PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I echo eschaton's criticisms... especially regarding the abundance of 'community open space'. The Cap is sufficient.

As implied in a prior post, I'd actually keep the community open space over the civic open space. That seems like about the right spacing from the cap park for another nice little park, and it looks like they are thinking of incorporating maybe a playground (a spray park would also be nice, and maybe a dog run).

And what is that thing at F? Looks like a pavilion or stage or something. I actually suspect that whole block may be another North Shore-style sell out to the Penguins, including for the purpose of preserving views from the glass wall at Consol.

[fonzi]

[QUOTE=eschaton;6724091]Hrrm...looking at the massing I see that the pitched-roof apartments (which presumably aren't more than 3/4 stories) are virtually all ones which front on Crawford Street. It would make sense to scale these the lowest, given they are the highest up the hill. It might even be possible with the pitch of the hill to have a roughly flat profile of the rooftops as you head down those blocks, although I'd prefer more height at the bottom.

I fully agree as I think, at least in an aesthetic sense, I would prefer a few mid-rise towers, as to not have such a dramatic drop off of building height on the other side of crosstown blvd from downtown. Also, the zoning for business and residential choices could be more variable, and as Wylie, Bedford, or Centre ascend, the buildings can be gradually lower in height. Also, if done correctly, there won't be a need to reduce the amount of community/green space.

[BrianTH]

Potentially very good news in this article nominally on the Produce Terminal. We've heard before the URA is picking the Produce Terminal developer--hopefully it happens this time. But I was most interested in the updates from Buncher on how it plans to start its riverfront development:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6764793-74/buncher-terminal-produce

Construction of as many as 200 apartments could begin along the riverfront near the 21st Street edge of the property next year, Balestrieri said. Simultaneously, townhouses that include so-called “live-work units” designed to house tenants and their businesses could be built nearby.

Balestrieri said Buncher spoke with about a dozen developers, including seven national firms, but Buncher could opt to use its own real estate and development division.

Tentative proposals have included 100 to 200 apartments in the first building, which could be five to 12 stories tall. Some firms proposed building a neighboring apartment building at the same time.

That's at least three significant pieces of information. In order of increasing importance:

(1) The townhouses as live/work space is more interesting than just residences. That could be a nice addition to the mix in the Strip;

(2) I'd love to see Buncher bid out development rights to other firms, particularly parcel by parcel. You will very likely get bigger and better developments that way; and

(3) Something on the higher end of the possible scale, which is up to 12 stories and 200 units, for the first building would be fantastic. Even something in the middle--call it 8 stories and 150 units--would be pretty good.

One note--I'd rather they start with one at the higher end of the range, then two at the lower end of the range. You can always adjust future buildings down to compensate if the first struggles to market, but once you have built small you are stuck.

However, if some firm wanted to do two at the higher end, that would be great.

[BrianTH]

State grants for multi-modal transportation projects have been announced, pursuant to the new state transportation law:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...n-6-3-million-in-grants-to.html?page=all

Some of the biggest awards:

The new round of grant funding by the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett includes major funding for a new garage at Bakery Square 2.0, and the new mixed-use project on Smithfield Street downtown by a partnership of Millcraft Investments and McKnight Realty Partners that includes a parking garage as well as to Oxford Development for its mixed-use Three Crossings project in the Strip District.

Part of me feels cynical--look at that, a bunch of parking garages is what multi-modal means!

However, a second BKSQ 2.0 garage could be important if it is conjoined with a new Busway stop. The Three Crossings project is in fact supposed to set the stage for a new multimodal station (perhaps eventually including streetcars or commuter trail). And finally, although I am not sure what is multimodal about the Smithfield project, hopefully this means more money can be put into developing the residential component that is supposed to go on top.

[eschaton]

One thing I've wondered regarding the East Liberty Transit center is the extent to which neighborhood buses will be rerouted there. E.G., in the future will you take a 71 to the ELTC, get off, get a free transfer, and switch to the P1 or P3 to get to downtown or Oakland respectively?

Such a system would be far more efficient/speedy. If you live somewhere like Highland Park, you won't need to go through Oakland to get to Downtown, which will cut commute time greatly. On the other hand, it makes me wonder if the estimates of Downtown/Oakland traffic on the new BRT line are overestimated, because if you can break the commuters up into Downtown/Oakland at ELTC, then traffic coming from the Upper East End will mostly vanish, leaving mostly the lines which pass through Squirrel Hill/Greenfield to go into Oakland and then transfer to the Oakland/Downtown BRT line.

A number of other changes could be made, like routing the outer portion of the 86 and 87 to ELTC. This would really drop the ridership for a lot of lines which travel in the Bloomfield/Garfield area though, which would probably necessitate some new local bus lines to replace those routes.

[Jonboy1983]

Affordable housing that close to Downtown, IMHO, is a bad idea. There should be NO townhouses anywhere on this new development. I'd like to see apartment buildings at lest 6 to 8 stories tall on the upper edge of the parcel, with 20-to-30 story office/mixed use buildings closest to Downtown.

I think this type of development will cause property values in the lower (and possibly middle) hill to increase. Having affordable housing in this project won't do much to move the Hill forward. That's just my opinion...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

One thing I've wondered regarding the East Liberty Transit center is the extent to which neighborhood buses will be rerouted there. E.G., in the future will you take a 71 to the ELTC, get off, get a free transfer, and switch to the P1 or P3 to get to downtown or Oakland respectively?

I doubt it, specifically the free transfer part. During the day, the P71 and P68 turn into the 71 and 68, which drop off at Wilkinsburg Station where you can catch a P1 or P3. But those transfers still cost you.

Right now if you wanted to, couldn't you transfer from, say, a 71A to the Busway at Negley Station? Presumably if people don't do that, it is either because they don't want to transfer (and transfers are ridership killers), or they don't want to pay for it.

On the other hand, it makes me wonder if the estimates of Downtown/Oakland traffic on the new BRT line are overestimated, because if you can break the commuters up into Downtown/Oakland at ELTC, then traffic coming from the Upper East End will mostly vanish, leaving mostly the lines which pass through Squirrel Hill/Greenfield to go into Oakland and then transfer to the Oakland/Downtown BRT line.

Based on this map, I don't think they are much counting on riders from up there:



But to the extent they can provide faster no-transfer service, I assume it would be even more competitive than the existing system.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I think this type of development will cause property values in the lower (and possibly middle) hill to increase. Having affordable housing in this project won't do much to move the Hill forward. That's just my opinion...

20% affordable--and 15% of that 20% is really just middling--isn't likely to make a significant difference in terms of the impact on local property values. That's been the experience in many other cities where that sort of thing is common.

[BrianTH]

Speaking of the Lower Hill TIGER application, they didn't get the $21M they wanted, but they did get $1.5M for planning the deck park:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...-less-than-expected/stories/201409100183

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Affordable housing that close to Downtown, IMHO, is a bad idea. There should be NO townhouses anywhere on this new development. I'd like to see apartment buildings at lest 6 to 8 stories tall on the upper edge of the parcel, with 20-to-30 story office/mixed use buildings closest to Downtown.

I think this type of development will cause property values in the lower (and possibly middle) hill to increase. Having affordable housing in this project won't do much to move the Hill forward. That's just my opinion...

You don't want people to afford to live Downtown? I don't want a downtown that's just all rich people.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

You don't want people to afford to live Downtown? I don't want a downtown that's just all rich people.

I have no problem with the requirement, but to play both sides--I also think this is unlikely to be very effective in keeping housing affordable for most people who might want easy access to Downtown. In the greater scheme of things, a couple hundred affordable units is basically nothing when Downtown has a daytime population of over 100,000. And as a general policy matter, the affordability of housing in the future is going to depend a lot more on how many new units get built rather than what percentage of new units get set aside as affordable, because insufficient new market rate units will just mean more existing units get their prices driven up instead.

Again, it is not that I have a problem with the requirement. But I think it would have been a bigger win for affordable housing in the long run if the minimum unit count had been moved a lot higher.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by GeneW

You don't want people to afford to live Downtown? I don't want a downtown that's just all rich people.

I agree that downtown would be much more vibrant with a wider income spectrum of residents. Unfortunately, in this country the developers only make new housing highrises affordable to upper-middle class ---> rich. In many countries, highrises are much bigger and have a wider variety of price points for buyers/renters.

It was fascinating to me to read about "tower blocks" on Wikipedia. They are in nearly every country except the US, probably because of our sprawl. Yes, there are some in and around NYC but not many elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

It was fascinating to me to read about "tower blocks" on Wikipedia. They are in nearly every country except the US, probably because of our sprawl. Yes, there are some in and around NYC but not many elsewhere.

Chicago too, of course, and increasingly Philly. So I think there is some hope for the future.

As an aside, I think one reason the combination of "affordable housing" and "high rise" has such negative connotations in the U.S. is the many failed public housing projects that took a high rise form. The solution turns out to be mixed income high rises, which are actually quite a nice solution since as you point out, you can do units of very different sizes and with different amenities without all that being readily apparent. But in places where that hasn't happened yet, that remains a tough sell.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Chicago too, of course, and increasingly Philly. So I think there is some hope for the future.

As an aside, I think one reason the combination of "affordable housing" and "high rise" has such negative connotations in the U.S. is the many failed public housing projects that took a high rise form. The solution turns out to be mixed income high rises, which are actually quite a nice solution since as you point out, you can do units of very different sizes and with different amenities without all that being readily apparent. But in places where that hasn't happened yet, that remains a tough sell.

Yes, the perception of looking like public housing as well as low density sprawl and there is just no market for quality, mixed income vertical housing.

[BrianTH]

The URA is going for a hybrid of the McCaffery and Rubino proposals for the Product Terminal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...go-into-talks-with-mccaffery-rubino.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...ng-produce-terminal/stories/201409110318

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6777541-74/board-building-district#axzz3CxUr4JZN

I like it! Rubino had some great ideas for the public market and other public amenities, but I think McCaffery had a better mix of other uses, which might as well be for-profit.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by GeneW

You don't want people to afford to live Downtown? I don't want a downtown that's just all rich people.

I'm not saying I want only the rich to live Downtown. I'm saying that this is a prime piece of real estate, and whatever is built there needs to generate the best possible use for that land. Maybe they can integrate the affordable housing with the market rate units and not have the aforementioned units stick out as lower-income.

I'd like to see a good example of integrating lower-income housing with market-rate while at the same time contributing to the urban feel of an inner core neighborhood. Cabrini Green, to me, does not count. I don't want a Cabrini Green type development going in here. I see that as missing the mark, and that is what this development looks like to me.

I guess I'm just saying that it should be integrated better...

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I have no problem with the requirement, but to play both sides--I also think this is unlikely to be very effective in keeping housing affordable for most people who might want easy access to Downtown. In the greater scheme of things, a couple hundred affordable units is basically nothing when Downtown has a daytime population of over 100,000. And as a general policy matter, the affordability of housing in the future is going to depend a lot more on how many new units get built rather than what percentage of new units get set aside as affordable, because insufficient new market rate units will just mean more existing units get their prices driven up instead.

Again, it is not that I have a problem with the requirement. But I think it would have been a bigger win for affordable housing in the long run if the minimum unit count had been moved a lot higher.

Wasn't there a push for 30 percent affordable housing?

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I agree that downtown would be much more vibrant with a wider income spectrum of residents. Unfortunately, in this country the developers only make new housing highrises affordable to upper-middle class ---> rich. In many countries, highrises are much bigger and have a wider variety of price points for buyers/renters.

It was fascinating to me to read about "tower blocks" on Wikipedia. They are in nearly every country except the US, probably because of our sprawl. Yes, there are some in and around NYC but not many elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block

Tower blocks seem to make the most sense in the densest of cities. Hopefully our policy makers (namely the city planners) will put forth the right codes and policies that will allow for this type of development to happen. Everyone seems to keep downplaying Pittsburgh's increase in population and housing demand. The Census is basically saying Pittsburgh's population is flat. How the heck can that be? I just don't see it at all...

I'd like to see Downtown's population surpass 10,000 before the decade is over.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The URA is going for a hybrid of the McCaffery and Rubino proposals for the Product Terminal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...go-into-talks-with-mccaffery-rubino.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...ng-produce-terminal/stories/201409110318

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6777541-74/board-building-district#axzz3CxUr4JZN

I like it! Rubino had some great ideas for the public market and other public amenities, but I think McCaffery had a better mix of other uses, which might as well be for-profit.

Were you (or was anyone, for that matter) just as nauseated as I was by some of those asinine cynical comments from the PG readers? For me, I like the idea of meshing these two ideas into one. It could make for a rather intriguing development and it needs to transform that whole area into something more vibrant. I, too, would like that church to become a focal point.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I'd like to see a good example of integrating lower-income housing with market-rate while at the same time contributing to the urban feel of an inner core neighborhood.

How about CityCenterDC? I've mentioned it before as a possible model for the Lower Hill, and the affordable housing component is very similar in broad outline (although those income levels are of course higher in gross terms down there):

http://citycenterdc.com/affordable-apartments

The Apartments at CityCenter is a 458 unit apartment community, located at 825 and 875 Tenth Street, NW in CityCenterDC. By agreement with the District of Columbia, 46 units will be reserved for individuals and families earning 60% or less of the area median income for the DC/MD/VA Metropolitan Statistical Area and 46 units will be reserved for individuals and families earning 80% or less of the area median income.

Wasn't there a push for 30 percent affordable housing?

Yep. My hope was that they would solve the impasse by sticking at 20% but raise the unit count, which could mean as many or more affordable units in total as they were looking for. And hopefully it is not actually too late for that to happen, but it wasn't part of the deal.

The Census is basically saying Pittsburgh's population is flat. How the heck can that be? I just don't see it at all...

I think they may be missing some growth--there was something really funny about the new permit counts published by Chris Briem a while back, and those are the main input into the population estimates between Censuses for local areas.

But anyway, keep in mind all the growth leading to new renters and such in hot neighborhoods is being at least partially offset by continuing gradual population decline in disfavored neighborhoods as people die or move away.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Were you (or was anyone, for that matter) just as nauseated as I was by some of those asinine cynical comments from the PG readers?

I've developed a thick skin (or strong stomach) when it comes to newspaper comment sections, but yes, some of the comments were disappointing. On the other hand, I think it is valid to ask if we really need the URA to be as active in planning these days, and I think there is something to be said for them mostly just selling off the properties remaining in their portfolio to the highest bidder with a serious development proposal.

But in this case, I don't have a problem with them choosing two winners. McCaffery was the highest bidder basically, and the Rubino proposal is really for a sort of public asset, and those are an exception to that highest bid approach. To me, it is like if they had a large area to dispose, and they bid most of the parcels out but reserved a space for a public park. The firm that does the public park doesn't have to be the same as the firms doing the other parcels.

It could make for a rather intriguing development and it needs to transform that whole area into something more vibrant. I, too, would like that church to become a focal point.

I definitely think this is an opportunity to create an indoor/outdoor public attraction that could become hugely popular while complementing, not competing with, the existing Strip retail district. I thought 100% Rubino would be too much, but with the McCaffery portion adding to the local market for new retail, I think the balance looks pretty healthy now.

As an aside, this reminds me of the hotel plan for the August Wilson Center. To me, it is such a natural idea to combine public amenities like what I think they want from the Rubino plan, or the August Wilson Center, with complementary for-profit developments like the McCaffery plan, or the proposed AWC hotel. If you choose a truly complementary use you can help build a market for the public amenity, and can help reduce the public cost of providing the public amenity, and can also get the sorts of for-profit developments you need to keep the City moving forward.

But at least in the world of comment section blowhards, those proposals tend to take fire from both ends: some people are going to complain about the public component, and others about the for-profit component, just because they always do.

[AaronPGH]

Honestly it could force the project into the best possible outcome. There's a certain friendly rivalry introduced between two companies in a situation like this.