PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[Jonboy1983]

From the looks of the model there, I believe that's right in between the Liberty and Panhandle Bridges. With that mixed use development about to get underway in Station Square, that is going to be one dynamic part of the Burgh!!

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

From the looks of the model there, I believe that's right in between the Liberty and Panhandle Bridges. With that mixed use development about to get underway in Station Square, that is going to be one dynamic part of the Burgh!!

The most interesting part of the Distillery project is it's explicitly set up so that its "front door" is facing the river. This makes perfect sense of course. The South Side Riverfront Trail is right there, and people can easily walk from Station Square (including the new apartments).

South Side by the river is more problematic. Right now there's a break in the trail from Riverwalk right to the Distillery, which shunts you onto McKean Street. Hopefully the rehab of Riverwalk will improve pedestrian access to McKean and the river, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, as long as that concrete plant is in between them the area won't reach its full potential.

Still, McKean is a glorified alley, and the supposed front facade is hardly welcoming. It makes sense to have the development open on the rear. I just love that inadvertently means it will be on a pedestrian thoroughfare rather than a street.

[eschaton]

PBT has some more info about the building scheduled to replace the CVS in Oakland at 3440 Forbes Avenue.

A Baltimore-based developer is working with Strada and the University of Pittsburgh to develop the building, which it presented this week to the Oakland Planning and development corporation this Wednesday. The building is planned to be 13 stores, with 200,000 to 250,000 square feet of office and lab space. It will also include a three-story, 160-175 space parking garage, and ground floor space for restaurants/retail and community meetings. Local residents are a bit concerned about the height of the project - 187 feet - which will require variances to go through.

While the developer is working with the University of Pittsburgh to develop the building as part of Pitt's "innovation district," and Pitt-related labs are expected to be major tenants, but the building will not be part of Pitt's campus. The developer apparently has plans for up to six more office buildings along Forbes, three of which will be ten stories plus.

[qwho]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Local residents are a bit concerned about the height of the project - 187 feet - which will require variances to go through.

The fact that a variance is needed at all, for an urban area, for a proposed building over 187 feet is so ridiculous.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by qwho

The fact that a variance is needed at all, for an urban area, for a proposed building over 187 feet is so ridiculous.

agreed. I don't understand why Oakland has this in place.

[MarkMyWords]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

agreed. I don't understand why Oakland has this in place.

Certainly not along Fifth and Forbes and some of the cross streets between the CMU campus and Magee Hospital.

[photoLith]

I live in Oakland, I wish a 900 foot skyscraper could get built, stuff needs to be taller than 187 feet in such a dense urban environment.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by qwho

The fact that a variance is needed at all, for an urban area, for a proposed building over 187 feet is so ridiculous.

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

agreed. I don't understand why Oakland has this in place.

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

Certainly not along Fifth and Forbes and some of the cross streets between the CMU campus and Magee Hospital.

As the article says:

Perhaps the biggest variance Wexford seeks will be for building height, proposing District Hall to reach 187 feet, 59 higher than the contextual height limit allowed when compared to other neighboring buildings, and 85 feet taller than the “by right” height of 102 feet.

So the normal height limit in that OPR section is 102 feet. But the contextual height limit based upon nearby buildings is 128 feet.

Not that it excuses it of course, but it's there.

[dfiler]

The twitter account Hazelwood Green says:

"In coordination with @CityPGH @Allegheny_Co @PghDOMI @CoreyOConnorPGH Almono LLC is please to announce that on Monday, April 1, 2019 at 9:00am the extensions of Blair Street & Hazelwood Ave through Hazelwood Green will be officially opened for public use!"

https://twitter.com/HazelwoodGreen/s...80626857320448

Hazelwood is now connected to the city's riverfront trail system! Now we really need a connection to the Duck Hollow Trail on the other end of Hazelwood. Well... that and addressing the quarter mile wide landslide that has destroyed the Duck Hollow Trail.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The building is planned to be 13 stores, with 200,000 to 250,000 square feet of office and lab space. It will also include a three-story, 160-175 space parking garage, and ground floor space for restaurants/retail and community meetings. . . . The developer apparently has plans for up to six more office buildings along Forbes, three of which will be ten stories plus.

Nice! Oakland keeps becoming more and more like Downtown DC, which is a good thing.

[BrianTH]

Background research--courtesy of Chris Briem, this empirical study confirms that the basic logic of supply and demand does in fact apply to increasing the supply of high-end units in gentrifying neighborhoods. Some affordable housing advocates erroneously argue new high-end units will induce more demand and therefore also increase prices in existing units. But as basic economics would suggest, it turns out that increasing the supply of high-end units does in fact make rents in older units lower, not higher:

https://appam.confex.com/appam/2018/...aper25811.html

Preliminary results using a spatial difference-in-differences approach suggest that any induced demand effects are overwhelmed by the effect of increased supply. In neighborhoods where new apartment complexes were completed between 2014-2016, rents in existing units near the new apartments declined relative to neighborhoods that did not see new construction until 2018. Changes in in-migration appear to drive this result. Although the total number of migrants from high-income neighborhoods to the new construction neighborhoods increases after the new units are completed, the number of high-income arrivals to previously existing units actually decreases, as the new units absorb a substantial portion of these households. On the whole, our results suggest that—on average and in the short-run—new construction lowers rents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

Basically, if you don't want higher-income people bidding up the prices for existing units, you need to give them an alternative.

So in practice, if you are concerned about housing affordability you should be concerned about maximizing the supply of both high-end and affordable housing. So, for example, a smart policy would be to give developers an incentive to offer affordable housing by saying if they do that, they can get variances to offer more high-end units too.

What does not make sense is to try to limit the supply of high-end units, and really you should even avoid policies that carve affordable units out of high-end units, as opposed to adding to them. Again, if you are really worried about affordability, you want as much of both as possible.

[eschaton]

4/18 ZBA is now up, only a few days after the 4/11 ZBA.

Items of interest:

1. Demolition of this house in Highland Park, and replacement with (I presume, based upon the lot size) two infill homes. I've walked by this house a lot - it's in terrible shape due to being abandoned, but at the same time it's going to be sad to see it go, because it's the only house remaining in its row where the original woodwork hasn't been covered up or removed, so you can imagine what the block looked like prior to remuddling.

2. Rehab of this abandoned brick building in Deutschtown into a legal three unit.

3. A new restaurant going into a prominent still vacant space in Eastside Bond near the corner of Centre and Penn.

4. Last, but certainly not least, a new plan for the conversion of the Holy Family Church/School into apartments. Looks like the new plan is for a 48-unit structure which involves some new construction additions.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

2. Rehab of this abandoned brick building in Deutschtown into a legal three unit.

That's a cool little building. Nice to see it getting saved.

4. Last, but certainly not least, a new plan for the conversion of the Holy Family Church/School into apartments. Looks like the new plan is for a 48-unit structur which involves some new construction additions.

Speaking of needed new units . . . .

[ks2006]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nice! Oakland keeps becoming more and more like Downtown DC, which is a good thing.

I've noticed the same thing, it is an unusual comparison but they do have a very similar feel!

[Bricktrimble]

Originally Posted by ks2006

I've noticed the same thing, it is an unusual comparison but they do have a very similar feel!

The traffic in Oakland is getting to be like DC traffic (or already is).

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Bricktrimble

The traffic in Oakland is getting to be like DC traffic (or already is).

Which is why I think having BRT linking Oakland and Downtown won't be the end-all/be-all solution of improving public transit between these two places. Extending the T should have been done years ago. One idea of extending the T would be running a line from 1st Avenue, under the Liberty Bridge along 2nd Avenue, then having it curve and go under/along Forbes Ave through Oakland and Squirrel Hill. I guess either way, this is a $2B idea that will never happen...

[eschaton]

It always seemed to me Oakland's biggest traffic snarls were backups of traffic attempting to get onto 376 via the Bates Street onramp. Plus whoever is trying to cross the Hot Metal Bridge during rush hour. Honestly this is likely to get worse as Hazelwood redevelops, as it's a narrow choke point in the road pattern which there's no good way to fix. The defeated plan which would have included widening Bates down the hill would have helped, but it still wouldn't have dealt with the congestion on the surface roads above Boulevard of the Allies. Unfortunately transit upgrades really won't help much here, since it's suburban commuters causing the issue, not city drivers. Maybe extending the East Busway to Monroeville would help put a dent in it though.

[photoLith]

^
Its pretty effing bad right now especially on Forbes because it goes down two lanes and sometimes one with that horrendous new mid rise being built and another building built on the opposite side of the street. Its been two lanes for over 3 years with all the new construction going on along Forbes. Traffic will get a little bit better once they open up all lanes again.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
Its pretty effing bad right now especially on Forbes because it goes down two lanes and sometimes one with that horrendous new mid rise being built and another building built on the opposite side of the street. Its been two lanes for over 3 years with all the new construction going on along Forbes. Traffic will get a little bit better once they open up all lanes again.

By the time those two buildings are done, construction on the new 13-story building across Coltart may have begun.

Plys you have the new Walnut Capital building nearby on Fifth. It's likely going to take out the bus lane, which will mean that block temporarily going down to two lanes outbound.

Honestly it's likely there's going to be at least 1-2 major construction projects on Forbes or Fifth for the next decade plus.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It always seemed to me Oakland's biggest traffic snarls were backups of traffic attempting to get onto 376 via the Bates Street onramp. Plus whoever is trying to cross the Hot Metal Bridge during rush hour. Honestly this is likely to get worse as Hazelwood redevelops, as it's a narrow choke point in the road pattern which there's no good way to fix. The defeated plan which would have included widening Bates down the hill would have helped, but it still wouldn't have dealt with the congestion on the surface roads above Boulevard of the Allies. Unfortunately transit upgrades really won't help much here, since it's suburban commuters causing the issue, not city drivers. Maybe extending the East Busway to Monroeville would help put a dent in it though.

I wonder if running some kind of commuter rail line along the old B&L line through Baldwin-Whitehall would alleviate anything. Commuters going through Hazelwood, would any of these happen to be those who sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic along Streets Run Rd before ending up in Oakland either via Hazelwood or the Hot Metal Bridge?