PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mhays

Where I live (Seattle), it's done frequently, but that's mostly due to land use permit requirements, not because it pays off in rents.

That's why Pittsburgh actually needs to enforce its historic preservation code. The whole point of such a code is that developers often will not voluntarily preserve historic structures because they can save on costs with demolition instead. So you need a code to require it.

While it doesn't sound like high-intensity land use, I like mixing uses and theaters can be good both day and evening. Even business meetings and public meetings if they're rentable.

This will be a student theater complex owned by a non-profit, so they probably won't make it available for rent to many, if any, other users.

Again, their own projection is that it will only serve 60,000 non-student visitors annually (and there will be no consequences if that number proves inflated). If you understand the typical scale of such things, such a low number can't possibly justify the exclusive use of 2 acres of prime Downtown land.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't think eliminating surface parking lots Downtown just to replace them with 1-2 story structures is an unmitigated good. I think we can afford to be more patient than that.

I dunno. Honestly I think an argument can be made it's easier to redevelop once parcels are consolidated under common ownership. Thus if you eventually want to see a high-rise there, the Point Park Theatre, even if meh in the shorter run, makes such a development more likely a few decades hence. In contrast, blocks which are split among multiple smaller property owners may never become consolidated enough to have large scale development. This is great if the area has historic buildings, but not so great if it has a good deal of vacant lots.

Of course, I'm not someone who thinks having a lot of vertical density in an urban neighborhood, even the CBD, is a must. Street level interaction matters a lot more to me. But as I said upthread, from a street level this project is better than the new PNC building. Not best practice of course, but better nonetheless.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think it is an opportunity cost issue. Consider the Burns & Scalo lot next to the County Health building. They want to build something like a 16-story office building there, but so far haven't been able to put that deal together. They probably could do a 4-story apartment building instead, but they are willing to hold out to see if they can do something which would ultimately make them more money.

So land-banking then? I shouldn't be surprised. Still, I was thinking more about some of the single-building gaps along Penn and Liberty (and even a few one-story buildings that have to go).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Thus if you eventually want to see a high-rise there, the Point Park Theatre, even if meh in the shorter run, makes such a development more likely a few decades hence.

That would be a pretty long time to wait, with no guarantee that Point Park would ever agree to redevelop the land. That's one of the many problems with nonprofits gobbling up so much urban land--they won't have the same incentives to redevelop as a for-profit landowner would have.

And in this case, I don't think consolidation is really necessary to do much better than what Point Park is planning. Even if the three historic buildings were left in place, you'd still have the big surface lot on Forbes, and the big surface lot on Fourth. Those are both easily big enough that they could be redeveloped as two separate high rises.

Of course, I'm not someone who thinks having a lot of vertical density in an urban neighborhood, even the CBD, is a must. Street level interaction matters a lot more to me.

Downtown is the center of our public transportation system. It is the biggest employment center in the entire region. It is increasingly popular as a place to live as well. If you don't leverage all that by making good use of the available developable land Downtown, you are losing a big opportunity. Ultimately it will mean fewer people walking or riding transit to work, fewer people walking or riding transit to amenities, and so on, which in turn has implications for infrastructure costs, transportation costs, public health, energy use, the environment, and so on.

Land use policy is important! So is street-level design, but not as a substitute for adequate land use.

So land-banking then? I shouldn't be surprised. Still, I was thinking more about some of the single-building gaps along Penn and Liberty

I suspect renovation of existing buildings in the Cultural District has likely offered better numbers than possibly infilling those lots with new buildings, but that may change as the prime renovation opportunities finally run out.

[Minivan Werner]

If the Cultural Trust is never going to go ahead with RiverParc, can they sell the land to developers that can come close? Just develop a master plan for 3rd party developers to follow and do it all in small chunks.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Of course, I'm not someone who thinks having a lot of vertical density in an urban neighborhood, even the CBD, is a must. Street level interaction matters a lot more to me. But as I said upthread, from a street level this project is better than the new PNC building. Not best practice of course, but better nonetheless.

I agree with you. Vertical density in a downtown is highly desirable but not, to my mind, mandatory in every situation or on every lot. And measuring density in half-block increments doesn't make sense to me. While the Playhouse will be low rise, the same block contains the Bank Tower and Standard Life. Across Fourth is a wall of 12-15 story buildings, while PNC and Oxford's project will provide around 50 stories of new office space directly across Forbes.

I also agree with your comment on the need for projects to be appealing at street level. An architect friend calls this "fingertip" quality. The Playhouse will provide a contextual, high-quality, pedestrian-friendly development---admittedly low-rise but still very urban. I suspect that the project design alone will invite passers-by to enter the courtyard and look around, while the proposed free programming---not to mention the four active theatre companies that will be using the three theatres---will make the development more of a gathering spot.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

And measuring density in half-block increments doesn't make sense to me.

It totals 2 acres, including two surface parking lots that would be perfect for high rise development. Giving Point Park credit for the other buildings nearby such that it gets a pass for wasting all that land on low rise buildings is what makes no sense.

To the extent there are low rise buildings in the future of Downtown, they should be the historic buildings, or perhaps infill buildings between historic building on very small lots. New low rise buildings taking up large open lots Downtown is indefensible from a land use perspective.

admittedly low-rise but still very urban.

Again, what exactly is "urban" about it? This could be a low rise student theater complex on any university campus, including in the suburbs or in a rural area:



Is this another case where Point Park gets to also claim credit for the buildings around the complex, such as by sticking faux walls on the surrounding buildings? That is set dressing, not true urban forms.

Or is applying a vertical stretch to the rendering in order to make it look taller "very urban"?

I suspect that the project design alone will invite passers-by to enter the courtyard and look around, while the proposed free programming---not to mention the four active theatre companies that will be using the three theatres---will make the development more of a gathering spot.

I suspect that is all nonsense. Again, 60,000 non-student visitors--Point Park's self-serving prediction--is tiny by Downtown amenity standards. Whatever those "four active theatre companies" might be, not even Point Park dared to inflate them as a attraction beyond that extremely low level.

And the "folly" arcade is a nice little psychological barrier, directly referencing historical cloisters and indicating to the public that the area beyond the wall is reserved for the university community:

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

The attachment of a cloister to a cathedral or church, commonly against a warm southern flank, usually indicates that it is (or once was) part of a monastic foundation, "forming a continuous and solid architectural barrier... that effectively separates the world of the monks from that of the serfs and workmen, whose lives and works went on outside and around the cloister."

[BrianTH]

Just a little reminder about such self-serving predictions:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5463483-74/center-million-august#axzz3LMGQ35LT

Pitched as a grand addition to Pittsburgh's cultural district, the gleaming August Wilson Center for African American Culture has never fulfilled its organizers' promises. . . . More than 100,000 people would pour into Downtown in the first year alone . . . according to an economic impact analysis the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority submitted in support of a $6.5 million state grant application in 2006.

Although the state approved the grant . . . [a]ttendance peaked at 19,838 in 2009 but plummeted to 9,136 by 2012, undercutting projections analysts said were necessary for the success of the center.

Let's see, if predictions of 100,000 visitors were worth $6.5 million in 2006, 60,000 in 2014 adjusting for inflation should be worth about . . .

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/201...house-at-Point-Park/stories/201409270041

The curtain is about to rise on the construction of the new Pittsburgh Playhouse, Downtown. . . . The project got a key boost Friday when Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican running for re-election, announced the award of a $5 million state redevelopment assistance capital grant to help pay for the work.

[WillyC]

Am I missing something or is Point Park not a university? If it is, what is wrong with a university campus like building? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that side of downtown dead and dilapidated before Point Park started expanding and rejuvenating that area? I seem to remember nothing but crappy Smithfield News type bodegas when I first moved here.

Could the project have done a better job? I'm certain they could have, but the sky isn't falling to me.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by WillyC

Am I missing something or is Point Park not a university? If it is, what is wrong with a university campus like building?

I find it hard to consider Point Park a university.

They should really just buy up all the remaining properties south of Blvd of Allies and level everything for a large quad and "campus like buildings". That would be sweeet!

Then I would consider it a university.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WillyC

Am I missing something or is Point Park not a university? If it is, what is wrong with a university campus like building?

If you are saying you understand why Point Park wants to do this, then I agree--it is not hard to understand why Point Park would love to get away with turning a large chunk of Downtown into a low-rise university campus.

But if you are saying that just because Point Park wants to do that, we should let it--that I don't understand.

Let's be clear here. There is zero doubt that the three historic properties qualify for protection under the City's historic preservation code, so Point Park wants the City to grant it an exemption to that code so that it can do this project. The City would be entirely within its legal rights to simply not grant that exemption.

The question, therefore, is whether this proposal is so compelling that Point Park deserves an exemption to the historic preservation code. The fact that Point Park is a university and therefore understandbly would like to turn Downtown into a low-rise university campus does not mean the answer to that question is yes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that side of downtown dead and dilapidated before Point Park started expanding and rejuvenating that area? I seem to remember nothing but crappy Smithfield News type bodegas when I first moved here.

I don't know when you first moved here, but there have in fact been lots of other investors in that side of Downtown.

That said, I had no particular problem with Point Park buying up and renovating historic buildings for use as university buildings. Nor did I have a problem with Point Park's original proposal for this project, which involved preserving the facades in place and building a 10-story dorm building.

But now that they have eliminated both of those key elements (keeping the facades in place and adding a 10-story dorm), we should all feel free to re-evaluate their proposal.

Could the project have done a better job? I'm certain they could have, but the sky isn't falling to me.

Just to re-emphasize: Point Park wants an exemption to the historic preservation code. The question therefore is not whether "the sky is falling," the question is whether Point Park's proposal is so awesomely wonderful that they deserve that exemption. If not, then the code should simply be enforced.

[PGHFan]

"The question therefore is not whether "the sky is falling," the question is whether Point Park's proposal is so awesomely wonderful that they deserve that exemption." That may be your question, but the university may have very different ones, such as how to best meet its academic mission in a downtown campus for a program that has a very good reputation. Whether someone considers "PPU" to be a University is rather silly and I suspect only a way to further denigrate the value of the project. Some here are steadfastly opposed to the project and some support it, like me. I am more than happy to agree to disagree. Any new word on the 350 Fifth?

[BrianTH]

No real news in this article on possible North Shore apartments--Continental is still trying to get more public funding for parking first:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/7334087-74/development-north-shore#axzz3LMGQ35LT

Meanwhile, the groundbreaking for Oxford's Three Crossings is today:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/7334993-74/development-project-spaces#axzz3LMGQ35LT

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by PGHFan

That may be your question, but the university may have very different ones, such as how to best meet its academic mission in a downtown campus for a program that has a very good reputation.

Right, I meant that is the question for the public, and the relevant elected officials and their appointees to the relevant administrative bodies. And unless someone here represents Point Park, that is the question for all of us as well as members of the public.

Again, I understand why Point Park wants to do this. But just because Point Park wants to do it doesn't mean they should get an exemption from the applicable laws and codes. That's the point of having these laws and codes in the first place--they would have no purpose if land owners and developers never wanted to do anything different.

[TBone7281]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Meanwhile, the groundbreaking for Oxford's Three Crossings is today:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/7334993-74/development-project-spaces#axzz3LMGQ35LT

Was just by there a half hour ago, they have one of those big pile driving trucks working already. I assume they will need to stop construction to have the ground breaking ceremony. How ironic.

I'm going to wander around later after work and I'll try to take some pictures of the various projects that are going on.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

I assume they will need to stop construction to have the ground breaking ceremony. How ironic.

I can't remember the last time a groundbreaking actually marked the start of a project (it always seems to be well before or after--I assume mostly because they are working around the schedules of VIP attendees).

[PGHFan]

"But just because Point Park wants to do it doesn't mean they should get an exemption from the applicable laws and codes." Indeed providing or not providing exemptions is what elected officials are there for. but your arguments have not been all about preservation- they have been about land use, the inclusion of decoration, etc. I agree with the need for preservation, but sometimes there are conflicting public policy goals and that government must then choose which it wants to support. In this case, the officials have decided that supporting PPU's Playhouse is more important than saving the three buildings (excluding their facades) in favor of supporting the University to enhance its educational program. I get that. The aesthetics of the building are another matter, but really come down to our tastes- and tastes are really not arguable. All we can do is state ours and listen to others and say "Thanks for sharing."

[TBone7281]

Sort of off topic, but the December issue of Car and Driver featured an article they did in Pittsburgh comparing the new Mustang against the Camaro and Challenger.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...challenger-r-t-scat-pack-comparison-test

They didn't talk about the city much, but basically said that Pittsburgh was a better parallel to the car industry than Detroit due to it's resurgence after the domestic steel industry collapse.

Most of the pictures in the actual article were taken behind the Terminal Building in the Strip, but the online version has a bunch more.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by PGHFan

In this case, the officials have decided that supporting PPU's Playhouse is more important than saving the three buildings (excluding their facades) in favor of supporting the University to enhance its educational program. I get that.

The problem with your argument is that this isn't the black and white issue that you have described. The available options are not "you must either support the playhouse or support the historic structures." There is an option where it is possible to support both, it would just require their architect to incorporate the facades into his design.

This request isn't asking them to move mountains, and since they are already getting $5 million from all of us to make it happen, we have the leverage to make them do it if we were to exert some pressure on our elected officials.

[PGHFan]

"There is an option where it is possible to support both, it would just require their architect to incorporate the facades into his design " Well I am not sure that we know that this is possible. We can speculate that it is and be totally wrong. We can require architects to do many things, but if they can't they can't. We can assume that the PPU architects did not even try, but who here has talked to them? I know I haven't. So, maybe the dichotomy I present is indeed the case. If any one can demonstrate that the architects ignored the desire to preserve, please let us know and then be righteously indignant.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Downtown is the center of our public transportation system. It is the biggest employment center in the entire region. It is increasingly popular as a place to live as well. If you don't leverage all that by making good use of the available developable land Downtown, you are losing a big opportunity. Ultimately it will mean fewer people walking or riding transit to work, fewer people walking or riding transit to amenities, and so on, which in turn has implications for infrastructure costs, transportation costs, public health, energy use, the environment, and so on.

I understand your point here, but it's worth considering that space is being freed up in Oakland as a result of this move correct? The current Pittsburgh Playhouse could be razed, with a mid-rise building of similar scale to the nearby Hampton Inn and Magee office building built on its site. That is also a pretty good spot for mass transit, so it should be a trade up.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, what exactly is "urban" about it? This could be a low rise student theater complex on any university campus, including in the suburbs or in a rural area:

It isn't surrounded by useless greenscape or parking lots, which are totally inappropriate for Downtown. It also is a zero-setback building. Yes, the street wall is only continuous because of decorative catwalk you note, but it's still better, all things considered, to hug the sidewalk. One of my big issues with high-rise development in Pittsburgh is there hasn't been heavy use of podiums which continue the street wall. The new PNC tower, due to the curved facade, is going to integrate poorly at the corner of Forbes and Wood.

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I find it hard to consider Point Park a university.

It seems like these days all colleges rebrand as universities. Unless they are a small, prestigious liberal arts college.