PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

That would be them…two of the four are down for now.

Yeah, those were always weirdly out of scale-context with the surrounding block. Looking on the historic maps, they were built between 1910 and 1923, with that parcel staying undeveloped for some reason throughout the 19th century.

Honestly, replacement with more modern infill which has more similar building heights/setbacks to the neighboring structures will make the block read better.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm losing track--what is the status of the 20 stories they were planning to put over the YWCA?

I don't think it's dead, officially. Last November the developer committed once again to move forward with the project.

I more didn't mention it because the discussion was about apartment towers outside of Downtown.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Generally, towers are cool, but I personally think the more widespread densification of various areas is a bigger deal from a public policy perspective. So while the NIMBYism frustrates me, I think a lot of good has been done anyway.

There's still plenty of space for more five-over-ones in The Strip and the like. I do not anticipate many new steel residential buildings landing outside of Greater Oakland in the next five years or so. Though even there, the idiotic new zoning which bans further residential construction along Fifth/Forbes will really hurt things (North Oakland theoretically allows for further towers like One on Centre to be built, but practically speaking the FAR required requires variances to get anything constructed.

[eschaton]

The 2023 RCAP candidate list is out. I'm just going to link to it, because there's so much on here that's still in the running (including both well-known and lesser-known projects) that summarizing (even if we limited ourselves to Pittsburgh-only sites with more than $5 million requested) would take up pages of content.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The 2023 RCAP candidate list is out. I'm just going to link to it, because there's so much on here that's still in the running (including both well-known and lesser-known projects) that summarizing (even if we limited ourselves to Pittsburgh-only sites with more than $5 million requested) would take up pages of content.

Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard about Astrobotic's plans for the tear down on Western Avenue before but they own 1127 Western Avenue...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4510...8192?entry=ttu

I really hope they work to make Western Ave a little nicer there with either an entrance to the building or some sort of improvement to that parking lot.

[eschaton]

March 5 Planning Commission presentation is online. Only two items for next week, though both are of some note:

1. A "master development plan" for Saw Mill Run Boulevard. If you want the cliff notes, check out the presentation, but the full 105-page plan is also available to view.

There's an admirable amount of work put into this, but as the plan notes, the primary issue is that Saw Mill Run Boulevard is overdeveloped, with the lowest elevation areas often given over to uses like auto dealerships with huge impervious paved surfaces, which causes flooding. What is needed is a massive eminent domain and rewilding, but since that's not feasible, they have some design charrettes around the edges.

2. A request to rezone a portion of Oakland from UC-E to R-MU. The presentation is here, though you can also check out the zoning map amendment and the notice.

The area in question is most of a block of McKee Place, containing four historic walkup apartments and the former campus of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, which was purchased by Walnut Capital in 2017. The photos included in the presentation show the office building still being there, but that part of the site is now cleared. Walnut Capital intends to build a roughly 200-unit apartment on McKee Place, though this may also be inclusive of the next block south, which it also now has site control over.

IMHO the area in question should never have been part of the UC-E designation, as it was over half residential. However, it also showcases that one of the central features of the recent Oakland rezone - the idea that the core of Oakland should have no new apartment buildings (unless 100% affordable) was an ill-considered failure. I still don't understand how that 1950's era relict zoning got through, other than the inexplicably powerful Oakland NIMBY contingent being salty that three new-build apartments which were kind of ugly got built along Forbes over the previous decade.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

[eschaton]

Looking through the Bloomfield-Garfield Bulletin for March is depressing. Some notes on East End development.

1. There's two different articles (a straight news article, and an editorial from the Bloomfield Development Corporation) about the efforts to salvage the 248 "Bloomfield Square" project following the rejection by the ZBA. Litigation in Allegheny Common Pleas Court will begin March 31.

2. In January, a new phase of 25 rental homes constructed in Garfield was completed. Most are still unoccupied due to regulatory issues however.

3. Regarding market-rate housing in Garfield, although a Rosetta Street project is moving forward, two ZBA-approved projects for North Aiken and Wicklow have yet to break ground, perhaps due to high rates for construction loans.

4. Mellon's Orchard North still has their 264-unit apartment building in limbo, as the developer attempts to negotiate a new zoning overlay. The city has apparently demanded that at least 20% of units are affordable for this to be greenlit.

There's also some notes on a number of smaller projects, along with yet another comment on the comprehensive rezoning of the city planned across 2024/2025. I don't know why the only word of this is being whispered out to community groups, and there's not a single thing on the Department of Planning's website.

[xdv8]

Originally Posted by eschaton

4. Mellon's Orchard North still has their 264-unit apartment building in limbo, as the developer attempts to negotiate a new zoning overlay. The city has apparently demanded that at least 20% of units are affordable for this to be greenlit.

I think this project always was to include a large number of affordable units --- they have been seeking low income tax credits since 2018 --- but I can't find information on that in my docs. Regardless, can the City legally extort affordable units from developers like this?

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by eschaton

March 5 Planning Commission presentation is online. Only two items for next week, though both are of some note:

1. A "master development plan" for Saw Mill Run Boulevard. If you want the cliff notes, check out the presentation, but the full 105-page plan is also available to view.

There's an admirable amount of work put into this, but as the plan notes, the primary issue is that Saw Mill Run Boulevard is overdeveloped, with the lowest elevation areas often given over to uses like auto dealerships with huge impervious paved surfaces, which causes flooding. What is needed is a massive eminent domain and rewilding, but since that's not feasible, they have some design charrettes around the edges.

2. A request to rezone a portion of Oakland from UC-E to R-MU. The presentation is here, though you can also check out the zoning map amendment and the notice.

The area in question is most of a block of McKee Place, containing four historic walkup apartments and the former campus of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, which was purchased by Walnut Capital in 2017. The photos included in the presentation show the office building still being there, but that part of the site is now cleared. Walnut Capital intends to build a roughly 200-unit apartment on McKee Place, though this may also be inclusive of the next block south, which it also now has site control over.

IMHO the area in question should never have been part of the UC-E designation, as it was over half residential. However, it also showcases that one of the central features of the recent Oakland rezone - the idea that the core of Oakland should have no new apartment buildings (unless 100% affordable) was an ill-considered failure. I still don't understand how that 1950's era relict zoning got through, other than the inexplicably powerful Oakland NIMBY contingent being salty that three new-build apartments which were kind of ugly got built along Forbes over the previous decade.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

I glanced over the 105 page version of the Saw Mill Run plans, and I hope the implementation goes as outlined. The road itself must remain much as it is due to the sheer volume of traffic, and while I'm not a huge proponent of eminent domain in many cases, here it makes some sense, especially between the Parkway interchange and the Tubes. It's a defacto high speed thoroughfare with some stoplights in the mix, and the businesses test brakes and already limited patience, where limited sight lines and congestion abound.

That said, good luck between the Tubes and Library Rd, as the number of car lots and such will be an endeavor.

I like that Ohio River Blvd (65) was noted as well. If both corridors can be redesigned as proposed, it would make for better aesthetics and flow, especially when auto, bus, and maybe the T, can all exist simultaneously with better drainage and more green.

[Selcier]

The Planning Commission voted to approve the zoning changes related to attached single family housing! (This is just a recommendation to City Council, but a positive one!) To note: this is not to allow multifamily on one lot, but for any lots 35 feet and under, attached housing would be allowable by right. For lots 35 feet or longer, special exceptions could be made. Next steps is that the Council have a public hearing and then vote.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by xdv8

I think this project always was to include a large number of affordable units --- they have been seeking low income tax credits since 2018 --- but I can't find information on that in my docs. Regardless, can the City legally extort affordable units from developers like this?

I don't think this is the first case that this has happened since Gainey has become mayor, though I cannot remember the prior case off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Selcier

The Planning Commission voted to approve the zoning changes related to attached single family housing! (This is just a recommendation to City Council, but a positive one!) To note: this is not to allow multifamily on one lot, but for any lots 35 feet and under, attached housing would be allowable by right. For lots 35 feet or longer, special exceptions could be made. Next steps is that the Council have a public hearing and then vote.

It's a relatively small thing, but I think it will be transformative in a couple corners of the city. Garfield and Larimer in particular, as there's plenty of vacant lots, but large swathes are zoned for detached high density, despite a lot of the neighborhood vernacular being attached housing.

I expect there to be major opposition to this in the Mount Washington area, as land values are high enough to warrant market-rate infill, and there's a strong anti-development contingent who argues the area is "too full" already.

Elsewhere, I expect it to be more situational. Most wealthy, suburbanish parts of the city have lot widths of greater than 30 feet. Those that don't are generally either 95%+ intact (and thus not really impacted much by upzoning) or still have real estate values too depressed to expect a major upswing in construction.

[eschaton]

April 4 ZBA agenda is online. A few things worth noting here.

1. Complete rehab of an existing commercial building in the Middle Hill. This is the structure in question. I'm 95% certain this is part of Avenues of Hope.

2. The first phase of the Old Stone Tavern plan is now going before the ZBA.

3. Infill home in Brookline. This is the location - replacing a condemned, abandoned house that was knocked down. I didn't realize Brookline property values were high enough now to warrant new construction.

4. This project in Shadyside is interesting more because of the pretty detailed renderings. It's officially just for porch, deck, third floor addition, and a new garage. But in practice it reconstructs the existing home to such a degree it creates a new house (new window openings, new shed dormer, new front porch), and it looks like there's an accessory unit over the garage (allowed under zoning here). A nice little project, and if the renderings are accurate, it's going to blend in well in the area.

[themaguffin]

Jesus...




As foreclosure risks rise, nearly half of Downtown Pittsburgh office space could be empty in 4 years, report shows

The Downtown office crisis could be worsening, with nearly half of all office space empty by 2028 and more than two dozen buildings in danger of foreclosure, according to one confidential report.

Faced with such a grave scenario, Pittsburgh City Councilman Bobby Wilson is drafting legislation that would remove a $250,000 limit on the amount of tax relief available to a building owner or developer as long as a project creates at least 50 full-time equivalent jobs, according to sources familiar with the bill.

Owners and developers also would be eligible for the uncapped abatement if 10% of the residential units developed are set aside for households at 80% of the area median income. The abatement would run for 10 years.

Confidential real estate information obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette estimates that 17 buildings are in “significant distress” and another nine are in “pending distress,” meaning they are either approaching foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure. Those properties represent 63% of the Downtown office stock and account for $30.5 million in real estate taxes, according to the data.

It also calculates the current office vacancy rate at 27% when subleases are factored in — one of the highest in the country.

And with an additional three million square feet of unoccupied leased space becoming available over the next five years, the vacancy rate could soar to 46% by 2028, based on the data.

[photoLith]

High time to convert it to condos and apartments…

[pj3000]

Does the demand for downtown apartment/condo living in Pittsburgh actually exist at the level that would require such a significant conversion of office square footage to residential?

[photoLith]

Probably not unfortunately.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Jesus...




As foreclosure risks rise, nearly half of Downtown Pittsburgh office space could be empty in 4 years, report shows





Confidential real estate information obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette estimates that 17 buildings are in “significant distress” and another nine are in “pending distress,” meaning they are either approaching foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure. Those properties represent 63% of the Downtown office stock and account for $30.5 million in real estate taxes, according to the data.

It also calculates the current office vacancy rate at 27% when subleases are factored in — one of the highest in the country.

And with an additional three million square feet of unoccupied leased space becoming available over the next five years, the vacancy rate could soar to 46% by 2028, based on the data.

Yeah, that's pretty wild. Hope they figure this out and can hedge against it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Does the demand for downtown apartment/condo living in Pittsburgh actually exist at the level that would require such a significant conversion of office square footage to residential?

I would answer that question with an admittedly optimistic "maybe".

Potential residential demand is tricky because it can move around pretty quickly based on things like relative prices and perceived price trends (particularly relevant to condos). Underpinning all that, though, are usually some fundamentals in terms of locational/transportation efficiencies, including as applied to work, shopping, entertainment, and so on. So as we've seen many times before, in Pittsburgh and of course elsewhere, a fundamentally well-located neighborhood can get "hot", investment in local amenities starts pouring in, and the whole thing feeds on itself.

So the basic reason for my rather cautious optimism is that Downtown does have really good locational fundamentals, and it can also quickly add as many walkable amenities as local demand will support.

But it is cautious because I do think the pricing has to be right. And I know the recent dynamics in terms of financing rates and construction costs have pushed the necessary-pricing models into dangerously high levels for new units.

However, if all that eases a bit, and maybe toss in some incentives--I think Downtown could, under the right circumstances, become a "hot" residential market.

[qwho]

There isn't really another option for downtown besides residential, right?

RTO will never be 100%, the genie has left the bottle on remote work. Unless office towers make good datacenters or factories, I don't think there's any other way to fill them up with lessees besides residential.

[BrianTH]

Highmark Stadium is looking to renovate and add a lot more seats, and looking for a state grant to help finance it. The Riverhounds are increasingly popular and they also want more concerts and such:

https://triblive.com/sports/pittsbur...xpansion-plan/

All this is good although I remain generally opposed to big public subsidies for what are really just for-profit entertainment businesses. But the politicians like them, so we might as well get some for Pittsburgh.

[photoLith]

Are there any renderings of what the stadium will look like? I couldn’t find any.

[eschaton]

The March 19 Planning Commission presentation is online. Two new projects...though really just new for the Commission:

1. The 1903 Fifth Avenue project (the one around Tito House) is going to the Commission (again? I can't remember). There's not much here we haven't already seen before the HRC, but it's nice to see it going forward.

2. CMU's Richard King Mellon Hall of Sciences. Renderings of this slipped on CMU's website a few months back, so this is hardly a surprise, though it is in far greater detail than we've seen with materials before. Not sure how I feel about the massing, but it will make a big impact on Forbes, finally closing the last bit of gap in development between Oakland and the core of CMU's campus.

Also, the April 11 ZBA is online.

Of most note is a plan to construct a new museum in a former Appliance Warehouse site on the South Side. There's a news story regarding it here.

There's also three horrendously ugly infill townhouses planned for Upper Lawrenceville. It's literally hard for me to imagine how these facades could be uglier, based on the crude rendering.