And that, combined with just some basic logic, suggests to me this is in large part a combination of when development occurred plus topography--Pittsburgh's overall development pattern is consistent with what we observed before, namely its peak population boom periods amounting to spreading out along the river valleys spiraling out from the center.

Again, I don't want to awaken any dormant debates, but these sorts of contrasts support being very careful about the assumption that things like transportation patterns used in other cities will automatically be appropriate for Pittsburgh.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I know the Morningside school was recently sold to the URA for the purposes of a residential conversion project.

Do you know when this happened? It seems that the building has had some lights on recently.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Is senior living considered TOD?

Absolutely! Seniors benefit from decent transit access as much or more than most sorts of residents because many of them can't drive and/or don't own cars. Although they are less likely to use transit during peak commuting hours, they are much more likely to use it in off-peak hours, which is actually a nice factor when it comes to systems like the T or Busways where a lot of capital has been invested in capacity that is underutilized in off-peak hours.

Of course I understand that senior living is not quite as exciting as glitzy market-rate apartments, but it is a very important policy goal to have a decent amount of it in the overall TOD mix, and I think this project, like the Homewood Station project, makes sense given that it is not otherwise in a prime TOD location.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

Do you know when this happened? It seems that the building has had some lights on recently.

Looks like PPS approved the sale in late November 2013:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/educati...-of-Columbus/stories/2013112602060000000

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Looks like PPS approved the sale in late November 2013:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/educati...-of-Columbus/stories/2013112602060000000

Awesome! I would love to see Moringside become a better neighborhood (mainly because I live there) especially with a stronger business district.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Absolutely! Seniors benefit from decent transit access as much or more than most sorts of residents because many of them can't drive and/or don't own cars. Although they are less likely to use transit during peak commuting hours, they are much more likely to use it in off-peak hours, which is actually a nice factor when it comes to systems like the T or Busways where a lot of capital has been invested in capacity that is underutilized in off-peak hours.

Of course I understand that senior living is not quite as exciting as glitzy market-rate apartments, but it is a very important policy goal to have a decent amount of it in the overall TOD mix, and I think this project, like the Homewood Station project, makes sense given that it is not otherwise in a prime TOD location.

That is a valid statement, but how about visitors or family members? Also, are you able to make a left turn into/out of the property? I actually work at a senior living community that sits on a major arterial with a physical concrete barrier. Luckily, we do have jug handles located at either stoplight for a relatively easy left/u-turn...

Eh, eventually, yinz'll have that capability once that 51/88 hell-hole is redesigned...

Anyway, I made a blog post about this, you can check it out at
http://urbandesigneggshell.blogspot.com/2014/01/redevelopment-of-overbrook-middle.html

I do favor apartments in the post, but I guess this isn't a bad use either. I kinda wish I could take a bus from my house to work, but I can't. There IS no bus...

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Anyway, I made a blog post about this, you can check it out at
http://urbandesigneggshell.blogspot.com/2014/01/redevelopment-of-overbrook-middle.html

I checked out your blogs---very interesting and some great ideas. But one note re Station Square: It was built and used by the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR, not the B&O RR. The B&O terminal was right across the Mon at the south end of Grant Street. Designed by Frank Furness, the terminal was torn down to build the Parkway.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SkyPittsburgh

Awesome! I would love to see Moringside become a better neighborhood (mainly because I live there) especially with a stronger business district.

Morningside is sometimes overlooked but it is a great little neighborhood. I think the general revitalization of "Greater East Liberty" will likely encourage reinvestment there as well.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

That is a valid statement, but how about visitors or family members?

Do you mean does that weaken the case for TOD senior housing since such visitors may also need parking, or strengthen it since they could also use transit?

As an aside, this is just speculation on my part, but I'd guess after the residents themselves, the next most important category is employees, and only after that visitors. It probably reflects poorly on our society that seniors don't get more visits, but as a general proposition it is usually a good idea to prioritize daily users, as their trips tend to really pile up.

That said, some sort of provision for free or low-cost visitor parking is undoubtedly a good idea (even just validation for local garages might work, however), and also at least some visitors (particularly in lower-income families) would undoubtedly appreciate the transit access.

Eh, eventually, yinz'll have that capability once that 51/88 hell-hole is redesigned...

Ironic but probably true that unlocking the full TOD potential of this section of the T/Busway system will likely require redoing those routes, hopefully on some sort of boulevard/complete streets model.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

I checked out your blogs---very interesting and some great ideas. But one note re Station Square: It was built and used by the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR, not the B&O RR. The B&O terminal was right across the Mon at the south end of Grant Street. Designed by Frank Furness, the terminal was torn down to build the Parkway.

But I thought the B&O used it for their thru trains between DC and Chicago, while the B&O depot on Grant Street served as a terminus for Pittsburgh originating/destinating trains...

I thought it was torn down in the 1990s to eventually make way for PNC's Firstside Center.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Do you mean does that weaken the case for TOD senior housing since such visitors may also need parking, or strengthen it since they could also use transit?

As an aside, this is just speculation on my part, but I'd guess after the residents themselves, the next most important category is employees, and only after that visitors. It probably reflects poorly on our society that seniors don't get more visits, but as a general proposition it is usually a good idea to prioritize daily users, as their trips tend to really pile up.

That said, some sort of provision for free or low-cost visitor parking is undoubtedly a good idea (even just validation for local garages might work, however), and also at least some visitors (particularly in lower-income families) would undoubtedly appreciate the transit access.

It will be interesting to see what model they'll use when determining parking needs. When I served on Downingtown's planning commission, there was a proposal to put a day-care center in an already busy intersection during peak travel times. It was supposed to be part of a larger TOD since it will tie in with the soon-to-be-relocated Amtrak/SEPTA station. Still, we shot it down because of the high traffic it would generate. Maybe this use will be somewhat different...

Ironic but probably true that unlocking the full TOD potential of this section of the T/Busway system will likely require redoing those routes, hopefully on some sort of boulevard/complete streets model.

I pushed for this idea when I conversed with someone at Economic Development-South. I guess it could be possible only as far as Streets Run Road; Baldwin Borough wants NO part of it [(cough)idiots(cough]. In order to make this corridor attractive to business growth and development, that whole road needs to be rebuilt, as you said, as an urban boulevard or complete street.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

But I thought the B&O used it for their thru trains between DC and Chicago, while the B&O depot on Grant Street served as a terminus for Pittsburgh originating/destinating trains...

Hmmm. Not sure... Clearly the B&O trains at Grant Street had to terminate in Pittsburgh because they could not travel any further west. But didn't the B&O's westbound traffic use the tracks on the south bank of the Mon that crossed above the trolley tunnel and beneath the Mon Incline? That was my understanding. I recall being told by my dad that B&O passengers would change trains at a station east of Pittsburgh in order to end up downtown or bypass Pittsburgh heading west.

I thought it was torn down in the 1990s to eventually make way for PNC's Firstside Center.

You got me again, at least technically. There was a small, 1950s B&O Terminal that was probably torn down for the PNC project. It was the third one built by the railroad and I am not sure when it was demolished---sometime after I moved away. The terminal that I referred to was the second one, a large ornate red brick building. This was the one designed by Furness and torn down when the parkway was built.

[GeneW]

Here's a shot of the most recent B&O station that sat on Grant Street where the PNC First Street facility is now:

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

It will be interesting to see what model they'll use when determining parking needs. When I served on Downingtown's planning commission, there was a proposal to put a day-care center in an already busy intersection during peak travel times. It was supposed to be part of a larger TOD since it will tie in with the soon-to-be-relocated Amtrak/SEPTA station. Still, we shot it down because of the high traffic it would generate. Maybe this use will be somewhat different...

Here they are actually planning to have it be combined with a park-and-ride lot for the T Station, so apparently they are quite confident there will be excess parking. Looking at the plan in comparison to satellite views of the site, it appears that is possible through a combination of using the school's former parking lots and also carving out more spaces from the school's former ball fields.

All of which would be considerably less than ideal if this was a station in an area where much denser development could be expected. But that is not really the case for this station at this time, and in fact it looks like there are plenty more surface lots in the area that could be developed before you would ever have to come back to this particular site.

I pushed for this idea when I conversed with someone at Economic Development-South. I guess it could be possible only as far as Streets Run Road; Baldwin Borough wants NO part of it [(cough)idiots(cough]. In order to make this corridor attractive to business growth and development, that whole road needs to be rebuilt, as you said, as an urban boulevard or complete street.

This is one of many areas in which are balkanized local government structure really hurts us. Ultimately a comprehensive boulevard plan is what we need not only to unlock the development potential along those routes themselves, but also to bring serious reinvestment to the existing Mon Valley towns that could use them to access the core area. But then localities like Baldwin can act as a wall in the way of doing any such thing.

Again, I don't want to reawaken dormant debates, but to be fair, this is part of why bad road projects in greenfield areas get selected over good road projects within the current developed footprint: all sorts of NIMBYism, turf wars, and so on can make it very hard to put together the latter, so the former don't face much competition.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

Hmmm. Not sure... Clearly the B&O trains at Grant Street had to terminate in Pittsburgh because they could not travel any further west. But didn't the B&O's westbound traffic use the tracks on the south bank of the Mon that crossed above the trolley tunnel and beneath the Mon Incline? That was my understanding.

Looking at a bunch of old maps, originally there was the Pittsburgh & Connellsville (soon to be B&O) terminating at Grant, then the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis (aka Pan Handle Route, and later the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, and later part of the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, which was part of the PRR family) taking the "high" route along the Mon to cross the bridge at Try Street. Soon the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie came along the "low" route along the Mon. And then there was eventually the Wabash Pittsburgh Terminal Railway (later Pittsburgh & West Virginia) which crossed the ill-fated bridge leading from the Wabash Tunnel to the terminal around where Four Gateway is today.

The PB&W was sold off in pieces after the PRR's successor (Penn Central) went bankrupt, and ConRail bought the PCC&StL/Pan Handle route, which is how it got the "high" route along the Mon.

So unless I am missing something, there was not a B&O line over there.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Looking at a bunch of old maps, originally there was the Pittsburgh & Connellsville (soon to be B&O) terminating at Grant, then the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis (aka Pan Handle Route, and later the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, and later part of the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, which was part of the PRR family) taking the "high" route along the Mon to cross the bridge at Try Street. Soon the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie came along the "low" route along the Mon. And then there was eventually the Wabash Pittsburgh Terminal Railway (later Pittsburgh & West Virginia) which crossed the ill-fated bridge leading from the Wabash Tunnel to the terminal around where Four Gateway is today.

The PB&W was sold off in pieces after the PRR's successor (Penn Central) went bankrupt, and ConRail bought the PCC&StL/Pan Handle route, which is how it got the "high" route along the Mon.

So unless I am missing something, there was not a B&O line over there.

But one would assume that Baltimore & Ohio RR actually made it to Ohio, right? Maybe there was a split somewhere east of Pittsburgh and the Ohio-bound B&O traffic took the route that passed south of Pittsburgh? Or the Ohio-bound B&O traveled through Pittsburgh but on the track of another railroad? I'm just guessing here.