General Pittsburgh NIMBY/anti-development thread... (Liberty, Bloomfield: apartments, condo, credit)

[eschaton]

The other week, we got our copy of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation newsletter, and it covered three local stories, among other things.

1. Attempts to put a grocery store on Penn Avenue in Garfield continue to to be delayed due to concerns by homeowners on nearby streets (trucks loading, etc). This is despite how long and hard Garfield has fought for a grocery store.
2. The kerfuffle regarding the demolition of some buildings on the Iron City Brewery site. These are buildings that everyone I've talked to with architectural knowledge admits should not have been designated historical, and had no chance to be reused. Still, the ruckus was planned because Collier didn't go through the proper channels.
3. The plans to convert a former church on 44th Street into apartments have been partially stymied due to local outcry about a potential parking shortage. The number of units has been scaled back by 50%, IIRC. One of my neighbors, a long-time resident, said people were upset because since the church closed they began using the lot as their own personal parking area, and were thus opposed to anything going in.

It struck me these were all the same story: Local developer attracted by community development corporation. Development proposed. Locals in immediate area opposed to changes, usually because they they could possibly endanger their own interests. Developer backs down and/or is further delayed in redevelopment.

Is it any wonder that developers have been crazy about the Strip District, where there are few residents to raise a ruckus?



Anyway, feel free to post your own comments about NIMBYism or anti-development attitudes in the Burgh.

[BrianTH]

I don't see how #2 fits your description--tearing down the buildings wasn't advancing some particular development project as far as I know, and it wasn't really a local opposition issue either.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't see how #2 fits your description--tearing down the buildings wasn't advancing some particular development project as far as I know, and it wasn't really a local opposition issue either.

You're right, I realized that as I was writing it.

That said, I do see some parallels. It was opposed by a few die-hard preservationists on principle, even though in practice everyone I've talked to with background in the industry has admitted they were decrepit windowless spaces which could never be re-purposed to anything but warehouses.

I think the wider popularity of the opposition was rooted in some of the same mindset though - the idea that a beautiful, but intact, wreck has to be better than whatever will come. Basically Lawrenceville is a mess, but it's our mess. I know a guy opposed to the movement of 43rd Street Concrete for much the same reason (and not a local either, an upper-middle class professional) - because it will make way for riverfront development that won't be "authentic to the character of the neighborhood."

[Garvdog]

A new, well-used building is ALWAYS better than a dilapidated, falling-down wreck that will remain unoccupied. I don't condone knocking down historic properties when they can be reused, but it truly should have architectural value as well as the ability to be reused for a modern purpose. Also, it's one thing to oppose something becuase it will truly ruin housing values or affect your health, another just becuase you don't like change.

[BrianTH]

I think some nuance is in order here, if for no other reason than it will likely be necessary to carve out a viable path forward.

It is very dangerous to try to deny local communities any sort of voice in these processes, because they always have political options, and often have litigation options. And that is what was really at stake in the Iron City case (the owners attempted to sidestep the established processes and act unilaterally).

But that doesn't mean the local community is always right, or should otherwise always be entitled to deference.

So you have to work out a process where the local community feels like it is being meaningfully heard, including the possibility of making modifications to plans in some circumstances, without going so far as to give the local community complete veto power.

[nuwaver88]

Let's not forget Doc Economou's plan for Baum Liberty that was stymied be Nimby's for a great plan at a crossroads of two great neighborhoods on vacant and decrepid lots. One Nimby was even bold even to mention that his "six year old daughter likes to play in the alley", therefore a project worth hundreds of millions should be scrapped. I will say that Nimbys and Naysayers are not as prominent as they once were around here. We have a mayor and city council that are progressive in development and issues that attract the young and talented. City Council twenty years ago had guys like Tom Flaherty etc. shooting everything down. There was a mentality around here that steel was coming back. "You can't tear down that mill. My dad worked in that mill, and my grandfather and my uncles. The only thing bringing back this town is steel!" Fortuantely, most of those Nimby's have either died or moved or saw the light. Pittsburgh is a different place than it was twenty years ago, especially demographically as opposed to aesthetically.

[Craziaskowboi]

I think NIMBYs should have their most private body parts chopped off.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It is very dangerous to try to deny local communities any sort of voice in these processes, because they always have political options, and often have litigation options. And that is what was really at stake in the Iron City case (the owners attempted to sidestep the established processes and act unilaterally).

Local communities do have a say through their elected representatives downtown and through the zoning and other regulations.


Local groups of neighborhood busybodies certainly have their place in advocacy, but really don't have any official role as they are unelected and quite unofficial and shouldn't be able to hold up projects that meet the established guidelines.

As far as the Iron City case, if they violated any established permit or zoning requirements in their recent razings, fine them and put a lien on the property. People investing in legally designated historical zones or landmarks should be aware of the red tape involved in such ventures.

[ditchdigger]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

I think NIMBYs should have their most private body parts chopped off.

Yeah!

Just don't do it in my backyard, ok?

[aw_now_what]

Hi, this thread starts with some misinformation about the Iron City Brewery situation that should be corrected.

"2. The kerfuffle regarding the demolition of some buildings on the Iron City Brewery site. These are buildings that everyone I've talked to with architectural knowledge admits should not have been designated historical, and had no chance to be reused. Still, the ruckus was planned because Collier didn't go through the proper channels."

"even though in practice everyone I've talked to with background in the industry has admitted they were decrepit windowless spaces which could never be re-purposed to anything but warehouses."

*****

On the contrary, all of the brewery's ~20 component buildings contribute to the property's historical significance- and all of those buildings should be retained at least while the owners engage in a planning process with the community as I understand they have pledged to do. The owners understand that the Historic Review Commission will not give permission for demolition before the master planning process has happened- they knew that and knew about the historic designation restrictions on the property before they bought it.

The property is not only eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is the kind of place that gets preservation professionals saying "if that's not National Register eligible, what is?" That's an honor and a historic resource that should be preserved for Lawrenceville, the city and the region. It also brings significant financial incentives for historic preservation in the form of a 20% federal tax credit and a new 25% PA tax credit for rehabilitation work that retains a property's historic features. For a property of that size, that's an amazing assist. Demolishing buildings in the Iron City complex (without even getting demolition permits let alone Historic Review clearance) immediately jeopardizes eligibility for those tax credits. Not to mention jeopardizing relationships with the community that a property owner just strode into.

I don't know who you've been talking to about the brewery and its situation and condition, and suggest you take a look around it yourself. "windowless spaces" - nah, some original window openings were unfortunately bricked up over the years, but can and should be reopened. One building that was from the 1970s and was in fact windowless was torn down a year or two ago with the community's blessing. The buildings on that property are unreplaceable and can be repurposed for practically anything- residential, commercial, offices, a hotel? There are so many possibilities, but only one chance to keep these places from ending up a pile of rubble.

Finally, if you want to contribute to discussion about what's going on with the brewery, get involved. The nonprofit Lawrenceville Stakeholders have been responsible for getting the brewery designated historic and for holding feet to the fire over the recent events. Even if you don't agree 100% on the subject, the group believes strongly in informing and engaging the community in order to formulate positions, and doesn't expect everybody to think the same thing.

aaannnddd: nobody who lives on a street that the cement trucks use wants to keep the cement plant on 43rd.

Thanks.

p.s. about Holy Family on 44th Street, last I heard a good majority of the neighbors were okay after the developer agreed to not add a two story height addition to the old school building that would have created a 70 foot tall structure across the street from single family owner-occupied houses. Hard to fault people for objecting to that.

These aren't really NIMBY issues, just people looking out for their immediate or greater neighborhood.