PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[Wally G]

Originally Posted by BenM

I agree with the NIMBYism argument, but you can't blame residents of the Hill for the delay in development. They negotiated minority business involvement, affordable housing (which the Penguins screwed up on and had to reduce) and zoning years ago. That's why, as mentioned earlier, all of the renderings, regardless of developer or architect look similar.

The delay is all on the Penguins. Who never should have been given development rights.

I agree the Penguins are at fault and I see the bigotry is prominent in our great city.

[eschaton]

It's also worth noting that the Civic Arena ended up where it was largely because of NIMBYism - because the original plans were to put it in Highland Park, which met furious opposition by the neighborhood. IIRC some deal was hatched where the King family donated most of their estate to the city (expanding Highland Park in the process) in exchange for a promise not to build the Civic Arena there.

Originally Posted by pj3000

At one time it was. But not by the mid-late 1950s when decisions were made to demo the Lower Hill. It was mostly Black by then (around 75%).

I dunno. I've looked at historic census data by tract on Social Explorer. In the 1940 census the two census tracts including the lower portion of the Hill (roughly Grant Street to Washington Place, then Washington Place to Fullerton Street) were 87% and 70% white respectively. The 1950 census data isn't online for some reason, so I can't compare, but I wouldn't think that it had changed that dramatically in that 15 year period.

[East Edge]

Boo hoo! Cry me 3 rivers!

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well, it doesn't have popular opinion because your statement is predicated on 1) something that never actually happened and 2) a highly-skewed view of what is "run down" (i.e., requiring large-scale demolition).

Meaning... 1) while the concerted effort by city administration and business leaders at the time to fully level the Lower Hill in favor of supposedly paving the way to extend downtown to Oakland was the stated policy, it obviously never actually happened. Downtown never even expanded to the Lower Hill in practical terms, much less all the way to Oakland.

The Civic Arena and its parking lots did nothing to enhance downtown Pittsburgh, only served to further isolate it, and limited any expansion (the exact opposite of the public purpose of the redevelopment). Like what happened in numerous postwar modernization schemes, it was an abject policy failure. We've witnessed the problems that those misguided decisions caused, and that's why those mistakes are trying to be corrected in cities everywhere.

And 2) if you found the Lower Hill to be "pretty run down" enough to favor its complete leveling, then you should have been supportive of the complete leveling of the Southside Flats and Central Northside in the 1970s/80s. Also, you should currently support the complete leveling of the Strip District for downtown expansion. And much of Bloomfield and Lawrenceville should also be flattened.




Again, downtown never did expand. It was a completely counterproductive "redevelopment" policy... which was a hallmark of postwar urban planning.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's also worth noting that the Civic Arena ended up where it was largely because of NIMBYism - because the original plans were to put it in Highland Park, which met furious opposition by the neighborhood. IIRC some deal was hatched where the King family donated most of their estate to the city (expanding Highland Park in the process) in exchange for a promise not to build the Civic Arena there.

Oh yeah, that's right... I do remember reading about highland Park being a proposed location. I think Schenley Park was proposed too. Interesting to think how different those areas might look like today if it was built there.

Originally Posted by eschaton

I dunno. I've looked at historic census data by tract on Social Explorer. In the 1940 census the two census tracts including the lower portion of the Hill (roughly Grant Street to Washington Place, then Washington Place to Fullerton Street) were 87% and 70% white respectively. The 1950 census data isn't online for some reason, so I can't compare, but I wouldn't think that it had changed that dramatically in that 15 year period.

That's interesting to learn those recorded numbers... and while I'm skeptical of earlier census figures (particularly when involving African-American populations), I do know that the European Jewish population was high in the lower hill from the early 1900s to the 40s, with 15 synagogues located there just prior to WWII. I would think that the lowest part of the overall tract, with Grant as its border, would definitely be higher white. I think the black population was higher as you went up the hill to Fullerton and Crawford streets. As the lower hill's population saw an increase of southern and eastern European immigrants and Blacks in the early decades of the 1900s, many Jews began to relocate to eastern city neighborhoods. So that population (along with the other remaining European immigrant groups) could account for high percentages in 1940.

Though I do think that the population makeup in the lower hill did in fact change dramatically from 1940 to 1950s and through the 1950s. Immediately post WWII, whites of all ethnicities were leaving the hill and blacks were moving in. Some of my own family members are examples of this. I read a CMU paper a little while back that focused on how the URA in the early 1950s was charged with documenting conditions in the lower hill and cataloging all of the properties and residents to be affected by demolition; and of around 2,000 (? I think) households, only a third were white... illustrating how rapidly the hill's ethnic/racial makeup had changed pre and post WWII. And by the time demolition of the neighborhood had begun, the percentage of black population only increased.

By the time that previous black and white photo of the lower hill was taken (I'm guessing mid 50s), I would think the area was majority black; though there was still a prominent Jewish population there in the Bigelow apartments (now Doubletree Hotel).

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by East Edge

Boo hoo! Cry me 3 rivers!

Highly valuable contribution.


I'll only cry you 2 rivers, because the Ohio exists in name only.

[BenM]

This Post Gazette interactive story offers a great history of the Lower Hill prior to the Civic Arena and what was lost. It's a story that also explains why some African Americans of a certain age still don't trust the promises of the city and developers.

[BrianTH]

From that article:

A URA survey in 1953 showed that of 1,885 total families in the Lower Hill at that time, 67.1 percent were black, 32.9 percent white. Their average annual incomes were not too far apart. In today’s dollars, those averages would be $26,068 for white families and $25,360 for black families.

Families is not quite the same as population, but that seems consistent with a bit of a shift from white to black post-WWII, but a far from complete one. Those income figures are also consistent with the white population being a mostly immigrant/"ethnic" population.

Another useful set of observations:

Many properties were in good condition.

City officials cited deplorable conditions to justify eliminating an entire neighborhood, yet reports and photographs of many properties would have justified preservation had preservation been a dynamic of the mid-1950s. Similar buildings exist today in protected historic districts throughout the city.

Besides St. Peter’s church, the lost treasures included a round-cornered beaux-arts bank; masses of three-story Victorians with tall, arched windows, elegant detail and handsome lines; and dozens of buildings that had been rooted with social and cultural capital.

. . .

Politicians touted their plans as being for the greater good, making examples of abundant hazardous conditions: Who wouldn’t want something better than dirt cellars, coal or no heat, buckling floors, rickety staircases, rusting fire escapes, rotting window sashes, bad or no plumbing, garbage and vandalized shells?

Inspectors described many buildings as fire traps, uninhabitable and, in one reference, “a veritable rabbit warren.”

But the city had allowed conditions get that bad, letting landlords — many of whom lived outside the Hill — get away with code violations that the final reports so diligently spelled out.

There is more on that last theme--how the conditions cited in favor of demolition, including vacant businesses, apartments, and such, were in part created by the looming demolition plans.

Anyway, again it is not possible to rewind history, and I do think it would have been a mistake to try to recreate the exact sort built environment that was destroyed. That simply is not possible.

But a modern mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood is not impossible. And while I do not agree that every height/scale limit in the current plan was necessary, I again don't think it is productive at this point to try to revisit all those decisions. Just frickin' get it built already.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, the massive demolition of the Lower hill neighborhood/Crosstown Blvd. (to go along with downtown Pittsburgh's situation with water on its other two sides) is a major reason why downtown Pittsburgh will never have the vibrant urban environment like Philly, Boston, etc... where residential neighborhoods scale up and link rather seamlessly into the central business district. Pittsburgh destroyed all of that.

So I have been thinking about this and I want to sketch out a vision which is a LITTLE less glum.

It is true the Golden Triangle is mostly surrounded by rivers, and then on top of that it was surrounded by a ring of destruction. But, it is also true outside that first ring, a lot survived. So, much of Lawrenceville survived, much of the Hill survived, some of Uptown survived, a lot of residential Oakland survived, a lot of the South Side survived, a lot of Mt Washington survived, and a lot of the North Side and Manchester survived.

We now have the opportunity, and it is gradually happening (too gradually), to infill that ring of destruction. The Strip is filling in. The Lower Hill MIGHT finally be starting to fill in. Near Uptown and some of the more wiped out parts of the Middle Hill and western Oakland are starting to fill in. The "South Shore", "North Shore", and now maybe Chateau are filling in.

We have a long way to go, and it won't all be perfect, but at some point it may be possible to walk or bike from all of those surviving "second ring" historic neighborhoods to the Golden Triangle without passing seas of surface parking, with instead going past occupied apartment buildings, office buildings, hotels, shops, a Ferris wheel, and so on.

That leaves the rivers and hills and ravines and such, and we can't eliminate those. But even holding aside the possibility of using some new transit technologies to make those less of a barrier, I think those natural features are both curse AND blessing. They are a blessing in the sense they introduce nature into the built environment, and provide natural paths for walking, biking, and even boating if you like.

OK, so Pittsburgh is never going to look like a "normal" city which can have a single street grid that stretches for miles and miles, with minimal interruptions as the built environment gradually scales down with less proximity to the CBD.

But, it can still be something very liveable, workable, and cool. Indeed, for the same reasons it can't be a "normal" city, it can be pretty unique, and unique can be good. We just have to focus on making it that way.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

From that article:
There is more on that last theme--how the conditions cited in favor of demolition, including vacant businesses, apartments, and such, were in part created by the looming demolition plans.

It's also a dynamic that continued for quite some time. My understanding is the decrepit state of the eastern part of Deutschtown (now finally starting to change) was in large part because once 279 was announced no one in the area saw maintaining the houses as worth it because they were going to see their housing value destroyed anyway. Similarly part of the reason Hazelwood fell so far is it was widely thought the Mon-Fayette Expressway was going to rip right through the heart of the neighborhood, meaning there was no reason to try to salvage anything.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I have been thinking about this and I want to sketch out a vision which is a LITTLE less glum.

It is true the Golden Triangle is mostly surrounded by rivers, and then on top of that it was surrounded by a ring of destruction. But, it is also true outside that first ring, a lot survived. So, much of Lawrenceville survived, much of the Hill survived, some of Uptown survived, a lot of residential Oakland survived, a lot of the South Side survived, a lot of Mt Washington survived, and a lot of the North Side and Manchester survived.

We now have the opportunity, and it is gradually happening (too gradually), to infill that ring of destruction. The Strip is filling in. The Lower Hill MIGHT finally be starting to fill in. Near Uptown and some of the more wiped out parts of the Middle Hill and western Oakland are starting to fill in. The "South Shore", "North Shore", and now maybe Chateau are filling in.

We have a long way to go, and it won't all be perfect, but at some point it may be possible to walk or bike from all of those surviving "second ring" historic neighborhoods to the Golden Triangle without passing seas of surface parking, with instead going past occupied apartment buildings, office buildings, hotels, shops, a Ferris wheel, and so on.

That leaves the rivers and hills and ravines and such, and we can't eliminate those. But even holding aside the possibility of using some new transit technologies to make those less of a barrier, I think those natural features are both curse AND blessing. They are a blessing in the sense they introduce nature into the built environment, and provide natural paths for walking, biking, and even boating if you like.

OK, so Pittsburgh is never going to look like a "normal" city which can have a single street grid that stretches for miles and miles, with minimal interruptions as the built environment gradually scales down with less proximity to the CBD.

But, it can still be something very liveable, workable, and cool. Indeed, for the same reasons it can't be a "normal" city, it can be pretty unique, and unique can be good. We just have to focus on making it that way.

In general I'd agree with this, but I don't think it's really true that "much of the Hill survived." There is not a single intact block remaining in the Hill District. There are isolated buildings of course - and a handful of cases - like on Dinwiddie, where higher-quality houses have been saved. But on the whole you find the most remaining historic fabric in areas of the Middle/Upper Hill where redevelopment has yet to reach. When redevelopment (probably URA-assisted) reaches that far north, the result is likely going to be similar to what the Hill District southwest of Kirkpattrik is seeing, with many of the remaining homes knocked down because they're "too far gone" and replacement with 'soft urban" style infill which is nowhere near as structurally urban as what was there historically (for example, there are absolutely no zero-setback rowhouses, even though they were historically the normal built form of the Hill District).

In terms of topography, I think it's helpful in some ways to think about Pittsburgh as having a "first city" and a "second city." The first city was basically all of the pre-streetcar stuff - mostly flats down by the rivers (Downtown, Strip, Lawrenceville, Lower North Side, South Side Flats, etc). The second city is what boomed starting in the 1890s when higher ground became feasible to fill in. While this is distributed across the city, it's pretty clear the core of the "second city" is Oakland and the East End - due to the topographical elements you mentioned in the past (being the only substantial big flat plateau in the vicinity of Pittsburgh.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There is more on that last theme--how the conditions cited in favor of demolition, including vacant businesses, apartments, and such, were in part created by the looming demolition plans.

Anyway, again it is not possible to rewind history, and I do think it would have been a mistake to try to recreate the exact sort built environment that was destroyed. That simply is not possible.

But a modern mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood is not impossible. And while I do not agree that every height/scale limit in the current plan was necessary, I again don't think it is productive at this point to try to revisit all those decisions. Just frickin' get it built already.

Yeah, I've read about how the Allegheny Conference (you know, that all-knowing, self-congratulating body of "leaders" who know what's best for everyone) back then developed a highly concerted effort on how to document the "deplorable conditions" in the Lower Hill, focusing only on the worst property examples, in order to paint the entire swath of city as a crumbling slum... and to qualify for the massive federal dollars to carry out the clear cut.

While I would ideally like to see much more organic development of the Lower Hill (and considering we've been waiting for anything to happen since 2012 anyway), I agree that we just need to see construction on the goddamn site. And it's not going to end up looking exactly like the entire plan rendering anyway, so we could very well see changes to that plan once the first office and residential buildings get built.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I have been thinking about this and I want to sketch out a vision which is a LITTLE less glum.

It is true the Golden Triangle is mostly surrounded by rivers, and then on top of that it was surrounded by a ring of destruction. But, it is also true outside that first ring, a lot survived. So, much of Lawrenceville survived, much of the Hill survived, some of Uptown survived, a lot of residential Oakland survived, a lot of the South Side survived, a lot of Mt Washington survived, and a lot of the North Side and Manchester survived.

We now have the opportunity, and it is gradually happening (too gradually), to infill that ring of destruction. The Strip is filling in. The Lower Hill MIGHT finally be starting to fill in. Near Uptown and some of the more wiped out parts of the Middle Hill and western Oakland are starting to fill in. The "South Shore", "North Shore", and now maybe Chateau are filling in.

We have a long way to go, and it won't all be perfect, but at some point it may be possible to walk or bike from all of those surviving "second ring" historic neighborhoods to the Golden Triangle without passing seas of surface parking, with instead going past occupied apartment buildings, office buildings, hotels, shops, a Ferris wheel, and so on.

That leaves the rivers and hills and ravines and such, and we can't eliminate those. But even holding aside the possibility of using some new transit technologies to make those less of a barrier, I think those natural features are both curse AND blessing. They are a blessing in the sense they introduce nature into the built environment, and provide natural paths for walking, biking, and even boating if you like.

OK, so Pittsburgh is never going to look like a "normal" city which can have a single street grid that stretches for miles and miles, with minimal interruptions as the built environment gradually scales down with less proximity to the CBD.

But, it can still be something very liveable, workable, and cool. Indeed, for the same reasons it can't be a "normal" city, it can be pretty unique, and unique can be good. We just have to focus on making it that way.

Good points. I know downtown Pittsburgh is never going to be Center City Philly or elsewhere. I've said it many times about how the "Golden Triangle" is a fortress. It never had the same close connections with its neighborhoods due to its physical setting and historic use (heavy polluting industries) which other cities had/have... and never going to have the same type of 24/7 activity today and in the future, and that's ok.

Going along with your thoughts on what to focus on, I think the core city REALLY needs to push the connection of its intact, unique urban neighborhoods/parks/etc. Improved transit modes can accomplish that, but I think the effort to develop the riverfronts in the core with mixed uses and a truly connected trails system needs to happen now. The fact that a connecting trail loop for commuting via bike or foot/recreation along both sides of the Allegheny from Downtown/North Shore to Highland Park/Aspinwall still has not seen any progress is troubling. Still not being able to ride along the riverfront from Lawrenceville to Downtown or from Aspinwall to Downtown is an indictment on local leadership's decade-long failure to truly grasp the economic development potential of this connectivity.

[Johnland]

Originally Posted by eschaton

A city-contracted design firm presented their ideas on how to fix traffic and parking issues in the Strip District in draft form with around a dozen stakeholders last Wednesday. It looks like they included:

1. Conversion of Penn Avenue back into a two-way street.

2. Raising of street parking rates in the core of the Strip District to incentivize drivers to park 10 minutes away from their location and walk.

3. A localized reduction in the city's commercial parking tax rate to allow some private lots to be opened up to public use during peak hours.

4. Construction of a new parking garage in the immediate vicinity of the most active retail portion of the Strip District.

Point two is something which apparently went over like a ton of bricks with the local businesses who attended. They really want to maintain cheap streetside parking directly in front of their businesses, and are convinced wholesale customers will stop coming to The Strip if they have to schlepp big bags of groceries for multiple blocks.

As someone who loves going to the Strip when I'm in town, I know too well how parking is tough. But please, I hope they don't go for #4. A big parking garage will f*** up the Strip to me. Part of the appeal is the chaotic, crowded, urban vibe. A big soul-less garage will make it more like just anywhere.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Johnland

As someone who loves going to the Strip when I'm in town, I know too well how parking is tough. But please, I hope they don't go for #4. A big parking garage will f*** up the Strip to me. Part of the appeal is the chaotic, crowded, urban vibe. A big soul-less garage will make it more like just anywhere.

Is that really part of the Strip experience for you, the parking part?

Like if you park in a "soul-less" garage and then walk into a chaotic, crowded urban street vibe on the sidewalks and in the stores, have you really lost something you value?

In fact, I am pretty sure you will still get to jaywalk in front of slow-moving cars on Penn no matter what, if that is your thing. You just won't have to be driving one of those slow-moving cars first.

[GeneW]

I'm definitely anti-car in the long run but cars are a reality and I'd rather see parking garages than the horrible seas of parking lots that has characterized the Strip for a generation.

[Jonboy1983]

Not to mention... Parking garages do have a retail option on the ground level. How would that be soul-less?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm definitely anti-car in the long run but cars are a reality and I'd rather see parking garages than the horrible seas of parking lots that has characterized the Strip for a generation.

Also, if we do ever transition into a more car-less city (or if self-driving cars take off and dramatically reduce future parking needs) it's relatively easy to demolish parking garages and use the footprint for something else, provided they aren't built as a podium directly underneath something else.

[eschaton]

Highwoods is buying the vacant lot in East Liberty across from Target for $2.4 million. This lot has sat fallow for several years - apparently because the former developer, (Anthony Dolan) was unable to secure an anchor tenant and unwilling to build on Spec. Highwoods is much better capitalized, and has indicated they will build on spec, meaning a new building may appear here relatively soon.

[dfiler]

I think its worth noting that the thriving neighborhoods in Pittsburgh aren't known for their parking garages. Think about any of the hot neighborhoods or destinations (other than the stadiums). None of them are based on easy parking. Indeed, parking and especially wide expanses of surface parking, kill the vibe that makes these neighborhoods attractive.

At the spur of the moment, when hunting for a parking spot, people tend to wish their was more parking. However they wouldn't be going to that neighborhood in the first place if it had a ton of parking. That's the difference between Lawrenceville and a strip mall.

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I think its worth noting that the thriving neighborhoods in Pittsburgh aren't known for their parking garages. Think about any of the hot neighborhoods or destinations (other than the stadiums). None of them are based on easy parking. Indeed, parking and especially wide expanses of surface parking, kill the vibe that makes these neighborhoods attractive.

At the spur of the moment, when hunting for a parking spot, people tend to wish their was more parking. However they wouldn't be going to that neighborhood in the first place if it had a ton of parking. That's the difference between Lawrenceville and a strip mall.

Very true however the Strip District is a completely different animal. Yes more housing is currently under construction and new renovations and constructions have recently opened. However the core of the Strip Districts costumers come from outside of the Strip and even outside of Pittsburgh. Most of the drive, and unless there are major changes (not just BRT) in the public transit and car culture in general, parking will be essential to a thriving Strip District. When I lived in Oakland we would get some groceries at the Asian grocery. Between a quick 15 minute drive or taking the round about 54 that doesn't run frequently on weekends and is constantly stuck in traffic we chose to drive. Not to mention carrying groceries long distance on a bus is a true pain. A parking garage frees up more space for development while keeping the area inviting those who drive from out of the city to enjoy the Strip.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by bigfish

Very true however the Strip District is a completely different animal. Yes more housing is currently under construction and new renovations and constructions have recently opened. However the core of the Strip Districts costumers come from outside of the Strip and even outside of Pittsburgh. Most of the drive, and unless there are major changes (not just BRT) in the public transit and car culture in general, parking will be essential to a thriving Strip District. When I lived in Oakland we would get some groceries at the Asian grocery. Between a quick 15 minute drive or taking the round about 54 that doesn't run frequently on weekends and is constantly stuck in traffic we chose to drive. Not to mention carrying groceries long distance on a bus is a true pain. A parking garage frees up more space for development while keeping the area inviting those who drive from out of the city to enjoy the Strip.

I mostly concur with this. When I lived in Lawrenceville, the Strip was directly between me and my place of work Downtown. However, I seldom shopped there, unless I could stop in the evening on the way home from work on my bike. Shopping for groceries via bus is not fun (and weekend schedules were never as convenient). I had a car, and could drive, but I'm not one of those people who wants the experience of driving to an all-day shopping trip. I want to pop in someplace, buy what I need, and quickly leave. The Strip's parking situation was never set up like that.

I think it is possible for the Strip's legacy businesses to pivot to having more of their customer base made up of neighborhood locals or tourists. The latter would undoubtedly require more robust transit linking the Strip to Downtown - probably another hotel or two in the Strip as well. But in general I expect that the old wholesalers will slowly be replaced by bars and restaurants, and in another 10-20 years that stretch of Penn will still be very active, but look pretty similar to Walnut Street or Butler Street.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by bigfish

Very true however the Strip District is a completely different animal. Yes more housing is currently under construction and new renovations and constructions have recently opened. However the core of the Strip Districts costumers come from outside of the Strip and even outside of Pittsburgh. Most of the drive, and unless there are major changes (not just BRT) in the public transit and car culture in general, parking will be essential to a thriving Strip District. When I lived in Oakland we would get some groceries at the Asian grocery. Between a quick 15 minute drive or taking the round about 54 that doesn't run frequently on weekends and is constantly stuck in traffic we chose to drive. Not to mention carrying groceries long distance on a bus is a true pain. A parking garage frees up more space for development while keeping the area inviting those who drive from out of the city to enjoy the Strip.

The irony i was trying to point out is that if more parking is built in the strip, it will change the neighborhood's atmosphere and it will no longer have the same draw. There are plenty of parking-centric shopping options elsewhere in the metro area. People come to the strip precisely because it isn't a big parking lot or parking garage, even though they might not recognize that as the source of it's appeal.

The southside works is an example of parking garages in a similar context. The retail there hasn't done that well and the part of the south side that most people flock to isn't served by those garages.

Certainly, a city structure based on parking garages built within a traditional urban fabric has its place. It can arguably be considered a viable/successful urban model. However it is in some opposition to the what makes the strip the strip.