PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm sure it would increase traffic, the same way that secondary streets like Sarah Street are used as cuthroughs in the South Side. That's not a reason not to provide connectivity though. After all, without connectivity you only increase congestion on the main streets, and Penn around there is already pretty nightmarishly backed up.

I know, right? Lets not connect a city street grid because of a couple of community members who know nothing about urban planning.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Marchand would have to be completely overhauled to accommodate the increase in traffic, as it would result in a lot of cut-thru traffic from points west to Bakery Square/Penn Ave and vice versa. It would be a mess.

I'm not sure about that. Marchand Ts into Shady, and Shady already curls up from there NE to Penn, and down from there SE to Fifth. A Marchand/East Liberty Blvd route to Penn might be useful to provide some additional capacity, particularly to people who happen to be coming right from the middle of Shadyside already, but I would think you would only need a few traffic-slowing measures in the new part to keep it from being a highly-desirable alternative.

And it is not like slightly more direct residential street alternatives to main street paths are a new thing around here.

Edit: BTW, as I recall it was really more a concern about people coming up Denniston, or over on Kentucky or Howe, and so on to connect through to Penn, rather than Marchand specifically, that the NIMBYs had in mind. And in fact I think there were some Ellis School people involved in those objections.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm sure it would increase traffic, the same way that secondary streets like Sarah Street are used as cuthroughs in the South Side. That's not a reason not to provide connectivity though. After all, without connectivity you only increase congestion on the main streets, and Penn around there is already pretty nightmarishly backed up.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure about that. Marchand Ts into Shady, and Shady already curls up from there NE to Penn, and down from there SE to Fifth. A Marchand/East Liberty Blvd route to Penn might be useful to provide some additional capacity, particularly to people who happen to be coming right from the middle of Shadyside already, but I would think you would only need a few traffic-slowing measures in the new part to keep it from being a highly-desirable alternative.

And it is not like slightly more direct residential street alternatives to main street paths are a new thing around here.

Edit: BTW, as I recall it was really more a concern about people coming up Denniston, or over on Kentucky or Howe, and so on to connect through to Penn, rather than Marchand specifically, that the NIMBYs had in mind. And in fact I think there were some Ellis School people involved in those objections.

I understand and to a pretty good extent agree with your points, but I'm not so sure that "connectivity" and "additional capacity" are what we should really want or need. Improvements to Marchand (and thus, Shady too) to serve as a more-traveled route and linking up with East Liberty Blvd make some sense from the air (notwithstanding those significant street improvements that it would require). But what would the real value in that be, and who would it really serve? In what numbers? Just as an alternate route to Shady? Why?... Shady Ave. is not a congested route at all. But it is guaranteed to be if such a new route was constructed. And if it was designed to not be a "highly-desirable alternative", then why even bother messing with things?

Shadyside is not ideal from a traffic flow/efficiency standpoint... nor should it be, in my opinion.

[BrianTH]

Personally, I would see it as a way to string together Larimer, BKSQ (and maybe eventually a redevelopment of The Village of Eastside), and central Shadyside (including the Highland and even Walnut commercial areas) without having to go up to Shady, or down to Fifth. I don't see it becoming a major route outside that limited scope, and that is not really going to be enough traffic to create a major flow. But conversely there is so much traffic already going through those Shady/Penn and Fifth/Penn intersections for other purposes that I think it would be nice to create a more direct alternative for local traffic.

I'm probably also being influenced by the fact that I happen to know there used to be a much more robust street grid in that area. In fact, I specifically know Denniston used to go all the way up to Penn, and Aurelia used to go all the way over to and then past Denniston to eventually meet up with Beechwood, which itself crossed Fifth and after intersecting Aurelia went up to Penn. So between Fifth and Shady you also used to be able to go west on Beechwood or west on Denniston to head into Shadyside.

In that sense, it is really just unnatural to me to have such a long stretch of Penn where no direct travel between Larimer on the one side and Shadyside on the other is possible. In fact, I see that as an unfortunate legacy of the East End's troubled post-WWII history.

In any event, it is hard for me to believe it is actually better to force all potential traffic along that axis up to Shady or down to Fifth. But it appears that is going to continue to be the plan anyway.

Shadyside is not ideal from a traffic flow/efficiency standpoint... nor should it be, in my opinion.

In general, Shadyside is well-connected to its neighbors. Does it really still need to wall itself off from Larimer specifically? I am dubious.

Edit: Plate showing how the streets used to work there, as described above:

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?view=entry;cc=maps;entryid=x-39v02p04

[BrianTH]

Still not at all a fan of this minimalist plan for the first development in the Lower Hill site, but this is one small piece of good news:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...at-Civic-Arena-site/stories/201501260167

The development will utilize large open floor plates to maximize efficiency. A park that will sit behind the L-shaped building also could be used for a possible expansion by the steelmaker at some point in the future.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Personally, I would see it as a way to string together Larimer, BKSQ (and maybe eventually a redevelopment of The Village of Eastside), and central Shadyside (including the Highland and even Walnut commercial areas) without having to go up to Shady, or down to Fifth. I don't see it becoming a major route outside that limited scope, and that is not really going to be enough traffic to create a major flow. But conversely there is so much traffic already going through those Shady/Penn and Fifth/Penn intersections for other purposes that I think it would be nice to create a more direct alternative for local traffic.

I'm probably also being influenced by the fact that I happen to know there used to be a much more robust street grid in that area. In fact, I specifically know Denniston used to go all the way up to Penn, and Aurelia used to go all the way over to and then past Denniston to eventually meet up with Beechwood, which itself crossed Fifth and after intersecting Aurelia went up to Penn. So between Fifth and Shady you also used to be able to go west on Beechwood or west on Denniston to head into Shadyside.

In that sense, it is really just unnatural to me to have such a long stretch of Penn where no direct travel between Larimer on the one side and Shadyside on the other is possible. In fact, I see that as an unfortunate legacy of the East End's troubled post-WWII history.

In any event, it is hard for me to believe it is actually better to force all potential traffic along that axis up to Shady or down to Fifth. But it appears that is going to continue to be the plan anyway.



In general, Shadyside is well-connected to its neighbors. Does it really still need to wall itself off from Larimer specifically? I am dubious.

Sure, I realize that the original grid was disrupted, and it would be more ideal to simply have streets like Marchand/Aurelia continue right through the Walnut Capital development with new townhomes/apts built accordingly... but we know that's not going to happen. I agree that better connectivity between Shadyside, Larimer, East Liberty, and ultimately Highland Park, would be a good thing overall in these East End neighborhoods, but I just don't see the East Liberty Blvd./Marchand St. as the preferable means of doing that... at least not without creating some major choke points (particularly at the Marchand-Shady T intersection and on Shady itself from Walnut to Penn) and causing a good bit of unnecessary neighborhood disruption.

If we're really looking for good connectivity that provides a more efficient flow (without bulldozing Calvary Church and a few blocks of homes), then we should continue Shady past where it Ts at Penn with a bridge over the tracks/busway to join with Broad (which is already built to handle traffic loads). This achieves not only connection with Larimer, but also Homewood.

[BrianTH]

Some speculation here about a possible apartment bubble in the higher end of the market, based on observing rent trends and all the projects in the pipeline:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...egion-s-real-estate/stories/201501270027

That is certainly possible, but I think there are other reasons to think if anything, we may still be behind the potential demand curve:

Of course the rent dynamics are themselves suggestive of that. It is when rents are plateauing or going down that you know supply is getting out ahead of demand.

The article also discusses the trend of Millenials delaying home buying. They may eventually get around to it, but if young people in general start buying their first home later in life on average (and there are lots of reasons that is a rational decision), that will permanently shift the overall distribution of housing units a bit more towards apartments, particularly at the higher end.

There is also the fact that Pittsburgh's core is particularly experiencing population growth among higher-income young people, which is still offsetting population decline among lower-income older people, and those are two very different housing market segments. Flippers are doing a good business renovating older homes these days which can sorta bridge that gap, but still, a young person wanting a nice newer housing unit with lots of on-site amenities is not necessarily going to be attracted to an older home even if it seems like a good deal financially in terms of monthly costs and such.

Finally, good urban locations are increasingly popular, and it is typically a lot easier to infill established urban areas with apartments than with houses (at least on a unit count basis).

So we'll see. But at the moment, I'm not at all convinced apartment developers are overdoing it, and I personally think they might still be underdoing it, notwithstanding what appears to be an increasingly wide gap between the costs of renting a really nice apartment versus buying a decent house.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Sure, I realize that the original grid was disrupted, and it would be more ideal to simply have streets like Marchand/Aurelia continue right through the Walnut Capital development with new townhomes/apts built accordingly... but we know that's not going to happen.

Yes, but largely because of NIMBYism. BKSQ 2.0 provided an opportunity to comprehensively restore a large portion of the original grid. I realize it isn't going to happen, but I don't have to like it.

I agree that better connectivity between Shadyside, Larimer, East Liberty, and ultimately Highland Park, would be a good thing overall in these East End neighborhoods, but I just don't see the East Liberty Blvd./Marchand St. as the preferable means of doing that... at least not without creating some major choke points (particularly at the Marchand-Shady T intersection and on Shady itself from Walnut to Penn) and causing a good bit of unnecessary neighborhood disruption.

I honestly don't see the problem. This is how Penn Avenue works all over the East End--there are some major cross streets, but also minor cross streets, all through Lawrenceville, Bloomfield/Garfield/Friendship, and Point Breeze/North Point Breeze. If you are really worried about East Liberty Boulevard being too popular, you could offset the new road from East Liberty Boulevard like Denniston used to be offset from Dahlem (Dahlem is what that part of East Liberty Boulevard used to be called). But personally I think that is not a real concern, at least for now--I use East Liberty Boulevard all the time as an alternative route, and it is never heavily used. Maybe if Larimer redevelopment really takes off, however, it could become a concern down the road.

As an aside, I think you are way too focused on Marchand. It is probably better to think of this as a connection to Denniston, which might happen to share a block of Marchand as it jogs (and you wouldn't have to have done it that way--you could have connected directly to the Denniston/Marchand intersection, for example). Traffic could then connect to or divert off this extended Denniston/East Liberty street along any of the cross streets--Aurelia, Marchand, Walnut, Howe, Kentucky, and finally Fifth.

If we're really looking for good connectivity that provides a more efficient flow (without bulldozing Calvary Church and a few blocks of homes), then we should continue Shady past where it Ts at Penn with a bridge over the tracks/busway to join with Broad (which is already built to handle traffic loads). This achieves not only connection with Larimer, but also Homewood.

That still doesn't solve the problem of there being no cross street along Penn anywhere between Fifth and Shady, and would just further add traffic to the Shady/Penn intersection, which does not need it.

If I was going to do something up there, I would actually continue Station Street from Broad (which I think is actually part of the Larimer redevelopment plan) over a bridge to a new street through the Village of Eastside to intersect Penn, and then cross Penn and continue along the back side of the Shakespeare strip mall lot to Aurelia. Of course all that could only be done if those two shopping plazas were being redeveloped.

Anyway, I think it is clear we have two competing visions here. One is to keep trying to funnel all the local NE to SW traffic in that area through either Shady or Fifth. The other is to try to restore a more grid-like system with multiple alternative paths, as exists along most of Penn.

And other than trying to cater to the NIMBYs in that corner of Shadyside who managed to (relatively recently) carve out what functions like a giant gated community plunked in the heart of what is now an actively redeveloping urban area, I don't really understand the appeal of the first vision.

[Private D]

Again, I don't disagree with your proposed design. But an East Liberty Blvd/Deniston connection to Fifth isn't going to happen. Plowing through the Village of Shadyside isn't going to happen (although we'd all like to see it). And rebuilding the grid by connecting Aurelia and Marchand to an extended Beechwood Blvd through the park is not going to happen. I agree that the long stretch of Penn between Shady and Fifth, without any connections to and between Shadyside and Larimer is awkward and creates traffic issues. An East Liberty Blvd/Denniston connection to Fifth would definitely make sense and so would a usable Putnam St connecting Penn and Fifth (Ellis School seems to somehow have built right on top of it over the years to make sure that never happens). I just don't think we will ever see it happen in our lifetimes due to NIMBYism and lack of political will to challenge it there.

Extending Shady over the tracks to Broad is a potentially viable option to provide connection between the neighborhoods and will likely become necessary if TODs and other developments happen on adjacent parcels.

[BrianTH]

So I looked up the portion of households in the City that had $75,000+ in income as per the annual American Community Survey. Some quick notes: this first set is the 1-year estimates, so there is more sampling error. I also believe this is not adjusted for inflation. Finally, the total number of households in the City is relatively flat.

Anyway, it looks like this:

2005 16.4%
2006 16.4%
2007 19.5%
2008 21.1%
2009 22.1%
2010 20.8%
2011 21.1%
2012 25.5%
2013 26.3%

You can see what looks like a recessionary effect in 2009-2011, but otherwise that is a pretty powerful upward trend. Again, that sort of thing helps explain what is going on in the City's housing market these days.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Again, I don't disagree with your proposed design. But an East Liberty Blvd/Deniston connection to Fifth isn't going to happen. Plowing through the Village of Shadyside isn't going to happen (although we'd all like to see it). And rebuilding the grid by connecting Aurelia and Marchand to an extended Beechwood Blvd through the park is not going to happen.

Nope, not going to happen, I agree.

However, what could still happen, very easily, is a connection through to an improved Social Way/Renning/Marchand(spur) to Denniston. Again it looks to me like improving Social Way/Renning/Marchand(spur) is already on the agenda, since some of the townhouses seem to have drives on that stretch. And it also looks like they have set up the terminus of the internal street to allow opening that connection to Social Way in the future.

All that is far short of ideal--with such a winding path it probably wouldn't be used by anyone but BKSQ folks with any frequency--but I think it would be better than nothing.

Meanwhile, that other street idea I discussed should still be an option if and when we get around to redeveloping the shopping plazas.

Extending Shady over the tracks to Broad is a potentially viable option to provide connection between the neighborhoods and will likely become necessary if TODs and other developments happen on adjacent parcels.

There should definitely be a bridge over to Broad some day. I still like my proposal a bit better, but Shady would be OK too, particularly if it circled on from there to connect to East Liberty Boulevard.

[eschaton]

This is somewhat disappointing to see. One of the classic 19th century storefronts on Market Street turned into rich person residential.

The listing is a bit unclear if it is one house, or as three units. The building was subdivided according to zoning, with the rear parcel (not included) a single family house and the front portion seemingly a three-unit building. But the description makes it sound like it's being marketed to homeowners (only mentions one kitchen, one sun room, etc).

If it's actually a three-unit building, it's not a huge loss, but it's a shame that the historic storefronts will be used as garages. If it's actually a 3,200 square foot single-family house it's a travesty which shouldn't have been approved by zoning. Either way, it will make it that much harder to build up walking density on that block, which has many old storefronts in fine shape which are still essentially vacant.

[Private D]

This is across the street from Froggy's. It's been under renovation/construction for awhile. From the street, it looks like it has multiple units.

Keep in mind that many of these buildings functioned as warehouses, light industrial, and other types of stevedoring facilities related to the Mon Wharf. Many of them have had some type of garage bay on the ground floor and were never really traditional storefronts.

[photoLith]

Im just glad theyre preserving it, those buildings are fairly old, 1840's-60s I believe.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Im just glad theyre preserving it, those buildings are fairly old, 1840's-60s I believe.

I agree. I thought they did a nice job and now presumably that building is safe for many years to come.

Now if only someone would take on the former Froggy's building and the awesome Lowman-Shields Rubber Company building next door.

[AaronPGH]

I really can't believe nobody has brought Froggy's back as a bar/restaurant, especially considering the downtown food boom going on.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is somewhat disappointing to see. One of the classic 19th century storefronts on Market Street turned into rich person residential.

The listing is a bit unclear if it is one house, or as three units. The building was subdivided according to zoning, with the rear parcel (not included) a single family house and the front portion seemingly a three-unit building. But the description makes it sound like it's being marketed to homeowners (only mentions one kitchen, one sun room, etc).

If it's actually a three-unit building, it's not a huge loss, but it's a shame that the historic storefronts will be used as garages. If it's actually a 3,200 square foot single-family house it's a travesty which shouldn't have been approved by zoning. Either way, it will make it that much harder to build up walking density on that block, which has many old storefronts in fine shape which are still essentially vacant.

I like it. I want to live there but my funds are a little bit short.

[markson33]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I really can't believe nobody has brought Froggy's back as a bar/restaurant, especially considering the downtown food boom going on.

The building has serious issues. Also the owner is not terribly motivated. He basically controls the entire block.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I really can't believe nobody has brought Froggy's back as a bar/restaurant, especially considering the downtown food boom going on.

Yeah... I guess maybe it's a bit out of the way for the "foodie" scene... but Froggy's sure used to pack them in. That was a fun place with a diverse, good-looking, interesting crowd.

[eschaton]

Just checked again. It does look like 103 Market is a separate parcel which is a one-unit house. 101 Market is the one still listed as a three-unit. So that particular unit is effectively a four-story rowhouse with a integral garage.

I do agree with the preservationist sentiments around this building. It's good that it's been restored and will be safe for the foreseeable future, being turned into (presumably) three houses. It's just that while the First Avenue corridor is a pretty sleepy side of Downtown, I just don't see what's effectively rowhouses as a great for the CBD. Great anywhere else in town of course, but not so much here, where we should be seeing condo units or apartments.

$2 million for a house downtown is a lot of cheddar. I expect that whoever buys it will be able to have some pull. I guess my deepest fear, thinking about it more, is they may really *like* being on such a quiet block, to the point there will be a very small (but very rich) constituency who will actively try to defeat any attempts to have the vacant storefronts in the immediate area converted to more "active" uses. Meaning it makes it more likely Firstside stays a sleepy little side of Downtown. Not the end of the world of course. And probably good in some ways, because I'm also guessing they'll be a force to stop nearby historic buildings from getting demolished. But still not an ideal outcome.