Is gentrification or gentrifier a controversial term in Pittsburgh (Penn: sale, real estate market)

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh was more affordable to rent in because we had a greater supply of housing than we had demand for. In addition, many long-timers owned, so the market for rental property was pretty weak.

Things have inverted now. More people are moving into the urban core. Young people don't buy either because they don't have the desire to do so, or can't save up the down payment due to student loans, so demand for rental units has gone through the roof. In many parts of the city the amount of rental units has decreased too, through a combination of housing flips reducing the number of units, and loss to blight in declining neighborhoods. The result has been a rental market which is more similar to the national median.

That should encourage developers to add more cost effective (large building small footprint) units to the overall market then which should eventually bring rents back down if they get out of control.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

If section 8 rents paid substantially more than "market" rents in an area, wouldn't that encourage landlords to put in the effort to achieve them?

If you chipped in enough money, than yes, eventually you could do that. I don't think it's politically feasible to expect the federal government to pay more for rent just to subsidize some lower-income people to live in fashionable neighborhoods however. Maybe if the city added an additional subsidy on top of Section 8 it could work. But we'd need to raise taxes for that as well.

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

That should encourage developers to add more cost effective (large building small footprint) units to the overall market then which should eventually bring rents back down if they get out of control.

Keep in mind that while not as hemmed in as some other cities, zoning often heavily restricts what can and cannot be built in a neighborhood considerably.

For example, consider Lawrenceville, my former neighborhood. Nearly the entire neighborhood is zoned for single-family attached housing - rowhouses. You can, as a developer, easily build infill townhouses anywhere you damn well please. But you can't build apartments in the residential portions of the neighborhood without getting zoning variances. This allows local residents to be NIMBYs and stop new projects from getting built. A few years back, they defeated conversion of the former Holy Family Church into apartments through these means. The church still stands vacant today. Really you can only build apartment buildings in Lawrenceville if you do it right in the business district, or in the industrial areas by the river - which is why that all the development is there.

Also keep in mind, if you're discussing large buildings with small footprints, that once you get above say six stories, the price per square foot to construct an apartment building starts rising rapidly. From everything I have read this is why we're not seeing new construction apartments Downtown - we just aren't expensive enough to warrant the costs even at market rates.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you chipped in enough money, than yes, eventually you could do that. I don't think it's politically feasible to expect the federal government to pay more for rent just to subsidize some lower-income people to live in fashionable neighborhoods however. Maybe if the city added an additional subsidy on top of Section 8 it could work. But we'd need to raise taxes for that as well.



Keep in mind that while not as hemmed in as some other cities, zoning often heavily restricts what can and cannot be built in a neighborhood considerably.

For example, consider Lawrenceville, my former neighborhood. Nearly the entire neighborhood is zoned for single-family attached housing - rowhouses. You can, as a developer, easily build infill townhouses anywhere you damn well please. But you can't build apartments in the residential portions of the neighborhood without getting zoning variances. This allows local residents to be NIMBYs and stop new projects from getting built. A few years back, they defeated conversion of the former Holy Family Church into apartments through these means. The church still stands vacant today. Really you can only build apartment buildings in Lawrenceville if you do it right in the business district, or in the industrial areas by the river - which is why that is where all the development is there.

Also keep in mind, if you're discussing large buildings with small footprints, that once you get above say six stories, the price per square foot to construct an apartment building starts rising rapidly. From everything I have read this is why we're not seeing new construction apartments Downtown - we just aren't expensive enough to warrant the costs even at market rates.

The solution appears to be to reduce NIMBY's ability to stop development that utilizes spaces to their available purpose.

[theta_sigma]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

The solution appears to be to reduce NIMBY's ability to stop development that utilizes spaces to their available purpose.

That is sort of the four billion dollar solution. Every major city in the country has this problem and to be fair, there is sort of a fine line between defending the things about your home that you love and halting all forward progress in a city. NIMBYism is a lot of the time about racism, or classism, or both, but sometimes it really is about defending the value of your own property against a proposal that could greatly reduce it, or against a plan that will drastically change the character of the place you've been living for decades. I mean, I would fight like hell to keep large scale chain commercial out of my neighborhood because the whole reason I live there is that it doesn't have that.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by theta_sigma

That is sort of the four billion dollar solution. Every major city in the country has this problem and to be fair, there is sort of a fine line between defending the things about your home that you love and halting all forward progress in a city. NIMBYism is a lot of the time about racism, or classism, or both, but sometimes it really is about defending the value of your own property against a proposal that could greatly reduce it, or against a plan that will drastically change the character of the place you've been living for decades. I mean, I would fight like hell to keep large scale chain commercial out of my neighborhood because the whole reason I live there is that it doesn't have that.

The thing is, the vast majority more intensive development actually raises real estate prices, no matter what incumbent homeowners seem to believe. A lot of very wealthy people desire, for example, the odd single-family house which remains in a neighborhood which is otherwise high-density residential. Look at the price of a home in Shadyside, for crissakes.

In general I am in favor of the ideas of local control and direct democracy. But we have plenty of experience nationwide which shows that even (perhaps even especially) the most liberal neighborhoods end up using zoning to turn neighborhoods into exclusionary cartels, leading to higher prices for everyone (aside from those who already bought in) in the longer run. It's just not a sensible way to run a city.

[SammyKhalifa]

Wait, a few years ago someone bought my apartment building house on Mt Washington and told me I had to leave because they were renovating it for higher resale. Does that not count as gentrification? Whatever you choose to call it I got pissed off and moved out of the county.

[aw_now_what]

Originally Posted by eschaton

For example, consider Lawrenceville, my former neighborhood. Nearly the entire neighborhood is zoned for single-family attached housing - rowhouses. You can, as a developer, easily build infill townhouses anywhere you damn well please. But you can't build apartments in the residential portions of the neighborhood without getting zoning variances. This allows local residents to be NIMBYs and stop new projects from getting built. A few years back, they defeated conversion of the former Holy Family Church into apartments through these means. The church still stands vacant today. Really you can only build apartment buildings in Lawrenceville if you do it right in the business district, or in the industrial areas by the river - which is why that all the development is there.

The Holy Family property situation is about as atypical as it gets, and shouldn't be used to illustrate NIMBYism.

All three Lawrenceville community groups attended the zoning hearing in support of the developer's request for variances. At the same time a small group of immediate neighbors opposed the variances. After the Zoning Board granted the requested variances, the group of immediate neighbors appealed to Common Pleas Court. Last I heard, several months ago, the neighbors group had lost that appeal and was appealing to Commonwealth Court. Having been present when members of the neighbors group were talking about the planned project, I believe their objections are unconscionable. If the developer were a white guy born in the United States, the appeals wouldn't have happened, and the project would be completed or at least well underway.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Wait, a few years ago someone bought my apartment building house on Mt Washington and told me I had to leave because they were renovating it for higher resale. Does that not count as gentrification? Whatever you choose to call it I got pissed off and moved out of the county.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by aw_now_what

The Holy Family property situation is about as atypical as it gets, and shouldn't be used to illustrate NIMBYism.

All three Lawrenceville community groups attended the zoning hearing in support of the developer's request for variances. At the same time a small group of immediate neighbors opposed the variances. After the Zoning Board granted the requested variances, the group of immediate neighbors appealed to Common Pleas Court. Last I heard, several months ago, the neighbors group had lost that appeal and was appealing to Commonwealth Court. Having been present when members of the neighbors group were talking about the planned project, I believe their objections are unconscionable. If the developer were a white guy born in the United States, the appeals wouldn't have happened, and the project would be completed or at least well underway.

Yes, I'm aware of the racial subtext, given the developer is from Africa, and there (idiotic) concerns that the developer was "going to let Section 8 in."

That said, examples like this one, a grocery store being blocked along Penn Avenue for years due to a half-dozen property owners in Friendship, or the new Garden Theater development seemingly blocked by only two property owners (one of which doesn't even live in Pittsburgh) shows the issue with zoning in general, and its application in Pittsburgh in particular. Any crank wiling to hire a lawyer can delay, and quite possibly destroy, any project which needs zoning variances to go forward.

[jea6321]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Wait, a few years ago someone bought my apartment building house on Mt Washington and told me I had to leave because they were renovating it for higher resale. Does that not count as gentrification? Whatever you choose to call it I got pissed off and moved out of the county.

so the person that bought the place should have not been allowed to make a return on an investment? what would the answer be in your opinion? should there be regulations saying that a property owner of a multi family building can not sell? should new owners not be allowed to use the property as they wish? Im honestly asking your opinion here as I dont really understand what you were so pissed about?