PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I like it! It would definitely complement Skyvue, and has a nice mass to it.

Now if they could do something about that Arby's . . .

You mean like make it even bigger... maybe a 2-story Arby's?

In my opinion, all buildings should have an Arby's Context. Actually, why stop at buildings??... Life in general should have an Arby's Context.

If anything, that Forbes Ave. Arby's needs a Drive-Thru, so I can get my fine cuts of meat while on the move! Don't mess with my roast beef man!

[BrianTH]

They could give it a Point Park Playhouse-style stretch . . .

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Ohhh yeahhhh!!

Tallest Arby's in the world! My mouth is watering even more for a big double beef and cheddar... good thing it's almost lunchtime.

[BrianTH]

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Can you imagine the penthouse views from that bun?!?

[Private Dick]

You're killin me man! Now I'm gonna have to go back tomorrow for lunch AND dinner. I usually try to only do Arby's 4 days a week (you know, for health reasons), but man I can't resist. I'm just going to print that out and tell them to make me one of these super cheesy beef monsters!

[BrianTH]

Century III may be partially "de-malled", which apparently means converting some of it to a strip mall, and redeveloping some of it into mixed-used:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...wants-to-slim-down-century-iii-mall.html

Draft site plan:

http://www.moonbeamproperty.com/Media/Index/SiteMap/05667d5879dc4a9b8741e792d671ed2b

Looks like they also have plans for more small outparcel developments.

Overall, it is sort of a mixed bag in my view--whether it really counts as an improvement will probably depend on the mixed-use phase.

[BrianTH]

Faros is still buying Pittsburgh properties:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...buys-another-property-in-pittsburgh.html

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

You mean like make it even bigger... maybe a 2-story Arby's?

In my opinion, all buildings should have an Arby's Context. Actually, why stop at buildings??... Life in general should have an Arby's Context.

If anything, that Forbes Ave. Arby's needs a Drive-Thru, so I can get my fine cuts of meat while on the move! Don't mess with my roast beef man!

I like the massing. As usual nowadays, the façade appears to be cheap pre-fab paneling but I'd be happy to see Oakland get more density. I've always wondered why there wasn't more mid rise infill in Oakland. It seemed perfect for it. I guess the economics just weren't there. Bring back the Chelsea?!

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Bring back the Chelsea?!

If I recall correctly, the site was eventually acquired by a student housing firm out of NYC who plan apartments. Haven't heard anything for several months.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Urbana

If I recall correctly, the site was eventually acquired by a student housing firm out of NYC who plan apartments. Haven't heard anything for several months.

Yeah, lots of plans. Not a lot of diggin...

[BrianTH]

Interesting overview of Market Street Grocery:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...nd-unusual-products/stories/201505280096

Not surprisingly, perhaps, it sounds like prepared foods is going well, and grocery is requiring some tweaking. It looks like in many areas they are going to focus even more on higher-end and/or local(ish) products.

All this is fine for a store trying to fill gaps around the commodities available in drug and convenience stores. But it does suggest to me there might still be a market (now or at least in the future) for a more traditional urban-format grocery.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I've always wondered why there wasn't more mid rise infill in Oakland. It seemed perfect for it. I guess the economics just weren't there.

I could be wrong, but I think the issue is that much of Oakland is divided between small-time slum...er...landlords, who use the cash flow of their properties to support themselves. Given the highly fragmented nature of ownership, and high value of even dilapidated Oakland rental housing, it's difficult to piece together enough parcels for new high-density redevelopment.

That said, this higher-density infill is in some senses the best possible thing which could happen to Oakland. Adding more units will stop pressure on converting the remaining single-family homes in the neighborhood into apartments, and might over time lessen the "student slum" effect - hopefully making Oakland a more attractive place for professionals working there, and not just students.

That said, I have to wonder if Oakland densifying will result in lowered rental demand to a degree elsewhere in the East End. This wouldn't be entirely bad of course - there's lots of neighborhoods like Bloomfield where people would like to buy but too many units are tied up in rental stock now. But it could spark wider changes across the city.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

That said, I have to wonder if Oakland densifying will result in lowered rental demand to a degree elsewhere in the East End. This wouldn't be entirely bad of course - there's lots of neighborhoods like Bloomfield where people would like to buy but too many units are tied up in rental stock now. But it could spark wider changes across the city.

Those statistics above about the rapid growth of the above-$75,000 population, and other similar sorts of statistics involving young professionals, students, and so on, suggest that the market should be able to continue to absorb a pretty healthy flow of new units as long as such trends continue. Of course not all of those people want to live in the East End, but conversely the more new units you add places, the more investment you tend to get in related amenities, infrastructure, places of employment, and so on. In that sense demand for residential tends to build on itself.

Still, obviously at some point a high enough rate of new units coming to market would exceed the capacity of the market to absorb them. However, as of now I think it is possible we are actually still below that rate, maybe way below, such that even further increases in activity will not get us to that point. So personally, I wouldn't count on the demand pressure being taken off existing units in well-located neighborhoods in Bloomfield any time soon.

Indeed, although I would not call it a crisis, we are seeing rent and home price increases at least as far out as Wilkinsburg, which I suspect are driven at least in part by people starting to look for more affordable alternatives to various East End neighborhoods which have moved up sharply price. So I think that shows that this is really a very big effect, which in turn implies that it might not be easily reversed.

Edit: By the way, to provide a little more detail on those statistics, in gross terms, Pittsburgh slotted right between Philly and Chicago in terms of increase in +$75,000 households from 2010 to 2013:

+37,890 - Philadelphia
+34,290 - Pittsburgh
+31,441 - Chicago

These days we are used to Pittsburgh scoring well in terms of percentage trends and such, but that ranking in gross terms is really pretty astonishing when you think about. And it would not be crazy to think that Pittsburgh should, in certain market segments, be seeing around the same amount of construction activity as Philly or Chicago (again, in gross, not percentage, terms).

I'm not entirely sure what that would look like, but I think it is a good bet we are not there yet.

[BrianTH]

Power of 32 is activating their $49M "patient loan" investment fund under the leadership of the Allegheny Conference:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ne...ference-helps-launch-new-49-million.html

http://www.p32sitefund.com/

The basic idea is to provide gap financing for site development (with a preference for brownfield development) throughout the 32 counties that make up their definition of a Greater Pittsburgh region:



It will be interesting to see what gets funded.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I could be wrong, but I think the issue is that much of Oakland is divided between small-time slum...er...landlords, who use the cash flow of their properties to support themselves. Given the highly fragmented nature of ownership, and high value of even dilapidated Oakland rental housing, it's difficult to piece together enough parcels for new high-density redevelopment.

That said, this higher-density infill is in some senses the best possible thing which could happen to Oakland. Adding more units will stop pressure on converting the remaining single-family homes in the neighborhood into apartments, and might over time lessen the "student slum" effect - hopefully making Oakland a more attractive place for professionals working there, and not just students.

That said, I have to wonder if Oakland densifying will result in lowered rental demand to a degree elsewhere in the East End. This wouldn't be entirely bad of course - there's lots of neighborhoods like Bloomfield where people would like to buy but too many units are tied up in rental stock now. But it could spark wider changes across the city.

Yes that is correct as far as I can tell. Of course, all the big developments tend to happen near Fifth/Forbes not South Oakland anyway.

[BrianTH]

Another Century III mall article:

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/8458529-74/mall-moonbeam-century#axzz3bUUTOk9g

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Yes that is correct as far as I can tell. Of course, all the big developments tend to happen near Fifth/Forbes not South Oakland anyway.

I remember reading somewhere in the past year there has not been a single new apartment building built in North Oakland since the 1970s, which is pretty astounding when you consider the desirability and density of the area. Of course, with Pittsburgh's economy tanking in the 1980s, it makes sense that apartment building would grind to a halt - why build more units for students and professionals if there are plenty of vacant units in historic structures available as those not attached to the "new economy" of Oakland bail?

Still, it has reached saturation point, which is why I think things are shifting. I honestly don't understand why students are now living in the far southern reaches of South Oakland as it is (streets like Lawn and Frazier), as it's not particularly walkable to campus, and probably a quicker commute overall if you lived outside of Oakland somewhere near the 71 or the East Busway.

[BrianTH]

Whatever happened to that project at Zulema?

[SWPA]

I can think of at least two apartment buildings in the North Oakland area that were built in the the 1980s and 90s: the big one on Dithridge across the street from the Greek Orthodox cathedral and the high-rise on North Bellefield (forget what it's called). Even with those two, it's not much.