PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nice article on the new art bike racks Downtown:

http://www.nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/11-artist-designed-bike-racks/

Me and my girl spotted a couple of these during light up night. They are very cool. She liked them.

[AFW523]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

The one thing that doesn't seem right to me about the BIG plan is the price tag. For the size and number of buildings they have proposed I don't think it could be built for anywhere near $500 million (I know they say $500+). To me it looks like a billion dollars or more. I'm wondering if the Danish firm doesn't know how expensive construction companies in the US are?

It wouldn't be the first time a project quote was suppressed to make it seem more palatable. I have to imagine a firm putting up a 1,300'+ tower in lower Manhattan has a grasp on the financing component, as well as the political foresight to get their project past the point of no return. My concern would be the project getting value engineered to meet the $ target, as opposed to squabbling over who eats cost overruns.

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I personally don't think within 20 years time you will see stuff being built now demo'ed for better quality construction much. More like developers will focus on whatever empty lots and land remain or renovate nicer, older buildings. Even junk construction tends to last at least 50 years like certain mid-century shit buildings from the 50s-70s.

My criticism isn't that the buildings are so poorly built that they will naturally collapse upon themselves (how sweet that would be), but rather that the recent trends and forecasts of increased shifts to city centers will shine a spotlight on how underutilized these parcels become, thus putting them in the bullseye for demo and rebuilds to suit the market. At a certain point, these tracts of land immediately adjacent to town (North Shore, Strip, Station Square, West Carson) will become too valuable to house three-story structures. This is an admittedly optimistic hope that we are going to reverse the trend of the previous decades distance/time trade offs.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I personally don't think within 20 years time you will see stuff being built now demo'ed for better quality construction much. More like developers will focus on whatever empty lots and land remain or renovate nicer, older buildings. Even junk construction tends to last at least 50 years like certain mid-century shit buildings from the 50s-70s.

Within the last few years, a junk modern building was (mostly) demolished for the new Homewood Suites. It looks like the same thing will happen to most of the building Eleven is in as well (which isn't new construction, but is otherwise pretty similar in shape/scale). So if demand is high enough, these buildings can vanish fast.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by AFW523

My criticism isn't that the buildings are so poorly built that they will naturally collapse upon themselves (how sweet that would be), but rather that the recent trends and forecasts of increased shifts to city centers will shine a spotlight on how underutilized these parcels become, thus putting them in the bullseye for demo and rebuilds to suit the market. At a certain point, these tracts of land immediately adjacent to town (North Shore, Strip, Station Square, West Carson) will become too valuable to house three-story structures. This is an admittedly optimistic hope that we are going to reverse the trend of the previous decades distance/time trade offs.

I think Pittsburgh's tiny highway system with no room to expand along with the large number of people choosing to live in the city which will then create exponential more demand WILL fill out all of these vacant parcels especially near the rivers. And yes, the quality will increase with demand.
The nicer the city gets the faster the pace suburbanites will move back too. Once it takes 1.5 hours to get into the city from the North Hills or any other suburbs and the commuters also see how nice the city has been renovated they will ask themselves "Why do I live so far out?"

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AFW523

At a certain point, these tracts of land immediately adjacent to town (North Shore, Strip, Station Square, West Carson) will become too valuable to house three-story structures.

For what it is worth, I believe the Homewood Suites in the Strip replaced a relatively recent low-rise structure, so it is not unprecedented.

[Edit: already noted above]

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

The one thing that doesn't seem right to me about the BIG plan is the price tag. For the size and number of buildings they have proposed I don't think it could be built for anywhere near $500 million (I know they say $500+). To me it looks like a billion dollars or more. I'm wondering if the Danish firm doesn't know how expensive construction companies in the US are?

The materials say they consulted with U.S. construction firms, and they also specifically argued they thought they could bring this project on budget despite how expensive it looks.

I'll admit I am skeptical about that budget as applied to the whole development. But hopefully the upper residential portion can be done basically on budget, and then I think the financing for the lower part could become available over time.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The materials say they consulted with U.S. construction firms, and they also specifically argued they thought they could bring this project on budget despite how expensive it looks.

I'll admit I am skeptical about that budget as applied to the whole development. But hopefully the upper residential portion can be done basically on budget, and then I think the financing for the lower part could become available over time.

But I wonder if they play the same budget games that contractors play where they underbid the project in order to be selected and then while under construction the numbers skyrockets.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

But I wonder if they play the same budget games that contractors play where they underbid the project in order to be selected and then while under construction the numbers skyrockets.

That is certainly possible. My hope is just that the residential phase gets built, and even if over budget in the end, it still proves a big success.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I think Pittsburgh's tiny highway system with no room to expand along with the large number of people choosing to live in the city which will then create exponential more demand WILL fill out all of these vacant parcels especially near the rivers. And yes, the quality will increase with demand.

The nicer the city gets the faster the pace suburbanites will move back too. Once it takes 1.5 hours to get into the city from the North Hills or any other suburbs and the commuters also see how nice the city has been renovated they will ask themselves "Why do I live so far out?"

I think this is overly optimistic. To broadly simplify, there are two kinds of middle-class suburbanites in the modern era:

1. People who like city living, but don't think that the city is "family friendly" enough - often because of perceptions regarding schools. These people can be won back, but it will require massive middle-class buy-in to the PPS again. Or waiting it out until they're empty nesters.

2. People who genuinely prefer the suburbs for various reasons, often because they want to live in a large-lot suburban style house. Shorter commutes simply will not win these people over.

I do think things will continue to shift over time, but I think this is more due to changing generational preferences than anything. Cities retain 28 year old newlyweds much better than they did 10-20 years ago, but it's not like they're really attracting a lot of settled 50 year old couples with teenagers away from the suburbs.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think this is overly optimistic. To broadly simplify, there are two kinds of middle-class suburbanites in the modern era:

1. People who like city living, but don't think that the city is "family friendly" enough - often because of perceptions regarding schools. These people can be won back, but it will require massive middle-class buy-in to the PPS again. Or waiting it out until they're empty nesters.

2. People who genuinely prefer the suburbs for various reasons, often because they want to live in a large-lot suburban style house. Shorter commutes simply will not win these people over.

I do think things will continue to shift over time, but I think this is more due to changing generational preferences than anything. Cities retain 28 year old newlyweds much better than they did 10-20 years ago, but it's not like they're really attracting a lot of settled 50 year old couples with teenagers away from the suburbs.

Well there's a lot of different family scenarios but I think more than just young, single people will eventually return to the city. Even i've been surprised with the number of baby boomers that are interested in city living.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Well there's a lot of different family scenarios but I think more than just young, single people will eventually return to the city. Even i've been surprised with the number of baby boomers that are interested in city living.

I think cities do much better at retaining young single people than they used to. The social norm used to be that either young professionals left the city after college/grad school, or left after they got married and bought a "starter home" in the suburbs with their spouse. Now not only are they getting married later, but they will often stay in the City until their kids are school age at minimum. By the time their first kid is five, they may have had a solid 15-20 years living in urban areas, which makes them a lot more likely to find some way to try to continue figuring out how to do the urban living thing.

Regardless, the key isn't so much to attract more suburbanites to move into the city, it's to ensure that a smaller proportion of the urbanites who are getting older move out. Less people coming out the back door will by default mean the next influx of young people will be much more effective in causing increased population growth and demand.

[AaronPGH]

A friend close to things explained to me that BIG usually manages to make their visions happen because investors like to follow their projects around and fund them. They have a good track record.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think cities do much better at retaining young single people than they used to. The social norm used to be that either young professionals left the city after college/grad school, or left after they got married and bought a "starter home" in the suburbs with their spouse. Now not only are they getting married later, but they will often stay in the City until their kids are school age at minimum. By the time their first kid is five, they may have had a solid 15-20 years living in urban areas, which makes them a lot more likely to find some way to try to continue figuring out how to do the urban living thing.

Regardless, the key isn't so much to attract more suburbanites to move into the city, it's to ensure that a smaller proportion of the urbanites who are getting older move out. Less people coming out the back door will by default mean the next influx of young people will be much more effective in causing increased population growth and demand.

For every city resident there are 7.7 suburban residents in the Pittsburgh metro. That's why if even a percentage of them moved in it would make a big difference.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

A friend close to things explained to me that BIG usually manages to make their visions happen because investors like to follow their projects around and fund them. They have a good track record.

That's good news.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Regardless, the key isn't so much to attract more suburbanites to move into the city, it's to ensure that a smaller proportion of the urbanites who are getting older move out. Less people coming out the back door will by default mean the next influx of young people will be much more effective in causing increased population growth and demand.

I think there are actually a lot of points you can make a difference. Increasing the retention rate at the point at which young adults are aging and forming families is one such point, but even if all you did was push more young adults into the front of the pipeline and the retention rates remained the same percentage-wise, you'd still end up with more families and such because the same percentage of a higher base number is a higher number.

And then there is the empty-nester point of life. This is pure anecdote, but I know a couple who lived in Shadyside until they started having kids, and then they moved to Upper St. Clair. But now their two kids are high school age, and they are already starting to drag their kids to look at houses in Shadyside for when they are both in college.

And then there is the retirement point of life, which could come after the empty-nester point depending on when you had kids. The couple above had their kids in their late 20s and both work Downtown, so can still benefit from a shorter commute if they move back as empty-nesters. But there are other people who may not work in the City that would prefer to keep their commute as it is, but once they retire the lure of easy access to City amenities could become a lot stronger.

The point is that there are really many different opportunities to attract more people to cities, and all of them can work independently. And if you are actually doing all of them, then the effect can compound, particularly since a lot of the amenities that will follow can appeal to multiple types of people.

And personally, I very much believe all this is going to keep building on itself for the next generation or two, as the urban crime wave era that peaked in the early 1990s recedes farther and farther into the past.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

A friend close to things explained to me that BIG usually manages to make their visions happen because investors like to follow their projects around and fund them. They have a good track record.

Yeah, this seems to be their thing--funky, unusual designs that can actually get built. I'm actually still a little surprised that the Penguins and McCormack Baron Salazar hired them, but hopefully it was with the intent to actually carry through.

By the way, I've actually seen some push-back against BIG for maybe being TOO popular and having certain design themes (e.g., terracing, and shaping to the local terran/cityscape) that get repeated in their designs. The good news, though, is that means BIG really does have expertise in making these things actually happen.

[gg1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nice article on the new art bike racks Downtown:

http://www.nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/11-artist-designed-bike-racks/

I do like the new bike racks and as a long time resident of this region, it just has a feeling of progression. As the top 1% takes more and more, I think we need to realize that the middle and lower will just have less and less and cycling is a way to not only save a ton of money, but gets you in shape. The more cycling amenities the more young people will consider Pittsburgh, because they have massive debt to the bank/lobby mess from the start of their lives. Something that those of us on our 50's and older have trouble understanding. I have no idea how the young folks will start families and have a home, but maybe if they have a great job and don't mind increasing their debt ceilings as much as possible, they can have it like my generation did. The point being, the leaders need to recognize what the young people need and that is cheap transportation. Sure, we are just talking about bike racks, but it has a good feel about it.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, I've actually seen some push-back against BIG for maybe being TOO popular and having certain design themes (e.g., terracing, and shaping to the local terran/cityscape) that get repeated in their designs.

I think we need to keep the context in mind here. If a local architect had proposed designs like this, we would be falling over ourselves singing their praises. Of course, as a huge multinational firm, BIG is held to higher standards. But by recent Pittsburgh standards, this will probably be the best postwar design in the entire city.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Urbana

I think we need to keep the context in mind here. If a local architect had proposed designs like this, we would be falling over ourselves singing their praises. Of course, as a huge multinational firm, BIG is held to higher standards. But by recent Pittsburgh standards, this will probably be the best postwar design in the entire city.

Yeah, and I think this is coming from people who have seen multiple BIG projects in multiple cities, so Pittsburgh can handle getting one. And the nature of these designs is they are very contextual, so it won't look exactly like anything else they do anyway.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Gilamonster

Goodbye Saks:

Finally they tear down an ugly ass building instead of something beautiful and historic.