Pittsburgh Area Development - Request for Info & Updates (Liberty: camps, to live in)

[eschaton]

Shockingly, Mozart got through the ZBA the second time around for their proposed South Aiken apartment building in Shadyside.



The size has been downgraded slightly - from 12 to 10 stories, and down from 132 to 117 units. But it will still provide additional housing in an area where almost no new units have been added in the past generation or two.

[Nailerman9192]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Shockingly, Mozart got through the ZBA the second time around for their proposed South Aiken apartment building in Shadyside.



The size has been downgraded slightly - from 12 to 10 stories, and down from 132 to 117 units. But it will still provide additional housing in an area where almost no new units have been added in the past generation or two.

That looks nice thanks for sharing. Here in downtown Wheeling they are taking old office buildings and doing this on a smaller scale.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Shockingly, Mozart got through the ZBA the second time around for their proposed South Aiken apartment building in Shadyside.



The size has been downgraded slightly - from 12 to 10 stories, and down from 132 to 117 units. But it will still provide additional housing in an area where almost no new units have been added in the past generation or two.

Such a shame that Virginia Flaherty and her merry group of Shadyside NIMBY's have so much influence in having projects downsized and/or scuttled in Shadyside for ridiculous arguments about being "too dense" or "affecting views". We have an affordable housing shortage in this city.

Maybe instead of trying to build and make a profit in neighborhoods like Shadyside where the residents don't want any more development developers should consider neighborhoods like Marshall-Shadeland where we WANT dense new developments but aren't getting any?

[Reggiezz]

I doubt your neighbors want dense new developments.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Such a shame that Virginia Flaherty and her merry group of Shadyside NIMBY's have so much influence in having projects downsized and/or scuttled in Shadyside for ridiculous arguments about being "too dense" or "affecting views". We have an affordable housing shortage in this city.

Maybe instead of trying to build and make a profit in neighborhoods like Shadyside where the residents don't want any more development developers should consider neighborhoods like Marshall-Shadeland where we WANT dense new developments but aren't getting any?

Certainly can’t blame folks for not wanting to be closed in like sardines and looking out their windows at brick walls. If they wanted that they’d have moved to an area like that to begin with.

Make the area better and clean up the riff-raff and folks will come.

[Knepper3]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Such a shame that Virginia Flaherty and her merry group of Shadyside NIMBY's have so much influence in having projects downsized and/or scuttled in Shadyside for ridiculous arguments about being "too dense" or "affecting views". We have an affordable housing shortage in this city.

Maybe instead of trying to build and make a profit in neighborhoods like Shadyside where the residents don't want any more development developers should consider neighborhoods like Marshall-Shadeland where we WANT dense new developments but aren't getting any?

I don't like influence either but if the residents of shadyside do not want dense development that should be their right. Just like everyone on here commenting about people trying to tell the city how to run who don't live in the city. There is a process, not saying its good or effective but there is one. Use it or change it.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Reggiezz

I doubt your neighbors want dense new developments.

They should. How else will our neighborhood improve if the population just keeps declining? The current state of the neighborhood is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by erieguy

Certainly can’t blame folks for not wanting to be closed in like sardines and looking out their windows at brick walls. If they wanted that they’d have moved to an area like that to begin with.

Make the area better and clean up the riff-raff and folks will come.

If people don't want to live crammed like sardines then they shouldn't live in a city to begin with. They should live in an outlying suburban or rural environment like a Jackson Township or a Rostraver Township. Cities are meant to be dense so they can have efficient transit lines and walkable business districts. The city has less than half its peak population, so it used to have more than twice its current population density.

Originally Posted by Knepper3

I don't like influence either but if the residents of shadyside do not want dense development that should be their right. Just like everyone on here commenting about people trying to tell the city how to run who don't live in the city. There is a process, not saying its good or effective but there is one. Use it or change it.

I just don't understand, then, why developers keep trying to put new mid-rises and high-rises in neighborhoods where existing residents don't want them. Why face so much stiff opposition when you could build a project like that with far fewer NIMBY's in a different neighborhood?

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

They should. How else will our neighborhood improve if the population just keeps declining? The current state of the neighborhood is unacceptable.

If people don't want to live crammed like sardines then they shouldn't live in a city to begin with. They should live in an outlying suburban or rural environment like a Jackson Township or a Rostraver Township. Cities are meant to be dense so they can have efficient transit lines and walkable business districts. The city has less than half its peak population, so it used to have more than twice its current population density.

Your neighborhood survived before you and will after you. You chose where to live while knowing it’s current state and reputation. Now you don’t like its current state, and you want it changed to suit you and want the city to do something about it while not having to move there to begin with.

It’s funny how you think you know how people should live, where they should live, and do what you want them to. They chose an area of the city that suited them, and folks like yourself think you know best, while that area isn’t even close to resembling Jackson Twp or a Rostraver Twp. You want things changed to suit yourself while being unconcerned with how others choose to live.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Such a shame that Virginia Flaherty and her merry group of Shadyside NIMBY's have so much influence in having projects downsized and/or scuttled in Shadyside for ridiculous arguments about being "too dense" or "affecting views". We have an affordable housing shortage in this city.

The earlier opposition to this project in particular was pretty amusing (if enraging) because most of those opposed were "property owners" but not residents - that is to say they were small-time landlords who rented chopped-up houses within a few blocks, worried that their asking rents would have to fall with more competition.

I can understand why small-time landlords would want to have local zoning policy in their own self-interest, but it's absolutely not in the greater interests of the city to have their income streams protected.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Maybe instead of trying to build and make a profit in neighborhoods like Shadyside where the residents don't want any more development developers should consider neighborhoods like Marshall-Shadeland where we WANT dense new developments but aren't getting any?

The opposition to new construction in Shadyside is 100% the reason why East Liberty gentrified. I mean, walk around Shadyside and you can see that tons of apartment buildings were constructed between the 1950s and 1980s. But little has been constructed since, except on the outer fringes, because Shadyside shifted earlier than anywhere else in the city from gentrifying to gentrified, and the hippies who moved there when it was cheap had enough pull to stop any further changes from happening.

Originally Posted by Knepper3

I don't like influence either but if the residents of shadyside do not want dense development that should be their right. Just like everyone on here commenting about people trying to tell the city how to run who don't live in the city. There is a process, not saying its good or effective but there is one. Use it or change it.

Again, the issue is it's not residents. It's property owners, sometimes even non-resident property owners. Something like 70% of Shadyside residents are renters - largely transient students and professionals. But their opinions basically mean nothing within the established system.

We've seen a more absurd version of the same dynamic play out in Oakland, where a few hundred property owners within small enclaves like Coltart Street get to have a disproportionate role deciding how tall is "too tall" for buildings on Forbes Avenue.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

They should. How else will our neighborhood improve if the population just keeps declining? The current state of the neighborhood is unacceptable.

Market-rate high-density basically never is built in poor neighborhoods. Maybe if you removed most of the zoning strictures (as was done in Uptown) you could get a bit more development, but developers will only build where they can make a profit, and there's nowhere like that yet in Marshall-Shadeland.

The best option for future development for your neighborhood is if the plans to turn 65 into a surface boulevard/integrate the T somehow ever come to fruition. In that case it's possible there would be a T stop somewhere like California Avenue which could have enough demand to spur new multifamily. Otherwise your best hope is just that the vacant lots eventually get infilled with new homes (and Marshall-Shadeland is around 85% intact, so there won't be that many of them).

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I just don't understand, then, why developers keep trying to put new mid-rises and high-rises in neighborhoods where existing residents don't want them. Why face so much stiff opposition when you could build a project like that with far fewer NIMBY's in a different neighborhood?

Higher rents.