PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[eschaton]

Watching the Planning Commission live right now, and Walnut Capital's Oakland proposal is going down in flames.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Watching the Planning Commission live right now, and Walnut Capital's Oakland proposal is going down in flames.

From the reporting in the PG, it sounds like the main issues were the process being followed and the relatively weak affordable housing measures. The latter is something that could potentially be compromised around. Not sure about the former:

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/de...evard-of-the-Allies/stories/202112070128

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

From the reporting in the PG, it sounds like the main issues were the process being followed and the relatively weak affordable housing measures. The latter is something that could potentially be compromised around. Not sure about the former:

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/de...evard-of-the-Allies/stories/202112070128

Yeah, that's a good summary. Mondor, Mingo, and particularly Deitrick were openly hostile. They were basically completely in OPDC's corner on this, arguing that they shouldn't even be reviewing this because the Oakland Master Plan isn't complete, and because they hadn't gotten the expressed approval of the local community group. They also talked about the negative impact on local residents (despite being repeatedly told that the vast majority of people in the area were transient student renters) and complained about uses/heights incompatible with a residential neighborhood (one explicitly brought up the poor residents of Coltart Street, being surrounded by big buildings).

The other commissioners had a lot of nitpicks, but didn't seem quite as negative. It seemed like they could be swayed, though a few were silent.

I will say that it is indeed the case that Walnut Capital has been a bit disingenuous with its presentations. They are positioning this development as if it will be primarily residential with minor retail component, but their table of allowable uses is quite large and allows them to keep their options open, building new office space or other uses as the market allows.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Watching the Planning Commission live right now, and Walnut Capital's Oakland proposal is going down in flames.

That briefing was a complete mess and a couple of very outspoken The Planning Commission members once again showed that they are anti-urban NIMBY activists instead of arbiters of the city's development regulations. Questioning if people would want to live over coffee shops, or near their places of work? Come on!

And each of them will go on and on about affordable housing, and poo-pooing urban densities while living in large single-family homes in some of the most expensive neighborhoods in the City.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

That briefing was a complete mess and a couple of very outspoken The Planning Commission members once agian showed that they are anti-urban NIMBY activists instead of arbiters of the city's development regulations. Questioning if people would want to live over coffee shops, or near their places of work? Come on!

The discussion about the college students on the "unimproved" side of McKee Place who might have to live on the same block as a medical office building/lab was particularly amusing.

[pj3000]

Peduto appointed these "kumbaya-ers" to the planning commission. He's getting the kumbaya thrown back at him.

I'm sure that Walnut Capital has witnessed the commission over the years, and figured that they need to go around/above them as much as possible... and I'm sure the 3 mentioned above, in particular, are beside themselves that Walnut Capital had the audacity to spite them in such a manner.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Peduto appointed these "kumbaya-ers" to the planning commission. He's getting the kumbaya thrown back at him.

I'm sure that Walnut Capital has witnessed the commission over the years, and figured that they need to go around/above them as much as possible... and I'm sure the 3 mentioned above, in particular, are beside themselves that Walnut Capital had the audacity to spite them in such a manner.

Apparently the plan will need 7 votes at Council if the Commission rejects it wholesale, meaning it can only afford a single defector (since it was 8-0 last time).

I'm not sure that Walnut Capital needs quite as much of a blank check in terms of usage as they're asking for here, but still, what sticks in my craw more is the continued treatment of Oakland as if it's just another city neighborhood, and treating OPDC as if it actively represents the majority of Oakland residents, rather than (at best) representing the interest of the slim minority of homeowners (who comprise only 22% of residents, and mostly live on the fringes of the neighborhood).

[AaronPGH]

I realize this isn't Pittsburgh proper, but this is massive for the metro area. If Vail decides this is a "destination" property they will develop all three mountains like crazy.

Seven Springs sold to Vail Resorts
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/12/08/seven-springs-sold-to-vail-resorts/

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not sure that Walnut Capital needs quite as much of a blank check in terms of usage as they're asking for here, but still, what sticks in my craw more is the continued treatment of Oakland as if it's just another city neighborhood, and treating OPDC as if it actively represents the majority of Oakland residents, rather than (at best) representing the interest of the slim minority of homeowners (who comprise only 22% of residents, and mostly live on the fringes of the neighborhood).

Yeah, Oakland is a massively important resource that needs to be managed for the greater benefit of not only the whole City, but really the whole Metro Area, and arguably the whole western part of the state.

And actually, I'd be mostly OK with largely letting market forces drive usage in the BoA/Bates/Bouquet/Forbes zone. I only get a little nervous in this case because Walnut Capital already controls so much land. Better in my mind if there is ongoing and aggressive competition for major opportunities.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I realize this isn't Pittsburgh proper, but this is massive for the metro area. If Vail decides this is a "destination" property they will develop all three mountains like crazy.

Seven Springs sold to Vail Resorts
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/12/08/seven-springs-sold-to-vail-resorts/

At least that article (aka press release) makes it sound like they see this as a regionally-important destination, with the region in question going from Cleveland down to Baltimore/Washington.

So yeah, that seems like a potentially big deal.

Edit: Just to support all that, this Cleveland article is making the case this will be good for skiers in Ohio already using some of the Vail Resorts properties in that state:

The sale should come as good news to Northeast Ohio skiers who use Vail’s Epic Pass to ski at local resorts Brandywine, Boston Mills and Alpine Valley. Adding the Pennsylvania resorts to the Epic Pass mix will give local skiers additional and better options for in-network skiing and snowboarding in the region.

Seven Springs is about three hours from Cleveland and features 33 slopes and trails, 10 lifts, seven terrain parks and a 418-room lodge at the base of the mountain. With 285 skiable acres, it’s significantly larger than any resort in Ohio.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And actually, I'd be mostly OK with largely letting market forces drive usage in the BoA/Bates/Bouquet/Forbes zone. I only get a little nervous in this case because Walnut Capital already controls so much land. Better in my mind if there is ongoing and aggressive competition for major opportunities.

Pre-COVID, I might be a bit concerned that clearing the student slum too rapidly would result in a shortage of units - at least the sort of units college students are looking for. But I don't think that land is going to be used for much other than higher-density residential any time soon.

[seaswan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pre-COVID, I might be a bit concerned that clearing the student slum too rapidly would result in a shortage of units - at least the sort of units college students are looking for. But I don't think that land is going to be used for much other than higher-density residential any time soon.

The idea of tearing down pre-ww2 mid density housing stock in the name of centrally planned large scale development reeks of 1960s urban renewal. Say whatever you will about OPDC (I dislike them) but calling this "slum clearance" is a really easy way to diminish support for this plan.

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by seaswan

The idea of tearing down pre-ww2 mid density housing stock in the name of centrally planned large scale development reeks of 1960s urban renewal. Say whatever you will about OPDC (I dislike them) but calling this "slum clearance" is a really easy way to diminish support for this plan.

If the owners actually had taken care of these buildings I might be willing to hear out that they were worth preserving. Instead these places are roach ridden and mildly cared for. I've been living in Oakland since 2007 and I've never heard of anyone that lived in one of these buildings recalling the experience fondly, at all.

As a liberal I hate saying it, but OPDC are the perfect example of a liberal elite run amok preserving status quo for their benefactors. The refusal to let Walnut show their presentation at the OPDC meeting was completely unprofessional. This is why I hate these Zoom meetings cause it gives them iron fist control over everything. They knew what they were doing, they knew Walnut would have a presentation that is viewer friendly whereas refusing them and making everyone stare at all the legalese of the zoning document would overwhelm an average person and more likely to put them in a defensive scared crouch, thus more likely to take OPDC's side.

The fact OPDC keeps talking about master plan is a complete joke. There is already a master plan, Oakland 2025. It's 2021, is that plan no longer good with four years remaining? Redoing the BoA/Bates corridor as well as renovating Zulema parklet is right there in the 2025 plan.

I'm beyond upset with OPDC, they are lucky that these meetings are Zoom only or I would be showing up in person giving them a piece of my mind where they can't just mute me.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by seaswan

The idea of tearing down pre-ww2 mid density housing stock in the name of centrally planned large scale development reeks of 1960s urban renewal. Say whatever you will about OPDC (I dislike them) but calling this "slum clearance" is a really easy way to diminish support for this plan.

I think it matters a lot who is doing the "planning".

"Central planning" usually refers to the concept that a unified government is going to manage the details of economic activity for the sake of some mix of social purposes. That is in explicit distinction from market-based economic activity where the allocation and use of resources like land rights will go to the highest bidders, usually with the primary justification being that process ends up with the most efficient use of those resources. Of course most modern developed economies are neither all one or all the other, but have some mix of government, private, and possibly other types of institutions playing a role in economic decisions.

But given this framework, Walnut Capital acquiring this land through buying it up, and then being allowed to more freely use it in whatever way they think will be most profitable, is moving away from "central" planning. And to the extent a government authority (in this case literally called the Planning Commission) wants to stand in their way because of some mix of social goals they think Walnut's plans will not adequately serve, that is moving toward central planning.

In this context, saying something like Walnut Capital will likely respond to market demand by replacing lower-density, poorly-maintained residential stock with higher-density new residential stock is not advocating for central planning. Just the opposite, saying that Walnut Capital's plans should be thwarted by the government because the current lower-density, poorly-maintained residential stock is serving an important social purpose would be advocating for central planning.

That said, personally, I believe in mixed economies and so don't believe there is an automatic virtue in moving away from central planning elements. In any given case, I think in theory the optimal balance could involve more or less government involvement in decision making, and so you have to answer these sorts of questions in detail and not with broad principles.

But I do think in this particular case, the social purpose argument is simply wrong on the merits, meaning that the stated social purposes like providing more affordable housing in the future are actually better-served by allowing land developers to build as many market-rate units in areas like Oakland as they can get financed. And then if you want to layer onto that requirements that they ALSO build some affordable units, fine. But I think it is a fundamental mistake to think restricting the supply of new market rate units is going to help keep a housing market more affordable overall.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WillyC

If the owners actually had taken care of these buildings I might be willing to hear out that they were worth preserving. Instead these places are roach ridden and mildly cared for. I've been living in Oakland since 2007 and I've never heard of anyone that lived in one of these buildings recalling the experience fondly, at all.

As a liberal I hate saying it, but OPDC are the perfect example of a liberal elite run amok preserving status quo for their benefactors. The refusal to let Walnut show their presentation at the OPDC meeting was completely unprofessional. This is why I hate these Zoom meetings cause it gives them iron fist control over everything. They knew what they were doing, they knew Walnut would have a presentation that is viewer friendly whereas refusing them and making everyone stare at all the legalese of the zoning document would overwhelm an average person and more likely to put them in a defensive scared crouch, thus more likely to take OPDC's side.

The fact OPDC keeps talking about master plan is a complete joke. There is already a master plan, Oakland 2025. It's 2021, is that plan no longer good with four years remaining? Redoing the BoA/Bates corridor as well as renovating Zulema parklet is right there in the 2025 plan.

I'm beyond upset with OPDC, they are lucky that these meetings are Zoom only or I would be showing up in person giving them a piece of my mind where they can't just mute me.

I mostly agree with your comment, but are we sure the OPDC even counts as "liberal"? I understand they make use of liberal-sounding policy goals like housing affordability when waging public campaigns against developments they oppose, but I personally doubt the sincerity of those goals and more see them as just self-interested entities using whatever tools they think might serve their own interests.

I guess that is just semantics since you more or less said the same thing, but I just don't like the idea that anyone who uses liberal-sounding arguments to advance their own purposes gets to count themselves as a liberal.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by WillyC

The fact OPDC keeps talking about master plan is a complete joke. There is already a master plan, Oakland 2025. It's 2021, is that plan no longer good with four years remaining? Redoing the BoA/Bates corridor as well as renovating Zulema parklet is right there in the 2025 plan.

I'm beyond upset with OPDC, they are lucky that these meetings are Zoom only or I would be showing up in person giving them a piece of my mind where they can't just mute me.

OPDC and neighborhood groups shouldn't be in the business of comprehensive planning anyway. Most planning issues are regional and trying to plan neighborhood by neighborhood is a myopic approach that empowers entrenched interest at the expense of the larger city/region. The map Pittsburgh process from 20 years ago is how we ended up with so much single-family zoning in the city, and I can guarantee that any new Oakland Plan will look to further cap densities and constrain development. You can bet a Baum-Centre update will look to do the same.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

OPDC and neighborhood groups shouldn't be in the business of comprehensive planning anyway. Most planning issues are regional and trying to plan neighborhood by neighborhood is a myopic approach that empowers entrenched interest at the expense of the larger city/region. The map Pittsburgh process from 20 years ago is how we ended up with so much single-family zoning in the city, and I can guarantee that any new Oakland Plan will look to further cap densities and constrain development. You can bet a Baum-Centre update will look to do the same.

Neighborhood-based planning is basically cities looking to suburban zoning and saying "yep, we want to do it that way!"

[eschaton]

January 6 ZBA is now online. A couple of small projects of note for this week.

1. Infill house in Upper Lawrenceville. This is the location. As is usually the case in Lawrenceville, the design is godawful and doesn't fit with the neighborhood at all. I'm honestly surprised they aren't chopping the parcel in two and putting two tall/skinny homes there, as it would flow better with the existing blocks. Ground floor appears to be largely a garage and windowless, which makes little sense to me, even considering the grade changes on the parcel.

2. The proposed seven-story, 19-unit building on S. Highland in Shadyside is back. This was pulled awhile from what I understand to consult with the local community group. The design does not appear to have changed much. It's still basically a concrete block wall on the first story due to the parking needs and the small lot. They're asking for a lot of variances, which makes me think it's doomed.

It's also worth noting that tomorrow City Council will approve (most likely) a number of changes to zoning - most notably the loosening of parking requirements for restaurants and banning of new drive-thrus across much of the city. On January 11th City Council will vote on an expansion of the Duquense EMI zone (which will now cover the future site of the School for Osteopathic Medicine). On January 12th, Council will vote on the new master plan for Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

[BrianTH]

Very detailed article on the new RIDC-led plan to do tech-flex, and maybe some film related development, at the Carrie Furnace site:

https://nextpittsburgh.com/features/a-ne...gh-for-rankin/?utm_source=NEXTpittsburgh

The news includes that they are looking to start infrastructure work during the first or second quarter of 2022, then start the first actual building in the second half of the year. That would be built on spec, and then if demand looked as solid as they are hoping, more could be started in early 2023.

Particularly interesting to me was how they saw it fitting into the context of the region, including the superficially-similar Hazelwood LTV site:

“The time is right for Carrie Furnace,” said [RIDC President Donald] Smith. Development is picking up in McKeesport, there are “signs of life in Braddock” and there’s unmet demand for tech-flex space, he added.

Downriver, the Hazelwood Green development site is focused on tenants that want to be close to Downtown and the universities, and is aiming for a denser style of development that wouldn’t likely accommodate much tech-flex space, he said. He did not think that would compete with Carrie.

Tech-flex users, he continued, don’t necessarily need to be next door to major universities. “The kinds of companies that go into a tech-flex product create a significant amount of jobs for folks who don’t go to Pitt or Carnegie Mellon University.

There are some quotes from the Swissvale Mayor indicating she is disappointed with the nature of the plan, having hoped it would be denser with more of a mix of uses, but she is resigned to this being necessary to get something done.

And personally, I think it is smart to be thinking about sustainable plans that won't be trumped by possible developments elsewhere nearby (and there are still a lot of developable areas closer to Downtown and/or the universities). In fact, for that matter I am looking at the population and retail trends lately, and thinking more and more that the existing communities in this upper Mon Valley region do not necessarily need massive brownfields being converted to apartments and restaurants and such, like the Mayor was hoping.

But easily accessible employers? That could be just right.

[eschaton]

The URA's December agenda is up. A few things to note:

1. Another development is being added to the redevelopment of the New Granada block. This is a small office building which will occupy the vacant lot at the corner of Centre and Devilliers. It will be a 41,000 square foot office building, with a Pitt office taking up 10,000 square feet, and around 7,000 square feet of space for a restaurant.

2. The URA is finalizing its sale of parcels to the group building The Esplanade. The agenda has some more information (though no renderings) of the planned first phase of development, which will include a 45,000 square foot pavilion, a 300-unit apartment building (20% of units affordable) with podium retail, a 15,000 square foot retail building supporting the Ferris wheel, a 550 car garage, and a new marina.

3. The URA is buying out the Housing Authority's 32.65% interest in the 200 Ross building downtown. The city has already been vacating this building to go into the old Art Institute building nearby on Boulevard of the Allies. The URA intends to seek a private developer for the site. Given the historic charm of the building, and the relatively small entrance, I really think a residential conversion is the only sensible use.