Where Pittsburgh could fit 100,000 more people... (Washington, Progress: apartments, condos, new home)

[eschaton]

This is a spinoff of the other thread on population gain.

Looking at PGH SNAP data, there are three variables, which suggest how we could grow our population:

1. The percent of vacant units (abandoned or otherwise)
2. The percent of vacant parcels (undeveloped land, missing teeth, etc)
3. The percentage of land zoned industrial (large plots and low land usage, for the most part, make these the most attractive areas to redevelop).

Note that these aren't always one for one. For example, there are many slope areas in Pittsburgh now zoned hillside, which need to be kept at a very low level of development in the future. Also, not all parcels are created equal. Some industrial parcels are many acres, and could be converted into a lot of housing. Nonetheless, we can add the percentages for each together and come up with a rough scale and see how accurate it is.

Attached is the map of the result. Progressively darker colors measure roughly how many additional households over the existing population base the neighborhood could hold, with the lightest essentially full (barring demo of existing SFH), and the darkest having the most upsides for growth. For the most part, I think it works, as it captures the scale accurately, but I note a few things turned out wrong.

I think certain neighborhoods are underestimated. In particular, I think that Downtown and the North Shore are given too short shrift - probably because the redevelopment possibilities there are re-purposing commercial and/or parking (both areas have a special zoning code), not filling in missing teeth and factory conversion. That said, this dynamic wouldn't be the case anywhere else (except East Liberty to an extent). I could also argue Chateau is way underrated, but given it had no housing, and no vacant plots, there was nothing but the 58% zoned industrial to give it "points."

On the other hand, I don't see densification really happening in Fairywood, East Carnegie, Esplen, or Marshall-Shadeland any time soon. Then again, New Homestead saw substantial suburban-style infill within the last decade, so I guess I wouldn't be totally shocked in the case of the first two. Still, the remaining industry in these areas will probably linger long after the riverfront industry elsewhere is mostly gone.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Very interesting map! No surprise that Uptown/Bluff and Strip have lots of potential near to downtown, and these are obvious candidates for residental development over the coming years.

Off topic but related, what does it take to pursue new construction in the city? I was thinking that by the time I'm ready to buy, I may actually want to build in the city. Is it inherently more difficult to do new construction of a SFH in the city due to zoning/other ordinances? Ignore the fact that developable lots are tough to come by anyways. If this turns out into a discusson of it's own, I will start one...

[Evergrey]

New residential towers on Mt. Washington... and marginal housing in high-demand neighborhoods like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill redeveloped into high-density residential.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

marginal housing in high-demand neighborhoods like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill redeveloped into high-density residential.

What do you mean by marginal housing?

Shadyside has its share of half-ruined old houses chopped into student apartments, but if anything improvement in the future will restore them into historic single-family homes, which would lower, not raise, population density.

I simply can't think of anything to take out of Squirrel Hill, although I suppose there's still more open land in the far south that new housing is going up in.

[pman]

the hill district lost 71% of its population between 1950 and 1990 (and more in the 20 ensuing years). I think the lower hill especially presents an interesting opportunity though I'm not confident the pens will deliver a high quality development. the advantage of development in the "core area" is that it should require little in the way of new infrastructure.
you shouldn't underestimate the density rowhome housing can add in places like lower lawrencville.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

What do you mean by marginal housing?

Shadyside has its share of half-ruined old houses chopped into student apartments, but if anything improvement in the future will restore them into historic single-family homes, which would lower, not raise, population density.

I simply can't think of anything to take out of Squirrel Hill, although I suppose there's still more open land in the far south that new housing is going up in.

There's been several examples in recent years of rows of houses in Squirrel Hill replaced by multi-family residential... such as Beacon St. condos and the project u/c right now near the Forbes/Murray intersection. That type of redevelopment will happen with greater frequency because people want to live in those neighborhoods. Blocks of rundown old houses in East Shadyside will yield to condo buildings. These areas may appear to be "built-out", but market forces will reshape them to accommodate higher densities.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

There's been several examples in recent years of rows of houses in Squirrel Hill replaced multi-family residential... such as Beacon St. condos and the project u/c right now near the Forbes/Murray intersection. That type of redevelopment will happen with greater frequency because people want to live in those neighborhoods. Blocks of rundown old houses in East Shadyside will yield to condo buildings. These areas may appear to be "built-out", but market forces will reshape them to accommodate higher densities.

In my ideal world, I'd take a run down house in Shadyside (East Shadyside, if you consider that east of Aiken, but not so if you consider it east of Highland...basically somewhere between Aiken and Highland where I feel there are tons of run down houses)...and build a new age 3 story SFH with a pool. I may be only one person, but I would certianly be reducing density by getting rid of a SFH converted to multi unit grad student housing and replacing with a new SFH.

Edit: While this isn't technically a three story, I'm talking about something along the lines of a smaller version of this:

http://freshome.com/2011/03/20/urban...rk-architects/

Edit 2: I'm going to make this a separate thread

[AaronPGH]

Develop East Liberty into serious high-density... the transit infrastructure is already in place. Run the rail line / street car line from Downtown through Lawrenceville, do the same high-density with the strip district. Remove all the property from the hands of the Steelers on the North Shore, do the same there.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

There's been several examples in recent years of rows of houses in Squirrel Hill replaced by multi-family residential... such as Beacon St. condos and the project u/c right now near the Forbes/Murray intersection. That type of redevelopment will happen with greater frequency because people want to live in those neighborhoods.

Squirrel Hill is popular among the affluent for its single family lifestyle so close to the city. Sure, there are a lot of apartments and condos, but the neighborhood would lose it's appeal to the affluent if it became predominantly multi-family residential.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Squirrel Hill is popular among the affluent for its single family lifestyle so close to the city. Sure, there are a lot of apartments and condos, but the neighborhood would lose it's appeal to the affluent if it became predominantly multi-family residential.

Squirrel Hill has TONS of multi-family. More will come. That does mean that single-family will be threatened as a lifestyle choice in the neighborhood... it's a vast, diverse neighborhood. But houses that are marginal... or houses that are very close to the business district or along transit nodes may be redeveloped into multi-family complexes.