Pittsburgh's new "downtown neighborhood" hasn't taken shape yet. But people are finally starting to get specific. Today's Post-Gazette reports on Mayor O'Connor's recent "walk and talk" with the architect in charge of the project. It's worth looking at their comments in detail.
"That square should be green space," he said, pointing across Fifth Avenue to a roughly triangular block that runs to Liberty Avenue with one remaining business, a Chinese restaurant. "Tear that down."
Gesturing at the lunchtime crowds, he said, "Look at this place now. I want it to be that way at 6 at night [and] Saturday afternoons."
I'm not quite sure if that's the architect or O'Connor talking. Either way, it raises the same question I have been asking for a while now.
Why?
Why do we want it to be a vibrant place at 6 pm? Downtown Washington DC isn't vibrant at 6 pm. Neither is Wall Street. Or the financial district in San Francisco. Those cities all have districts, kind of larger versions of Shadyside, that serve such purposes. And you know what? Pittsburgh has, well, Shadyside. And places like it.
Or at least it did. I mean, doesn't it seem pretty obvious that the people who create this highly-touted vibrancy aren't going to simply materialize out of the mayor's hopes and dreams? If there are 1,000 people eating at downtown sidewalk cafes two years from now, that's 1,000 who won't be eating at sidewalk cafes in Shadyside. So again: Why, EXACTLY, do we prefer that they engage in this kind of activity downtown? And care so much that we are willing to chip in millions of public dollars to subsidize that shift? I am flabbergasted that anyone thinks that way.
Unless of course the planners are projecting that these changes will actually make Pittsburgh's population start growing again. If that's the case, they ought to put their asses on the line and say so. Define success. How many new residents will it take? How few would have to arrive for the planners to admit failure? Quick answer: There is no amount small enough. Because no one is ever accountable when it comes to "redevelopment."
More:
Downtown merchants and shoppers reacted cautiously.
Mr. Murphy "wanted to kick the little guys out," said Victor Musgrove, owner of V.I.P. Styles on Forbes. "I don't think that needs to happen."
Mr. Carter [the architect] said existing retailers are "part of the solution."
Huh? Isn't it going to be kind of hard for the owner of the Chinese restaurant mentioned above to be "part of the solution"? You know, the guy who owns the restaurant that someone pointed at and said, "Tear that down."
[I]n 1998, [Mayor Murphy] detailed plans to give Downtown's steadily deteriorating shopping strip to an out-of-town developer. Mr. O'Connor, then a councilman and mayoral rival, joined that plan's critics.
Mr. Murphy's plan later collapsed. The new mayor's approach is different, but not controversy-proof.
Rather than one developer, he's embracing efforts by PNC Financial Services Group, Washington County-based Millcraft Industries, and maybe Washington, D.C.-based Madison Marquette to bite off smaller chunks.
Is that really how it's different? Because it doesn't really seem all that... different. Three developers instead of one? Well, so? The piece does mention that O'Connor seems less enamored of eminent domain. But it also points out that the city and it's various front organizations already owns most of the properties. And in truth, O'Connor only really said he would prefer not to use eminent domain. Well, no crap. So swear it off. But he won't do that. Anyone wonder why? I bet the owner of the Chinese restaurant has a few ideas.
"Downtown housing is such a driver now throughout the country," [Carter] said. "How do we incorporate hundreds of housing units into this development?"
This is the kind of statement that really seems odd. It seems designed to reassure people. "Don't worry," it says. "People are doing it everywhere."
Well, yes. They are. And that's the problem. People aren't going to move here from Columbus because they just love the new loft apartments. Columbus has a whole bunch of them, too. So does Hartford. Cleveland. Erie. Oh, and there are a few other little places like Manhattan. Chicago. Atlanta. And as mentioned above, unless these plans manage to draw NEW people to the city, they will only shift business away from existing owners, towards downtown owners favored by the political class.
Moreover, the "everyone is doing it" defense is even weirder given the history of urban redevelopment. Everybody was building civic arenas and ugly throughways and monstrous concrete skyscrapers and smashing old ethnic neighborhoods while Pittsburgh was doing it. And now they are all undoing those things. Because they didn't work. In fact, they had a negative impact on cities.
So why listen AGAIN?
Comments