PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by eschaton

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.

I too think the strip is destine for a big change as you describe. This won't be the first transition though. The strip we know and love today isn't the original strip. It didn't become a consumer destination until after the distribution and wholesale business dried up. It was the death of distribution and wholesale that turned it into a weekend hot spot.

[pj3000]

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.

I don't see how a multi-level parking garage constructed on one of the many existing surface parking lots or empty parcels would somehow decrease the Strip's "chaotic, crowded, urban vibe" that you're looking for.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by dfiler

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.

I guess I'm just not understanding how increasing density (via a parking garage vs. surface lots) is somehow going to ruin the Strip's vibe...

And in response to what is bolded above: yes, much of the Strip IS a big parking lot.

[BobLoblaw]

I was driving back into the city on Route 28 a little while ago and looking in the direction where the new tower will be built. It seems to me that it'll actually pretty drastically add to the skyline from that angle given that 1) There is basically nothing of any height to the "left" of USX 2) The aforementioned higher base elevation and 3) It'll be the closest high rise to the viewer which will make it look taller relative to the other buildings downtown.

Right now, USX stands out and everything scales down toward the Point from that perspective. The new building will change that a bit.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BobLoblaw

I was driving back into the city on Route 28 a little while ago and looking in the direction where the new tower will be built. It seems to me that it'll actually pretty drastically add to the skyline from that angle given that 1) There is basically nothing of any height to the "left" of USX 2) The aforementioned higher base elevation and 3) It'll be the closest high rise to the viewer which will make it look taller relative to the other buildings downtown.

Right now, USX stands out and everything scales down toward the Point from that perspective. The new building will change that a bit.

yeah, the views from the 31st, 40th, and 62nd St. bridges and from 28 southbound should feature the new FNB tower most prominently on the skyline. These are great viewpoints to view the skyline with the Allegheny flowing to downtown in the foreground; and now that gap to the left of the UPMC Tower will have some of the void taken up.

[BenM]

Originally Posted by dfiler

I too think the strip is destine for a big change as you describe. This won't be the first transition though. The strip we know and love today isn't the original strip. It didn't become a consumer destination until after the distribution and wholesale business dried up. It was the death of distribution and wholesale that turned it into a weekend hot spot.

I agree. I see it being like Manhattan's Meatpacking District back in the nineties. And the produce terminal development is going to supercharge change in the area.

[BrianTH]

The South Side Works had way too much retail and not enough other stuff, and also had the existing Carson Street right next door, and I think that is why it languished--not parking structures.

In fact, lots of the thriving commercial districts in Pittsburgh have parking structures. They are in the Cultural District, Oakland, Shadyside, East Liberty . . . I honestly don't get why they are even supposed to be bad.

Whether you park in a lot or on a side street or in a garage, I think what matters is what you find when you are out of your car and walking around.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pj3000

yeah, the views from the 31st, 40th, and 62nd St. bridges and from 28 southbound should feature the new FNB tower most prominently on the skyline. These are great viewpoints to view the skyline with the Allegheny flowing to downtown in the foreground; and now that gap to the left of the UPMC Tower will have some of the void taken up.

And to think it could have been Amazon's . . . .

[Minivan Werner]

SSW feels too detached from the rest of the South Side. There’s a few barriers between the two, like the pedestrian unfriendly bridge intersection and then after that a block of mostly surface parking. I think if it had better connections and made it into more cohesive single neighborhood it’d get better foot traffic and business.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The South Side Works had way too much retail and not enough other stuff, and also had the existing Carson Street right next door, and I think that is why it languished--not parking structures.

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

SSW feels too detached from the rest of the South Side. There’s a few barriers between the two, like the pedestrian unfriendly bridge intersection and then after that a block of mostly surface parking. I think if it had better connections and made it into more cohesive single neighborhood it’d get better foot traffic and business.

Yes, way too much retail (with very high rents), disconnection, and tons of competition for customers right in the same neighborhood.

While having FIVE (!) large, 4-7 level parking garages in the SSW might be overkill, those garages have zero to do with its lack of great success. The overall design and architecture, tenant composition, and ownership/property management set the development up to fail.

It would be interesting to see how that early 2000s development would be changed if designed today.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yes, way too much retail (with very high rents), disconnection, and tons of competition for customers right in the same neighborhood.

While having FIVE (!) large, 4-7 level parking garages in the SSW might be overkill, those garages have zero to do with its lack of great success. The overall design and architecture, tenant composition, and ownership/property management set the development up to fail.

It would be interesting to see how that early 2000s development would be changed if designed today.

SSW is in some ways the biggest remaining monument to Mayor Murphy's failed vision. That is to say, his vision of a revival of the city based upon upon retail and amenities meant draw in suburbanites, rather than building a stronger residential core.

Of course, he has a good legacy too - the riverfront trails - but his idea of reviving the city as a place to shop ended up being laughable. Admittedly, not many people at the time were predicting what ended up happening to retail.

[eschaton]

A fair amount of lower-level development stories going around.

1. Duquesne is formally acquiring a parcel needed for its new College of Osteopathic Medicine for $5.7 million from Life's Work of Western Pennsylvania. The location is here. I had no idea this building/block wasn't part of Duquesne's campus already to be honest. This is also a different location than was mentioned in earlier materials, which suggested the surface lot immediately to the west was what was being developed.



2. The Davis Companies is rumored to be in talks to buy 632-634 Fort Duquense Boulevard. This is a Mark Cuban owned building. There were plans in 2016 to convert it into a mixed-use office/residential project, but nothing ended up coming of it - apparently due to a lack of time rather than capital.

3. The redevelopment of Lexington Technology Park continues to hum along. The URA is expected to soon vote on a series of measures which authorize the sale of the city-owned buildings on the site to the developers, ICON and KBK Enterprises. It looks like the commercial section is good to go, but there is some hold up related to the 4.4 acres slated for residential development.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

SSW is in some ways the biggest remaining monument to Mayor Murphy's failed vision. That is to say, his vision of a revival of the city based upon upon retail and amenities meant draw in suburbanites, rather than building a stronger residential core.

Of course, he has a good legacy too - the riverfront trails - but his idea of reviving the city as a place to shop ended up being laughable. Admittedly, not many people at the time were predicting what ended up happening to retail.

That's an interesting assessment of SSW that I've never really considered.

The "build big box/chain retail in the city and suburbanites will come" urban revitalization scheme. That was tried in the late 60s/70s with the whol "downtown shopping mall" idea... and we saw how well that worked

I remember when Murphy was all about urban retail -- as if it was the absolute key to revitalize all of Pittsburgh... downtown, riverfront brownfields, blighted neighborhoods. Thankfully, his big Fifth/Forbes corridor multi-block demolition scheme for a downtown mall never gained enough traction. It's funny how he is so lauded in urban redevelopment circles, when he clearly lacked both the hindsight and foresight while he was mayor to understand that in less than a decade, urban big box retail would decidedly prove not to be the key component of economic development in cities.

But yes, he deserves credit for pushing the vision/action to develop the riverfront trails and stadia.

Originally Posted by eschaton

79.9881104"]The location is here[/URL]. I had no idea this building/block wasn't part of Duquesne's campus already to be honest. This is also a different location than was mentioned in earlier materials, which suggested the surface lot immediately to the west was what was being developed.

Huh... that's kinda too bad that it's not being built on the surface lot. Though that may be future expansion land.

This medical school is a really big deal for Pittsburgh.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The South Side Works had way too much retail and not enough other stuff, and also had the existing Carson Street right next door, and I think that is why it languished--not parking structures.

In fact, lots of the thriving commercial districts in Pittsburgh have parking structures. They are in the Cultural District, Oakland, Shadyside, East Liberty . . . I honestly don't get why they are even supposed to be bad.

Whether you park in a lot or on a side street or in a garage, I think what matters is what you find when you are out of your car and walking around.

It isn't that parking structures are "bad". But rather they come with a different set of tradeoffs and have a significant impact on neighborhoods. Thus it is valuable to look at that impact and see if it is a good match.

The cultural district is more of CBD mix of commercial and entertainment rather than restaurants and retail like found in the strip. That's an interesting topic as well but it doesn't seem analogous to what attracts people to the strip. The walkable businesses downtown are successful because they have a captive consumer base of workers who come into the area for their job each day.

Similarly, Oakland's parking situation is heavily influenced by it being a job center as well as a major university.

As for Shadyside and East Liberty, while there are a few garages, they contrast with those neighborhoods instead of defining those neighborhoods. In my opinion, the quickest way to ruin shadyside would be to add parking garages. Surface parking destroyed east liberty but that too is probably another entire discussion. But while EL probably doesn't need more parking, it could benefit from trading those vast swatches of dead asphalt for garages. At the same time, consider that the East Liberty Shopping Center's garage is only for customers at one of it's businesses. They actively ticket people who park their and walk to other neighborhood shops.

So what's the takeaway? Garages don't seem to be the key to success for walkable retail, eateries or nightlife in Pittsburgh. I can't think of one such neighborhood that benefited from the addition of garages. That's not referring to all neighborhoods, just ones that are based on attracting people to their dense, walkable, small businesses.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by eschaton

SSW is in some ways the biggest remaining monument to Mayor Murphy's failed vision. That is to say, his vision of a revival of the city based upon upon retail and amenities meant draw in suburbanites, rather than building a stronger residential core.

Of course, he has a good legacy too - the riverfront trails - but his idea of reviving the city as a place to shop ended up being laughable. Admittedly, not many people at the time were predicting what ended up happening to retail.

If I recall correctly, Tom Murphy envisioned a resurrection of traditional retail, namely big box and other chain retail as you seemed to hint at. Some of that did happen (Target opening up shop in the old Kaufmanns building is talked about), but easily 95 percent of the retail growth has come in the form of smaller boutique non-chain stores

Didn't the late Bob O'Connor replace Murphy as Pittsburgh's mayor? I had my doubts about him being our next mayor, but I remember one of the first things he told the press. He wanted someone to come forth with a "wow!" factor to redevelop the 5th-Forbes retail corridor. Lucas Piatt came forward, and the rest is history. How 5th and Forbes avenues have transformed - I don't think I could have envisioned anything better. Bob O'Connor sadly would not live to see his ideas come to fruition, but I'd like to think he started the ball rolling.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by dfiler

So what's the takeaway? Garages don't seem to be the key to success for walkable retail, eateries or nightlife in Pittsburgh. I can't think of one such neighborhood that benefited from the addition of garages. That's not referring to all neighborhoods, just ones that are based on attracting people to their dense, walkable, small businesses.

That's the takeaway?

I don't think anyone believes that parking garages are the key to success for these types of neighborhoods.

And surface parking lots (especially large swaths of them) are certainly not either.

The issue is that, as the Strip continues to develop as a de facto extension of Downtown (and bringing the larger variety of uses that come with that), the issue of parking needs to be addressed; as many of the surface lots from the downtown proper border up to Lawrenceville are being/planned to be developed.

The Strip has never been a quaint, walkable retail/residential neighborhood. It has long been a wholesale/distribution/industrial district with small office and converted residential. It is now already much more mixed use with class A office space, luxury apartment/condo residential, restaurant/bar, etc. and planned large-scale retail development.

I'm still not getting your point/argument as it pertains to the Strip at all. What do you suggest?

[guyFROMtheBURGH]

My only concern with adding a parking garage in the strip district is that it wouldn't actually replace parking but add to it. Is there an actual proposal to decrease parking in the neighborhood? I would support parking caps 100%.

[BenM]

Originally Posted by dfiler

It isn't that parking structures are "bad". But rather they come with a different set of tradeoffs and have a significant impact on neighborhoods. Thus it is valuable to look at that impact and see if it is a good match.

True. In the sixties an outgoing mayor of Binghamton New York managed to get IM Pei to submit a proposal for a mixed use extension of their old Beaux Art City Hall.



The incoming administration decided to build this instead. (It's since been demolished and will probably be a land bank parking lot for the next decade at least.)



What might have been.

[pj3000]

^ but this situation is far from similar to the situation in the Strip District

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm still not getting your point/argument as it pertains to the Strip at all. What do you suggest?

American urbanism appears to be headed away from striving to build an ever increasing automobile capacity. Or at least we've finally recognized that this strategy isn't always appropriate. It can actually hurt cities in the long run. Adding more cars and parking to various types of urban fabric has had a negative impact that took us decades to come to terms with. Of course some parking is needed, but it seems that we have almost always errored on the side of too much capacity. It is a long term trend that overshot the optimal balance by a significant margin.

Neighborhoods like the strip can and frequently do get overrun by traffic and parking problems. The solution isn't more parking, which only brings more cars. Instead, the solution is dense and mixed use neighborhoods that are frequented by locals and transit users in addition to some drivers.

You asked what do I suggest. That's a valid question. I suggest encouraging development that draws businesses and residents who are willing to live in a dense, walkable and transit oriented urban neighborhood. These residents and business will build lifestyles around that type of neighborhood structure. Switching from parking minimums to parking maximums is a good start.

It is hard and probably futile to make people change their lifestyles. But when a neighborhood like the strip is being redeveloped as it currently is, we have an opportunity to not make the same mistakes. We have learned a lot about the imperfect endgame of auto-centric urban design. It is time to put that knowledge to use.

And with that I'll bow out of the discussion. Feel free to address the above though. I think it's a great topic and central to development in Pittsburgh. But I'd hate for this thread to be just theoretical debate. Much thanks to everyone that contributes to that debate but also to those who post development updates!