Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey
Ken Rice with the latest reports on the Hazelwood development site
|
Looking around for the updated PLDP online, but I can't find anything more recent than the one linked to upthread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
It will be interesting to track over time how the Lower Hill compares to the ALMONO site. Even though the Lower Hill has a big head start and a much better location, I would place my bet on the ALMONO site being more impressive in 5 years, and maybe at completion of both.
|
We will see. My concern with the ALMONO site is there will be a temptation to turn the residential section into a mixed-income development. Not that I have anything against mixed-income developments in general, but for ALMONO to really spark a greater reinvestment in Hazelwood, the new residential should be mostly market rate, at least initially. If it isn't, I think the "Hazelwood Flats" planned residential neighborhood will just be seen as a dumping ground for low-income folks displaced from the Hill District (Bedford Dwellings is likely to close within the next few years, from what I've heard) or gentrified out of elsewhere in the East End.
Of course, even this would be a great step forward for the neighborhood, just as the planned infill projects in Larimer are a tremendous development. And simply having large parcels of land within the city center set aside for new centers of employment is a huge plus. But if you want something like a reconstruction of Second Avenue into a vibrant urban street you need real gentrification to build until the local market warrants scattered-site infill new construction. I'm not sure yet that ALMONO will cause this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaguffin
I would rather they just keep the big parking lot. It's more creative and a better use of space. Ugh.
|
This is really a national issue, not just a Pittsburgh issue. City codes are still too hamstrung by suburbanesque zoning requirements. Even when not encumbered by these rules, most developers are so used to the paint-by numbers generic "urbanish" crap that this is about the default density they propose.
That said, I have no idea who really is pushing the lower density. It's not clearly in the interests of the Penguins to keep the site low-slung, because once the area is developed, no matter what the density, they pretty much lose the parking revenue. Perhaps there is some worry that if the commercial areas closer to town are built out too much there won't be enough open spaces in the two parking garages on game days. But I'd expect that in part the lower density is due to demands of stakeholders within the Hill District themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983
Agreed, and agreed on the whole limit of the building height to 12 stories. Why develop the site at all if that's all you're going to do?! I'd go 32 or even 22 stories there, but no way in HELL would I go for a 12 story building in the closest part to Downtown.
|
I was thinking about this today, and wondering if the "mixed-income" component will make it politically difficult to later upzone the residential component. For example, say 15 years down the line the Penguins sell off the development in chunks. Someone buys one of the lower-slung apartment blocks, and wants to demolish it and build something with a few hundred more units. But since a portion of the smaller building is set aside for lower-income tenants, this becomes a political firestorm within the Hill District, and their plan ultimately gets rejected.
Prev
Linear Mode
