PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

I think I may see steel piling up on the Gardens site:

http://oxblue.com/open/TheGardens

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

FYI, per the webcam, the last section of steel is now going in at BKSQ 2.0:

http://bakerysquare.no-ip.biz:8080/view/viewer_index.shtml?id=482

No, there's still at least a week left of them putting girders up. The webcam is looking down at the west end of the building but all of the work is currently being done on the east end.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

No, there's still at least a week left of them putting girders up. The webcam is looking down at the west end of the building but all of the work is currently being done on the east end.

Aren't they all the way to working on the end now, though?

[GeneW]

Trio of Plans Outlined for Strip Terminal Building

Three groups cast their visions for the Strip District’s iconic produce terminal Wednesday evening, with two pitching plans to convert the one-time fruit and vegetable hub into housing and the other proposing to turn it into a giant marketplace.

All three offered plans that would keep the 1,533-foot-long landmark intact, adding portals to create access to the Allegheny River from Smallman Street. That’s in contrast to a proposal by the Buncher Co. to raze the western third of the building to extend 17th Street to the river.

The Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation spoke against all three of the plans. Project Manager Karamagi Rujumba argued that the portals would disrupt the building’s length, one of its defining characteristics. He also said all three plans rely heavily on historic tax credits, which he maintained was “highly speculative at best.”

PHLF, he added, favored the Buncher plan, which includes a $22 million renovation that would convert the old warehouse to office and retail uses.

[BrianTH]

Edit: Beaten to it! Oh well, there were some differences so I will leave my post below.

Article about the Produce Terminal proposals:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...p-terminal-building/stories/201408070227

Under Ferchill’s $35.6 million plan, the terminal would be converted into 192 one-bedroom apartments and 17 two-bedroom units. In keeping with the building’s past, a 10,850-square-foot produce market would be built at one end. As an alternative, Ferchill is proposing additional retail space on each side of two portals through the building.

McCaffery, working with Chuck Hammel, Pitt-Ohio Express president, also is proposing residences — 104 apartments and 14 live-work units — plus 35,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of office space at a cost of $46.4 million.

Hopefully we can get some renderings and such, but that alternative Ferchill proposal sounds sort of what I had in mind (big market on one end, retail around the portals, residential in between). The McCaffrey proposal also sounds pretty good and some office could be useful.

By the way, the PHLF just baffles me:

The Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation spoke against all three of the plans. Project Manager Karamagi Rujumba argued that the portals would disrupt the building’s length, one of its defining characteristics. He also said all three plans rely heavily on historic tax credits, which he maintained was “highly speculative at best.”

PHLF, he added, favored the Buncher plan, which includes a $22 million renovation that would convert the old warehouse to office and retail uses.

That Buncher plan, of course, involves lopping off 1/3 of the building. I think that is just SLIGHTLY more disruptive of its "defining length" than passages. Sheesh.

[BrianTH]

Speaking of Ferchill:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...partment-addition-to-heinz.html?page=all

The Ferchill Group, the Cleveland-based development firm of the Heinz Lofts on the North Side, has bought a service building of the Heinz complex and is preparing to add another 155 apartments to the residential property. . . . Ferchill is in discussions to remove a street that runs through the development to better allow the project to go forward. The project calls for cutting an atrium through the middle of the building, allowing more daylight into the structure and creating better opportunities to subdivide the property into more apartment units.

Ferchill said the new project is estimated to cost $33 million, including $8 million in historic tax credits for the nationally registered property. . . . The new project would include 60 micro apartments of 457 square feet in size. . . . “We’ll start construction probably in September.”

Great news! More apartments in that location is nice in general, and I am particularly glad to see more and more smaller units.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Edit: Beaten to it! Oh well, there were some differences so I will leave my post below.

Article about the Produce Terminal proposals:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...p-terminal-building/stories/201408070227



Hopefully we can get some renderings and such, but that alternative Ferchill proposal sounds sort of what I had in mind (big market on one end, retail around the portals, residential in between). The McCaffrey proposal also sounds pretty good and some office could be useful.

By the way, the PHLF just baffles me:



That Buncher plan, of course, involves lopping off 1/3 of the building. I think that is just SLIGHTLY more disruptive of its "defining length" than passages. Sheesh.

I agree that the Ferchill and McCaffrey plans sound much better than Pfaffman's plan.

[Evergrey]

More residential to complement the Ferchill/McCaffrey plans at the Terminal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...ing-slated-for-apartment-conversion.html

Penn Rose building slated for apartment conversion

One of the tallest buildings in the Strip District is slated for a residential conversion.

The Penn Rose building at 1627 Penn Ave., an 11-story building near the heart of the Strip District’s main business district, is on the agenda for the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting for Aug. 7, to be converted into a 72-unit residential property.

The building is owned by Enterprise Bank and the applicant for the project is Bridgeville-based JMAC Architects.

A representative for downtown-based Zamagias Properties indicated the company is pursuing the redevelopment of the property but was otherwise not immediately available for comment. The property went through Sheriff’s sale process last year for which Enterprise was the main lender.

...

[Evergrey]

News on the North Shore 3-story building... 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort (not to be confused with 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Sporting Goods or PJ 🞵🞵🞵🞵) sounds like the perfect complement to what currently exists on the North Shore.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...alksto-bring-restaurant-to.html?page=all

🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort in talks to bring restaurant to the North Shore

A 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort may be coming to the North Shore next spring.

Ralph McCracken, who runs Nashville, Tenn.-based 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort Management Co., said his company is close to having a final lease in place to bring a 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort restaurant to the North Shore Place I and II being built between PNC Park and Heinz Field.

“I don’t like to try to keep secrets because I can’t,” said McCracken, who added: “It’s not signed, but we’re cooking on it.”

McCracken characterized the negotiation for a 6,000-square-foot restaurant at the new North Shore development at 90 percent likelihood to be completed soon.

If completed, 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort would join Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill and Burgatory in the new office building developed by Columbus, Ohio-based Continental Real Estate Cos.

Started 30 years ago in Dallas, 🞵🞵🞵🞵’s Last Resort has grown to 17 locations throughout the country with a business model of basic American food and drink and an emphasis on hiring entertaining bartenders and wait staff.

Staff for 🞵🞵🞵🞵’s Last Resort audition more than they apply for jobs, McCracken said.

“We call it controlled chaos. It’s a place where the servers are sarcastic and a bit smart-assed,” he said. “It’s a place where you come to have some fun and let your hair down.”

The restaurant is known for dressing up diners in silly hats and draws large parties, McCracken said.

🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort generates average annual sales of $4.2 million per restaurant, said McCracken, who added the company typically seeks out high-traffic tourist locations, expanding by three or four restaurants each year.

Herky Pollock, executive vice president for CBRE who represents the retail leasing at North Shore Place, said Continental is “deep in negotiations” with 🞵🞵🞵🞵’s and hopes to finalize a deal soon for what he described as an “eater-tainment” restaurant that will fit in nicely with Toby Keith.

“We feel that they offer a different element of ‘eater-tainment’ that is not yet present at the North Shore with their irreverent style of treating the customers and overall fun for all ages alike,” he said.

...

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

News on the North Shore 3-story building... 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort (not to be confused with 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Sporting Goods or PJ 🞵🞵🞵🞵) sounds like the perfect complement to what currently exists on the North Shore.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...alksto-bring-restaurant-to.html?page=all

Oh, Yay! Another high-concept theme restaurant with generic food for the North Shore. Forgive me if I stick with Benjamin's and The Monterrey Pub.

[BrianTH]

Welcome to the predictable consequences of bribing sports teams with development rights.

Oh well--maybe our kids will like it.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That Buncher plan, of course, involves lopping off 1/3 of the building. I think that is just SLIGHTLY more disruptive of its "defining length" than passages. Sheesh.

I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you have to accomplish to think that bulldozing 1/3 of the building is better for historic preservation than cutting portals in it.

[BrianTH]

Random general note--when Peduto talked about adding 20,000 new residents in ten years a while back, that sounded ambitious to me based on what I knew about the residential pipeline. It seemed like there was going to be a gap between the number of new units in big projects and the number of new units required for that population increase, although I thought it was possible that smaller renovations and infill projects not typically reported might close that gap.

Now, though--it seems like every month or two, sometimes more often than that, we are hearing about new residential projects of significant scale, and sometimes we are also hearing about projects being upscaled like in Oakland (or sometimes downscaled, like Oxford in the South Side, but I think the net scale effect is still positive). So I might have been underestimating just how much could get done in the next 10 years even before considering smaller projects.

Generally, the City has plenty of spaces and structures for residential development in fundamentally good locations. The question is how quickly, and at what intensity (in terms of things like unit density), those opportunities get used. And I think the answer to that question is shifting in positive directions.

[AaronPGH]

I am still really into the Pfaffmann proposal. It has the most potential to make that building back into a hub of activity – more true to the original use of the building. If done as big as that, it would land on every must-see travel list and article out there in addition to being a resource to all of the incoming residents.

I really don't want this thing to become another closed-off Cork Factory. So much residential is going up elsewhere in the strip I don't see why this one needs to go that way too. If it's going to be in the center of it all, make it THE CENTER.

[Found5dollar]

Woah woah woah.

There is no way any of those strip produce terminal plans are happening. one has a 2 million dollar gap in financing, one will give the city no property tax revenue, and another is betting on 20% of its financing coming from historic tax credits. The building did not make it through the historic review process. Without being on the city's "historic buildings" list there is no way you can get those credits. Even if you were able to convince the Historic Review Commission to revisit their original decision and they ok'd it, then you wouldn't be able to cut the portals in the building because it would be protected from any sort of demolition.

There are only 2 outcomes for the produce terminal. Buncher gets it and knocks down the newer section of the building, or one of the other 3 developers gets it, is not able to get the financing, sits on the building for 5-10 years trying to figure out what to do, then sells it to Buncher who knocks the newer 1/3 of the building down and builds his original plan.

If the main reason the produce terminal is important is because of it's length, I still don't understand how splitting it into 3 shorter buildings as opposed to reducing its overall length is any better. You preserve a longer building in Bunchers plan. You get three non-descript short buildings with the other 3 plans.

As much as we want to think preservation is going to win in this one, it is going to come down to who can figure out how to finance the building. The only person with a solid plan is Buncher.

[Private D]

I will add 🞵🞵🞵🞵's Last Resort to my list of reasons why I rarely set foot on the North Shore -- hate that name by the way... no such thing as a "shore" on the Allegheny. Not an estuary and nowhere near wide enough of a river to have a shore. I would like North Bank better... much more accurate and sounds chic, like gay Paris.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I will add it to my list of reasons why I rarely set foot on the North Shore -- hate that name by the way... no such thing as a "shore" on the Allegheny. Not an estuary and nowhere near wide enough of a river to have a shore. I would like North Bank better... much more accurate and sounds chic, like gay Paris.

You're not interested in contrived irreverence accompanied by large portions of 'basic American fare'?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you have to accomplish to think that bulldozing 1/3 of the building is better for historic preservation than cutting portals in it.

Buncher is our pal, so . . .

No, wait, try again. Um, let's see--length is good, so the plan which preserves the most length . . .

No, hold it, wait, I've got it. Portals really means complete separation between buildings creating a bunch of smaller buildings, so we end up with one building that is longer than any one of your several smaller buildings, which means we win.

Whew.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I am still really into the Pfaffmann proposal. It has the most potential to make that building back into a hub of activity – more true to the original use of the building. If done as big as that, it would land on every must-see travel list and article out there in addition to being a resource to all of the incoming residents. I really don't want this thing to become another closed-off Cork Factory. So much residential is going up elsewhere in the strip I don't see why this one needs to go that way too. If it's going to be in the center of it all, make it THE CENTER.

I understand what you are saying, but I think it might just be way too physically big to be viable. That's a ton of new retail to fill to begin with, and I would worry about undermining the existing commercial district.

That's why I like the proposals which have some of those elements--a big market at one end, and maybe retail around the portals--without dedicating all the intermediary square footage to that same use. That way, from a walking around perspective, it will still feel like a hub of activity and such, because all the most prominent contact points with the outside will be dedicated to such uses. But you won't be risking having way too much of it.

That said, if you can persuade me it is not in fact too big, then I could go for the single use plan.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you have to accomplish to think that bulldozing 1/3 of the building is better for historic preservation than cutting portals in it.

PHLF agreed to come on board with Buncher's plan because it preserved the original Terminal building---completely restored to its original appearance---while, unfortunately, sacrificing the newer, western addition to the building. Saving and restoring the original building was always PHLF's primary goal. The three alternative plans all include those portals, which would change the exterior of the original building.

Based on the PG article, I find it odd that the PHLF rep did not present this dimension of Landmarks' position.

I'm not advocating PHLF's position here, just explaining my take on it. If the portals can be nicely done, I am all for them.