PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Gilamonster]

Since affordable housing is a semifrequent topic discussed here, I thought I'd post this link to a very brief article. Disclaimer: it is not a Pittsburgh-centric article but this is a national concern.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-has-an-affordable-housing-crisis-2016-1

[eschaton]

New zoning report. Big news is developers have finally put in to convert 1627 Penn Avenue (the Penn Rose building) into apartments. Looks like they're asking for 72 units, which would add some nice density to the area.

Besides that, it's just bits and bobs. Five infill houses in East Liberty, two new art galleries, and stuff which isn't even worth reporting upon.

[SEFTA]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

New bridge is supposed to look like this:

http://www.billpeduto.com/wp-content/uploads/greenfieldbridge.pdf



In the PDF there is also a picture of the bridge before the last one, which is kinda cool.

I have heard they are also keeping the decorative posts on the ends--and from what I could tell they were not in fact demolished.

Edit: Here we go:

http://phlf.org/2013/02/01/beechwood-boulevard-greenfield-bridge-to-be-replaced/





Edit #2: Some materials relevant to the original decorations. Here is a sketch of the light fixtures:



Source:

http://gcapgh.org/2015/04/wanted-a-piece-of-history/

Old construction photo showing decorative elements:



Prior to the 1980 renovation:



Urn sitting in a garden near Station Square:

Thank you. It was a very elegant bridge at one time.

[gg1]

Originally Posted by Gilamonster

Since affordable housing is a semifrequent topic discussed here, I thought I'd post this link to a very brief article. Disclaimer: it is not a Pittsburgh-centric article but this is a national concern.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-has-an-affordable-housing-crisis-2016-1

Nothing wrong with the young folks living with roommates. I feel demand should dictate price of an area. If people have to move so be it. That is true with ALL neighborhoods. I am working a coupled of jobs to live where I live. Handouts will just weaken Americans. I hope they just build more luxury in East Liberty. The city certainly needs the income and within the city there is one heck of a lot of blight. The percentage needs to change to be successful.

Enjoy!

[eschaton]

Information on the proposed riverfront zoning overlay can be found here, complete with a zoomable map. The boundaries are a bit different than I thought from the map sent to my house - more extensive in Lawrenceville, less so in the Strip and Downtown.

[JVC]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

I'd like to see a public square in front of Target as well as on S. Beatty on the block bound by Tamello Way.

The loss of parking in both cases could be easily replaced (and then some) on nearby parking lots by building a 2-3 level structure.

Such as:



Maybe that's too much park/open space for a relatively small area?

it's nice that everyone has an opinion and wants to contribute and collaborate and influence things, but the fact of matter is good design comes from a singular vision and not from having lots of cooks in the kitchen

fallingwater is the most famous local example of a singular vision producing a masterpiece

go back and read the 2004 story in the post-gazette about "east liberty town square" that clearly only exists in fantasyland

a town square is "an open public space commonly found in the heart of a traditional town used for community gatherings", not a large sidewalk with a stormwater mitigation garden (whatever that is, and that map is inaccurate because sidewalks are not green space)

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/bus...ce-of-a-town-square/stories/200408240197

"east liberty town square" is a totally failed concept because too many cooks spoiled the broth

from the article:
"kicking off a collaborative process that could result in a plan by Thanksgiving"
"At the heart of the district is East Liberty Presbyterian Church, which architect Ken Doyno, who wrote the development guidelines"
"says Andrew Moss, the architect who was hired to create a vision plan for the new town center, to be called East Liberty Square."

on a positive note, it's likely the architects were paid for their efforts so at least a few people benefited from their "planning"

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I think people are in the process of being displaced by the thousands. Home Depot displaced a ton of people. Some massive apartment towers were demolished to change the demographic. Now entire apartment complexes are being replaced with more upscale versions as well. Rents are certainly on the rise.

Home Depot was before my time (although wasn't that mostly commercial properties?). But otherwise, as they have been taking down the old projects, they have been putting up new affordable housing. Some people may be getting lost in the transition (although again, some people are always moving out), but I'd be surprised if all that added up to displacing anything close to thousands of people.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SEFTA

Thank you. It was a very elegant bridge at one time.

That was a great era for the look of bridges. Unfortunately, not so much their durability/repairability.

[BrianTH]

That zoning overlay is still very extensive overall. Obviously the big thing is creating the riverfront zone itself, but assuming I am understanding all the provisions correctly, the attention paid to parking looks good too.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's great news about the (former) Royal York building.

Apparently this will be a relocation of the Twisted Frenchman... which will add a companion Bar Frenchman concept.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...ur-has-planned-for-new-east-liberty.html

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I think people are in the process of being displaced by the thousands. Home Depot displaced a ton of people. Some massive apartment towers were demolished to change the demographic. Now entire apartment complexes are being replaced with more upscale versions as well. Rents are certainly on the rise.

This isn't a criticism of all of that. Instead, it is an acknowledgement of what is going on. I'm interested in the topic but certainly don't know the proper balance of all the interests involved. My gut feeling is that the poor, as is commonly the case, are not well represented in the decision making process.

Now that East Liberty's fortunes seem to be turned around, there seems to be a revisionist narrative circulating about the neighborhood and how redevelopment started and is being managed.
The Home Depot was built on the site of a long abandoned Sears. Building the Home Depot required the acquisition of eight additional properties, most of which were commercial. There was very little if any displacement, of what was the first significant redevelopment in the neighborhood. It cannot be overstated about how big of a deal it was when the Murphy Administration and ELDI landed HD.

As for the apartment complexes. There were block parties when those things were torn down. Children shot paint filled balloons at the them the buildings, there were bands... People were excited because the buildings were not only dangerous and rundown, but acted as barriers to the neighborhood. East Liberty was not a nice place. Shootings around Peabody High School were common, There was open drug dealing and prostitution at all hours of the day. There was an abandoned car wash and taxi parking lot where Whole Foods now stands that was not a place you wanted to be at night, and muggings near Kelly's (pretty much the only establishment besides Capri in the neighborhood) were not unheard of.

While there are reasonable criticisms of the lack of available quality affordable housing available, that's a regional/national issue that isn't going be addressed by laying it at the feet of private sector developers. And lamenting the loss of a neighborhood that hasn't existing since the 1960's certainly isn't helping.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

Now that East Liberty's fortunes seem to be turned around, there seems to be a revisionist narrative circulating about the neighborhood and how redevelopment started and is being managed.
The Home Depot was built on the site of a long abandoned Sears. Building the Home Depot required the acquisition of eight additional properties, most of which were commercial. There was very little if any displacement, of what was the first significant redevelopment in the neighborhood. It cannot be overstated about how big of a deal it was when the Murphy Administration and ELDI landed HD.

As for the apartment complexes. There were block parties when those things were torn down. Children shot paint filled balloons at the them the buildings, there were bands... People were excited because the buildings were not only dangerous and rundown, but acted as barriers to the neighborhood. East Liberty was not a nice place. Shootings around Peabody High School were common, There was open drug dealing and prostitution at all hours of the day. There was an abandoned car wash and taxi parking lot where Whole Foods now stands that was not a place you wanted to be at night, and muggings near Kelly's (pretty much the only establishment besides Capri in the neighborhood) were not unheard of.

While there are reasonable criticisms of the lack of available quality affordable housing available, that's a regional/national issue that isn't going be addressed by laying it at the feet of private sector developers. And lamenting the loss of a neighborhood that hasn't existing since the 1960's certainly isn't helping.

Interesting, I wasn't aware there was a Sears on that site.

It seems like you're being dismissive of the issue though. While the neighborhood was economically depressed and some people were happy to see undesirables forced out of the neighborhood, that doesn't mean that rising housing prices aren't an issue.

Laying it at the feet of the private sector isn't the intention as I see it. Instead, people are hoping that the government permits and guides development for the benefit of everyone. Typically, wealthy developers are able to influence decisions in a way that poor residents can't. The solution to that power imbalance is something being struggled with not just in Pittsburgh, but in most of the world.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Home Depot was before my time (although wasn't that mostly commercial properties?). But otherwise, as they have been taking down the old projects, they have been putting up new affordable housing. Some people may be getting lost in the transition (although again, some people are always moving out), but I'd be surprised if all that added up to displacing anything close to thousands of people.

Weren't there roughly 700 people displaced from the Penn Plaza apartments alone? As leases ran out, renewals weren't offered. Then around 500 people got eviction notices to clear the remaining units. Many could not afford similar housing in the area. The mayor ended up getting involved and the evictions were delayed. I'm not sure how that worked out.

Over the course of a decade, it seems like a few thousand priced-out residents would be a fairly conservative estimate.

Granted, some level of displacement is reasonable. I think well meaning people can disagree on what that level is. Unfortunately, that discussion seems to be reactive rather than proactive.

Hopefully this topic isn't too tiresome. I just think that we are at a turning point in Pittsburgh's recovery/transition. Hopefully we won't get to situation that exists in San Fransisco and other similar cities. For residents there, housing affordability is probably the number one concern and most contentious political issue.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by dfiler

Hopefully this topic isn't too tiresome. I just think that we are at a turning point in Pittsburgh's recovery/transition. Hopefully we won't get to situation that exists in San Fransisco and other similar cities. For residents there, housing affordability is probably the number one concern and most contentious political issue.

It is a tiresome topic. It's laughable that Diana Nelson Jones and others are fearful of Pittsburgh turning into another San Francisco. There are unique geographic, economic and political dynamics at play in San Francisco that result in its extreme situation. For decades, Pittsburgh had been infinitely closer to turning into a Youngstown than a San Francisco. Now in the past few years, we finally witness a little bit of development and demographic momentum... an environment where some people are willing to build things without requiring a huge public subsidy... an environment where a couple of urban neighborhoods that slid into oblivion in the late 20th century have been rehabilitated... and Pittsburghers immediately hyperventilate about the city becoming another San Francisco. If only!

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It is a tiresome topic. It's laughable that Diana Nelson Jones and others are fearful of Pittsburgh turning into another San Francisco. There are unique geographic, economic and political dynamics at play in San Francisco that result in its extreme situation. For decades, Pittsburgh had been infinitely closer to turning into a Youngstown than a San Francisco. Now in the past few years, we finally witness a little bit of development and demographic momentum... an environment where some people are willing to build things without requiring a huge public subsidy... an environment where a couple of urban neighborhoods that slid into oblivion in the late 20th century have been rehabilitated... and Pittsburghers immediately hyperventilate about the city becoming another San Francisco. If only!

Exactly.

And this is why it becomes so grating to me when I hear about the "lack of affordable housing" in East Liberty and how everyone is being priced out of the neighborhood... as if nothing but high-end luxury condos are filling every available and unavailable square foot of the area. When in fact, most of the new and recent development in the area (East Liberty and Larimer) is low-income housing! I listed them earlier. I'm actually surprised at the amount of low-income housing being developed considering the rest of the development in the greater East End. The transit station development and the Walnut Highland rehab/new construction are the only non low-income projects... the rest have been and are currently "affordable" housing. And a big thing to keep in mind about the non low-income developments is that they are rental units... it's not like we are seeing this influx of millionaires into the neighborhood buying high-priced condos.

[JVC]

the problem with east liberty isn't a lack of affordable housing (which is a national problem thanks to fed's money printing and their zero interest rate policy)

the problem with east liberty is a lack of public amenities and things to do other than dine and shop which cost $$$

from the Eastside Bond facebook page: "Do you like taking an evening stroll to dinner and shopping? Do you like to step out quickly to pick up something for your apartment home? Eastside Bond offers you the ability to walk to the 3 grocery stores, Target, and a multitude of restaurants and shopping!"

https://www.facebook.com/EastsideBond/

do you like paying $1500 a month to live in an apartment next to train tracks and a busway where the only thing to do in the neighborhood is spend money?

[Private Dick]

But of course, the City Paper puts out a story about East Liberty gentrification and forcing the poor out, with a local filmmaker standing here (technically in Shadyside, no less!):


Hmm... I wonder why this photo was not taken in front of this?:


or this:


or this:


or this:


or maybe among the 40+ new home in Larimer like this:


or maybe have him standing amidst all the affordable housing construction happening on all the vacant land straddling Larimer and East Liberty:

[JVC]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

But of course, the City Paper puts out a story about East Liberty gentrification and forcing the poor out, with a local filmmaker standing here (technically in Shadyside, no less!):

eastside - get with the program, dude

and what happens when the next recession hits and money dries up again?
it's only the third trading day of the year and already the stock market is down over 3% - that's not a good sign

yes, there are well-paid professionals who will be happy to trade in their old apartment in oakland for a brand new apartment in east liberty,
but just because people need a place to live doesn't mean they have to dine out when they can just as easily cook at home

it's not like east liberty has a movie theater or art galleries to wander through or a bowling alley or a place to shoot pool,
inexpensive ways to get out of the house

if you think about it it's crazy how much attention housing gets in east liberty - no one will ever be able to say that
pittsburgh managed to avoid the housing bubble

they don't even bother building out the ground-floor retail - it's just all apartments, all the time

[mhays]

Retail is often overbuilt with new housing, based on zoning (many cities) rather than demand.

In the US we have 40 square feet of retail per person. If most spending is at malls, distant supermarkets, downtowns, and tourist zones, I'd guess 1/4 is a decent number for local walkable strips. So 10 square feet per person, or maybe 13 per unit in a high-density district. That's if the residents have an average amount of spending money.

So let's say you build 50 units and 3,250 square feet of retail. That's five times demand. You need four more similar buildings without retail. Or at least that sort of multiplier in the neighborhood.

A solid retail strip needs way more. Let's say a 1,500-foot stretch is 2/3 stores (not streets or other stuff), so you have 2,000 feet of retail frontage on the two sides. If the stores average 65 feet in depth, that's 130,000 sf. You'd better have 10,000 residents who spend 1/4 of their retail dollars there! Or you can get 1/40 of retail dollars for 100,000 residents, meaning you're a major destination district.

If a supermarket is included, that's additional square footage, which captures more than the 1/4 and also draws from further away.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It is a tiresome topic. It's laughable that Diana Nelson Jones and others are fearful of Pittsburgh turning into another San Francisco. There are unique geographic, economic and political dynamics at play in San Francisco that result in its extreme situation. For decades, Pittsburgh had been infinitely closer to turning into a Youngstown than a San Francisco. Now in the past few years, we finally witness a little bit of development and demographic momentum... an environment where some people are willing to build things without requiring a huge public subsidy... an environment where a couple of urban neighborhoods that slid into oblivion in the late 20th century have been rehabilitated... and Pittsburghers immediately hyperventilate about the city becoming another San Francisco. If only!

Thank you. We hear similar stuff all the time in Philly.

There is, say, zero percent chance that either Pittsburgh or Philly will ever become like SF or Manhattan. In both, as well as every other vulnerable rust belt city (i,e, all of them), there is a virtually endless supply of underutilized, inexpensive land and housing. It may not be very nice, but the housing from which displacement has occurred was generally no nicer than what remains out there and not far away.

The central issue is DEFINITELY NOT local displacement in places like East Liberty.

It's lack of a coherent affordable housing policy nationwide, lack of national or regional policies to address the sad reality that a huge portion of the population lacks the education or marketable skills necessary to alleviate perpetual inner city and rural poverty, and regional unwillingness (in every region of the country) on the part of people in better-off suburbs to share the responsibility of living with and helping provide for the regional poor.

While these issues to get resolved (maybe never), does that mean we should to hold off or temper redevelopment of great-but-forlorn places like East Liberty? Goddammit NO!!!

We need to reinvigorate as many as we can of these kinds of formerly great urban commercial nodes as quickly as we can, and keep energizing the resurgent interest in re-urbanization by young, skilled people (the kind who started avoiding cities 60 years ago).

The window of opportunity will not be open forever, and the length of time that it remains open is likely very dependent on the how quickly these places can be made attractive to generate a virtuous cycle of revitalization and ongoing, stable re-urbanization. If we are lucky, eventually - and this is still so premature it's hardly worth mentioning - places like East Liberty (and Pittsburgh as a whole) may establish a critical mass of development and growth such that we can finally relax and feel like these places have finally, safely, truly come back.

As it is, we are no where close to that, either in Pitt, Philly, or most other formerly great cities of America. Things are still very delicate in every one of them except for half a dozen places like SF, DC, Boston, NYC, Seattle, etc.; for the rest of us the risk is lurking just around the corner that our cities could fall back into long-term decline.

Should that happen, sure, poor people will be able to stay in East Liberty. So what? Poor people live in Altoona, Detroit. E. St Louis, Camden, Chester, or any number of run down rust belt towns, but that doesn't mean those are desirable places to live, as their perpetual population declines attest.

There is nothing moral about keeping a place like East Liberty as a receptacle for poverty that most of the impoverish wish they could leave anyway.

🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵, we need to quit feeling apologetic about rebuilding rust belt cities.

Instead of whining about the redevelopment of East Liberty, whine about the how wealthy suburbanites have managed over seven decades to prevent low income people from living near them or going to school with their pampered kids, and how they have pretty much chiseled in stone a false notion that places like East Liberty are where the poor are supposed to be - away from the well-off.