PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Have we seen this view of the Gardens? Now called Tower Two-Sixty, I guess.



The time-lapse is pretty darn cool.
http://oxblue.com/open/TheGardens

http://towertwosixty.com/

Uh what? Is that the art deco building on the corner covered in cement blocks and those historic structures turned into crap too? Or is that just a poor render hopefully?

[Brentsters]

That's an old rendering used way back when they went before the planning commission. On the other side, they still had the old Market Square.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Brentsters

That's an old rendering used way back when they went before the planning commission. On the other side, they still had the old Market Square.

Yeah, weird that they're using it on their new website.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But if the most we can do is have one building built per year - maybe two in a good year, then we won't be facing a major shortage of developable parcels in the next decade - possibly even the next two decades. This is slow and steady growth, not a renaissance.

But you said the rate would have to go up half an order of magnitude, which is five times the current rate, or it would take the rest of your lifetime. Are you seriously claiming if there was anything short of 10 Downtown buildings under construction at any given time, it would take a lifetime for developers to become interested in a large, clear, available developable lot in the middle of Downtown?

There is no real knowing what order parcels Downtown will be developed in, so if there were only two projects under construction at a given time, I agree it could take a little while for these particular parcels to get done. Or they could be next up--again, there is no real knowing. But I really don't understand why you think the pace has to increase by five times.

That's "Greater Downtown" not Downtown proper, right?

Yes. It is also only "salaried" jobs (I assume that is as opposed to hourly). But I don't think that matters for the point at hand, unless you have good reason to believe all the increase in salaried jobs happened outside Downtown (for reference, Downtown had about 74% of the total salaried jobs in Greater Downtown as of 2011).

At the same time, a lot of older office buildings are being converted into residential uses. So it's unclear to me if the actual amount of square footage available Downtown is rising or falling.

There are market reports tracking that sort of thing, but they also have their own problems, including the basic definitional question of what counts as available space--a lot of the residential conversions are of long-vacant spaces not necessarily being actively marketed. Regardless, I think it is fair to say residential conversions are withdrawing at least potential office space from the mix, but with employment in the region, city, and (I believe) Downtown continuing to grow, that just means there is going to be increasing demand for new space.

If it's happening, it's in dribs and drabs so small that it doesn't make the local press.

Hmm, I see periodic news stories like this (first relevant sample that came up on Google):

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...rnational-to-make-downtown.html?page=all

There have been lots of articles about 4Moms moving into the Fiserv building:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...es-deal-with-the-elmhurst-group-for.html

But generally, I think that is right--if some law firm almost no one has heard of leases out 30,000 sqft in one of the Class A buildings Downtown, it is not going to make any headlines.

It matters because we have unique assets that many cities do not in our outer neighborhoods. . . . Pittsburgh is simply a lot more decentralized. That's a great things in most aspects, but it means our Downtown (and even its fringe) will never be as popular of a place to live as many other cities. Will it continue to get better? Sure. But I think it's going to play second fiddle to the East End for a long time to come yet.

So I think you are being led astray by starting with cities that are not much like Pittsburgh to begin with. Pretty much the same things could have been said about Philly outside of Center City, DC outside of its Downtown, NYC outside of the Financial District, Chicago outside of the Loop area, and so on--all those cities had plenty of other thriving neighborhoods. And yet all those areas have recently experienced a residential boom, notwithstanding such alternatives being available.

People wanting to live right where they can walk to work is a real thing, and nice as the East End may be, it isn't going to prevent that trend from continuing to manifest in Downtown Pittsburgh too.

But given the demographics of the workforce, I'd guess a higher proportion would want to live within walking distance versus commute by car or mass transit.

I'm not sure that is a good guess. Few people actually like commuting by car or mass transit. Some people do just like to live in more spread out areas (e.g., they like a large yard, or maybe even keep horses, and such), but what typically forces the remaining employees out of employment centers like Downtown and Oakland is usually some combination of not being able to afford a place within walking distance and/or needing a place suitable for raising kids.

And again, we know this from the Downtown resident surveys--these are people who are higher-educated, higher-income, and so on, but they want to live within walking distance of work. And they are also typically young and childless, and they are disproportionately not from the area. But all that is a growing pool.

I still post on City Data, and I pay attention to the relocation threads. If the posters are any indication, Downtown just isn't on the radar of a lot of people.

I'd say they are not a good indication. It is a very small sample to begin with, with no reason to believe it is representative.

And in fact--if you had relied on that method as of 2010, would you have predicted this?

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6202435-74/downtown-units-percent#axzz3LW3lK9hl

[T]he population living Downtown has soared. Census data show the area was home to 12,343 people last year, up 10.5 percent from 2010.

Again, there is really no reason to suspect this trend doesn't have a long way to go yet. Certainly the small, non-random sample that comes to City Data is not such a reason.

Most people who relocate, even if they want an urban neighborhood, want somewhere to park their car, which leads them to disqualify Downtown. Those who want a car-free lifestyle are generally young people with more modest incomes, and steered mostly to Bloomfield.

I think you are misreading trends among higher-income young people today. The whole idea that car ownership marks entry into adulthood is gradually being jettisoned. Fewer of them are buying cars, and fewer in fact are even getting licenses. These kids want an Uber app on their smartphone, not a $400 lease on a car they never use. That said, there are in fact parking leases Downtown for those who want them (a majority of households Downtown actually have a parking lease, in fact), and they are building new garages as well.

And again, if you had used this reasoning in the recent past, you would have failed to predict the residential boom we have seen so far Downtown, and similar "downtown" residential booms in similar sorts of cities all over the place.

And development along transit lines is of course good for the City, since it ups transportation utilization and decreases Downtown parking pressures.

Yep. I'd also add bike lanes to that analysis, and I think the ongoing development of a robust bike lane system that could be used for commuting is going to be great for Downtown employment.

But I think more of the reason why major employers don't leave Downtown is inter-suburban commutes.

I think all these things are a factor. And ultimately this is a question of what happens at the margins--some businesses are tightly bound to Downtown, and others would never consider it. But some businesses are going to view it as a close decision whether locating in Downtown is worth it or not, and for them the more of their employees or potential employees live in the City, the more the scales will tip toward choosing Downtown.

As I said though, Downtown is going to be a niche area.

Depending on what you mean by that, sure. There are about 2.4 million people in the Pittsburgh MSA. If Downtown's population grew to, say, 24,000, that would still only be 1% of the MSA population.

But that would also require a big building boom Downtown.

I suspect it will always skew a bit richer, older, more buttoned down, and less "hip" than the outlying urban neighborhoods - both because it will be the most expensive place to live, as well as some of the Downtown amenities (e.g., hotel guests for conventions, and theaters) skewing the crowd older.

Well, you are right about Downtown's resident population skewing richer, and in fact it is trending richer still. However, it also already has a large young adult population, and in fact it is trending younger still. I don't know how "hip" they are, but they are young and have money, and as I mentioned previously, a disproportionate number of them are not from the area.

So, in a word, a lot of yuppies, although maybe not so many hipsters.

By the way, as an another aside--in surveys, aside from the abundant restaurant choices these days, Downtown residents also like all the public outdoor spaces. That includes built ones like Market Square, more natural ones likes the riverfront trails, and so on. I think this is probably one of the things about Downtown that appeal to all ages and is sometimes overlooked--it is just a neat area to be outside walking around, biking around, kayaking, and so forth.

but there's a limited supply of high-income professionals who work downtown and want the total urban experience, which means the market will remain somewhat limited.

I guess this is really the core dispute. I don't understand why you think that yuppie pool is limited. I think that pool is growing rapidly, and I think that is apparent in employment data, Census data, and so on. In fact, I can't think of another market segment I would be more confident in banking on for future development plans--and it is pretty apparent a lot of local developers agree, given the mix of what they are bringing to market.

[East Edge]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yawn

[Brentsters]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not happening.

[designer3d712]

Originally Posted by East Edge

Yawn

12 year olds these days.. Where are their Parents?..

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But you said the rate would have to go up half an order of magnitude, which is five times the current rate, or it would take the rest of your lifetime. Are you seriously claiming if there was anything short of 10 Downtown buildings under construction at any given time, it would take a lifetime for developers to become interested in a large, clear, available developable lot in the middle of Downtown?

I thought it was clear I was being generous when I said the best we can expect Downtown right now from new construction was 1-2 projects per year. And all developments are not equal - something like the Holiday Inn will be a nice bit of infill which fits the local context well, but it's still taking up less than half of a small block that was already shortened for the 376 onramp. If all the infill projects were that size, and no more than one or two were built per year, it really would take a few decades to wipe out all the downtown parking craters.

Still, I admit to a degree I was using hyperbole. Originally I was going to just write an order of magnitude but realized that was ridiculous and hedged. But I still believe we'll need to see a quantitative shift in the amount of new construction Downtown before we have to begin worrying about something like if new developments are properly intense enough. Or wait another 1-2 decades.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Hmm, I see periodic news stories like this (first relevant sample that came up on Google):

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...rnational-to-make-downtown.html?page=all

There have been lots of articles about 4Moms moving into the Fiserv building:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...es-deal-with-the-elmhurst-group-for.html

Oops...yeah, I remember reading about these myself. Good signs for sure. But Baker was only moving 65 employees in, and 4Moms was basically moving a handful of blocks from the Strip District.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I think you are being led astray by starting with cities that are not much like Pittsburgh to begin with. Pretty much the same things could have been said about Philly outside of Center City, DC outside of its Downtown, NYC outside of the Financial District, Chicago outside of the Loop area, and so on--all those cities had plenty of other thriving neighborhoods. And yet all those areas have recently experienced a residential boom, notwithstanding such alternatives being available.

Center City Philadelphia isn't really comparable to a CBD because much of it is dense rowhouse neighborhoods. It would be like saying that the North End or Back Bay were part of Downtown Boston.

Still, I understand your broader point. But these are all much larger metros than Pittsburgh, which means you'll have more of everything. This includes more high-paying jobs (along with a higher average age in general), and more people employed in those high-paying jobs who want to live right in Downtown. Downtown Pittsburgh is of course also a microcosm of density, packing a big punch for 2/3rds of a square mile, but even if it were built out at peak capacity, it will never have the same potential when viewed in isolation.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure that is a good guess. Few people actually like commuting by car or mass transit. Some people do just like to live in more spread out areas (e.g., they like a large yard, or maybe even keep horses, and such), but what typically forces the remaining employees out of employment centers like Downtown and Oakland is usually some combination of not being able to afford a place within walking distance and/or needing a place suitable for raising kids.

I think that workers in Oakland skew a bit more "progressive" than Downtown. An educational worker is more likely than some random suit to have internalized the more recent social norms that walkable urban living is desirable. And let's not forget that while roughly similar (high) percentages of people walk to work in Downtown and Oakland, many of the Downtown commuters of the driving sort are the kind of people who not only avoid living in the city, but in extreme cases stay over the county line for tax purposes. These people cannot be convinced to move to the city, let alone Downtown. They just need to die of old age and be replaced by someone more open minded.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And again, we know this from the Downtown resident surveys--these are people who are higher-educated, higher-income, and so on, but they want to live within walking distance of work. And they are also typically young and childless, and they are disproportionately not from the area. But all that is a growing pool.

It stands to reason that an area where the biggest plus is you can walk to work attracts people who think being able to walk to work is very important. The question is how many people really make this their top priority.

When I lived in DC, I had a job in Upper Marlboro, but damned if I'd live in the suburbs, so I rented in Capitol Hill, and drove to work. It was the only thing I used my car for, because I could do all of my shopping and socializing through the Metro and on a bike. And as I said, I know many people who are younger than me now who are doing the same thing. They want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but they place greater priority on walking for socialization than walking to their place of work. Many/most would of course prefer to use mass transit or a bike to get to work if possible. Walking to work is generally seen as a cool thing if you can get it, but not an absolute must.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6...#axzz3LW3lK9hl

That article seems to be using a weird/broad definition of Downtown, given in 2010 Downtown only had 3,629 people. Even if you add in North/South Shore, Uptown, and the Strip District, you don't get close.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I guess this is really the core dispute. I don't understand why you think that yuppie pool is limited. I think that pool is growing rapidly, and I think that is apparent in employment data, Census data, and so on. In fact, I can't think of another market segment I would be more confident in banking on for future development plans--and it is pretty apparent a lot of local developers agree, given the mix of what they are bringing to market.

I guess my main issue is this. It's very clear the Downtown Pittsburgh market is limited now by rents are still generally way too low to excuse steel construction. New construction stick and drywall (like the Brix in the Strip) is doable. So are conversions. And Downtown has plenty of old buildings yet to rehab - everything from old three-story storefronts down in First Side to outdated mid-century office towers.

So the two open questions are when will the easy development spots be filled out? And once it runs out, will the profits made on new construction residential highrises in Downtown be worth it to developers? Because it's entirely possible that even if rents climb high enough by then to hit a sweet spot where residential skyscrapers become doable, that the rate of return will remain higher on building more of the blah residential midrises like Three Crossings.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Still, I admit to a degree I was using hyperbole.

OK.

But I still believe we'll need to see a quantitative shift in the amount of new construction Downtown before we have to begin worrying about something like if new developments are properly intense enough.

This I don't get. There are only so many opportunities Downtown as good as the two surface lots Point Park wants to use up. Say at Pace A they are mostly used up in 10 years, and at Pace B they are mostly used up in 20 years. We have to worry about low intensity development at Pace A but not Pace B because . . . why?

Whatever gets built in these lots is likely going to be with us for many, many decades. Whether it is 10 years from now or 20 years from now, that's a small price to pay for a much better long term result.

But Baker was only moving 65 employees in, and 4Moms was basically moving a handful of blocks from the Strip District.

I was just addressing your question about news stories. For the actual bottomline about leased square footage you would need to look at market reports and such.

Still, I understand your broader point. But these are all much larger metros than Pittsburgh, which means you'll have more of everything.

That's fine. Downtown Pittsburgh doesn't have to be as big as the comparable areas in these cities. My point is just that it is following the same track, and there is no reason to believe that can't continue.

I think that workers in Oakland skew a bit more "progressive" than Downtown. An educational worker is more likely than some random suit to have internalized the more recent social norms that walkable urban living is desirable.

Of course these days, a person working Downtown might well be a UPMC employee. But anyway, I think you are mistaken to think of this as something that is about being particularly "progressive". People who would rather walk five minutes to work than spend an hour fighting traffic on a congested highway and then pay a large parking fee in a garage and then have to walk to work anyway are not expressing liberal values. They are just being self-serving. And your "random suits" are perfectly capable of being self-serving.

As an aside--what really happened here is just that city crime rates went way down, congestion went way up, and kids became more interested in the latest iPhone than the latest Ford Mustang. But due to the oddities of American politics, the Republican Party has been purified as old and anti-city, such that if you are young and not afraid of cities, you won't feel very comfortable with those folks. But that really has nothing to do with conservatism in general, and indeed there is a much deeper history of pro-business AND pro-city Republicanism (these are the Republicans who used to run the political machines in cities like Pittsburgh). And the Republicans are going to have to figure out at some point how to tap back into that tradition, or cohort replacement and urbanization is going to leave them in the dustbin of history.

But I digress. The bottom line is you are fighting the basic observable facts. All over the country, many of your "random suits" have been making the decision to live in CBDs, financial districts, and so forth. And there is no reason to believe Pittsburgh's "random suits" will be an exception.

many of the Downtown commuters of the driving sort are the kind of people who not only avoid living in the city, but in extreme cases stay over the county line for tax purposes. These people cannot be convinced to move to the city, let alone Downtown. They just need to die of old age and be replaced by someone more open minded.

There are people like that working in Oakland too, but sure, that is true of some people working Downtown. However, your final requirement is basically what is happening: older workers Downtown are retiring (they don't have to actually die, of course), and they are being replaced with new young workers.

And as I said, I know many people who are younger than me now who are doing the same thing. They want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but they place greater priority on walking for socialization than walking to their place of work. Many/most would of course prefer to use mass transit or a bike to get to work if possible. Walking to work is generally seen as a cool thing if you can get it, but not an absolute must.

Obviously there are all sorts of people. My point was just that for that segment of the market that places a premium on walking to work, Downtown is going to have the biggest potential pool of such people simply because it has by far the most jobs. And this segment of the market is experiencing as much or more growth as any other.

That article seems to be using a weird/broad definition of Downtown, given in 2010 Downtown only had 3,629 people. Even if you add in North/South Shore, Uptown, and the Strip District, you don't get close.

I was just using it for the point that City Data requests for information are not representative. Whatever definition they are using, if you relied on City Data as if it were a representative survey, you would have no clue that was going on.

It's very clear the Downtown Pittsburgh market is limited now by rents are still generally way too low to excuse steel construction.

I don't think this is clear at all. Again, you need to factor in things like the financial crisis before assuming this is true based on recent activity. Before that hit, we had seen projects like Encore on 7th (another one we missed in your ten year window--that was 2006 I believe) and 151 Firstside (condos, but still a residential high rise--and I think that was also within ten years, like 2007ish).

So the two open questions are when will the easy development spots be filled out? And once it runs out, will the profits made on new construction residential highrises in Downtown be worth it to developers?

This is really one question in that once there are profitable projects to be done, developments tend to happen pretty rapidly until the profits are no longer there. But I'd suggest it actually sort of misses the one most important question, which is when will the financial markets start supporting these developments again.

As an aside, though--all I ever suggested is that these parking lots could be developed as mixed-use high rises, with restaurants/bars on the ground floor. Whether the upper floors are residential, office, hotel, or some mix of two or three of those uses, I don't have any prediction about. I do think new residential construction is likely coming to Downtown in the medium rather than long term, but you don't have to be certain about that to think wasting these lots on a low-rise student theater is a bad idea.

Because it's entirely possible that even if rents climb high enough by then to hit a sweet spot where residential skyscrapers become doable, that the rate of return will remain higher on building more of the blah residential midrises like Three Crossings.

That doesn't matter. As long as the developer's expected return on the project exceeds the developer's cost of capital (aka the project is expected to be "profitable"), someone is going to want to be that developer. Again, that is why this is really a financing question, and it is why it is important to understand that there is no practical limit to the amount of capital that could be invested in real estate development in Pittsburgh with free-flowing national and international capital markets. Under such conditions, ALL the profitable projects get done, not just the MOST profitable projects.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by East Edge

Yawn

And yet a low-rise student theater is way lower impact than all of those.

The only recent project I can think of that is even comparably bad is Continental's three-story office/restaurant building on the North Shore. And even that is likely to have far more impact per unit of land used. It is just so insultingly poorly done that I would actually prefer a nicely-done student theater.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I do think new residential construction is likely coming to Downtown in the medium rather than long term.

source: triblive

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Whatever gets built in these lots is likely going to be with us for many, many decades. Whether it is 10 years from now or 20 years from now, that's a small price to pay for a much better long term result.

As I said upthread awhile back, one reason I'm not so concerned is because on the 10-20 year scale, I'm pretty confident Point Park University, as we understand it, won't exist any longer. It's exactly the sort of school which is threatened by the "college bubble" bursting - an expensive, but not particularly selective/prestigious private school which lacks a strong research component. Their last 990 showed they are currently doing fine, but because 83.4% of their total revenue was from either tuition or student fees, even a modest drop off in enrollment (which I think is inevitable, given employers are shifting back to test-based models for assessing worker performance, rather than educational background) could quickly make the university financially nonviable.

Regardless, I see one of four ultimate outcomes here. First, the school could fold entirely, and the building could get knocked down. Second, the school could fold, and the theater could become a standalone venue. It's off the beaten path from the Cultural District, but I have no doubt that a small free-standing theater would be a bigger boon to downtown than one affiliated with PPU. Third, the program could be absorbed by CMU or Pitt as part of a wind-down, which would likely mean its eventual movement out of Downtown and back to Oakland. Fourth, I could see their theater program surviving as a small, standalone school downtown, since it's a niche, but viable, worker training program (unlike the generic business focus of most of PPU).

The bottom line though is I am okay with the development (I'm not actually supportive) because I don't think it's going to last. On the scale of decades, which is what you are arguing on too, something else is almost certainly going to go there, and that something is likely to be much higher density. The loss of the facades will still of course be tragic - that is the real loss to the city. But the low density is fixable - will be fixed in the long run.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Of course these days, a person working Downtown might well be a UPMC employee. But anyway, I think you are mistaken to think of this as something that is about being particularly "progressive". People who would rather walk five minutes to work than spend an hour fighting traffic on a congested highway and then pay a large parking fee in a garage and then have to walk to work anyway are not expressing liberal values. They are just being self-serving. And your "random suits" are perfectly capable of being self-serving.

There is an increasing polarization of politics and values in this country. Studies have shown more conservative people really do prefer, all things considered, exurban sprawly developments over city living. And I don't think it can be denied that the average office employee of PNC or even UMPC is going to be slightly more conservative than the average employee of Pitt or CMU.

Of course, even the average young right-leaning finance guy working for Mellon Bank, or union-busting lawyer right out of law school, is likely to be more socially liberal and tolerant of urban living than the retiring people he is replacing. So we'll see more of every kind of young professional living in urban neighborhoods, from conservatives to liberals. But workplaces which skew more conservative should, all things consider, have more workers who prefer suburban/exurban living. And to the extent Downtown is more "buttoned down" than Oakland, the percentage of workers willing to consider walkable neighborhoods (let alone walking to work) will be lower.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Obviously there are all sorts of people. My point was just that for that segment of the market that places a premium on walking to work, Downtown is going to have the biggest potential pool of such people simply because it has by far the most jobs. And this segment of the market is experiencing as much or more growth as any other.

I'd say the jury is out here. Again, Greater Oakland has around half as many jobs as Greater Downtown. If the average Oakland worker (due to slightly different demographics) is more than twice as likely to desire walking to work than the average Downtown worker, then Greater Oakland really does have more upside potential.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

This is really one question in that once there are profitable projects to be done, developments tend to happen pretty rapidly until the profits are no longer there. But I'd suggest it actually sort of misses the one most important question, which is when will the financial markets start supporting these developments again.

Again, this is my core issue. I'm not pessimistic about Downtown at all. I just recognize it as having changed from stagnancy and decline to a relatively (by national urban standards) slow level of growth. Your scenario requires a change from the current status quo. As you note, you really need financial markets to be a bit looser regarding providing financing for these sort of developments. That change may happen, but honestly, our economy has been stuck in neutral (particularly regarding wage growth) through five years of "recovery" now. While it's in better shape than most of the world, I don't see any real evidence of dynamism taking off.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As an aside, though--all I ever suggested is that these parking lots could be developed as mixed-use high rises, with restaurants/bars on the ground floor. Whether the upper floors are residential, office, hotel, or some mix of two or three of those uses, I don't have any prediction about. I do think new residential construction is likely coming to Downtown in the medium rather than long term, but you don't have to be certain about that to think wasting these lots on a low-rise student theater is a bad idea.

I understand your point. But as I said above, I think by the time we reach crisis mode regarding downtown land availability it's quite likely Point Park University as we know it will be kaput. Which is why I'm not sweating it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

source: triblive

I was of course aware of this. But given construction is only going forward with the parking element having its wheels greased by state funding, I'm not sure what it directly says about the viability of a new construction residential market.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

source: triblive

I certainly hope that one is coming sooner rather than later. But it is a bit of an odd situation with them trying to pull out of it after winning the bid, and then being forced back into it when Peduto came in. Since then they have sounded enthusiastic, but it still might be deferred until a later phase.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But given construction is only going forward with the parking element having its wheels greased by state funding, I'm not sure what it directly says about the viability of a new construction residential market.

Of course there will be public money up for grabs in the future too. Generally it is tough to find a major project Downtown since at least WWII or so that didn't receive a public contribution of one kind or another.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

For the actual bottomline about leased square footage you would need to look at market reports and such.

http://www.colliers.com/-/media/Files/Ma...orts/Colliers_NA_Office_2014Q3_Final.pdf

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As I said upthread awhile back, one reason I'm not so concerned is because on the 10-20 year scale, I'm pretty confident Point Park University, as we understand it, won't exist any longer.

Seems like an awfully risky bet, and moreover sharply reduces the value of actually doing this project. Why destroy all these historic buildings and encumber the land with low-rise structures if the project in question is doomed to be a bust anyway?

Again, I think you are making my case that patience is preferable.

There is an increasing polarization of politics and values in this country. Studies have shown more conservative people really do prefer, all things considered, exurban sprawly developments over city living.

But again, that is because what it means to be "conservative" today is dominated by the particular political circumstances in which the "conservative" party has become an old, white, anti-city party.

The bottom line is whatever terms you want to use, a young person working in finance or law today can easily believe all of that top marginal tax rates should be low, fracking is OK, and cities are great places to live when you are young, childless, and have a good income. You may insist that means that person is a "progressive" and not a conservative, but that just means you are wrong to then insist that yuppies are unlikely to be "progressive". The substantive point is that yuppies today can and do think like that, regardless of what you want to call that sort of thinking.

And I don't think it can be denied that the average office employee of PNC or even UMPC is going to be slightly more conservative than the average employee of Pitt or CMU.

Do I think the average young salaried employee of UPMC is likely to be more anti-city in the sense the current old, white, tea-party-dominated Republican Party is anti-city than the average young salaried employee of Pitt? I doubt it is enough to notice, certainly not enough to offset the basic fact that there are way more employees Downtown than Oakland.

So we'll see more of every kind of young professional living in urban neighborhoods, from conservatives to liberals. But workplaces which skew more conservative should, all things consider, have more workers who prefer suburban/exurban living. And to the extent Downtown is more "buttoned down" than Oakland, the percentage of workers willing to consider walkable neighborhoods (let alone walking to work) will be lower.

I really think you are wrong about young people these days and are imposing on them a conjunction of values that is really only applicable to much older people. But let's say it is 50% of yuppies in Downtown who would prefer a walking commute and 55% of yuppies in Oakland. That's just not going to make a notable difference in terms of the relative size of these markets because Downtown is so much bigger to begin with.

If the average Oakland worker (due to slightly different demographics) is more than twice as likely to desire walking to work than the average Downtown worker, then Greater Oakland really does have more upside potential.

There is no way it is twice, or anything close to that.

Your scenario requires a change from the current status quo. As you note, you really need financial markets to be a bit looser regarding providing financing for these sort of developments.

Not necessarily. The Gardens is happening, PNC Tower is happening, Oxford is apparently serious about its new tower, the former Saks site is in progress . . . It could be the Oxford and Saks projects will evaporate (that is always a risk short of, and sometimes after, construction starting), but if not, meaning that is what the status quo looks like, then that is enough for the sake of my argument--tower projects are moving along.

That said, I do expect the pace to pick up a bit as the financial markets continue to unthaw. And in fact if you track such things (I do loosely, mostly through the blog Calculated Risk), that is in fact happening.

That change may happen, but honestly, our economy has been stuck in neutral (particularly regarding wage growth) through five years of "recovery" now. While it's in better shape than most of the world, I don't see any real evidence of dynamism taking off.

The national economy is showing increased signs of life--faster employment growth, faster GDP growth, and even (very recently) potential signs of some wage growth. But it is a notorious fact about recessions caused by a financial crisis that it takes a LONG time to get back to normal.

However, we should distinguish what of that actually matters for Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has long been experiencing employment growth. Pittsburgh has long been experience wage growth. It was really only a moderate recession here, and the recovery has gone well (such that really we are well past recovered and well into a new cycle).

It is mostly just the financial markets in particular that are a problem here. And they are a problem, but at the end of the day we don't need to be overly concerned about national averages on most of these other things.

But as I said above, I think by the time we reach crisis mode regarding downtown land availability it's quite likely Point Park University as we know it will be kaput.

Then there is zero reason to tear down the historic facades, and the historic preservation code should be enforced.

I also think we should avoid predictable crises where possible.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

http://www.colliers.com/-/media/Files/Ma...orts/Colliers_NA_Office_2014Q3_Final.pdf

Colliers, and others, do specific office reports for Pittsburgh, which specifically break out the CBD:

http://www.colliers.com/-/media/Files/Un...%20Pittsburgh%20Office%20Market%20Report

But what you would want given the questions at hand is an archive of these things going back as long as possible. After briefly looking around, it looked to me like you usually need some sort of subscription to get that sort of stuff, but if someone knows a way that would be great.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

...

Any thoughts on the Dynamic Parking legislation?

Why did all councilmembers except Natalia Rudiak vote in favor of Darlene Harris's exemption for the North Shore? A district that is perfectly suited for this model...

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But given construction is only going forward with the parking element having its wheels greased by state funding, I'm not sure what it directly says about the viability of a new construction residential market.

Major new construction in previously unproven locations is almost always greased by public funding in one way or another. If it is successful, more fully privately-funded residential projects will follow.