PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[eschaton]

I'd love to see them move out of PNC Firstside. That should never have been built - wrong scale for downtown (both in terms of block length and height).

Residential in that location would be awesome. Right next to the T, great riverfront views, access to the Jail Trail, parklet outside your front door, etc.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd love to see them move out of PNC Firstside. That should never have been built - wrong scale for downtown (both in terms of block length and height).

Residential in that location would be awesome. Right next to the T, great riverfront views, access to the Jail Trail, parklet outside your front door, etc.

The PNC Firstside Center and the BNY Mellon Client service centers are for back office operations and processing. The large floor plates are needed for the equipment used for processing. Both buildings were constructed at the same time in 2000 and kept hundreds of employees in downtown. These types of operations buildings are usually constructed in suburban office parks. Both Mellon(BNY Mellon) and PNC chose to keep the operations centers in downtown and both chose long vacant sites to construct the massive buildings.

The Post Gazette headline of the day read "PNC and Mellon grow downtown"
The site of BNY Mellon and the Mellon Green was a top contender for the Baseball only stadium. The site was a long vacant fenced off eyesore with a very large crater left from the subway construction of the 80's. The PNC Firstside Center and the adjacent parklet was the Baltimore and Lake Erie train station and the Allegheny County jail annex. Both buildings were vacant and that section of downtown was dark and shady in appearance.

I worked in the Mellon Client Service Center to 13 years. Our previous office was located at 525 William Penn Place on the 26-29th floors. The offices and operations set up was cramped and dingy. The setup was not conducive to our processing needs at the time. The new facilities provided ample loading docks and elevated floor plates. I toured the construction site and was amazed at how expansive the new operations area was.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Oh, and look what I found - the first renderings of first phase of Walnut Capital's new Oakland development - the 426-unit apartment building, with a 438 space garage, a 33,000 square-foot grocery store, and two additional retail spaces with a total of 8,000 square feet on a plaza raised up from Zulema Street.

It was reminding me of something put I couldn't put my finger on it, and then I realized--it looks like a hospital! In fact if that was a proposed expansion of Magee, I wouldn't be surprised by the design . . . .

Which I guess is OK given the context, and I never really expected them to create a vibrant, charming, walkable neighborhood along BoA. I am more just interested in appropriate intensity of land use in Oakland.

[BrianTH]

I don't remember seeing a discussion of this--Hertz Investment Group (the current owner) is looking at converting one of the 25-story Gateway towers into residential. Similar cruciform buildings from the same era are residential towers in places like NYC and such, and it definitely works well. Again, all just continuing a theme of Downtown starting to shift more and more emphasis from office to residential:

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202206230086

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't remember see a discussion of this--Hertz Investment Group (the current owner) is looking at converting one of the 25-story Gateway towers into residential. Similar cruciform buildings from the same era are residential towers in places like NYC and such, and it definitely works well. Again, all just continuing a theme of Downtown starting to shift more and more emphasis from office to residential:

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202206230086

I think we're going to see quite a bit more of this downtown as office preferences keep shifting, and that's a great building to start with. I used to work in Gateway 1 for years and always daydreamed about what could be done to refresh that complex, including the pedestrian areas. Huge opportunities there, if done correctly.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I think we're going to see quite a bit more of this downtown as office preferences keep shifting, and that's a great building to start with. I used to work in Gateway 1 for years and always daydreamed about what could be done to refresh that complex, including the pedestrian areas. Huge opportunities there, if done correctly.

Yeah, that whole "towers in a park" period ended up being a really bad idea from an overall urban land use perspective, but in limited doses it can still be very pleasant.

So we have the actual park from the confluence to Commonwealth, and then we have "Little Modernia" (as I like to think of it) from Commonwealth to Stanwix, as a kind of transition zone. And you already have the hotel and a good chunk of residential in Little Modernia, including the converted State Office Building, now River Vue. And I think even more could leverage the nice position between the park and the more normal grid-like parts of Downtown.

Speaking of which--the plan for the former Post Gazette complex was to redevelop and expand it as Class A office. Indovina page:

https://www.indovina.net/pittsburghpressbuilding

And it is still listed on the developer's website as a combination of "under redevelopment" and "build to suit":

https://www.dicicco.us/properties/

But I also think that plan was formulated right before COVID hit. And I wonder if eventually a pivot to a different plan might be necessary.

[eschaton]

July 12 Planning Commission presentation online. Two new items for next week.

1. The planned condo development at 635 Smithfield Street. We've known about this for awhile. The only big news here is they appear to have no plans any longer to involve 633 Smithfield, which still shows a repaired façade in the promotional materials attempting to sell the condos. I'm not surprised, given the floor plates are at different heights, but it is disappointing.

2. A new institutional master plan for CMU has dropped! Lots of information here regarding their planned projects over the next 10 years. Lots of new buildings planned, particularly in the "North Campus" area above 5th. They list 20 different projects in total, some of which so far are very cursory. They also plan to slightly extend the EMI zoning in three areas (they still own lots of property outside of the EMI zone). It will be interesting to me to see how much longer the last few houses on streets like Filmore, Winthrop, and Henry survive.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't remember seeing a discussion of this--Hertz Investment Group (the current owner) is looking at converting one of the 25-story Gateway towers into residential. Similar cruciform buildings from the same era are residential towers in places like NYC and such, and it definitely works well. Again, all just continuing a theme of Downtown starting to shift more and more emphasis from office to residential:

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/202206230086

I used to work in that building and it would work pretty well as apartments. The cruciform floorplan means that there could be windows in every room unlike a lot of office buildings that have big windowless interiors.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I used to work in that building and it would work pretty well as apartments. The cruciform floorplan means that there could be windows in every room unlike a lot of office buildings that have big windowless interiors.

Yeah, here is a shot of Peter Cooper Village, a residential development in New York from the same period that intentionally made use of exactly what you are noting:



Obviously Gateway Center was not nearly on that scale (although originally the plan was for this just to be a start on a much bigger transformation), but they are actually some of the nicest versions of that style anywhere, thanks to the stainless steel cladding.

Edit: Courtesy of Chris Briem, here is a 1954 plan for a similar sort of development on the North Side (obviously never happened):

[GeneW]

I've seen that proposal for the War Streets before. It's amazing that the government could have done even worse things to the Northside than what they actually did.

[MarkMyWords]

Originally Posted by eschaton

July 12 Planning Commission presentation online. Two new items for next week.

1. The planned condo development at 635 Smithfield Street. We've known about this for awhile. The only big news here is they appear to have no plans any longer to involve 633 Smithfield, which still shows a repaired façade in the promotional materials attempting to sell the condos. I'm not surprised, given the floor plates are at different heights, but it is disappointing.

2. A new institutional master plan for CMU has dropped! Lots of information here regarding their planned projects over the next 10 years. Lots of new buildings planned, particularly in the "North Campus" area above 5th. They list 20 different projects in total, some of which so far are very cursory. They also plan to slightly extend the EMI zoning in three areas (they still own lots of property outside of the EMI zone). It will be interesting to me to see how much longer the last few houses on streets like Filmore, Winthrop, and Henry survive.

Between all the (possible) development at Pitt, according to their recently released master plan, and this from CMU, the Oakland area could really become almost a urban hub rivaling downtown, and easily surpassing East Liberty.

https://www.campusplan.pitt.edu/draft-campus-plan

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

Between all the (possible) development at Pitt, according to their recently released master plan, and this from CMU, the Oakland area could really become almost a urban hub rivaling downtown, and easily surpassing East Liberty.

https://www.campusplan.pitt.edu/draft-campus-plan

Yeah, I would imagine East Liberty is just a distant object in the rearview mirror at this point. I'd actually say Oakland is the third-most important CBD in the state, or possibly fourth if you count University City in Philly as separate from Center City.

Personally, while I do not particularly love what hospital and university campuses tend to do to the urban fabric, I long ago accepted the necessity of all this in light of the economic importance of these institutions. And the fact it all appears to be going strong seems like a good thing.

Bit of an aside, but related--I do continue to wonder about the future of Uptown, and the degree to which it might eventually become more of a bridge than a gap between Downtown and Oakland.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Bit of an aside, but related--I do continue to wonder about the future of Uptown, and the degree to which it might eventually become more of a bridge than a gap between Downtown and Oakland.

Uptown is clearly going to develop more and more, but I'm not sure it can ever serve as a real "bridge" neighborhood given the awful shit they did to the road pattern around the Birmingham Bridge.

I guess I could theoretically see fixing Fifth Avenue - turning it back into a two-way street and filling it with development from Oakland Portal to Kirkpatrick and beyond. Though there's a hell of a hillside that would need to be cut into.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Uptown is clearly going to develop more and more, but I'm not sure it can ever serve as a real "bridge" neighborhood given the awful shit they did to the road pattern around the Birmingham Bridge.

I guess I could theoretically see fixing Fifth Avenue - turning it back into a two-way street and filling it with development from Oakland Portal to Kirkpatrick and beyond. Though there's a hell of a hillside that would need to be cut into.

Yeah, that's an issue.

That said, I once had a kind of waking up dream (I think this was around when the Amazon HQ was in play) where there were skyscrapers replacing the concrete plant on both sides of the bridge, which then connected by skybridges over to buildings along Fifth.

It was very cool in my head. Probably not all that realistic.

[MarkMyWords]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah, that's an issue.

That said, I once had a kind of waking up dream (I think this was around when the Amazon HQ was in play) where there were skyscrapers replacing the concrete plant on both sides of the bridge, which then connected by skybridges over to buildings along Fifth.

It was very cool in my head. Probably not all that realistic.

As sorry as I am to see it coming, I have concluded that between COVID, creeping business casual in dress and attitude, and changing patterns of office work (less and less need of centralized office space), the time for large/tall skyscrapers outside of a very few urban centers is gone for a while. New York and other incredibly dense cities being the exception. There still might be the occasional tower built for a specific client (either operational need or vanity). But urban planners need to start thinking more about encouraging density, and incorporating residential with amenities into urban cores, than about signature high rises.

Which pondering lets me raise a point that I've asked before. Looking at cities like Vancouver, Seattle. or even a lot of the Washington DC area, high-rise residential is very very common, and adds a lot to the skyline. Even Cincinnati has far more high rise condos and apartments, especially sited on hill tops with views of the river. And Pittsburgh has just as many hills and river views. Admittedly, having ocean views makes a huge difference. But density of population coupled with a smallish geographical area is the sure fire formula to stronger urban design. Not necessarily better, but more of it. What will it take for the typical American planner or developer to give up the suburban paradigm? I recognize that they are only responding to demand, so I guess the question is: how do we change the demand?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

Which pondering lets me raise a point that I've asked before. Looking at cities like Vancouver, Seattle. or even a lot of the Washington DC area, high-rise residential is very very common, and adds a lot to the skyline. Even Cincinnati has far more high rise condos and apartments, especially sited on hill tops with views of the river. And Pittsburgh has just as many hills and river views. Admittedly, having ocean views makes a huge difference. But density of population coupled with a smallish geographical area is the sure fire formula to stronger urban design. Not necessarily better, but more of it. What will it take for the typical American planner or developer to give up the suburban paradigm? I recognize that they are only responding to demand, so I guess the question is: how do we change the demand?

So most of the recent significant development news seems to involve either the hospitals/universities and related tech spaces and such, or new residential projects including lots of buildings in Downtown Pittsburgh or Oakland with a significant number of floors.

I am not sure we are going to see REALLY tall residential towers in Pittsburgh anytime soon. But, for example, the Gateway Center residential conversion we were just discussing above involves a 344-foot, 24-story tower. The new City Club apartment tower discussed a few pages before that is also supposed to be 24-story, and so on. The Oakland Crossing project referenced most recently is only 13 stories, but it does have 426 planned units.

So on the one hand, these projects are not necessarily doing a ton to change the skyline. On the other, though, they are definitely at a residential density more than sufficient for general urban planning purposes.

Indeed, my recollection is urban planners usually say that something like 5-6 story residential buildings are sufficient to support amenity-dense, walkable neighborhoods. And there are actually quite a few more areas in Pittsburgh getting that scale of residential project, or at least close.

Long story short, I think there is in fact quite a bit of demand for such residential units and neighborhoods, judging from developer behavior. I just think in a metro area with relatively tame population dynamics, the scale and pace of those projects is likely to be relatively tame as well.

[Wally G]

Anyone know when that apartment building across from PNC Park supposed to break ground? I thought it was supposed to start construction months ago.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

Which pondering lets me raise a point that I've asked before. Looking at cities like Vancouver, Seattle. or even a lot of the Washington DC area, high-rise residential is very very common, and adds a lot to the skyline. Even Cincinnati has far more high rise condos and apartments, especially sited on hill tops with views of the river. And Pittsburgh has just as many hills and river views. Admittedly, having ocean views makes a huge difference. But density of population coupled with a smallish geographical area is the sure fire formula to stronger urban design. Not necessarily better, but more of it. What will it take for the typical American planner or developer to give up the suburban paradigm? I recognize that they are only responding to demand, so I guess the question is: how do we change the demand?

Residential rental prices need to hit a certain level to warrant steel-framed construction (and hence heights of over five stories). Pittsburgh has seen a handful of these in recent years, but they've all been in Oakland, where there's crazy rental demand (and in some cases they are student housing, meaning they can charge by the bed instead of by the unit).

I know we're getting a new residential highrise building on the YWCA site relatively soon, but I expect it will be the last new residential building for quite awhile, and we're more likely to get another new PNC tower than something appreciably tall. Given the downturn in the commercial office market, we're going to see a lot of residential conversions downtown. Until this glut is exhausted, we just won't see that much new residential construction.

[eschaton]

Speaking of Uptown, it seems like a new major development is in the works. I had no idea that Sal Williams (whose landbanking did more to destroy Uptown than any single individual) died last year. Regardless, a developer is about to buy most of the 1700 block of Fifth Avenue.

The article claims that the deal is only for the two large parking lots on either end of the block, not the three buildings in the middle. However, checking property records Sal Williams already owned the one and two story buildings, just not the nice four-story building in the middle of the block (which had some rehab work done last year). I hope the article is wrong, and these buildings are included in the deal, as they're really beyond hope and not historic regardless.

The location is a real nexus of development. There's a new apartment building being finished up just across the street, Flats on Fifth (the first market-rate infill building in the neighborhood) is on one side, and Fifth Avenue School Lofts (the first real sign of neighborhood revival) is in the other direction, along with the upcoming 167-unit mixed-income development which will straddle Dinwiddie Two nice buildings on the corners of Van Braam and Mittenburger would be enough that a cohesive street wall along Fifth would start to re-emerge.

[pj3000]

Acrisure Stadium!!

Oh god, that's terrible

Coming on the heels off last season's awful team, this name could portend a bad stretch for the Steelers.

What are the odds that Kraft Heinz is fully out of Pittsburgh within 5 years?