Why did the "great build out" of North Oakland stop? (Pittsburgh: real estate, apartment complexes)

[eschaton]

If you look at population density by census block group, part of North Oakland is the densest portion of the city. This is a very tightly defined area - basically between Fifth, Bellefield, Centre, and Neville. There's tons of large apartment buildings and condos in this area, built between 1910 and the 1970s. Add to this some of the apartment buildings just on the other side of Fifth, and along the edges of Shadyside, and you have the largest collection of apartment buildings in the city by far.

But, it doesn't seem like much of anything new has been built around here for decades. Why? There's plenty of underutilized land around here, including sad small-scale commercial structures and run-down subdivided houses. Given the huge residential demand in this region, and the lack of homeowners to worry about displacement, you would think that the building up of this area would continue.

[Evergrey]

That's a good question... and the regional demographic/economic decline of the 80s doesn't seem to explain this one as the universities and hospitals in that area surged forward during that time.

I'm going to conjecture that after the 70s, NIMBYism probably made development of large buildings difficult... and post-2008... there's been difficulty in securing financing... there's been a couple mid-rise proposals in North Oakland in recent years that were scrapped.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

That's a good question... and the regional demographic/economic decline of the 80s doesn't seem to explain this one as the universities and hospitals in that area surged forward during that time.

I don't know that the regional decline doesn't explain it. While the universities and hospitals were surging, the overall decline meant that any new construction would have to compete with very cheap real estate that was not very far away.

[I_Like_Spam]

My guess is that the market for high rise apartment houses in the region just didn't justify developers looking to the Oakland area. People looking to rent started looking at other areas, a lot of suburban apartment complexes started being built in the 50's and 60's and the market become somewhat saturated.

[doo dah]

It seems that there were a couple of waves of building - late 1920s-1930s, where the buildings were apartment-hotels, Centre Avenue(Centre Court, Ambassador, Hampshire Hall), Bayard(King Edward and related, Aberdeen, Adrian), N. Dithridge(Hampshire Hall, Dithridge Towers); then, I suppose WW2 put a stop to further development; then, in the 1950s-60s, newer buildings like Neville House, Park Plaza, University Square, some of the Melwood Avenue buildings, Chalfont and Centre Tower on Centre; I don't know when some of these buildings became condos, but the Winchester and Dithridge House were both built as condos in the 1970s. The Madison and Bellefield Place both look like they were built in the 1980s or early 1990s; I know Bellefield Place is a co-op building now, don't know if it was built as one. And the Metropolitan on N Neville was built relatively recently (2006?).
At some point, the apartment buildings started to become more attractive to students, maybe around the change over to condo; some of the condos now are primarily students, with a pretty rapid turnover.
There aren't any really large parcels of real estate to develop (since the Metropolitan, which had been a large funeral home).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I'm going to conjecture that after the 70s, NIMBYism probably made development of large buildings difficult... and post-2008... there's been difficulty in securing financing... there's been a couple mid-rise proposals in North Oakland in recent years that were scrapped.

What NIMBYs? Even back then, I doubt few of the surviving houses were single-family residences.

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

I don't know that the regional decline doesn't explain it. While the universities and hospitals were surging, the overall decline meant that any new construction would have to compete with very cheap real estate that was not very far away.

This might have something to do with it. Was this the period where student rentals became more common in South Oakland (for Pitt students) and Shadyside (for CMU students?) I think that early on there wasn't much spillover into other parts of the city.

Originally Posted by doo dah

There aren't any really large parcels of real estate to develop (since the Metropolitan, which had been a large funeral home).

I dunno if I'd say that. I mean, the new CVS is going in on a plot which has been vacant for many years, and it's still going to be a pretty under-utilized use of the block. There's vacant lots on N Craig, many surviving subdivided houses on N Dithridge, the gas station on Bayard, the one-story bank on the corner of 5th and S Craig, etc. There's plenty of open space even more underutilized a few blocks to the north and south - the north side of Centre in particular is filled with junk single-story storefronts.

It just seems weird that we're busy densifying the city in all sorts of places, but not the one place which is already quite dense, where there is a high demand for people to live.

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by eschaton

What NIMBYs? Even back then, I doubt few of the surviving houses were single-family residences.



This might have something to do with it. Was this the period where student rentals became more common in South Oakland (for Pitt students) and Shadyside (for CMU students?) I think that early on there wasn't much spillover into other parts of the city.



I dunno if I'd say that. I mean, the new CVS is going in on a plot which has been vacant for many years, and it's still going to be a pretty under-utilized use of the block. There's vacant lots on N Craig, many surviving subdivided houses on N Dithridge, the gas station on Bayard, the one-story bank on the corner of 5th and S Craig, etc. There's plenty of open space even more underutilized a few blocks to the north and south - the north side of Centre in particular is filled with junk single-story storefronts.

It just seems weird that we're busy densifying the city in all sorts of places, but not the one place which is already quite dense, where there is a high demand for people to live.

It looks like Giant Eagle (well, 101 Kappa Drive Associates) is leasing the parcel at the southeastern corner of Centre and Craig to CVS. The development at the southwestern corner was the (I think 17-story?) apartment building that didn't get built was supposed to be on land that is Pittsburgh Public Parking Authority, two or three of the houses on Centre were going to be torn down and maybe the building at 249 N Craig (and maybe Tamarind); the two lots next to Tamarind are owned by the LDS Church on Dithridge so I don' t think they are going to be let go any time soon.

Oh, and hey, those "junky single-story storefronts"? These ones? That still have some of their architectural ornamentation, some is just covered up?


yet in the "hidden houses" thread (and many others) people bemoan the loss of older buildings.
And anyone who stands in the way of "development" is sneered at as a NIMBY.

[Evergrey]

Questions to ponder, doo dah.

[doo dah]

I see that "Park7 Group", "an integrated real estate development, construction and management organization, focusing exclusively on student housing" bought up those houses on Centre from Craig almost to Dithridge (not including the last one) for almost $1.7 million in December, so I am not quite sure what that means. Development and construction? Or merely property management?

[LIRefugee]

Originally Posted by doo dah

yet in the "hidden houses" thread (and many others) people bemoan the loss of older buildings.
And anyone who stands in the way of "development" is sneered at as a NIMBY.

"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough"
---- Noah Cross