PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Grego43]

Regarding US Steel, has there been any talk of leaving the metro area? Their center of gravity has really shifted to the Mid-west over the past few decades. I'm just sayin'...

[markson33]

Originally Posted by Grego43

Regarding US Steel, has there been any talk of leaving the metro area? Their center of gravity has really shifted to the Mid-west over the past few decades. I'm just sayin'...

I had the same thought. I can't imagine it, but it could be a possibility. Of course there really is no metro area that is equidistant to their facilities, so it might not matter.

[Private Dick]

The Oakland CVS is a big disappointment for that site. Redevelopment of that intersection was crucial towards transforming this pocket of Oakland into something much more valuable and complementary to the surrounding area. The great potential to revitalize that corridor into an actual neighborhood that would undoubtedly thrive is dashed by the "need" for a drive thru pharmacy. This may be the autocentric development that truly destroys the chances for this area. Centre Ave is a fucking frustrating hodgepodge mess (and they wonder why traffic flows so poorly on the street) of myopic development already.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about Pittsburgh. It's one thing if we were talking about this drive thru CVS in a smaller city that truly has no other options or even plans for a strategic site like this, or in another neighborhood of Pittsburgh without such effective redevelopment potential... but we are talking about what is arguably the most important general section of the city, one that has seen the most significant investment in redevelopment recently. Pittsburgh SHOULD be better than this, but proves time and again what it is -- and is not -- capable of. Frustrating.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

The Oakland CVS is a big disappointment for that site. Redevelopment of that intersection was crucial towards transforming this pocket of Oakland into something much more valuable and complementary to the surrounding area. The great potential to revitalize that corridor into an actual neighborhood that would undoubtedly thrive is dashed by the "need" for a drive thru pharmacy. This may be the autocentric development that truly destroys the chances for this area. Centre Ave is a fucking frustrating hodgepodge mess (and they wonder why traffic flows so poorly on the street) of myopic development already.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about Pittsburgh. It's one thing if we were talking about this drive thru CVS in a smaller city that truly has no other options or even plans for a strategic site like this, or in another neighborhood of Pittsburgh without such effective redevelopment potential... but we are talking about what is arguably the most important general section of the city, one that has seen the most significant investment in redevelopment recently. Pittsburgh SHOULD be better than this, but proves time and again what it is -- and is not -- capable of. Frustrating.

So I wonder how and why this plan superseded the much better plan for the area?

Let me guess, financing fell through for the better plan so this is the "best they could get in this current economic climate".

[Jonboy1983]

You know, I think I've reached a conclusion of why Pittsburgh continues to get crappy development after crappy development instead of the stuff it not only is capable of but what it really needs. I'm thinking that all of the crappy, "best case scenario" garbage that has taken place up til now has pretty much given the region some false sense of "high risk." All we see is crap like an auto-centric CVS at Craig & Baum, so developers see it as, "oh I guess that's all that market is capable of," instead of putting what the market actually suggests.

The city came up with a plan for what they thought was best for this part of town. I really think that their initial plan is what should be going up. Ok, so they're putting in a CVS. Why on Earth not have it incorporated into a higher density building (office, apartment use, both, etc) instead of as an auto-dependant stand-alone location?

Pittsburgh is poised for growth. Is this the kind of growth we'd like to achieve for Pittsburgh? Is this all that the city is capable of? I'm thinking not on both counts, but I'm just a planner...

[WePA]

I live near Centre and am not happy to see this CVS nonsense. There's already one just over by Millvale! To see the complete failure of the Baum-Centre plan and the successes of Southside Flats, East Liberty and Lawrenceville is perplexing and frustrating. Maybe a degree in urban studies will help me figure it out :-/

[Minivan Werner]

Speaking of an incline connecting the strip to the hill, here's a before/after shot of the original Penn Incline and as it looks today.

[Johnland]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

The Oakland CVS is a big disappointment for that site. Redevelopment of that intersection was crucial towards transforming this pocket of Oakland into something much more valuable and complementary to the surrounding area. The great potential to revitalize that corridor into an actual neighborhood that would undoubtedly thrive is dashed by the "need" for a drive thru pharmacy. This may be the autocentric development that truly destroys the chances for this area. Centre Ave is a fucking frustrating hodgepodge mess (and they wonder why traffic flows so poorly on the street) of myopic development already.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about Pittsburgh. It's one thing if we were talking about this drive thru CVS in a smaller city that truly has no other options or even plans for a strategic site like this, or in another neighborhood of Pittsburgh without such effective redevelopment potential... but we are talking about what is arguably the most important general section of the city, one that has seen the most significant investment in redevelopment recently. Pittsburgh SHOULD be better than this, but proves time and again what it is -- and is not -- capable of. Frustrating.

It is shockingly low-brow to see a suburban pharmacy go in on that corner. It does shake ones faith in the urban sensabilities of Pittsburgh. If Oakland, home to the Carnegie Institute, Pitt, CMU, Carlow, Central Catholic, etc can't muster development better than likes of which would pop up on Route 286 Plum Borough, it's pretty sad.

[Evergrey]

http://popcitymedia.com/devnews/rive...ews032812.aspx

Riverside Mews phase II underway, brings more energy-efficient homes to South Side

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Green living options are growing again on the South Side. Riverside Mews, which includes the city’s first net-zero home, is expanding with phase II of its townhome development.

This latest phase will bring 18 new homes to the former-brownfield redevelopment site, located south of East Carson Street between 18th and 19th Streets. Known for blending quality urban design with energy efficiency, developer Ernie Sota says homes at Riverside Mews actually perform 40% better than Energy Star requirements.

Phase I of Riverside Mews opened in 2007, and was one of the first energy-efficient residential developments in Pittsburgh. It debuted with 14 units, some of which featured “sky room” rooftop decks, and were designed by the team of Perkins Eastman and Strada.

Sota says a few of the original homes have resold with appreciable gains in value, which speaks to the quality of the residences. He cites earlier neighborhood developments, such as Fox Way Commons, New Birmingham, and South Shore Place, as important efforts to which Riverside Mews has built upon.

“We’ve taken the for sale housing on the South Side to the next level…taken what those products offered to another level of quality and size and space,” he says.

Sota says each home is customized for the buyer. Initially, only the building’s shell is constructed, and once sold, homeowners choose from a floor-plan layout that meets their needs.

Fourteen homes are complete in phase II, and eight have been sold. The third and final phase, to be built nearest the river, will bring 16 additional homes to the site, with an anticipated completion date of early 2013.


Writer: Andrew Moore
Source: Ernie Sota

[Austinlee]

As hard as it is to fathom, I have a sneaking suspicion that if US Steel leaves their tower, they will move out of the city. Westinghouse abandoned their downtown skyscraper preferring Moronville & Blandberry. Gulf Oil left a landmark tower for what... ? A suburban office park in Houston, Texas im guessing. The best the city/downtown could hope for is a downsize but in a quality way like when Alcoa left their iconic aluminum skyscraper overlooking Mellon park to their riverfront beauty on the north shore facing downtown in 1998 which has been featured in many architectural books since then.

Alcoa:


http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/alcoa...nia_medium.jpg



http://vtunderconstruction.blogspot....ittsburgh.html

[Austinlee]

^Along the lines of the Alcoa example I think one great option would be a Moline,IL - John Deere HQ style steel building perhaps anchoring some high density development on the former civic arena site along with some greenspace mixed in. That would be a hell of a reuse for that site!


http://www.areturnondesign.com/hall_of_fame.page


http://www.areturnondesign.com/hall_of_fame.page

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

As hard as it is to fathom, I have a sneaking suspicion that if US Steel leaves their tower, they will move out of the city. Westinghouse abandoned their downtown skyscraper preferring Moronville & Blandberry. Gulf Oil left a landmark tower for what... ? A suburban office park in Houston, Texas im guessing. The best the city/downtown could hope for is a downsize but in a quality way like when Alcoa left their iconic aluminum skyscraper overlooking Mellon park to their riverfront beauty on the north shore facing downtown in 1998 which has been featured in many architectural books since then.

Alcoa:

Yes... the Alcoa HQ relocation worked out awesomely for Pittsburgh:

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06058/661831-28.stm

Alcoa's HQ relocation to NYC no big surprise

Monday, February 27, 2006
By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Alcoa's discreet disclosure that it has officially moved its headquarters from Pittsburgh to New York City formalizes a decision Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alain Belda made years ago.

...

In 1999, when Alcoa quietly signed a 20-year lease for space in the steel-framed Lever House on fashionable Park Avenue, analysts expected sooner or later that the cosmopolitan Mr. Belda, who speaks five languages, would move the company's seat of power to the Big Apple, a home he apparently believes more appropriate and relevant given the global company's far-flung operations.

"They're definitely going to move the headquarters away from Pittsburgh. I think eventually they will make a move to put the headquarters in New York," Prudential Securities analyst J. Clarence Morrison said at the time.

Formal recognition of what was obvious to most came in a one-sentence notice buried in the annual report Alcoa filed earlier this month with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The aluminum maker said its directors amended Alcoa's by-laws "to specify that the principal office of the company shall be in the City of New York rather than Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."

...

It was common knowledge that Mr. Belda, Alcoa's first non-American CEO, did not share his predecessor's affection for Pittsburgh. One former Alcoan said that, as a foreigner, Mr. Belda was not welcomed with open arms when he moved onto the small, tree-lined street in Shadyside in 1994.

"That word got back to O'Neill and Paul was furious," the former employee said when Mr. Belda moved to New York.

Regardless of whether the Shadyside welcome wagon was waiting for him, Mr. Belda's cultural and social preferences resided in New York. A French Moroccan by birth and a Brazilian citizen since 1982, Mr. Belda frequently spent weekends in New York even when he lived in Pittsburgh, preferring the restaurants and social scene there to Pittsburgh's.

This is the scenario I had going through my mind concerning U.S. Steel... keeping the bulk of the "corporate center" somewhere in the Pittsburgh region... while shifting the elite management to Manhattan. However, USS CEO John Surma is a Pittsburgher and a Penn State alum... so perhaps that would not be the case.

...

Gulf did not relocate anywhere... T. Boone Pickens attempted a hostile takeover of Gulf in the early 80s... and Gulf was forced to merge into its "white knight" investor Chevron. It is an extremely famous case of corporate raiding... today Gulf exists as an intellectual property.


... btw "Moronville" and "Blandberry"

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Yes... the Alcoa HQ relocation worked out awesomely for Pittsburgh:

This is the scenario I had going through my mind concerning U.S. Steel... keeping the bulk of the "corporate center" somewhere in the Pittsburgh region... while shifting the elite management to Manhattan. However, USS CEO John Surma is a Pittsburgher and a Penn State alum... so perhaps that would not be the case.

We'll see. It seems that any company of importance in the whole country eventually gets bought and taken to NY. *sigh*

[themaguffin]

Alcoa was a unique situation due to that dick of a ceo.

It's amazing too, that someone would uproot many people and establish, formally, a hq in NYC for no serious reason.

I do like the North Shore building, but again, wasted space in that even a modest 15-20 story building would stand out more and collectively, if a couple shore line buildings had maintained such height, there would be some sense relevant use of land and while not Chicago, would have had a nice river view of buildings on both sides.

The North Shore looks better than 20 years ago, but can't help but think every time I see those small buildings... what could have been.

[glowrock]

I'm a full believer that just because a few high-level execs occupy some Manhattan prize office space overlooking Central Park it doesn't really make a headquarters. Alcoa still has plenty of people here in Pittsburgh, just not the highest head-hauncho's. Big freaking deal. Same for, well, Boeing. They have a few hundred people in Chicago but the vast majority of their presence is still in the Seattle area. Chicago might be the OFFICIAL headquarters but noone really thinks of them as being a Chicago-based company. Same for USX. If a few high-level people go to NYC it doesn't mean it's a NYC-based company, except for maybe the IRS...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I'm a full believer that just because a few high-level execs occupy some Manhattan prize office space overlooking Central Park it doesn't really make a headquarters. Alcoa still has plenty of people here in Pittsburgh, just not the highest head-hauncho's. Big freaking deal. Same for, well, Boeing. They have a few hundred people in Chicago but the vast majority of their presence is still in the Seattle area. Chicago might be the OFFICIAL headquarters but noone really thinks of them as being a Chicago-based company. Same for USX. If a few high-level people go to NYC it doesn't mean it's a NYC-based company, except for maybe the IRS...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Right on.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I'm a full believer that just because a few high-level execs occupy some Manhattan prize office space overlooking Central Park it doesn't really make a headquarters. Alcoa still has plenty of people here in Pittsburgh, just not the highest head-hauncho's. Big freaking deal. Same for, well, Boeing. They have a few hundred people in Chicago but the vast majority of their presence is still in the Seattle area. Chicago might be the OFFICIAL headquarters but noone really thinks of them as being a Chicago-based company. Same for USX. If a few high-level people go to NYC it doesn't mean it's a NYC-based company, except for maybe the IRS...

Aaron (Glowrock)

The problem is that those very lucrative taxable incomes are filling the coffers of NYC or NJ instead of Pittsburgh area governments. Those elite managers are not spending their ample disposable incomes on Pittsburgh goods and services. They are not investing in Pittsburgh organizations and charities. They are not patronizing Pittsburgh museums, orchestras and ballets. Etc.

And if the elite management in not living in your community... they are probably less likely to make corporate decisions that benefit your community.

[themaguffin]

Yes it's nice that most of the corporate employees are in Pgh, but it sucks. It just sucks because there was no valid business reason for moving the top executives and it sucks for the additional sting of one less Fortune 500 HQ.

I actually would be offended if the that ass went to NYC, but the official HQ was listed as Pittsburgh.

[Austinlee]

Trust me, no CEO's except maybe ones who grew up here want to live in a 2nd tier city. If you are making 10+ million a year or more including stock options and whatever else, you want to live in one of the few cities that can support such wealth and you don't stick out like a sore thumb: NYC, LA, San Fran, London, Paris, etc.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Trust me, no CEO's except maybe ones who grew up here want to live in a 2nd tier city. If you are making 10+ million a year or more including stock options and whatever else, you want to live in one of the few cities that can support such wealth and you don't stick out like a sore thumb: NYC, LA, San Fran, London, Paris, etc.

Living in Pittsburgh wasn't a problem for Alain Belda's predecessor... the St Louis-born, Anchorage-raised, Fresno-educated Paul O'Neill.