PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Small Business Administration loans are way up so far this fiscal year over last fiscal year:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...all-business-loan-activity-explodes.html

This probably goes along with the general upturn in economic activity that started last year, after a flat year from early 2013 to early 2014. Note there is both an increase in the number of loans and the average amount per loan, which has led to around a doubling in total amount.

The article also discusses a bit the shift in share from local banks to global, online, etc. banks. Big picture, it is pretty much always great when outside capital invests here (people will complain about profits being lost, but that is a small price to pay for additional capital investment).

[BrianTH]

The URA is hiring a DC consultant to do a new housing study for the Hill:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...d-development-economics-to.html?page=all

Potentially this is a good thing--the housing plan for the Lower Hill is extremely dated at this point, and I also do not have a problem with the idea of incorporating best practices for affordable housing (DC, in fact, does a lot of that).

My concern, however, is that this will be used as a vehicle to further reduce the planned density of the development. Logically that is the exact wrong thing to do if you want to maximize the total number of affordable units, but consultants can be encouraged to give you the answers you want, and one simple way to get a different answer is to focus on the percentage of affordable units rather than the total number of affordable units. That again makes no sense if providing affordable housing is truly your goal, but often people have different goals in mind.

[BrianTH]

Some interesting material from Chris Briem on immigation matters:

http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-again-pittsburgh-immigration.html

As I noted in the comments over there, I am disappointed in the flatlined LPR numbers for 2012 and 2013:



But I am hoping maybe those are just temporary effects (e.g., the circa 2013 regional slowdown that seems to have ended, or lag effects in LPRs specifically related to the Great Recession) and that we will return to growth soon.

One of the many reasons why a return to growth would be good is this:

https://twitter.com/chrisbriem/status/586369678836117505/photo/1



By a WIDE margin, immigrants to Pittsburgh have the highest college attainment percentage among U.S. metros. Now of course some of that is precisely because the overall rate of immigration here is low, but the ideal would be to continue to bring in a very positive mix of immigrants, while also growing the total rate of immigration.

[BrianTH]

Uh-oh:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...o-get-back-on-track/stories/201504100286

Seven months after selecting co-developers to convert the Strip District produce terminal into a marketplace and housing, the city of Pittsburgh is still trying to figure out how to make the plan work financially. In an interview last week, Mayor Bill Peduto said the parties involved were focused on “how to make the numbers work” in trying to merge what had been two competing visions for the Strip landmark. The city is counting on the housing to generate the money to make the project viable because the marketplace itself “does not have the revenue to be able to do it,” Mr. Peduto said. . . .

McCaffery had proposed converting the 1,533-foot-long Smallman Street terminal into housing with some retail and office space. Rubino had advanced a plan to turn the warehouse, once a hub for produce wholesalers, into a giant marketplace anchored by vendors specializing in close-out merchandise. . . . But just where Rubino stands with the city at this point is unclear. The city has had only limited contact with the developer since December. And it will be McCaffery, not Rubino, partnering with the URA and the city planning department to take part in a three-day design charette in Washington, D.C., this summer to discuss how the Pittsburgh terminal interacts with the five-block area surrounding it.

Sounds to me like the problem is Rubino's plans, while very attractive in many respects, are not financially self-sustaining, whereas McCaffery's are. This was sort of predictable, and I personally would be OK if this ended up being something they thought was worth looking into but just didn't pan out, meaning they would just move forward with McCaffery alone.

By the way, there was also this:

In addition to trying to make the accounting work for the redevelopment itself, Mr. Peduto said there is a need for an infusion of money to update the terminal, make public improvements around it, and “to be able to sustain the initial cost of creating this.” The city, he said, is talking to local foundations and the state about possible financial help in those areas. On the state side, it is seeking a $7 million state redevelopment capital assistance grant for public infrastructure improvements related to the project.

Government and foundation support for public infrastructure investment could be well worth it. As many here know, I really see tremendous potential for the area immediately around the Terminal becoming a vibrant public square, and it would be smart to invest in that sort of vision.

[BrianTH]

Nice that PAT's fare card is going online for payment, but why such a long processing time for online specifically?

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transpo...ts-for-ConnectCards/stories/201504100282

They are saying it is because the fareboxes on the buses need to be updated at the garage before online transactions will work, but why doesn't that apply to terminal transactions? Is that because you are carrying the information on the card instead?

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nice that PAT's fare card is going online for payment, but why such a long processing time for online specifically?

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transpo...ts-for-ConnectCards/stories/201504100282

They are saying it is because the fareboxes on the buses need to be updated at the garage before online transactions will work, but why doesn't that apply to terminal transactions? Is that because you are carrying the information on the card instead?

Yes, I think so. From how I understand it, up until now the amount has only been embedded in the card itself. You go to the kiosk, enter your money and the card and the kiosk puts an encrypted value on the card. Then when you paid by swiping the card over the pad on the pay station on the bus, it registered your payment and debited that value on the card. The card was the only thing that ever carried any credits.

Now the pay station on the bus or train has the extra feature of being able to add those extra credits to your card as you swipe it but because the buses aren't always on the network, they have to wait until they're in the garage to upload the records of those credit updates.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Now the pay station on the bus or train has the extra feature of being able to add those extra credits to your card as you swipe it but because the buses aren't always on the network, they have to wait until they're in the garage to upload the records of those credit updates.

Fair enough. If we are hitting the technological limits of the bus fareboxes, then I am OK dealing with the limits of this upgrade until they cycle out the fareboxes (rather than waiting for new fareboxes and only then doing online payment).

Edit: By the way, I used such a system in Chicago about 10 years ago, but don't remember if you also had to wait for the buses to go through the garage. It is entirely plausible you did. I guess expectations have changed a lot in 10 years.

[pyrohy]

I've talked to people in the Rubino's camp and their plans were solid. From their stories it appears Peduto wants no part in it and wants housing, he envisions 2k+ apartments and what not. Rubino's team made plenty of attempts to meet with the mayor to explain vision + outline, and he kept failing to meet. And Rubino's camp has some very well respected people who have been in the pittsburgh development scene for 30+ years.

I was trying to find it earlier but I heard McCaffery had previous affairs with Pittsburgh that did not go well and actually owed the city money, but that could be all nonesense and i couldn't find proof of claims.

I would rather see a market in the building. I have been to San Fransisco Ferry building and thats awesome, hope to check out Clevelands this spring. Pittsburgh half-assed on on Penn is bullshit, but whatevs.

Its awful the mayor wont support this project. its not about money, creative people and politicians can always find funds when needed (forreal they just are choosey on what is important). I wish there was a grass-roots movement to save the building and lay the foundation for a market, but it needs the city's support and blessing.

[BrianTH]

Hmm. If the Peduto Administration really wanted nothing to do with the Rubino proposal, they had the perfect opportunity after the independent analysis of the bids came back and the Rubino proposal scored the lowest:

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/ura-files/Produce_Terminal_Report_20140910.pdf

In fact, in blog comments and such, I have frequently seen the exact opposite accusation, namely that the Peduto Administation so favored Rubino that even though they scored the lowest, Peduto wanted to force McCaffery to work with them.

Personally, I have zero direct insight into what the Peduto Administration actually thinks about this. But I have long had serious doubts about turning all or even most of the Produce Terminal into retail/markets. It is just way too big to make that viable, and it always seemed to me the smart thing was to put retail/markets just into strategic locations (on the ends, and maybe in pass-throughs).

The thing is, McCaffery has always said they are flexible about that concept and willing to modify their plans. So what exactly is Rubino adding? I respect some of the conceptual work they did, but at the end of the day there are many qualified firms to work on a project like this.

Again, this is purely an outside perspective. But it does seem odd to me to suggest that the Peduto Administration bailed them out after the consultant report, only to then turn around and freeze them out anyway.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Uh-oh:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...o-get-back-on-track/stories/201504100286

Sounds to me like the problem is Rubino's plans, while very attractive in many respects, are not financially self-sustaining, whereas McCaffery's are. This was sort of predictable, and I personally would be OK if this ended up being something they thought was worth looking into but just didn't pan out, meaning they would just move forward with McCaffery alone.

I’ve been told that the among the financing issues facing the Terminal project is a growing concern that the historic restoration tax credits built into the McCaffery proposal could be threatened by the vehicular cut-outs, which would be deemed by the Feds as too severe an alteration of the facade. If the credits are disallowed, the project would not be stopped but it would become more expensive for the developer. That might be why Rubino is being nudged aside.

[BrianTH]

I know that has always been a concern, although I thought they had some preliminary conversations with some agencies about that issue, the gist of which was that it was likely a matter of exactly how it was done.

[markson33]

I've heard the same thing as Pyrohi - that the administration doesn't really have interest in Rubino's plan.

Both proposals have merit, although I think a mix of commercial and residential would be best. I would rather see restaurants or grocery than close-out merchandise. When I think of "close-out" the first thing I think of is Big Lots. I doubt that is their intention, but it is the connotation.

[photoLith]

So I was just in Larimer and wow there's a lot of construction going on. Even a long abandoned beautiful and historic school is being restored. That 30 million they got is really doing some good.

I've been inside this school many times to take photos of it and I can't believe its getting restored, I'm very glad it's not being torn down.

http://rutheh.com/2014/04/28/joan-used-t...ool-slated-to-become-affordable-housing/

[BrianTH]

Are they actually working on the school? If so that's very exciting--it is an incredible building. Some pictures courtesy of KBK (which I posted before):







Creepy but cool interior shots:

http://www.somethinghdr.com/category/larimer-elementary-school/

[daviderik]

I think I'm in Love

[photoLith]

Yes they are working on it, there was a guy there and he said it would be done in 18 months.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Yes they are working on it, there was a guy there and he said it would be done in 18 months.

That's fantastic. I even like that it will take a while--it implies they are taking some care.

[BrianTH]

Wilkinsburg's upcoming Vacant Home Tour (May 9) has attracted a lot of media attention:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/8083071-74/wilkinsburg-tour-properties#axzz3XBagaoVz

http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-blight-pittsburgh-wilkinsburg.html

Official site:

https://vacanthometour.wordpress.com/

The idea was based on the observation there are a lot of programs in place to help people acquire and renovate vacant homes, but those programs tend to be underutilized. Meanwhile, a lot of the vacant homes in places like Wilkinsburg have interesting stories. So, the idea for the tour is to have people available at the selected homes to tell their stories, and then other people available afterward to provide information about the programs available to help potential buyers.

It is an interesting idea, and I also think it is great to see Wilkinsburg really embracing the notion that its vacant properties need to be seen and promoted as opportunities, not just embarassments.

[Evergrey]

Took a long walk around town yesterday... everything feels brand new after that long, bleak winter. Loved seeing the vibrancy... more bikes than ever... this really is an amazing city for outdoors opportunities.

Walked from SSW to Station Square... it's really a shame how severely the Carson St. pedestrian experience deteriorates between 10th and Station Square. Wish we could string that vibrancy along and connect it Downtown.

I think that slender strip of the South Side between Station Square and 10th should be a strategic focus for redevelopment. It's currently squandered on parking lots, warehouses and decaying buildings... but would be a perfect area for high-density residential with its proximity to both Downtown and the South Side. It's so weird that this prime location exists as a forgotten twilight zone.

[photoLith]

I rode my bike all around town yesterday for about 5 hours, feels so good that its not winter anymore and those bike lanes downtown are heavily used, which is great. It's also great to see all the new development in The Strip. Dont know if this has been mentioned but that Buncher development area or whatever behind the Produce Terminal has a new road with street lights put in going across that entire parking lot now so its good to see a new street grid getting put in place. I was also in Wilkensburg last night and Larimer and there are so many abandoned houses, its riduculous and they are all beautiful, it would be such a horrible shame to see them get torn down.

Here's a few photos I took last night of Wilkensburg and Larimer.


There were loads of intact abandoned row houses in Larimer, hopefully these can get restored.


They just tore down a beautiful house next to this abandoned one in Wilkensburg...


And these apartments on the right I could have sworn were supposed to be getting restored by the Landmarks Commission, one of the roofs just completely collapsed, so I hope they can be saved, they are a few of my favorite buildings in the city.