PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by psuhoops123

I always had a vision with replacing the Bayer sign with an enormous digital billboard so it can advertise any ads. I know the funding would be crazy along with maintenance but coming down from 279 into the city with a view of the skyline and bright billboard on the mount would be out of this world.

Yeah, that would be awesome!

There's nothing I like seeing more when coming into a city than advertisements on billboards.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Kind of...

Huh? The URA filed in court to block the sale to the high bidder:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...ourt-to-ensure-august-wilson-center.html

And Peduto was not shy about whose bid he favored:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...d-peduto-call-for-removal-of-august.html

There is really no "kind of" about what happened.

Well, AWC saga certainly wasn't your traditional competitive bidding process for a real estate development project

Again, huh? The receiver held a traditional bidding process. The hotel developer had the high bid. That could have been the end of the story, but then the politicians got involved.

... and it was not simply steered in favor of local political favoritism either.

Are you leaning on the word "simply" here? Of course Peduto et al had arguments for why the hotel developer's plan was a bad one and the foundation's bid should be favored. But local favoritism is almost always wrapped in some sort of rationalization, so again that is business as usual.

And of course the AA community never had a monolithic view on the issue -- it's not a monolithic group. The action definitely curried favor with an influential contingent, but that ultimately was not why the action was taken.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. As I would put it, Peduto was trying to serve the foundations' interest in taking over ownership of the building despite not being the high bidder. They found AA leaders to support their position, and claimed the AA community was behind them. Other AA leaders actually favored the hotel developer's plan, and to my knowledge there was never any polling or anything to determine which position actually had more support. But I think we agree that Peduto's real goal was to serve the foundations, and the claim he was also serving the AA community was just layered on top of his real concern.

Let's just say that if a different developer made the high bid, we'd likely see some sort of agreement in place and have a different outcome.

I have seen no evidence to support that view. All the arguments would have worked equally well against any sort of for-profit developer owning the building, and in favor of the foundations alone being the right buyer. So the simplest explanation for the observed behavior was that Peduto and his appointees in the URA wanted to steer ownership to the foundations, and they ultimately got what they wanted.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

All I said is that "The Peduto Administration did not kill the bid though. Peduto did the politically-smart thing by supporting the foundations' position".

Right, and I have pointed out that the court action filed by the URA did in fact end up killing the high bid. Whether that was politically smart--well, certainly steering ownership of very valuable property and development rights to your political friends is a long-standing tradition around here. I'm just pointing out that practice is at odds with his recent statements.

You make it sound as if it was the mayor's choice to simply grant the rights to the developer or to grant the rights to the foundations and everything would be settled. Like if the high-bidding developer was permitted to buy the foreclosed property from the bank, that would end it right there and we'd currently see a hotel under construction on top of it. That's preposterous... because it assumes the foundations and other interested parties would have just been like "ok, guess you can't win em all" and walked away... yeah right.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The basic facts are these. The receiver approved the high bidder. The court very likely would have as well if not for the intervention of the URA. That is because the foundations themselves had no legal argument to make. But the URA cited various covenants and rights of approval they claimed to possess, which put the high bidder's development rights in question. So without the URA jumping in, the foundations would have been powerless to stop the hotel developer from acquiring the property and proceeding.

Again, this was my point in bringing this up--there are almost always some sort of approvals or at least inactions required from the City and/or various City agencies for any major project. Peduto therefore has a lot of leverage to use. He chose to use it to knock out the high bidder for the AWC, but he has not chosen to use it to oppose the Playhouse or US Steel. But those are definitely choices he is making.

And again, if that high-bidder was an actual developer, we'd quite possibly see a different outcome. Having had close contact with the mayor's office for the past year and learning about some of the things involved in this case that we don't read about in the papers, I know enough to be glad the high-bidder is not involved. It definitely would not have been a positive development for the AWC, and I really don't think any of us on here would be too happy with the results.

Obviously I can't evaluate secret factual claims and arguments. But I will again note this is always what people say in defense of the closed-door approach--the people behind the closed doors know what is best, so don't question what they do. But just observing the results of many decades of closed-door governance around here, it is hard to believe that is true.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Terrain differences dictate that development can't really work in the West like it did in the East, but it does seem likely that sheer proximity to Downtown will lead to lots of infill development, say at least in the arc from McKees Rocks down to Carnegie (the Chartiers Belt?).

I agree overall. One area I think has promise, but problems, is Sheraden. Yes, right now it's on a more rapid decline than anywhere else in the city but Knoxville. But it has access to the West Busway, along with some of the best housing stock in the city portions of the West End. It would be nice if it had more of a business district, but it's not like anywhere in the West End (besides McKees Rocks/Stowe, and Carnegie if you call it the West End) has much of one.

Originally Posted by SlurmsMcKenzie

Is Banksville even considered west? I have always considered 376 and Greentree Rd. to be the delimiters between west and south. Banksville is also fairly isolated due to terrain and is blocked in by fairly solid residential in both sides.

Most of the eastern side of US-19 there is technically in Beechview regardless, which no one would consider to be part of the West End.

I honestly think its just called part of the West End here because it's in Theresa Kail-Smith's district.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Huh? The URA filed in court to block the sale to the high bidder. And Peduto was not shy about whose bid he favored:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...d-peduto-call-for-removal-of-august.html

There is really no "kind of" about what happened.

You said it was the Peduto Administration that killed the bid... then you said it was Peduto's appointees to the URA that killed the bid. And that is only partially (or kind of) true. The foundations were not going to let the sale happen and were the directors of the actions taken. But sure, there are certainly levers that the administration pulls to move things in the way they want.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, huh? The receiver held a traditional bidding process. The hotel developer had the high bid. That could have been the end of the story, but then the politicians got involved.

I'm saying it was certainly not a traditional situation -- this wasn't some gas station on the corner. And no, it doesn't seem like it would not have been the end of the story. The Foundations were not going to just let the sale to the NY developer happen without a long fight, if necessary. They exerted pressure in any way and in any place they could, including on the developer, to come to a settlement that gave them what they wanted.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Are you leaning on the word "simply" here? Of course Peduto et al had arguments for why the hotel developer's plan was a bad one and the foundation's bid should be favored. But local favoritism is almost always wrapped in some sort of rationalization, so again that is business as usual.

It seemed that you were suggesting that the Peduto Administration just steered the AWC into the foundations' hands since they couldn't win in a competitive bidding war (which is silly) with a small-time outfit. That wasn't the case... and the Administration was not doing the steering. I fully agree that local favoritism is going to be at play, and that we are always going to hear the rationalization for the "home team", when often that rationalization is directly tied to political relationships.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. As I would put it, Peduto was trying to serve the foundations' interest in taking over ownership of the building despite not being the high bidder. They found AA leaders to support their position, and claimed the AA community was behind them. Other AA leaders actually favored the hotel developer's plan, and to my knowledge there was never any polling or anything to determine which position actually had more support. But I think we agree that Peduto's real goal was to serve the foundations, and the claim he was also serving the AA community was just layered on top of his real concern.

Yes, I agree with this summation and don't think we're far off overall in that I was getting more to the bold point in your statement above. I know that it was more of a foundation-driven situation than a mayoral administration one... though the mayor's actions and words were certainly made with political ramifications in mind. While I don't think this situation is quite akin to other "favoritism" situations in the city, I do agree that still exists as business as usual and that the mayor should use the office's leverage in a manner that is not business as usual, like you describe.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I have seen no evidence to support that view. All the arguments would have worked equally well against any sort of for-profit developer owning the building, and in favor of the foundations alone being the right buyer. So the simplest explanation for the observed behavior was that Peduto and his appointees in the URA wanted to steer ownership to the foundations, and they ultimately got what they wanted.

Well, it's interesting that there was very little interest in the AWC from experienced real estate/hospitality development professionals, huh? Especially with all of the hotel development going on in the city, downtown in particular. I think that should tell us something right there.

There was heavy skepticism about the developer and their true intentions... initially, because they aren't a developer -- having never developed anything, much less a 200-room hotel built atop an existing building in a prime downtown area; and once the ordeal got underway, because their financing was not sound -- which prompted greater scrutiny of the bidder's history and partner makeup (there was some rather interesting stuff found out... or at least speculated about). The City and County administrations knew that it would be very difficult for the developer to get a major hotel brand to locate on the site without AWC/Foundation ownership of the center and their collaboration, and it became apparent that even after a lot of good lip service, the developer was more interested in the AWC because it was a distressed property (and the money they could make off of it) than they were in actually integrating the AWC into a luxury hotel development.

[Private Dick]

I think that I agree with you overall. To me it was more of a foundations-driven process in the AWC case than a mayoral one, but I fully understand what you're saying and it makes sense -- there most certainly was collaboration to kill the bid. I don't think I was ever really disagreeing with you, just presenting it a bit differently.

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yeah, that would be awesome!

There's nothing I like seeing more when coming into a city than advertisements on billboards.

Is seeing Giant lit up signage on top of Pgh's most prominent skyscrapers any different? At least it keeps the advertising where it belongs...On Billboards.

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by daviderik

Is seeing Giant lit up signage on top of Pgh's most prominent skyscrapers any different? At least it keeps the advertising where it belongs...On Billboards.

If its a giant super-bright electronic billboard in the same mold as what you commonly see along any highway...no. It would take away from our skyline and cast light down upon one of our dingiest stretches of road (West Carson between the bridges). I wouldn't mind if it was something akin to the old Westinghouse sign or Bayer sign. Something more old-school, distinctive, and classy could look good.

[GeneW]

There's not much that I would want to see less than a giant electronic billboard on top of Mt. Washington. That would be a horrible defacement of the hillside. The current sign has somewhat of a cool vintage vibe that I don't hate but I wouldn't be too upset if it went away. One of those evil flashy distracting animated billboards like the one next to the casino would really be the worst thing that I can think of for that space.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by daviderik

Is seeing Giant lit up signage on top of Pgh's most prominent skyscrapers any different? At least it keeps the advertising where it belongs...On Billboards.

If there's anything I hate more than giant, bland corporate text (e.g., UPMC, K&L GATES, BNY MELLON) on prominent buildings, it's giant billboards... particularly giant LED billboards at night.

I'll take my cities without giant flatscreen TVs glowing in the night sky, please.

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

If there's anything I hate more than giant, bland corporate text (e.g., UPMC, K&L GATES, BNY MELLON) on prominent buildings, it's giant billboards... particularly giant LED billboards at night.

I'll take my cities without giant flatscreen TVs glowing in the night sky, please.

Take that Times Square!

[Private Dick]

^ Not quite in the same league. New York is incomparable in this situation. Manhattan has the tremendous scale and Times Square has its purpose as a media center.

The Times Square billboards, etc. are certainly not visible on the Manhattan skyline, but rather dwarfed by the surrounding density of towers.

Giant glowing LED billboard screens scattered about on Pittsburgh's hills would be quite a different situation, don't you think?

[daviderik]

Yes, I advocated a similar project on the transportation center. I don't know anyone wanting video billboards scatterd on the hills surrounding downtown. One post stated (not me) that he would like the old Bayer sign on Mt' Washington converted in this way.
I did not come out in favor for that suggestion. But I am aware of a discussion in overhauling this sign but Bayer has back out of sponsoring the new sign. Never the less even if it was converted to a video, it is a far cry from one sign interrupting the skyline of Pgh. Again I don't even see this happening anyways.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by daviderik

Yes, I advocated a similar project on the transportation center. I don't know anyone wanting video billboards scatterd on the hills surrounding downtown. One post stated (not me) that he would like the old Bayer sign on Mt' Washington converted in this way.
I did not come out in favor for that suggestion. But I am aware of a discussion in overhauling this sign but Bayer has back out of sponsoring the new sign. Never the less even if it was converted to a video, it is a far cry from one sign interrupting the skyline of Pgh. Again I don't even see this happening anyways.

I know, sorry, didn't mean to insinuate that it was your suggestion. And I don't think that anyone wants illuminated billboards all over the hills downtown -- I just can get carried away in my descriptions sometimes...

As for the transportation center on Grant st... to me, it's just missing something.


It's just a weird construction that might not seem so odd if it were surrounded by buildings.

I think an LED billboard could help make it seem more vibrant, but I think it just kind of stands awkwardly on its own there. The intersection is a mess and not a pedestrian-friendly one... and across the street are little-used plazas at the Federated building and the old Penn Station, busway access, and the barren federal buildings'sides. It's really a pretty altogether awful area of downtown now that I think about it.

[psuhoops123]

Nvm then...

[daviderik]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I know, sorry, didn't mean to insinuate that it was your suggestion. And I don't think that anyone wants illuminated billboards all over the hills downtown -- I just can get carried away in my descriptions sometimes...

As for the transportation center on Grant st... to me, it's just missing something.


It's just a weird construction that might not seem so odd if it were surrounded by buildings.

I think an LED billboard could help make it seem more vibrant, but I think it just kind of stands awkwardly on its own there. The intersection is a mess and not a pedestrian-friendly one... and across the street are little-used plazas at the Federated building and the old Penn Station, busway access, and the barren federal buildings'sides. It's really a pretty altogether awful area of downtown now that I think about it.

Agreed. It's a giant uninspiring intersection near the convention center. Even though I have never been a fan of copying NYC. I could imagine a ticker tape/video screen could at least spark some interest in that area. And become a new gathering spot.

[TBone7281]

Even in alternate universes this didn't happen in Pittsburgh, but I still find Maglevs fascinating.

New Maglev World Record - 374 MPH

Back to our regularly scheduled Pittsburgh griping.

[Minivan Werner]

The transportation center would look a bit like Piccadilly circus if you put LED billboards across its facade. That's an improvement over its obvious-garage look right now.

[photoLith]

^
That would be sick.

[Evergrey]

more on the bike share program...

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/8123110-74/bike-share-program

...

The bicycles themselves are designed with safety in mind. Healthy Ride bikes will have heavy, puncture-proof tires, automatic pedal-powered lights and encased gears to prevent clothing snags. White said Pittsburgh's bikes are the first in the nation to have a seven-speed design, allowing riders to better navigate the city's hills.

“It's a pretty safe, utilitarian bicycle that's designed to take you where you really want to go,” White said. “By entering into the bike share market at this time, we as a city, are really poised to take advantage of the latest developments and advances in bike share.”

Pittsburgh's bike share will cost $2 per half hour. Monthly memberships cost $12 or $20 for unlimited 30- or 60-minute rides.

...

http://www.post-gazette.com/life/recreat...ttsburgh-next-month/stories/201504080189

...

“Pittsburgh is officially moving away from a history in which we prioritized cars moving people mostly out of the city, to a future in which we’re helping people move within our city,” said David White, Pittsburgh Bike Share executive director.

...

The bikes will feature chubby tires to tackle rough streets, a cushy seat to soften the ride, a front rack for carrying groceries, fenders to keep puddle spatter off riders’ clothes, front and rear lights for safety, step-through frames and seven gears to handle hills, Mr. White said.

Bikes will cost $2 per half-hour and can be returned at any of the self-service kiosks, with passes available for $12 for unlimited 30-minute rides per month and $20 for unlimited 60-minute rides per month.

Bikes will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Riders must be 18 years of age or older, and must provide their own helmets.

Each kiosk, which looks like a modern parking meter, has 20 docking stations where returning riders can lock up bikes and where a computer will register the return.

If all docking stations are full, riders can leave the locked bike near a station and notify customer service that it has been returned, he said. Only debit or credit cards currently are accepted, although plans for a system that also accepts cash is being developed, Mr. White said.

...

By providing a means of active, self-powered transportation, the program gives residents a chance to stay healthier by getting more exercise and chance to relieve stress — one of the reasons that Highmark chose to sponsor the program, according to Dan Onorato, the company’s executive vice president and spokesman.

“It’s a lot less expensive to keep people healthy than to treat them later in life because of obesity or inactivity,” Mr. Onorato said.

...