PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by photoLith

What are you talking about? Is Cleveland getting a new tallest building or something?

CLEVELAND | Sherwin-Williams HQ (Multi) | FT | FLOORS

[Yuri]

I was watching some drone videos of Pittsburgh on YouTube and I noticed just east of Downtown Triangle, a big area of parking lots near from what I assume to be the hockey arena. Do they have plans to develop that area?

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I was watching some drone videos of Pittsburgh on YouTube and I noticed just east of Downtown Triangle, a big area of parking lots near from what I assume to be the hockey arena. Do they have plans to develop that area?

Yes, that is known as the civic arena site and it has a master plan that has been being revised multiple times for the last few years. You can look at the first post of this thread to see the type of master plan that is supposed to be built there. As of right now, there is a a new 400 ft tower starting construction within the next year. There is also a highway cap project that is under construction linking downtown to this site that will include a park and pedestrian features. Eventually that whole site will be built out.

[eschaton]

The group developing the planned apartment project immediately adjacent to Coda on Centre has finally closed on the property. The article has few details, but it sounds like construction on the new 150-unit apartment building will begin early next year.

In unrelated news, the Ewalt house in Lawrenceville will likely be demolished. I have mixed feelings given I used to live just down the street from this home, but as long as it's replaced by infill townhouses it's a higher/better use, and I can't complain too much.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In unrelated news, the Ewalt house in Lawrenceville will likely be demolished[/URL]. I have mixed feelings given I used to live just down the street from this home, but as long as it's replaced by infill townhouses it's a higher/better use, and I can't complain too much.

It's difficult to see a pre-Civil War farmhouse torn down, but to me, it's more difficult to see the increasingly deplorable condition it's been in for decades.

This property should have been put into conservatorship over 10 years ago, rather than mess around with all the historic landmark nomination/preservation crap now in last-ditch, in-vain attempt to save it from a date with the wrecking ball. But now, it's at the point where renovating it to the extent at which the building could actually attain historic stature is likely financially infeasible. We're talking over $400k just to purchase it... accurately renovating that thing to its historical appearance while incorporating all the modern upgrades would cost double that.

And I don't know that a more densely-developed plot with infill townhouses is necessarily a higher/better use (at least not if the proposed townhouses are anything like most of the new townhouse infill we've seen in Lawrenceville). But I'm solidly not an adherent to the "density for density's sake" line of urban development thinking.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This property should have been put into conservatorship over 10 years ago, rather than mess around with all the historic landmark nomination/preservation crap now in last-ditch, in-vain attempt to save it from a date with the wrecking ball. But now, it's at the point where renovating it to the extent at which the building could actually attain historic stature is likely financially infeasible. We're talking over $400k just to purchase it... accurately renovating that thing to its historical appearance while incorporating all the modern upgrades would cost double that.

We have made the strange policy decision in our country to do everything possible to allow seniors to age in place in their homes. While I understand the sentiment behind this, it's really a bad thing from a policy perspective. First, it causes value to be destroyed due to decades of deferred maintenance as properties literally crumble around them. Even not taking this into account, it's bad because from a standpoint of housing utility having 1-2 elderly people occupying a 3-4 bedroom multi-story house just makes no sense.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

We have made the strange policy decision in our country to do everything possible to allow seniors to age in place in their homes. While I understand the sentiment behind this, it's really a bad thing from a policy perspective. First, it causes value to be destroyed due to decades of deferred maintenance as properties literally crumble around them. Even not taking this into account, it's bad because from a standpoint of housing utility having 1-2 elderly people occupying a 3-4 bedroom multi-story house just makes no sense.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not in favor of kicking people out of their homes per se, but if a property can no longer be maintained by the resident him/herself via theirs or their family's/friend's own labor or via paying someone to maintain it... then well, it really becomes a detriment to the neighborhood, negatively affecting surrounding property values/devaluing city real estate one crumbling house at a time. That's not fair. I really wish municipal codes were actually enforced in an effective manner, with property ownership requiring responsible maintenance. It's certainly a touchy subject... not wanting to infringe on private property rights, nor wanting to kick grandma out on the street.

I don't know the occupancy history behind the Ewalt house... I was assuming that it was rented out or vacant and the owner/landlord wasn't maintaining it. If so, that's a clear case for the neighborhood org to appeal for conservatorship to me.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I don't know the occupancy history behind the Ewalt house... I was assuming that it was rented out or vacant and the owner/landlord wasn't maintaining it. If so, that's a clear case for the neighborhood org to appeal for conservatorship to me.

As the article notes, an old guy aged in place in the house and died. His children are now trying to sell the property. People on the street talked about what a wreck the house looked on the inside even back when I lived in the area between 2007 and 2014.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As the article notes, an old guy aged in place in the house and died. His children are now trying to sell the property. People on the street talked about what a wreck the house looked on the inside even back when I lived in the area between 2007 and 2014.

I blame the children.

There should be some type of formula that could be applied to a real estate sale which would pay surrounding property owners a percentage of the home's value to compensate them for the devaluation of their own properties caused by the neglect of the property in question, prior to the heirs receiving any profit from the sale.

[eschaton]

October 13 planning commission presentation now online. There's only two new items for next week: Historic nominations for the "VA Chapel" and "VA Laboratory" on Highland Drive. These are part of the now vacated VA complex in the upper portion of Lincon-Lemington-Belmar. The plans for this facility was covered a month or two ago by the Historic Review Commission: City police (and perhaps some other city departments as well) are taking over the complex. These two buildings are considered to be good examples of mid-century institutional architecture, and warrant historical designation (even if the complex as a whole does not).

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by eschaton

9/29 Planning Commission presentation is now online. Three new items on the agenda for next week, though the two substantial ones have already received some coverage in the media.

...

2. A presentation on something called a "Phase 2 Frick Park Extension." I was initially confused, but it involves the now built Summerset at Frick's second phase, essentially converting a wide grassy undeveloped plot into a more active space, with winding sidewalks, two pavilions, and a central planted and hardscaped focal point aligning with the cross street Beardsley Lane. I don't think it's a bad design, but it's not anything that 95%+ of Pittsburgh will ever see.

...

Does anyone know more about this expansion of Frick? That parcel of land is currently owned by the URA so becoming part of Frick Park implies a transfer of that land to the city.

The URA also owns the hillside below the summerset development. Is it possible that hillside will also become part of Frick? The Nine Mile Run stream at the bottom of the hilside is owned by the city and is part of Frick park. However the hillside between that and the parcel referred to in this pdf, is currently URA land. Fingers crossed it too is part of a Frick expansion!

Edit: Reading the pdf more closely... that whole hillside will be part of Frick! The map legend color code suggests this at least. The dotted line outline only shows what part of that is being developed.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by eschaton

October 13 planning commission presentation now online. There's only two new items for next week: Historic nominations for the "VA Chapel" and "VA Laboratory" on Highland Drive. These are part of the now vacated VA complex in the upper portion of Lincon-Lemington-Belmar. The plans for this facility was covered a month or two ago by the Historic Review Commission: City police (and perhaps some other city departments as well) are taking over the complex. These two buildings are considered to be good examples of mid-century institutional architecture, and warrant historical designation (even if the complex as a whole does not).

I am glad they are trying to get historic status for these two buildings. I haven't kept up with the other plans for the site - are any of the other buildings (the ones not getting nominated) on the chopping block?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by deja vu

I am glad they are trying to get historic status for these two buildings. I haven't kept up with the other plans for the site - are any of the other buildings (the ones not getting nominated) on the chopping block?

I don't think they necessarily plan to demolish the rest of the complex, but they may make modifications which significantly alter the structures.

[Austinlee]

Interesting article title:

Report: local tech industry's shift to remote work arrangements could hamper urban fringe office building boom
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...Pos=3#cxrecs_s


"Urban Fringe building boom" Is that a term used for new developments in city neighborhoods not associated with downtown?
It does seem to be a trend ongoing for years now that young companies prefer not to be in formal downtown offices but I don't think I've heard this term before.

[BrutalistUtopia]

Great article on the state of development in the MSA and the status of a few higher-profile projects in the city, including Troioni's Firstside tower and The Forte Condos in the Strip. To be honest I'm suprised to hear the strip condos are breaking ground, for some reason I assumed that project wasn't going to happen.

https://www.publicsource.org/pittsbu...stside-peduto/


Also the FNB tower recently secured funding, making it one more slow step closer to fruition.

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202010080166

[BrianTH]

Troiani is talking like a big replacement project is a done deal. The truth is it is just a concept with no financing, no anchor tenant, and no real timeline. And we have seen similar cases where many, many years later, nothing has happened.

[themaguffin]

Were official details of the FNB towers revealed?

[eschaton]

November 5th ZBA online. Three interesting mini-projects for that week:

1. A three-unit in Central Northside. The location is interesting, developing a large vacant lot with a steep grade change. It looks like the first story will be a mini-garage accessible off of Porterfield with three integral spaces, while the front facade of the building will face Fountain Street. The presentation is very short/crude though, so no renderings or massing is available.

2. A six-unit townhouse development in Central Oakland. Or, more properly, in Panther Hollow. This is the location. Looks like the plan is four townhouses facing the primary street, and two facing the alley. The renderings are crude, but it seems like they're going for less of an ultra-modern design. Honestly, they look cheap and dated more than anything, but additional units in Oakland are always a good thing.

3. A minor addition to the roof of 20 Stanwix. Looking at the presentation, this appears to be to allow for a top-floor restaurant overlooking the Monongahela.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by eschaton

November 5th ZBA online. Three interesting mini-projects for that week:

1. A three-unit in Central Northside. The location is interesting, developing a large vacant lot with a steep grade change. It looks like the first story will be a mini-garage accessible off of Porterfield with three integral spaces, while the front facade of the building will face Fountain Street. The presentation is very short/crude though, so no renderings or massing is available.

2. A six-unit townhouse development in Central Oakland. Or, more properly, in Panther Hollow. This is the location. Looks like the plan is four townhouses facing the primary street, and two facing the alley. The renderings are crude, but it seems like they're going for less of an ultra-modern design. Honestly, they look cheap and dated more than anything, but additional units in Oakland are always a good thing.

3. A minor addition to the roof of 20 Stanwix. Looking at the presentation, this appears to be to allow for a top-floor restaurant overlooking the Monongahela.

That Porterfield / Fountain site is tricky to say the least. It will be interesting to see how they solve the access and site challenges.

And I remember years ago thinking, when will that Panther Hollow site get developed? Glad it might finally happen! There looks to be 6 units, but the sub-basement floor plan also looks like it could serve as entirely separate studio apartment space (albeit very small).

[eschaton]

October 27th planning commission presentation online. Three new items for next week:

1. Institutional Master Plan for Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. This is a much more ambitious ten-year plan than I thought the seminary would have. They plan to demolish two old buildings, build a new structure and essentially double an existing one with a new wing, and reconfigure parking, green space, and internal access roads through the school. The most interesting aspect to most though will be a bit more details related to the planned ceding of land for affordable housing on the southern fringe of the campus. They plan for a six-story, 130,000 apartment with ground-floor commercial fronting on East Liberty Boulevard, and 4-5 townhouses on Sheridan Avenue. Looks like the initial plan is to step down the building height as it approaches Sheridan, and to include ground-floor integral parking on that side of the building. The plan seems unfinished on the north side of campus, but they've been in a holding pattern there because they can't buy out the last homeowner on the block.

2. A plan to demolish the "Family House" complex on McKee Place in Oakland. The offices were at one point two grand homes which have been combined and remuddled, along with a surface parking lot in the rear. Interestingly, this is immediately adjacent to the new planned apartment building which will front on the Marathon Gas site on Forbes, though it's probably too late for that plan to change to expand to fill this parcel as well. This parcel is actually right at the fringe of the Oakland Public Realm, meaning something high-density could be built here fairly easily.

3. A plan to convert the Allegheny Building downtown into an apartment building. Technically they're asking for the transfer of 87 units from 201 Stanwix. The ultimate unit count for the building appears to be 190 - mostly one-bedroom units. Not much to say here really, except that these sort of early 20th century elevator buildings are much more suited to residential (much better than 201 Stanwix).