PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[JVC]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

adding surface parking lots are like the opposite of what you want, in that respect. your dread "bike lobby" is literally making your city more economically competitive

when a person gets filthy rich from selling their startup to google, their first thought is not where can i live that has a bike-sharing service. their first thought is what fabulous city on the coast can i move to - new york, san francisco, miami, los angeles, etc.

as soon as carnegie and frick became filthy rich they immediately moved to the upper east side and that was at a time when pittsburgh had a lot more density and public transportation than it does now

comparing pittsburgh to san francisco is like comparing liverpool to london

Originally Posted by eschaton

The surface parking lots were already there BTW. This site was the nexus of several urban car dealerships originally. The new dense development around this intersection, even if it has some limitations, is a big step forward.

exactly right -technically there was a one-story natural food store where the auxiliary parking lot is now but it was a throwaway structure
http://tinyurl.com/ogaunfb

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by JVC

when a person gets filthy rich from selling their startup to google, their first thought is not where can i live that has a bike-sharing service. their first thought is what fabulous city on the coast can i move to - new york, san francisco, miami, los angeles, etc.

Exactly how many people per year in Pittsburgh pull something like this off? I can't think of many lower priorities than retaining maybe the 2-5 people each year that would do this.

For comparison, I know at least 6 personal friends who moved here from DC, NYC, and SF in the last few months because those cities are no longer attainable. This is who we should be (and *are*) attracting. These are the people that start to build new things, instead of cashing out.

[JVC]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Exactly how many people per year in Pittsburgh pull something like this off? I can't think of many lower priorities than retaining maybe the 2-5 people each year that would do this.

given the extreme computer science talent that comes out of CMU every year one would think the number would be a lot higher, but when you take into account those graduates were likely from out of state to begin with and this city isn't glamorous enough to get them to stick around the low number makes much more sense

[MattofSloppyVariety]

The building on Bates St leading towards the Parkway has been torn down. Not sure if it held and significance but I do remember that there was a banner on the side of it at one time stating it was the Cole Building.

Bates St feels really empty now.

[themaguffin]

I guess to avoid being ignored, larger fonts are used, but it just makes it easier to skip.

[TBone7281]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I guess to avoid being ignored, larger fonts are used, but it just makes it easier to skip.

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. The joys of having him on "ignore".

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. The joys of having him on "ignore".

Just added now. The ridiculous idiocy officially went over the top.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MattofSloppyVariety

The building on Bates St leading towards the Parkway has been torn down. Not sure if it held and significance but I do remember that there was a banner on the side of it at one time stating it was the Cole Building.

Bates St feels really empty now.

Bates Street is one of the areas the City has zoned "hillside," which basically means the city wants to strongly disincentivize the construction of anything there other than very sparse single-family housing, essentially allowing the corridor to return to nature.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Bates Street is one of the areas the City has zoned "hillside," which basically means the city wants to strongly disincentivize the construction of anything there other than very sparse single-family housing, essentially allowing the corridor to return to nature.

And in the future, making it all the better for an aerial gondola route!

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

Just added now. The ridiculous idiocy officially went over the top.

Same here. He's a pretty clever troll – baits you with one or two semi-reasonable posts and then lets loose with the stupidity once you've bitten. Bye felicia.

[Evergrey]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...nc-to-continue-to-anchor-nova-place.html

Report: PNC to continue to anchor Nova Place

Jul 28, 2015, 12:15pm EDT



Faros Properties can count on one major ingredient as it works to redevelop Allegheny Center into Nova Place on the North Side: The presence of PNC Financial Services Group Inc. as a major anchoring tenant at the 1.2 million square foot facility.

A recent quarterly office report by the Pittsburgh office of CBRE notes that PNC recently committed to renewing its office presence at the North Side complex.

PNC doesn’t comment on its leases as a corporate policy. CBRE represents the leasing at Nova Place but deferred comment.

But the size of PNC’s (NYSE: PNC) commitment says plenty.

...

[BrianTH]

I'm glad they have an anchor tenant, but that is not exactly the sort of Silicon Valley-style tenant they seemed to be talking about.

Overall I am prepared to be underwhelmed. I was hoping for a more radical transformation, and while I am sure it will be fine, this is coming across as not nearly as ambitious as the headlines (and perhaps budget) would lead one to expect.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm glad they have an anchor tenant, but that is not exactly the sort of Silicon Valley-style tenant they seemed to be talking about.

Overall I am prepared to be underwhelmed. I was hoping for a more radical transformation, and while I am sure it will be fine, this is coming across as not nearly as ambitious as the headlines (and perhaps budget) would lead one to expect.

Would it be better if Faros evicted PNC Mortgage from the 400k sq ft they occupy (1/3 of the facility) because they aren't a Silicon Valley startup?

Seems pretty silly... 1.2M sq ft is a lot of space to fill with Silicon Valley-style tenants... PNC Mortgage at least gives Faros quite a bit of stabilization and credibility for the property. Losing PNC would've made it monumentally more difficult for Faros to transform this property into their vision.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by JVC

when a person gets filthy rich from selling their startup to google, their first thought is not where can i live that has a bike-sharing service. their first thought is what fabulous city on the coast can i move to - new york, san francisco, miami, los angeles, etc.

as soon as carnegie and frick became filthy rich they immediately moved to the upper east side and that was at a time when pittsburgh had a lot more density and public transportation than it does now

comparing pittsburgh to san francisco is like comparing liverpool to london
http://tinyurl.com/ogaunfb

Bike sharing doesn't attract billionaires but it does attract talented and educated millennials who increasingly enjoy urban living. They form startups and make up the tech culture and population that attracts other high tech companies.

I moved here from Denver and stayed after obtaining a masters from CMU's school of computer science. Why did I stay? That's the question to be asking. Repeat my scenario for a few more years and Pittsburgh will have an employee base attracting the best companies. We are already clearly headed down that path.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

1.2M sq ft is a lot of space to fill with Silicon Valley-style tenants.

Especially on the north side. I doubt the Pittsburgh tech scene will stray far from the east end in the foreseeable future.

[Minivan Werner]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Bates Street is one of the areas the City has zoned "hillside," which basically means the city wants to strongly disincentivize the construction of anything there other than very sparse single-family housing, essentially allowing the corridor to return to nature.

Why is that? I would think they'd want to encourage development/redevelopment in all corners of the city aside from, like, city parks.

[dfiler]

Filling every square inch of land with structures should probably not be our default goal.

Though, i'm unsure of the city's specific motivation for not wanting development on hillsides. The slopes along Bates might be worth developing but that isn't a good assumption to start with.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

Why is that? I would think they'd want to encourage development/redevelopment in all corners of the city aside from, like, city parks.

The decision was made, IIRC, back in 2002 when the City's population was still in rapid decline. There are a couple different issues here.

1. The houses often cost more for the City to maintain (offering road, water, and street lights) than they ever get out in taxes.

2. Modern construction has much more stringent requirements regarding engineering and water runoff than the "grandfathered" houses. Hence the City doesn't generally want anything but sparse residential.

3. In some cases, further development would mar the natural beauty of our hillsides in prominent view. Think of Arlington Avenue winding up to Mount Washington, or the front side slopes of Perry Hilltop and Fineview.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

Why is that? I would think they'd want to encourage development/redevelopment in all corners of the city aside from, like, city parks.

My understanding of it is that a lot of places in the city are so steep that modern municipal codes make construction and road maintenance very difficult.

Because of this difficulty, these hillside parcels (besides those with good views - like Mt. Washington and S.S. Slopes) are never going to be invested in properly. So we are faced with a choice, have a city with clusters of nice urban neighborhoods separated by poorly kept and unattractive buildings in areas that are extremely difficult and expensive to maintain, or have a city with clusters of nice urban neighborhoods separated by trees and greenery that costs almost nothing to maintain (also allowing us to stop upkeep on awkward side roads in these areas). I, personally, really like the sound of the second option.

[Evergrey]

I'd rather see streets like "Bates" return to nature... the buildings along those types of streets are often quite ugly and Appalachian-creepy.