PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Also, more many comparable cities have cities with larger CBD footprints that would include adjacent Pittsburgh areas.

Yeah, in a way, the nearer parts of the North Side, South Side, Strip, and Lower-Hill/Uptown constitute a sort of extended "Downtown". But because all that is divided up by rivers, hills, and so on, it hasn't developed in a comparable fashion.

I note the PDP has long recognized this, and in things like its State of Downtown reports it discusses both the Golden Triangle itself, and then also a Greater Downtown concept including these "fringe" Downtown areas.

But again, it is worth emphasizing you can't really just lump these areas together with the Triangle and compare the total to other more sprawling CBDs. Because all that topography and the associated development history does matter.

[eschaton]

I tend to define "Greater Downtown" as being inclusive of everything which doesn't have traditional neighborhood format.

Hence it includes the North Shore (extending from Heinz Lofts all the way to lower Chateau), Allegheny Center, The Strip District, the bottom part of the hill, western Uptown, and the South Shore.

Even though they're close, I don't think Allegheny West/Central Northside, and Deutschtown are part of Greater Downtown. Similarly, I don't include the Hill District once you hit Crawford Square, Uptown east of Van Braam (when it starts getting more intact/rowhouse) or the South Side in general (though the area right around the High Line may be an exception).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I tend to define "Greater Downtown" as being inclusive of everything which doesn't have traditional neighborhood format.

Hence it includes the North Shore (extending from Heinz Lofts all the way to lower Chateau), Allegheny Center, The Strip District, the bottom part of the hill, western Uptown, and the South Shore.

Even though they're close, I don't think Allegheny West/Central Northside, Deutschtown are part of Greater Downtown. Similarly, I don't include the Hill District once you hit Crawford Square, Uptown east of Van Braam (when it starts getting more intact/rowhouse) or the South Side in general (though the area right around the High Line may be an exception).

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

As an aside, the whole North Side situation is really fascinating because of course it was literally a separate municipality until the city of Allegheny was annexed in 1907 (and before that, Allegheny had grown through annexation itself). And then after that the various urban highway, urban redevelopment, and so on projects sent different North Side neighborhoods off on different paths. And really, the conscious attempt to make, say, the North Shore into more of an extension of Downtown is continuing right through today.

So this is basically the same concept as yours in practice, but I tend to mentally divide the North Side up into the parts that were much more blasted apart and then redeveloped as extensions of Downtown, versus the parts that retained more of their identity as former components of the separate city of Allegheny.

Edit: Oh, and this is also a topic of ongoing discussion here, but I'll just note again I am really, really curious to see how the mental map of Pittsburgh changes over time assuming the redevelopment of the Lower Hill/Uptown/Soho corridor between Downtown and Oakland continues. When I first moved to Pittsburgh in 1993, it was really a very clear, quite long, break between Downtown at 579 and Oakland. Obviously there is always going to be a notable pinch point at the Birmingham Bridge for topographic reasons. But otherwise, the way things are evolving, eventually the rest of all that could feel at least a lot more continuous. But, maybe it will still retain, or evolve, a separate identity too.

I really don't have any firm expectations. And of course the answer may keep changing over time.

[eschaton]

October 18 Planning Commission is up. After a few months of low-key ones, there's a lot to discuss with three new substantial projects.

1. A new residential building at 2926 Smallman Street. Location is here. Looks to be a new seven-story building with 84 units and ground floor retail. Interestingly, rather than use a garage there is a car elevator in the rear. I believe some images from this presentation accidentally slipped into a ZBA hearing for a different project awhile back, which let us know this building was on the horizon. Fills out the block nicely, though the design is as generic as can be.

2. A second residential project in the Strip - this one at 50 26th Street. This site is most famous because it's the holdout which refused to sell to Oxford for Three Crossings, meaning it's now surrounded by Oxford property. I'm glad they held out now, because the massing of this building is considerably greater than the Oxford buildings on the front side of the block. This project has 179 units, with up to seven retail spaces on the first floor. The back side is something of a blank wall, but it is an alley, so it's forgivable. It's an Indovina project, and thus looks sharp, if a bit samey. I also wonder if J Harris (the owner) sold this nearby skinny lot which they used for surface parking, as that's another site open for redevelopment.

3. Finally, Pitt's new Campus Recreation & Wellness Center is also going before the Commission. This isn't a big surprise and has been covered elsewhere, albeit not in this level of detail. I don't have much to say here, other than it's impressive they came up with a design which works both on the "high side" and O'Hara Street. It's pretty buried within Pitt's upper campus though, so few people not associated with the university are ever gonna see it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

1. A new residential building at 2926 Smallman Street. Location is here. Looks to ne a new seven-story building with 84 units and ground floor retail. Interestingly, rather than use a garage there is a car elevator in the rear. I believe some images from this presentation accidentally slipped into a ZBA hearing for a different project awhile back, which let us know this building was on the horizon. Fills out the block nicely, though the design is as generic as can be.

2. A second residential project in the Strip - this one at 50 26th Street. This site is most famous because it's the holdout which refused to sell to Oxford for Three Crossings, meaning it's now surrounded by Oxford property. I'm glad they held out now, because the massing of this building is considerably greater than the Oxford buildings on the front side of the block. This project has 179 units, with up to seven retail spaces on the first floor. The back side is something of a blank wall, but it is an alley, so it's forgivable. It's an Indovina project, and thus looks sharp, if a bit samey. I also wonder if J Harris (the owner) sold this nearby skinny lot which they used for surface parking, as that's another site open for redevelopment.

Like the scale on both of those--I am glad that height range seems to be emerging as a new standard for Strip infill projects like these. I also have an irrational love for those car vending machines--something about them always amuses the little kid in me.

3. Finally, Pitt's new Campus Recreation & Wellness Center is also going before the Commission. This isn't a big surprise and has been covered elsewhere, albeit not in this level of detail. I don't have much to say here, other than it's impressive they came up with a design which works both on the "high side" and O'Hara Street. It's pretty buried within Pitt's upper campus though, so few people not associated with the university are ever gonna see it.

I quite like the design of this project, which makes me feel better about losing a unique (albeit apparently pretty dysfunctional) building. I also can't help thinking how much better it looks than most of the schlock CMU is putting up in their rather unfortunate institutional style.

[xdv8]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Like the scale on both of those--I am glad that height range seems to be emerging as a new standard for Strip infill projects like these. I also have an irrational love for those car vending machines--something about them always amuses the little kid in me.



I quite like the design of this project, which makes me feel better about losing a unique (albeit apparently pretty dysfunctional) building. I also can't help thinking how much better it looks than most of the schlock CMU is putting up in their rather unfortunate institutional style.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this rec building being built on the old Pitt Stadium site, next to Peterson in the open field area? Nevermind, I see the pdf now and I was thinking of another Pitt project that's in development.

[BrianTH]

The first couple actual (meaning non-cleanup or infrastructure) projects are moving ahead at the Carrie Furnace site, and they had a symbolic groundbreaking:

https://nextpittsburgh.com/city-desi...-in-the-works/

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202210130155

The project getting most of the media attention is a planned film studio, which they hope will be the beginning of a larger film production campus. However, that project is not yet fully funded.

The actual project starting construction is a less eyeball-catching tech-flex space. However, that too will hopefully just be the beginning of developing this into a major jobs center for the area.

[eschaton]

In small development news, the vacant first-floor of East Liberty Place South will finally be fitted out as commercial space. It's always been striking how they've left it open to the elements like some sort of first-floor garage space.

The space will initially have a Noodles & Company, a chain bakery, and a Cricket location. It sounds like that's only about half of the leasable square footage.

The commercial space on the other side of the block has finally filled in, so this will help fully extend the business district to Whole Foods.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In small development news, the vacant first-floor of East Liberty Place South will finally be fitted out as commercial space.[/URL] It's always been striking how they've left it open to the elements like some sort of first-floor garage space.

The space will initially have a Noodles & Company, a chain bakery, and a Cricket location.

Yuck, as far as the future tenants go... but I don't expect too much from retail space on the ground floor of housing projects.

Noodles & Company has succeeded in firmly positioning itself in the market as the chain restaurant that makes the most customers ask, "How do they make something so simple taste so bad?"

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yuck, as far as the future tenants go... but I don't expect too much from retail space on the ground floor of housing projects.

Noodles & Company has succeeded in firmly positioning itself in the market as the chain restaurant that makes the most customers ask, "How do they make something so simple taste so bad?"

It is not a housing project. It is apartment complex with subsidized apartment units. There is a big difference between the two. Everyone works and pays rent and the building is maintained. Ive painted some of the units and they are quite nice with stacked front loader laundry facilities in each unit.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

It is not a housing project. It is apartment complex with subsidized apartment units. There is a big difference between the two. Everyone works and pays rent and the building is maintained. Ive painted some of the units and they are quite nice with stacked front loader laundry facilities in each unit.

What's the difference? A housing project is an apartment complex with subsidized units. Residents of Housing Authority properties work and pay rent as well.

Pretty, sure these were publicly-funded housing projects done by the URA and a nonprofit.

I'm not using the term "housing projects" flippantly or in a denigrating manner. I don't expect much from retail space in these developments because the nonprofit still has to service the debt... and only chain outlets are likely going to be able to pay any associated buildout costs and rents required to meet revenue targets.

I seem to recall like 90% of the units are designated as "affordable", meaning at 80% of median and lower income.

[BrianTH]

I think in general, these days chains and such tend to be the first commercial tenants in newly-developed buildings because they can sign the sorts of leases developers need for financial reasons. To my knowledge that doesn't really depend on the nature of the development, including whether it contains subsidized rental apartments or residential at all.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think in general, these days chains and such tend to be the first commercial tenants in newly-developed buildings because they can sign the sorts of leases developers need for financial reasons. To my knowledge that doesn't really depend on the nature of the development, including whether it contains subsidized rental apartments or residential at all.

Yeah, that's kinda what I said. But I think it's not the nature of the development itself, but more about the nature of the developer/process and terms involved.

More often than not with publicly-funded developments, particularly when the developer is a nonprofit organization, they're not even going to take a chance on an independent/local vendor... because they need the financial guarantee that much more.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, that's kinda what I said. But I think it's not the nature of the development itself, but more about the nature of the developer/process and terms involved.

More often than not with publicly-funded developments, particularly when the developer is a nonprofit organization, they're not even going to take a chance on an independent/local vendor... because they need the financial guarantee that much more.

So I am thinking in part about all the other new developments in and around East Liberty. For the most part those too have had similar opening retail tenants. Bakery Square, The Penn at Walnut on Highland, the East Liberty Transit Center, Eastside II . . . . Maybe an occasional independent restaurant slips in, but there were an awful lot of chains and such in all these developments. And you can go further, say to SouthSide Works, or any other area where there has been totally new development with retail spaces. It always seems to be roughly the same sort of stuff.

And I think that is because the financial issues you are talking about apply pretty broadly to new developments. Of course a lot of the times there is some public component, but generally there are large loans involved, and generally developers want as many long, low-risk leases as they can get in their retail spaces, and that means chains and such are natural fits.

[themaguffin]

A lot of similar developments in many cities seem to have templates and certain chains that fit them. Everything is replicated it seems.

[eschaton]

I've always wondered why these new-build developments always have chain retail. Even in cases where they are "over-retailed" and stay vacant for years, they prefer that to accepting local tenants.

Some of this can be explained by the common use of "non-compete clauses" in commercial rents. It's not unusual, for example, for someone like Starbucks to insist on a clause that the landlord will not lease out any space to other coffeeshops. Enough of these agreements, and a half-leased major development could be really restricted in terms of what local tenants they can accept.

Really though, something related to commercial property tax writeoffs must make it not as bad to keep this space vacant for years as one would think.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I am thinking in part about all the other new developments in and around East Liberty. For the most part those too have had similar opening retail tenants. Bakery Square, The Penn at Walnut on Highland, the East Liberty Transit Center, Eastside II . . . . Maybe an occasional independent restaurant slips in, but there were an awful lot of chains and such in all these developments. And you can go further, say to SouthSide Works, or any other area where there has been totally new development with retail spaces. It always seems to be roughly the same sort of stuff.

And I think that is because the financial issues you are talking about apply pretty broadly to new developments. Of course a lot of the times there is some public component, but generally there are large loans involved, and generally developers want as many long, low-risk leases as they can get in their retail spaces, and that means chains and such are natural fits.

Sure, fully valid points. No doubt that the financial pressures for paying off new construction financing apply across the board. In general, I'm just pretty sure that subsidized housing developments like these present zero chance of bringing in non-chain tenants to their ground-floor retail space. And the chains that do come in generally seem to be on the lower end... the Crickets and Boost Mobiles and Noodles & Companys, etc.
Contrast that with some of the current and former tenants in other new East Liberty developments... So Fresh, Plum, Bonobos, Warby Parker, Milkshake Factory, Dinette, Choolah, Brewdog, Gaby et Jules, Mola Sushi... these are obviously higher end in comparison, and some are also non-chains.

Originally Posted by themaguffin

A lot of similar developments in many cities seem to have templates and certain chains that fit them. Everything is replicated it seems.

Yeah, definitely... though I do seem to notice more national, mid-to-lower-end chains in new developments in Pittsburgh, than I do in Columbus or Cleveland or Philadelphia.

Originally Posted by eschaton

I've always wondered why these new-build developments always have chain retail. Even in cases where they are "over-retailed" and stay vacant for years, they prefer that to accepting local tenants.

Some of this can be explained by the common use of "non-compete clauses" in commercial rents. It's not unusual, for example, for someone like Starbucks to insist on a clause that the landlord will not lease out any space to other coffeeshops. Enough of these agreements, and a half-leased major development could be really restricted in terms of what local tenants they can accept.

Really though, something related to commercial property tax writeoffs must make it not as bad to keep this space vacant for years as one would think.

It seems crazy to me that it's somehow more advantageous to a developer to leave the ground floor completely vacant, unbuilt, or even without walls(!), as is the case with the building in East Liberty.

Even in Lawrenceville with the Arsenal apartments on Butler... I think there's only one retail tenant -- Brooklyn Bagel (which I believe is a not a chain). One would think it would be better for their investment to create active spaces.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It seems crazy to me that it's somehow more advantageous to a developer to leave the ground floor completely vacant, unbuilt, or even without walls(!), as is the case with the building in East Liberty.

Even in Lawrenceville with the Arsenal apartments on Butler... I think there's only one retail tenant -- Brooklyn Bagel (which I believe is a not a chain). One would think it would be better for their investment to create active spaces.

There's a barbershop as well, plus a new fitness studio, but it's been slow going filling that space in it's true.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

A lot of similar developments in many cities seem to have templates and certain chains that fit them. Everything is replicated it seems.

Yes. Similar to East Liberty Bonobos and Warby Parker have similar retail setups in Philadelphia and DC

[markson33]

Its all about the economics. The cost to build the space, plus the debt required by the banks means that you have to have national credit or large franchisees. Starbucks can pay the rent, but a local one-off can't. Its really expensive to do new construction.