PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[eschaton]

URA agenda is up for tomorrow.

The most interesting thing to note here is plan to fund 100 First Avenue's residential conversion. The office building will be converted into senior housing, with 93 one-bedroom, Section 8 units. This is...fine. Again, I don't have an issue with these projects in isolation. But the URA and the city are trying to fast-track downtown conversions, and I've noticed essentially all of them are affordable housing, and I remain concerned that the Golden Triangle will become the unofficial dumping ground for lower-income folks within the next 10-20 years.

The URA is also passing along further funding to the conversion of the Triangle Building on Liberty, which should be wrapping up this year. This is a relatively small project - 15 units, of which nine will be affordable to some degree - but it has faced cost overruns due to the poor conditions within the building.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by eschaton

URA agenda is up for tomorrow.

The most interesting thing to note here is plan to fund 100 First Avenue's residential conversion. The office building will be converted into senior housing, with 93 one-bedroom, Section 8 units. This is...fine. Again, I don't have an issue with these projects in isolation. But the URA and the city are trying to fast-track downtown conversions, and I've noticed essentially all of them are affordable housing, and I remain concerned that the Golden Triangle will become the unofficial dumping ground for lower-income folks within the next 10-20 years.

The URA is also passing along further funding to the conversion of the Triangle Building on Liberty, which should be wrapping up this year. This is a relatively small project - 15 units, of which nine will be affordable to some degree - but it has faced cost overruns due to the poor conditions within the building.

What location would you dump these folks? Downtown is ideal for "affordable" housing because of access to metro jobs. All transportation routes lead to downtown Pittsburgh. For decades Pittsburgh has envisioned downtown as a neighborhood. I do not recall Pittsburgh limiting the new units to high income earners. A person working at the PNC call center or Highmark should have downtown options as well. Someone working at Five Below or Target should have a nearby residential option. Downtown living and building conversions is not new. I doubt that city leaders would turn downtown Pittsburgh into a housing project. That sounds ridiculous. Low income earners deserve safe and affordable housing in the city proper.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

What location would you dump these folks? Downtown is ideal for "affordable" housing because of access to metro jobs. All transportation routes lead to downtown Pittsburgh. For decades Pittsburgh has envisioned downtown as a neighborhood. I do not recall Pittsburgh limiting the new units to high income earners. A person working at the PNC call center or Highmark should have downtown options as well. Someone working at Five Below or Target should have a nearby residential option. Downtown living and building conversions is not new. I doubt that city leaders would turn downtown Pittsburgh into a housing project. That sounds ridiculous. Low income earners deserve safe and affordable housing in the city proper.

The building in question is a senior tower. I hope that should make it clear I am not casting any aspersions about crime or whatever. Everyone knows that few senior citizens cause crime. That isn't my concern here at all.

But, is downtown the best place for seniors? Workforce-age people, yeah, but seniors? They need easy access to hospitals and doctors. Downtown lacks a hospital (though Mercy isn't that far away) and a number of doctor's offices have been closing in the last few years. Oakland is a much better location for seniors, for just that reason.

I think the city should be building more affordable units everywhere. But I check the URA agendas most months (and probably 80% of their work is promoting/financing affordable housing) and all of the projects of scale moving along post-pandemic seem to be in the Golden Triangle. Affordable units are getting announced elsewhere, but it's 10%-20% affordable units mixed into market-rate buildings, not mostly to entirely affordable development.

As I noted when we discussed this a month or two ago, Downtown needs not just more activity, but more $$$ being spent in local businesses, which are still hurting. The last coffee shop on Smithfield just closed up shop this week, as an example (there were three within a few block radius of me back in 2021). More affordable units are fine, so long as there are more market-rate units in the pipeline as well. But with private financing having died due to high interest rates, that well has run dry for now.

[pj3000]

I remember specifically spotlighting that First Ave building as being planned for govt-subsidized housing when we last discussed this, among other planned conversions in the works.

It's a slippery slope. Once "downtown living" becomes associated with "section 8", good night to the dream of a "24/7" neighborhood.

[dmaTN]

Pittsburgh's downtown office vacancy struggle is a window into future problems within CBDs. Pushing towards more residential is the only answer to offset the tax base loss.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The building in question is a senior tower. I hope that should make it clear I am not casting any aspersions about crime or whatever. Everyone knows that few senior citizens cause crime. That isn't my concern here at all.

But, is downtown the best place for seniors? Workforce-age people, yeah, but seniors? They need easy access to hospitals and doctors. Downtown lacks a hospital (though Mercy isn't that far away) and a number of doctor's offices have been closing in the last few years. Oakland is a much better location for seniors, for just that reason.

I think the city should be building more affordable units everywhere. But I check the URA agendas most months (and probably 80% of their work is promoting/financing affordable housing) and all of the projects of scale moving along post-pandemic seem to be in the Golden Triangle. Affordable units are getting announced elsewhere, but it's 10%-20% affordable units mixed into market-rate buildings, not mostly to entirely affordable development.

As I noted when we discussed this a month or two ago, Downtown needs not just more activity, but more $$$ being spent in local businesses, which are still hurting. The last coffee shop on Smithfield just closed up shop this week, as an example (there were three within a few block radius of me back in 2021). More affordable units are fine, so long as there are more market-rate units in the pipeline as well. But with private financing having died due to high interest rates, that well has run dry for now.

Downtown Pittsburgh is a better option for senior citizens. A senior living in downtown can easily have food, medication and wine delivered. Seniors living in downtown have access to transportation and medical facilities in and around downtown Pittsburgh. Downtown is also convenient for family members visiting not to mention farmers markets, festivals, and cultural events. I have a family member living in a high-rise in Oakland. It is not ideal for her, and the parking situation is atrocious. No farmers markets in or around the Oakland neighborhood.

I will always advocate for working families. Market rate units have been added in and around downtown recently. Most of the market rate developments in the Strip District do not include affordable units. Children and families should not have to wait until the market rate construction picks back up.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by dmaTN

Pittsburgh's downtown office vacancy struggle is a window into future problems within CBDs. Pushing towards more residential is the only answer to offset the tax base loss.

There is no tax base to speak of with govt subsidized housing.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by pj3000

There is no tax base to speak of with govt subsidized housing.

It is if the building is privately owned which is the case with most affordable housing developments. There will be tax breaks and incentives such as tax incremental financing or infrastructure improvements.

[eschaton]

Time for a development wrap-up, such as it is.

First, the Art Commission agenda is up for this month. Actually, this committee seems to have been split in two now - the Public Art Committee and the Civic Design Committee.

The Public Art Committee is just reviewing two small projects - street art related to a bike lane in Woods Run, and a mural on the Arlington Community Center. The first of these is fine, the second looks like some godawful illustration from a shitty kids book.

Turning to Civic Design, this project is mildly interesting to me, as it helps solve a shit intersection in Uptown. the base of Kirkpatrick is being reconfigured to align properly with the Birmingham Bridge. The City is also putting a small surface lot with eight spaces on the remaining vacant land. This isn't intended to function as a park-and-ride, instead it's because the remaining houses on that block towards Oakland (presentation says seven, but I count five will no longer have street parking once the BRT lane is put in place, so the city is creating a permitted lot to provide for them. This is fine - I guess - but the street behind (Beelen) has plenty of space to park, and has a public stairwell. It feels like further improvements along those lines could address this as well.

The other project is a restoration of the upper level of Allegheny Riverfront Park, along Fort Duquense Boulevard. I think the redesign is fine, but it's a glorified sidewalk, and there's limits to what can be accomplished here.

Also, the May 2 ZBA agenda is online. It's longer than the last one in April, but there's nothing here worth calling development.

It's also worth noting that the new Downtown tax abatement proposal has cleared its first hurdle in Council, though it's likely weeks away from final enactment.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

It is if the building is privately owned which is the case with most affordable housing developments. There will be tax breaks and incentives such as tax incremental financing or infrastructure improvements.

A privately owned building is going to be taxable, yes.

But they are specifically doing the conversion to receive federal low income tax credits, local 10-year tax abatement through the URA, and federal ARPA grant funding which all in all will effectively take the building off federal, state, and local tax roles.

[eschaton]

Looks like the hearing on Bobby Wilson's zoning change to allow for attached housing throughout the city went pretty well on the whole. Some people came out in opposition, but more supporters.

Theresa Kail-Smith seems to be opposed, as I expected. Mount Washington/Duquesne Heights are full of NIMBYs, and have a ton of empty lots with less than 35-foot frontage which would be impacted by this.

In contrast, wealthy sections of the East End generally have lots with frontage of over 35 feet, and/or are mostly built out, so this doesn't really impact them.

[eschaton]

So, I missed that the planning commission is meeting today. There's basically nothing on the agenda though. There's the lot line revision for the Tree of Life synagogue project, along with final approval on the historic nomination of the parklet in Brookline. What's most notable is that the ill-prepared proposal to legalize homeless encampments (the planned "tiny house villages") seems to have been delayed indefinitely.

The lack of any new major projects underway is very depressing, and appears to in part be due to state policy. Cleveland and Cincinnati are currently #1 and #2 in the nation when it comes to office-to-residential conversions, which appears to have been spurred in large part by generous tax abatement policies. I know there's plans in the work for something similar in Pennsylvania, but the point can't come quickly enough.