Apartment Boom Continues Downtown (Pittsburgh, Dallas: fit in, apartments, countertops)

[gg]

Hope it continues. Less traffic, more walking and more lively downtown.

Apartment boom continues in Downtown Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[SteelCityRising]

I like that there was added emphasis in this article on the importance of ensuring that Downtown can and will offer housing suitable for everyone, regardless of income level. My partner and I could conceivably afford (although barely) to pay $1,000/month-$1,200/month for a 1-BR apartment here, but when factoring in parking costs, utilities, monthly maintenance fees, etc. that quickly rises beyond our financial grasp. It seems as if most major employers in Pittsburgh are still paying salaries on 2005 levels while our cost-of-living has risen noticeably since then, which is just squeezing people more financially. I've always wanted to live Downtown, and I settled here in Polish Hill when I first arrived in the city a couple of years ago because it was the closest neighborhood I can afford that was within my budget and wasn't undesirable.

I would hope to see more "micro-apartments" built Downtown. We don't need frills such as stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, hardwood flooring, etc., and if there was just ONE developer Downtown who would build just a basic---not luxurious---building I think rents could be within the reach of a lot more young professionals.

[pman]

Gatti doesn't understand the issue. he harps on parking but parking is expensive and the best way to build cheaper apartments is to build without parking. now, if parking is an added amenity, it's no wonder why a developer would want SUBSIDIZED parking...it's a handout that goes into his pocket. the reality is parking isn't an issue that will stop downtown development, the others are right, it's supply. people who want cars downtown will pay to park them, those who don't can save money by going without and using PAT or zipcars or walking.

n all, the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership estimates about 200 apartment units are under construction and another 750 are in the conceptual or planning stages in the Golden Triangle. That's on top of 2,262 existing units in Downtown, the lower Hill District, the Strip District and the North Shore -- or 412 more than four years ago.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz29wknQS7w
hopefully the city recognizes this and approves any project with a good design, parking or no parking, this isn't 1962 Gatti.

[gg]

I think it would be cool if they could have some apartments for under $650/m. I still think it would be fun to live there, but I don't think I could afford it and I still need a car for some things.

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I think it would be cool if they could have some apartments for under $650/m. I still think it would be fun to live there, but I don't think I could afford it and I still need a car for some things.

That's the beauty of Zip Cars. You can easily get a car when you need one without the expense of owning one. Makes so much sense for dense urban areas where parking is at a premium.

[pman]

Curtis also highlights why parking isn't as important as that developer says. More important are walkable amenities.increasing the number of zip cars is easy.

[Moby Hick]

From downtown, most of the city of Pittsburgh proper is within the range of a Segway's charge. Plus, they fit in an apartment.

[BrianTH]

I don't see a need for the public to subsidize parking, but I do foresee more future projects Downtown will include a parking element, although the ratio of new spots to new units may be relatively low, because some people do still prefer car ownership over Zipcar (whether or not that is rational).

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't see a need for the public to subsidize parking, but I do foresee more future projects Downtown will include a parking element, although the ratio of new spots to new units may be relatively low, because some people do still prefer car ownership over Zipcar (whether or not that is rational).

I understand that the residential projects in town already require tax abatement and other public help to make them a reality at the current, relatively high prices. If it wasn't for this tax forgiveness, they wouldn't be able to get a sufficient market at the prices they would otherwise have to charge.

Since prospective tenants are sufficiently well-heeled to be able to afford the current downtown rents, most of them are going to have cars that they will need to park. That's a considerable cost as well, which might reduce the market for the units considerably if the city wasn't willing to consider help in parking. Since the city already owns the public parking authority garages, it isn't an expensive perk for the city to give.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by juliegt

That's the beauty of Zip Cars. You can easily get a car when you need one without the expense of owning one. Makes so much sense for dense urban areas where parking is at a premium.

You're lucky to have Zipcar. The company considers Pittsburgh and Atlanta as borderline in terms of fitting its ideal location. Houston and Dallas don't fit their model although Zipcar is used at Rice University and the City of Houston has a deal to use Zipcars in its fleet.