Does Pittsburgh need a new industrial area? (Clairton, Duquesne: employment, neighborhoods)

[eschaton]

Commuting by bike with some regularity through the Strip District to Lawrenceville, it becomes clear pretty quickly that as it stands now, the Allegheny riverfront is one of only two large sections of industrial zoning left in the city (the other being in the Northside, on the bank of the Ohio, starting in Chateau and going upward).

It occurs to me that if the Strip/Lawrenceville really do take off as planned, the businesses in these areas will be hard-pressed to remain, given the land will become so much more valuable being utilized for residential or commercial means. Without some planned location to pick up the slack, however, the businesses will probably just relocate out of Pittsburgh entirely, meaning loss of tax revenue for the city that it could otherwise recapture if an attractive industrial locale was built out.

Essentially the large (such as they are) manufacturing/warehousing firms need two things - flat land, and in some cases access to rail. If I were to suggest anywhere that fits these needs, it would probably be portions of Larimer and Homewood - which could be a highly controversial pick for a number of reasons. But if you want to relocate industry off the river, it's got to go somewhere in the East End.

Anyway, thoughts?

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Commuting by bike with some regularity through the Strip District to Lawrenceville, it becomes clear pretty quickly that as it stands now, the Allegheny riverfront is one of only two large sections of industrial zoning left in the city (the other being in the Northside, on the bank of the Ohio, starting in Chateau and going upward).

It occurs to me that if the Strip/Lawrenceville really do take off as planned, the businesses in these areas will be hard-pressed to remain, given the land will become so much more valuable being utilized for residential or commercial means. Without some planned location to pick up the slack, however, the businesses will probably just relocate out of Pittsburgh entirely, meaning loss of tax revenue for the city that it could otherwise recapture if an attractive industrial locale was built out.

Essentially the large (such as they are) manufacturing/warehousing firms need two things - flat land, and in some cases access to rail. If I were to suggest anywhere that fits these needs, it would probably be portions of Larimer and Homewood - which could be a highly controversial pick for a number of reasons. But if you want to relocate industry off the river, it's got to go somewhere in the East End.

Anyway, thoughts?

That would be a Mellon Arena all over again. Granted, unlike the Hill in the 1950s, Homewood and Larimer aren't currently stable working class enclaves, so I don't think redirecting industry to that area could possibly make the neighborhoods any worse. However, it would still involve displacement of a large number of people.

This plan is based on a bunch of conditions that could take years to happen, or may never happen.

Instead of demolishing an entire neighborhood to construct new headquarters, a better idea would be to refurbish currently-defunct-but-salvageable industrial buildings, while clearing those beyond repair for new construction in, say, Hazelwood. Better yet, why not make it a County-wide initiative? Braddock, Duquesne, McKees Rocks, etc. have a surplus of unused industrial space and could certainly use the business.

[BrianTH]

The Allegheny Riverfront plan involved finding locations for displaced industrial users, including with land swaps. There is the Tippins Steel site (part of the URA's land swap with Buncher), Heppenstall Steel site, the Pitt-Ohio site between 33rd and 35th, various City parcels, and so on.

[jimmyev]

Why would you even want to keep that industry? Property assessments of office/retail/residential are much higher than industrial. Most new industrial developments aren't built without huge exemptions from property taxes. Consequently the taxes collected from industrial sites are lower than office/retail/residential. Most of the work at industrial facilities is mechanized and employment is low. The city collects what - $54 - from each worker? Replace that with residents paying 3% of their income and you're collecting more taxes.

The tax base in Braddock, North Braddock and Clairton is almost entirely industrial. When people moved from those areas - because of an unwillingness to live next to industrial facilities, not because of a lack of jobs as is greatly mis-characterized - they took the office/retail/residential tax base with them. All that was left was the industrial tax base and those areas became some of the poorest municipalities around. Not a good model to emulate.

[Evergrey]

Great points Jimmy ... especially the Braddock fallacy.

However, I think Fairywood would be a good candidate for industrial concentration.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Great points Jimmy ... especially the Braddock fallacy.

However, I think Fairywood would be a good candidate for industrial concentration.

That's actually a pretty good idea. Fairywood seems to be isolated, already looks industrial, and not many people live there.

Outside of the city, there are lots and lots of vacated flat industrial lands along the Monongahela, Ohio, Shenango, Mahoning and Beaver Rivers, so relocating for these companies in another industrial area shouldn't be a problem at all.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

That would be a Mellon Arena all over again. Granted, unlike the Hill in the 1950s, Homewood and Larimer aren't currently stable working class enclaves, so I don't think redirecting industry to that area could possibly make the neighborhoods any worse. However, it would still involve displacement of a large number of people.

Hence why I said it would be controversial.

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

This plan is based on a bunch of conditions that could take years to happen, or may never happen.

I think some of it already is happening, but the process could take 20 years or longer to fniish, yes.

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Better yet, why not make it a County-wide initiative? Braddock, Duquesne, McKees Rocks, etc. have a surplus of unused industrial space and could certainly use the business.

It's possible that relocating remaining large industry to the Mon Valley towns is the best use of zoning. Certainly there are cities in California that are nothing but industrial areas. That said, I think it's something subject to debate, and I also think there's something to be said for keeping industry close enough in that it's accessible to employees via mass transit.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The Allegheny Riverfront plan involved finding locations for displaced industrial users, including with land swaps. There is the Tippins Steel site (part of the URA's land swap with Buncher), Heppenstall Steel site, the Pitt-Ohio site between 33rd and 35th, various City parcels, and so on.

I live a block up from the Heppenstall site, so I'm well aware of its vacancy. That said, the two competing plans I've seen most recently have some portion of the industrial land between 40th and 48th moving over to residential, which would really be the first disruption of this industrial area.

Originally Posted by jimmyev

Why would you even want to keep that industry? Property assessments of office/retail/residential are much higher than industrial. Most new industrial developments aren't built without huge exemptions from property taxes. Consequently the taxes collected from industrial sites are lower than office/retail/residential. Most of the work at industrial facilities is mechanized and employment is low. The city collects what - $54 - from each worker? Replace that with residents paying 3% of their income and you're collecting more taxes.

The argument is not whether industrial properties are more lucrative than industrial, it's whether its worth the city's while to attempt to hold onto the industrial employers, or accept a gradual shift to a residential/commercial city. Honestly, while of course industrial property should be placed in areas of low desirability, I think the desire for an end to sprawl has to extend to a desire to see manufacturers not continue to relocate to industrial parks in exurban areas.

Originally Posted by Evergrey

However, I think Fairywood would be a good candidate for industrial concentration.

That's a good point. Now that the projects are closed, there's probably enough room for another 1-2 large-sized industrial employers in the neighborhood.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Does Pittsburgh need a new industrial area?

Yes, in your back yard.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Yes, in your back yard.

I moved here just before the plant was knocked down. While I'd certainly prefer residential extended into the area rather than another manufacturing plant, to be honest, my main concern is if there is new industrial development, it will be set really far back on the lot, with a huge parking lot facing Hatfield, ruining the urban character of the area.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I live a block up from the Heppenstall site, so I'm well aware of its vacancy. That said, the two competing plans I've seen most recently have some portion of the industrial land between 40th and 48th moving over to residential, which would really be the first disruption of this industrial area.

Definitely the idea is to have less land overall devoted to industrial, with the remaining active industrial entities concentrated into fewer locations, there being room to do that due to all the vacancies. That is consistent with not driving existing industrial out, but also not leaving a lot of room for future industrial growth.

I think that is likely a pretty good balance to strike, but I agree it is a policy issue worth discussing explicitly.