AntiRust

Too Much Parking Downtown? Or Too Little?

Brian O'Neill offers a column about downtown parking:

An Allegheny Institute study in 2002 reported that downtown workers in peer cities Baltimore, Denver, Charlotte and Cincinnati have an average of 50 percent more parking spaces per worker.

That's the biggest reason it costs big money to park in Pittsburgh.

So is Pittsburgh awash in parking spaces? Are there so many garages that their presence stifles residential and retail growth? Or are there too few?  People can't seem to agree. And then there's this:

In our freakishly small, river-bounded Downtown that we call the Golden Triangle, garage operators reap the gold. People may have been moving from the city for 50 years, but jobs haven't, and so the demand for a parking space is high.

Would demand for parking downtown be lower if the people had not moved out of the city? As I understand it, not many of those people ever lived downtown. It's the neighborhoods that have taken a huge hit in their head counts. And not a lot of those neighborhoods are within walking distance of the Golden Triangle. At least not the kind of "walking distance" people will accept these days. Would people really be walking from Bloomfield to the Point? I doubt it. Squirrel Hill? Edgewood? The North Side? Some of them would, But thousands of them? Enough to make a difference? I suppose some of those people might also take a bus. But people tend not to take buses. Even when they live on a bus line. Because they like to drive. So I wonder.

Last, is Pittsburgh's downtown "freakishly small"? Perhaps in the bureaucratic definition of "downtown." But my wife and I agree that as the "feel" of the place goes, downtown Pittsburgh seems gargantuan compared to downtown Baltimore. By downtown, I mean the place where the big buildings are. And in Baltimore, you can walk across that section in about three minutes. I worked down there for a while and I could never get over how tiny it was. 

Apartments for Pittsburgh are a Great Idea. Unless They Aren't

The Post-Gazette is reporting that Millcraft Industries has decided to turn the G.C. Murphy Building into apartments rather than condos, as originally planned. Why?

The developer originally had planned a mix of condos and apartments at the site, but decided to go with all apartments to get federal historic tax credits to help lower the cost of the project. The tax credits can cover up to 20 percent of all renovation costs, but are not available for condominiums.

But don't worry about a thing. Nope:

"It's still not beautiful as far as the economics go. We're not making a lot of money. We're doing something good for the city," [Luca Piatt] said.

Thanks, dude. Seriously. Who could doubt your motivations? Not Jerome Dettore at the URA, that's for sure:

Mr. Dettore said he likes the idea of doing all apartments in the Murphy's conversion.

"Frankly, I think it's better to have rental apartments," he said. "Our goal is to have them moderately priced. I think the market is stronger for rentals. I think it's better that they are rentals."

Yes. Much, much better. One might ask why Mr. Dettore has not been publically pushing for rentals, since that plan is so clearly better. But that's neither here nor there. Chalk it up to bureaucratic discretion. At least now Pittsburgh is going to have a glorious future in which the GC Murphy building will be apartments rather that condos. Long live the apartments!

Er...

[Piatt] said there is a chance the apartments at some point could be converted to condos. To get the historic tax credits, they must remain rentals for at least five years.

Hmmm...

Life Imitates AntiRust: Table-Games Edition

On October 1, AntiRust posted an entry titled Table games? What Table Games?

Now we have the answer. Today's Post-Gazette is running a story headlined: DeWeese wants table games at casinos. That didn't take long.

Although I have to admit, this was an easy one to see coming.

The Onion, Featuring KDKA's Don Cannon (And His Anchorman Salary)

Whoa! Anyone see this week's edition of The Onion? It offers this quick send up of Don Cannon and how much he gets paid.

Weird. Even weirder that I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Local media is usually all over this stuff. Perhaps that's really how much he gets paid so no one wants to touch it? Or no one reads The Onion anymore?

Double Wide: Living Space in the City

Here is one of those issues that would seem to divide enthusiasts of urban living and urban architecture: More and more people are applying for permits to add additional stories to Baltimore's signature rowhouses. If allowed, this will undoubtedly change the character of these neighborhoods. But if forbidden, this will almost certainly force a lot of people into the 'burbs. From the editorial:

Of the city's 230,000 parcels, about a third are less than 16 feet wide. Any attempt to increase the size of a rowhouse on such a plot requires a variance to the code and a public hearing. Requests for variances have more than doubled since 2003, an indication of the renovation under way in the city and the need to streamline this process. Appeals to the zoning board also have doubled in the past four years, which also suggests dismay with board rulings.

Sixteen feet is pretty narrow. Especially for someone with the means to buy a $500,000 townhouse. This is a pretty big hurdle for anyone interested in returning to density levels established in previous generations. The rowhouse that is not big enough for 20-something single today used to be home to a family of six. 

In this case, the editorial supports streamlining the zoning. But I am interested to see what happens when the preservationists weigh in. They tend not to like actions that change the way places look.

Scranton vs. Pittsburgh: Act 47 and the Cost of Government

From time to time this blog hosts a conversation regarding which cities might offer a good comparison for Pittsburgh. And which ones might not. Well, there's a new candidate. From today's Erie Times-News.

Like Erie and other struggling cities statewide, Scranton wrestles each year with the common ingredients of municipal budget shortfalls -- rising labor and business costs, overspending and stagnant revenues.

Some examples:

Scranton's current budget deficit is estimated at more than $7 million. The Pennsylvania Economy League estimates that deficit could grow to nearly $11 million by 2009. Erie's, by comparison, is an estimated $12 million right now.

Scranton has more than $211 million in liabilities, including $111 million in long-term debt, according to a 2005 independent audit. City officials admit much of that debt comes from annual borrowing that has become common to pay day-to-day bills.

More than 25 percent of Scranton's property is tax-exempt, locked up by entities like the University of Scranton and the city's three largest hospitals, Community Medical Center, Mercy Hospital and Moses Taylor Hospital. Erie's is even higher -- about 40 percent.

Scranton spends nearly 60 percent of its annual budget on employee costs like wages, benefits and pensions and carries more people on its retirement health care plan than it has employees.

The parallels keep going. Scranton even had an incumbent mayor who cut a fat deal with the local police and fire unions before leaving office. And now there is a lot of nastiness going around.

[Former Scranton Mayor Jim] Connors negotiated lucrative new contracts with public safety workers in the mid-1990s that went against the cost controls in Scranton's original Act 47 recovery plan. It also led to an unprecedented state-imposed penalty for Pennsylvania's sixth-largest city -- hundreds of thousands of dollars in state grants were withheld from Scranton.

"We've only had to do that one time, and that was in Scranton," said Fred Reddig, director of local government services for the state Department of Economic and Community development, which oversees the Act 47 program.

Connors, a Republican who served 12 years as Scranton's mayor, had an often-contentious relationship with Scranton City Council. Connors said he opposed the Act 47 tag because Scranton could have easily worked out its financial problems without state intervention.

"Here's the truth, that has never been printed," said Connors, now 60. "We should have never been declared distressed in the first place. We had money. We had a safe city. I never raised taxes, or closed a firehouse, and I put cops on the street.

"It was a way for City Council to take the reins of government away from me," Connors said.

Ugly stuff. And all uncomfortably familiar. Read the whole thing. (Registration required.)

Attracting Young People to Cities: What Works?

Today's New York Times offers a fascinating look at efforts to attract young people to cities across America. The reporter even took the obvious step of interviewing Pittsburgh ex-pat Richard Florida.

Not much of this is new, really. But there is a snippet that might concern certain revitalization officials. Especially any people or institutions charged with catering to the whims of Generation Y, or whatever it's called now:

Atlanta won its net gain in educated young people by luring them from New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

“What we’re seeing is the jury of the most skeptical age group in America has looked at Atlanta’s character and likes it,” Sam A. Williams, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, said.

But Mr. Williams acknowledged the difficulty of replicating that phenomenon on purpose.

Had the chamber tried to advertise Atlanta, he said, “we might have screwed it up —because they’re much more trusting of their own network than they are of any marketing campaign.”

“You can’t fake it here,” he said. “You either do it or you don’t.”

And then there's this:

“The real issue was, is your city open to a set of ideas from young people, and their wish to realize their dream or objective in your city,” he said. “You could go out and build bike paths, but if that’s not what your young people want, it’s not going to work.”

So. Forget about bike paths and image gaps and slogans. Re-read that last paragraph.

Are you more optimistic about Pittsburgh? Or less?

Pittsburgh's Big Gamble: Open Secrets About the New Casino

Wow. I am really, really confused. Check out this story about the Gaming Board's recent hearings.  Sounds to me like the board spent a good deal of time discussing a hockey arena:

Gaming Control Board members also pressed Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. on its $290 million pledge for a new arena and whether an alternative plan would keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh.

New Penguins owner Jim Balsillie testified on behalf of the Isle of Capri plan, saying it would tie the team to Pittsburgh, but he was not around to answer questions about the team's future under Plan B, angering gaming board member Mary DiGiacomo Colins.

"Frankly, this is a very crucial point," she said.

Well, is it supposed to be a crucial point? Does anyone recall this?

Gaming Board spokesman Nick Hays said three main factors would be considered in awarding the stand alone license.

One is safety -- whether the operator is qualified to operate a casino, has a clean criminal record, has run a business properly and is current on taxes. Another is whether the bidder has the financial wherewithal to operate a casino. The third involves how customer-friendly the facility would be, including issues such as access.

So traffic would be an appropriate thing to discuss here, right? That counts as access. But I don't see anything about a hockey arena. (I discussed that a bit here.) I don't see anything about redevelopment. But that's what the Board is talking about anyway. That kind of stuff might fit into one of the lesser categories such as "public reaction," I suppose, but the main thrust of it is supposed to be tax relief and the three things mentioned above. Honestly, though, did anyone think it would/could go down any other way?

Redevelopment: Measuring Success in Inches, Not City Blocks

I have linked a few times to this story in Baltimore: the city is condemning a huge swath of land to make way for redevelopment, despite the fact that the owner of the property is a wealthy private foundation that already has plans to redevelop the site.

Well, today the Baltimore Sun has an editorial detailing plans to relocate a theater in the area where that redevelopment is supposed to take place. According to the paper, here's what it all means:

The announcement of the Everyman move, which could come as soon as 2009, reinforces the imperative to get moving on the so-called superblock on the other side of Fayette. This development project has been spinning its wheels for long enough, and it has become a drag on the whole district and a formidable barrier to the rest of downtown.

But here's where things get really interesting. The Everyman Theater is moving from a spot on Charles Street. That will leave a void. But the paper's editors are not worried about that. Why?

As for Charles Street? It can probably take care of itself.

The movie theater and restaurants and bars are bustling, so much so that there's likely to be a strong demand for the Everyman space. Anything that attracts foot traffic would be a good choice - and won't be hard to find. Success feeds on itself.

Success feeds on itself? Really? If that's the case, let's take a look at the Everyman Theater's new location. It is right across the street from the recently (and lavishly) restored Hippodrome theater. Take a look at where that "lavishly" link takes you.

"It just seemed to me that, as the neighborhood rehabilitated itself, the Hippodrome could, in fact, be reborn," said UMB President Dr. David J. Ramsay. "It couldn't have happened unless the neighborhood developed."

So... this neighborhood is already redeveloped? Then why is the city condemning property in the immediate vicinity for redevelopment?

Seriously. Bring up this area on MapQuest. The Hippodrome is in the general vicinity of the newly condemned property. Well, check out what's around it. The Inner Harbor is about seven block away. Camden Yards is three or four blocks away. The Baltimore Convention Center is about six blocks away. Lexington Market is three blocks away. The University of Maryland Medical Center is a mere two blocks away.

Now take a look at the amount of government money pumped into all of these projects. It boggles the mind. Taxpayers have pumped millions upon millions upon millions upon millions into these things, a huge portion of that under the guise of redevelopment. The Inner Harbor will save downtown. The convention center will save downtown. The Hippodrome will save downtown. Camden Yards will save downtown.

And now? An section of the city within EASY WALKING DISTANCE of all of these projects is going to require millions upon millions more. So if "success feeds on itself," where does that leave us? That's either false, or all of these projects have been failures.

So which is it?

Golf as Redevelopment: Another Revitalization Flop

Need another example of government officials wasting a ton of your money on a redevelopment scheme? You can always count on Erie.

A few years back, the city spent about $2 million renovating a municipal golf course. Why? Economic revitalization, of course:

When the course opened in August 2005, then-Mayor Rick Filippi called the playing conditions "fantastic."

Filippi, a golf enthusiast whose administration proposed and carried out the golf course improvements, called the revamped course's potential as a revenue-generator "huge" and predicted it would become a big draw.

Has that happened? Well... uh... no.

[Erie Mayor Joe] Sinnott also said the city estimates the course has lost $217,000 this year, despite $1.95 million in renovations that were mostly completed in August 2005.

Those improvements include a new irrigation system, reworking of the 18-hole course's layout, adding new holes, and renovating the clubhouse.

"Based on the appraisal, we don't believe (Erie Golf Club) is viable ... that Erie probably can't make enough to operate at a significant profit," Sinnott said.

In fact, it now appears that the entire golf course is worth less than what the city just spent on renovations.

Sinnott said he proposes to sell Erie Golf Club largely because a recently completed appraisal by a firm in Columbus, Ohio, determined the course's value is only $600,000 if the property remains a golf course, but $1.8 million as a residential development.

Sinnott said the city has yet to receive an offer for the property.

"But we don't think we'd have any trouble marketing it for development," he said.

Outstanding. Two million in renovations. All to be scrapped 15 months later. One wonders what happened to the consultants who predicted that this would be a success in terms of redevelopment. I suspect they are hard at work on Erie's next succcess story.

Anyway, read the whole thing. (Registration required.)

Update: Wow. The paper is also running an article that allows a former pro at the course to weigh in. He does so by making a classic redevelopment maneuver: Talk about the convention center:

"It's not a moneymaker, but I was involved in the original plans for the renovations, and we knew it would take some time to break even," said Munro, who worked for Hubby Vogt at Erie in 1963 and was the pro at city-owned Joseph C. Martin Golf Club from 1970 to 1982 before moving to Erie Golf Club.

"We recognized the importance of the convention center, which is only an eight-minute ride to Erie (Golf Club), and the potential customers that would bring," Munro said. "But the convention center hasn't even opened yet, so we have no way of knowing."

Whew. Even better is this, from a longtime member at three municipal courses:

"Golf is in a decline, and that's nationally, yet we have many more courses to choose from around here, and there's the new one at the development off Thomas Road (Whispering Woods) that's not far from Erie and could even take away more golfers," Lehner said. "But that's supposed to be a more trendy, country-club atmosphere. You can't beat the low price it is to play at Erie. That appeals to a lot of people."

So this is not a moneymaker. Golf is in decline. And a bunch of competing courses have recently opened.

And this is coming from people who want to keep the course OPEN.

The best they can do is cite the convention center. And argue that "low prices" will save the course. Despite the fact that prices were low this year and the course lost money.

Good grief.