Big Project Versus Little Project: I Thought This Wasn't Possible

Now I'm really confused.

Today's Post-Gazette has a really interesting story about architects working on tiny little projects--impossible projects, really--refurbing little slivers of the city. Like taking a decrepit old building sandwiched between two other decrepit buildings and turning it into high-end office space and apartments. It's incredibly complex. And expensive. But it turns out... it can be done.

But wait. I thought that was impossible. You remember. The city has told us for years that the only way to revitalize a neighborhood is for the government to buy up all the properties--taking them through eminent domain, if necessary--then give the properties to a single, politically-connected developer. Or sell them to that developer at a loss. And then to pile on the subsidies.

They always claim this is the best way to do things. No matter what the project. High-end condos? Mid-range condos? Public housing? Department stores? Stadiums? Doesn't matter. The formula holds.

Look. I am not saying that the "other" way discussed in this article represents some paragon of libertarian virtue. Or that it represents a counter-argument that should apply in all cases. And I can see why this might not work well in a lot of cases. Still. This does seem to offer a different way of looking at things.

Pretty neat, I'd say.

Comments

[Mark Stroup]

The city has told us for years that the only way to revitalize a neighborhood is for the government to buy up all the properties--taking them through eminent domain, if necessary--then give the properties to a single, politically-connected developer.

I think you improperly substituted the word "city" for "former Murphy administration." Things change. People make mistakes. Time to move on. Or "move forward," if you're a Luke Ravenstahl fan.

[Jonathan Potts]

We would all like to move on, I'm sure. But this kind of thinking still reigns:

http://jonathanpotts.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so.html

[Sam M]

I have to agree with Jonathan here. I would love to move on. BUt the mania for big, centrally driven projects was hardly limited to the Murphy Administration. And it's hardly limited to Pittsburgh. Look at anything done in Baltimore in the past 30 years.

"But Baltimore is a grand success story!"

Well, then why do they need to keep subsidizing these kinds of projects? Projects that are directly in the shadow of the previously successful ones like Camden Yards and the Inner Harbor? Where is the "synergy"?

And is it really done here? I don't think so. Piatt Place was not a Murphy project. But the government snapped up a kajillion properties and sold them to the Piatts at a loss. Same with the new arena.