AntiRust

More on Shrinking Cities: Is Pittsburgh Like Buffalo?

Wow. Efforts to revitalize Buffalo get hammered pretty hard in this City Journal piece. It's titled: Can Buffalo Ever Come Back? Probably Not--and Government Should Stop Bribing People to Stay There.

A taste:

As for state and local politicians, reducing New York’s unnecessary taxes and regulation would be a good idea, since if Buffalo is ever to rebound, even somewhat, private innovators, not government projects, will be the primary reason. Better schools and safe streets would also be key to improving Buffalo’s chances of survival. Yet though such policies would improve things, they would not restore the boomtown of the early twentieth century; the economic trends working against such a prospect are simply too great. The best scenario would be for Buffalo to become a much smaller but more vibrant community—shrinking to greatness, in effect. Far better that outcome than wasting yet more effort and resources on the foolish project of restoring the City of Light’s past glory.

Yeah. That smarts.

So Who Is Moving Downtown, Again? Specifically?

Yesterday's Post-Gazette ran an optimistic story about downtown's new condo building. It includes this familiar--and frustratingly vague--statement about who will live there:

Mr. Falbo is hoping to build off the success of 151 First Side, Downtown's first new condominium building since 1968. He has sold 62 of 82 units in the high rise, with the bulk running from $350,000 to $450,000. About 23 buyers have moved into the building so far. Forty percent of all buyers have been from out of town.

Seeing that so many of the downtown projects are receiving public support, it helps to know these statistics. But the "40 percent of all buyers" figure is to squishy to tell us anything. What does "out of town" mean? Does "town" mean "region," or "city limits"? Moreover, the percentage of "buyers" is less important than the percentage of actual "residents." If some speculator from Upper Topeka buys eight condos and rents them out to a bunch of guys who currently live in Shadyside, that doesn't do the city a whole lot of good in terms of new people or new taxes or vitality, etc.

If you think that's quibbling, it's not. Other city's, such as Baltimore, have made serious efforts to define who is moving where. I mention one effort here:

New downtown residents are predominantly young, white and highly educated, with household incomes of $50,000 or more, the report found. Nearly three of every four come from out of state.

"The new residents are fairly different than what the Census shows for Baltimore City, but the downtown area is much different from other areas of Baltimore City," said Matthew Kachura, a research analyst for the Jacob France Institute at the University of Baltimore, which surveyed 470 new downtown residents.

I am sure Ralph Falbo is a nice fellow and an honest man. But it doesn't make sense to rely on him for these kinds of statistics. A clear assessment of what's happening downtown--and who should pay for it--requires an independent actor to do the asking. This is basic stuff: How many of the people moving downtown have simply moved there from other city neighborhoods?

Hello? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette? One of the universities?

Note that this is the first condo building in Pittsburgh since 1968. And tweaking Falbo's numbers reveals that a full 60 percent of all buyers are NOT from "out of town." Would an objective observer expect future condo developments to attract more out-of-towners or fewer? I am open to any explanation anyone is willing to offer. But I remain flabbergasted that nobody is asking any of these questions. These developers continue to promise that their projects draw a substantial interest from people in suburbia and even farther afield. But do they?

People ask in other places. Why not here? We are renowned for our "world-class development institutions" and "one of America's great newspapers." But all seem curiously un-curious in this regard.

DeSantis in a Landslide II

I just got done reading another in a long line of defeatist opinions about the upcoming election. This one is from John McIntire in the City Paper. Like many others, it argues that while Luke Ravenstahl is a childish dunce and a horrible goof, everybody is going to vote for him anyway. And given the registration ratio, that might be the case. But I think it deserves a bit more analysis. That is, if all this is true, what's it say about Pittsburgh?

Usually in a case like this, pundits find a way to get around calling "the people" knuckleheads. They find a way to blame what's happening on "the system." Usually this takes the form of blaming MONEY in politics. You know. The bad guy just has too much, he can buy too many commercials on TV and radio. The good guy can't overcome that kind of media presence and power. But that's not the case here. I have yet to see a a Ravenstahl commercial. And really... does anyone believe anyone is voting for Ravenstahl because his picture is on the 311 billboard?

What usually comes next is some concerns about "organization." That the political machine just has too many people--too many yards with too many signs getting out the word. But in my neighborhood, at least, all the signs are for DeSantis. And this is a neighborhood packed with anti-Bush paraphernalia. So it's not like I live between a Cheney and a Santorum.

So where does that leave us? What does this mean? If we can't blame it on money or organization, how can we explain this? How can so many people be so wrong about something that is so obvious? One answer, I guess, is that the chattering class has it all wrong and Ravenstahl is really a boy genius and a great mayor. But... come on.

If the chattering class isn't full of idiots, is the wider electorate? While I am cynical about a lot of things, I am skeptical of that claim.

I guess it all comes down to registration. Old habits. The fact that all those people are Democrats. And thus vote for Democrats. I guess they might do it reflexively.

So the question then becomes is there anything to do about it? Is the problem that people aren't paying attention? I think that might be the case if this were a debate about zoning laws. But this is front-page, tabloid journalism stuff. Billionaires and drunken antics and misappropriated SUVs. So as far as these things go, I would say this actually is in the public eye. And still...

My question is, what do voters fear with regard to a Republican mayor? He can't take us to war. He can't overturn Roe v. Wade. 

I understand that a lot of folks might actually think Ravenstahl is the better guy. Fair enough. But I have a hard time believing that people actually believe that in the proportions that will deliver the ass-kicking so many are predicting for DeSantis.

In the end, I am not sure where this post is going. It's more my own curiosity. Seeing that money hardly seems to be an issue, and barring the idea that people are stupid... how to explain the disconnect between the chattering class and "the people" in this election? I have not lived here my whole life, so I don't have a mom or dad or Uncle Charlie to ask. But some of you do. So exactly why are the old-line voters going to pull the lever for Ravenstahl? Is it actually mindless? Are they paying attention at all? Do they just think he's the better guy? What?

And what might it take to change their minds? Is that beyond imagination? A lot of people think it is. And they might be right. But I thought it might be worth asking. What's Uncle Charlie afraid of? Do all Uncle Charlie's work for the Redd Up crew or something? Or is something else at work here? I mean, I can't even find anyone trying to make a CASE for Ravenstahl. Which sounds a lot like the woman who couldn't BELIEVE Nixon got elected because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. But look. I am pleading guilty on that score. I am admitting that I am out of touch with the people on this one.

So... can anyone explain the people to me? I'm new here.

It's One-Party Rule and We'll Cry If We Want To

The Post-Gazette's Dan Simpson has some pungent thoughts on Pittsburgh's history of one-party rule. Particularly with regard to where that party appears to be going with Mayor Ravenstahl at the helm.

When Mr. Ravenstahl grows up he might make a decent mayor. At 27, being 27, as he tells us when we the media point out what he is doing, he feels free to accept gifts from the Penguins and UPMC and to commit the typical cardinal sin of officials in a one-party state -- employing public assets for his private use. Only someone who knows he will get elected no matter what he does would use a Department of Homeland Security-provided vehicle to go on a recreational outing with his wife. But that is normal behavior in a one-party state.

Ouch.

2 Political Junkies offers some excellent commentary on Simpson's piece.

The only chance DeSantis has, I think, is if a large portion of Democrats can separate themselves from their party affiliation long enough to consider the possibility that a vote for a Republican might actually be in the long-term interests of the Democratic party. That is, given the disparity in party affiliations in the city, it seems unlikely that a victorious DeSantis would be the first member of a long-term Republican dynasty. But he might be there long enough to shake things up with the powers that be. Perhaps enough that a guy like Peduto or any of the others could at least CONSIDER making a run in future elections.

So yeah. Maybe we could convince them that a vote for DeSantis is actually a vote for Peduto, or some such.

Of course, all of this fails to consider the possibility that a lot of people have a vested interest in NOT shaking things up. At all. The system does serve some people well. I think a lot of us are SHOCKED that things are the way they are, and spend a lot of time thinking about how the system has failed. But has it? People are allowed to vote. They do vote. They just appear to prefer candidates that a lot of bloggers and other chatty folks don't like.

In my eyes, the election is not about who I prefer. I am voting AGAINST the 70-year dynasty Simpson takes to task. If my best option for toppling that dynasty was a vote for Peduto, I'd vote for him. Same with DeSantis. (Although I do happen to like some of the things he's said so far.) But if my only option were a Libertarian candidate, or a Green candidate, or any other, that's whom I would vote for. Even if I thought the guy was a dangerous goon. Because it would amount to a vote against the entrenched--and increasingly preposterous--local elite.

Downtown Tax Abatements: Real Dollars. Wow.

Holy crap. The Trib has a story detailing the extent to which a condo-buyer downtown will benefit from recent tax-abatement proposals. Pay special attention to the dollar amounts involved, who is getting helped, and what said people are doing with the help:

Chris Pretsch said he was able to pay about $200,000 more for his condo unit at Millcraft Industries Inc.'s Piatt Place development Downtown because of the program.

"I wanted to live Downtown because of the convenience it provides me for work, restaurants and entertainment," said Pretsch, 42, a portfolio manager for Staley Capital Advisors in One Oxford Centre, Downtown.

Pretsch will save $2,700 a year from the city and $3,480 from the school district, based on their current millage rate of 10.8 in the city and 13.92 from the school board. ... If Allegheny County approves the abatement, it would add another $1,172.50 in savings, based on its 4.69 millage rate. That could mean a combined total of $7,352.50 annually.

I'm sure Mr. Pretsch is a hell of a guy. But I am not at all sure he's so cool that we ought to single him out and help him pay for a $200,000 addition to his condo. Seven thousand dollars a year? Wow.

But, hey, that's the price you pay to get people moving downtown, right? Well, uh... no. The price we paid for that was huge subsidies for the condos. Remember those? And if you recall, everyone told us that was working. Think back to this report in the Post-Gazette, from last September (emphasis added):

Downtown's residential renaissance is producing its first fruits.

Developers say they are having little trouble finding people willing to spend $250,000 or more to buy a Downtown condo or as much as $3,275 a month to rent an apartment.

Since opening at the end of April, the new Encore on 7th has leased 73 percent of its 151 units, with most rents ranging from $1,400 to $3,275 a month.

The Golden Triangle's newest condominium building, 151 First Side, has commitments on 43 of 80 units, with prices ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. Piatt Place at the former Lazarus-Macy's building has lined up buyers on 10 of 65 condos, with prices running from $335,400 to $634,500, in the four months the sales office has been open.

"It exceeds our expectations. We're excited about it," said Jack Piatt, chairman of Millcraft Industries Inc., the developer.

So. If we were having such great success and it was exceeding everyone's expectations, why am I paying for Pretsch's extra square-footage again? This might make sense if there was a blanket abatement in the city. But there isn't. Just a few select neighborhoods. So why give people tax breaks in the one neighborhood where, reportedly, the richest people in the area are already moving in droves? Weird.

And here's another question:

Going to a citywide tax break would mean giving up tax revenue in areas "where market-driven development activities are occurring," said city Finance Director Scott Kunka. "When you go citywide, we expect the program will cost the city $75 million over the life of the program." The abatement is, instead, designed so that new property revenue the city gives up is offset by gains in wage and other taxes.

Notice that he said what we really don't want to do is provide incentives where people are already moving. And as we all know, these condo projects are hugely successful and people are already moving there. Huh. But look beyond that. How high is the wage tax? And keep in mind, that only works in the city's favor if he used to live outside the city. He might have. But that's not clear. How many Penguins games is Pretsch going to have to attend to make up for the lost tax revenue? Quite a few, I think. And going to Pens games only helps if he had never done so in the past.

All of which goes to argue, again, that if we ARE going to pick winners in the abatement lottery, downtown should be the last neighborhood eligible rather than the first.

Balls. 

Wow: Study Slams Plan for More Downtown Retail

Well here's something shocking: The Urban Land Institute thinks that plans to add a whole bunch of retail space downtown might be a bad idea... because there is already tons of vacant retail space.

[T]he panel concluded there's just too much retail space Downtown right now. It found that the gross leasable area of retail space was oversupplied by 298,000 square feet.

That, said panelist Belinda Sward, suggests that stores and restaurants Downtown "are not all achieving a healthy or their targeted sales per square foot." Some, she added, are "at risk of potential closing."

Leigh Ferguson, the ULI panel chair, put it more precisely.

"What we're looking at is too much retail space for what appears to be the current demand," he said.

Keep the messenger in mind. Tom Murphy--of Lazarus fame--is a senior fellow at ULI. So when ULI slams a downtown development plan... sheesh. What's this mean for the developers currently in favor with folks holding the government purse strings?

The findings could have implications for Washington County-based Millcraft Industries and others in efforts to bring more retail Downtown as part of plans to revitalize the Fifth and Forbes corridor.

Millcraft is planning about 50,000 square feet of retail space in its conversion of the former Lazarus-Macy's store into condos, offices and shops, and another 30,000 square feet at the old G.C. Murphy building, which will be home to apartments, the Downtown YMCA and shops.

There also will be ground-level retail space in the 23-story Three PNC Plaza skyscraper being built on Fifth Avenue.

But don't worry. There's still a lot for government planners to do, according to this revealing exchange:

Tom Sullivan, a broker with Pennsylvania Commercial Real Estate Inc. who attended the ULI presentation, said he found the panel's conclusions about Downtown retail "striking." But he added he couldn't disagree with them.

The problem Downtown, he added, is not just excess space. It's that there's "not enough good stuff."

"We have a lot of retail but it's all junk," such as discount stores, convenience stores and nail salons, said Mr. Sullivan.

Until the city is able to clean out the "bad" retail, he said, it is going to have trouble attracting high-quality retail.

That's nice. "Junk." I guess the business owners know where they stand now. Maybe if we "clean them out" and put in a huge department store, that'll spruce things up for a few months. Wait... we already tried a huge department store. Sorry. But how does Sullivan's analysis square with ULI's?

[ULI's] Mr. Ferguson came to a different conclusion. He said he found a "good mix" of retail Downtown, ranging from national brands to the upscale to the affordable.

"The good news is that you got great retail Downtown and some very interesting retail," he said.

So it's either "junk," or it's "interesting." Don't worry. Lucas Piatt is here to explain it all:

Lucas Piatt, Millcraft vice president of real estate, said the ULI panel's conclusions would have no impact on plans for retail at the Lazarus and Murphy buildings. He said Millcraft is looking to add the kind of destination retail Mr. Ferguson believes could be successful. Capital Grille steak house already has opened in the Lazarus building. A McCormick & Schmick's seafood restaurant will be opening later this fall.

Because nothing screams "destination" like chain restaurants.

So what does ULI recommend? Get this:

The ULI also recommended that the city concentrate on strengthening and growing the Downtown work force and increasing the number of visitors through conventions, tourism and arts and cultural draws.

On the flip side, Mr. Sullivan has long advocated that the best way to improve retail Downtown is not by adding housing but by filling up vacant office space and then adding more.

Got that? Fill the office space... AND THEN add more. A two step process. First fill the space. Next... add more. So how are we doing it now? Umm...

The vacancy rate for office space Downtown surged in 2006 with businesses choosing to locate in suburban corridors to the east, north and west of the city, according to a year-end report on Pittsburgh's commercial real estate market.

So the response would appear to be to fill that downtownspace first. Then build more. Right? Well, that does not appear to be the plan:

Then there is the redevelopment of the Fifth-Forbes corridor, finally receiving a kickstart with the construction of PNC Financial Group's massive office/residential complex now under way. Together with Millcraft Industries' reworking of the former Lazarus and G.C. Murphy stores into mixed-use complexes, it could spark a Downtown resurgence that would make a 20 percent vacancy a thing of the past.

Hmm...

Where to Eat: More City Versus Suburb

Wow. The Washington Post is full of support for suburban living today. Check out the annual dining guide, which offers this little ditty:

And certain suburbs, Alexandria in particular, now boast so many exceptional restaurants that there's no need to venture into the District for a great meal. Even our street corners have begun offering better than just hot dogs.

Remember when one of the main arguments for city-living was "culture"? You had to go downtown for great restaurants and theater and all the rest. That appears to be changing, at least in some places.

Here? I don't know. I am not a foodie by any stretch. I am more of an ambience sort of guy. And by that, I do not mean white tablecloths. I like places like the Bonfire out by Leechburg, and a lot of the little family-run places here in Bloomfield. I am especially fond of bizarre backwoods establishments like the Halton Hilton, Cougar Bob's and the Blue Jay. None of which would make the Washington Post's "best of" list.

But I wonder what this means for people who do prefer "good restaurants." Locally, is it necessary to travel into the city? I understand places like Mt. Lebo have some good spots that rival anything in the city. But what about overall? Is the city still the place for what most observers would consider the "best restaurants"?

Suburbs: Good for Global Warming?

People have had a long-running dispute in the comments section here about whether cities or suburbs are more energy efficient.

Here's Joel Kotkin arguing for the suburbs in the Washington Post.

Have at it.

Pittsburgh's Next Mayor: DeSantis in a Landslide

I have done some very careful analysis of demographic trends and voting patterns. Guess what? I am predicting, right here and now, that Mark DeSantis is going to spank Luke Ravenstahl and become our next mayor by a huge vote margin.

Uuhhh... OK. So I didn't really do any analysis. And my prediction is precarious at best. But I thought it might be a good antidote to the conventional wisdom around here, which seems to be that Ravenstahl is a dangerously priviledged crybaby, that DeSantis would be a great change of pace, but that none of that matters because voters in the city are too set in their ways.

Fine. Maybe the ratio of registers Democrats to Republicans makes in nearly impossible for DeSantis to win. But forget about Yukon-Gate and Burkle-Gate and all the rest. In a just world, this is what would turn the election:

"Thirty years ago, we tore down a neighborhood to build an arena in the Hill District," Mr. Ravenstahl said. "We're going to, now, tear down an arena and rebuild a neighborhood. The Hill District deserves no less, and we're working very hard with them."

Um... dude... if you check into it a little, you'll find out that... actually... WE'RE BUILDING ANOTHER ARENA. Maybe you've heard of it? Didn't Ron Burkle even MENTION it on the plane? Didn't you wonder why he was taking you to dinner in NYC? Did you think it was because he admired your place-kicking? Your golf swing? If so, allow me to reiterate: He invited you to NYC and picked up the tab BECAUSE HE'S GETTING A NEW ARENA. Not because someone is making the Hill District more neighborly.

Are we clear on that, Former Interim Mayor Ravenstahl?

City Living: Why Real Estate Matters

Virginia Postrel offers an intriguing take on city-living and the cost of housing here. (Get there fast. Not sure how long the link will be active.) A sample:

Dallas and Los Angeles represent two distinct models for successful American cities, which both reflect and reinforce different cultural and political attitudes. One model fosters a family-oriented, middle-class lifestyle—the proverbial home-centered “balanced life.” The other rewards highly productive, work-driven people with a yen for stimulating public activities, for arts venues, world-class universities, luxury shopping, restaurants that aren’t kid-friendly. One makes room for a wide range of incomes, offering most working people a comfortable life. The other, over time, becomes an enclave for the rich. Since day-to-day experience shapes people’s sense of what is typical and normal, these differences in turn lead to contrasting perceptions of economic and social reality. It’s easy to believe the middle class is vanishing when you live in Los Angeles, much harder in Dallas. These differences also reinforce different norms and values—different ideas of what it means to live a good life. Real estate may be as important as religion in explaining the infamous gap between red and blue states.

Which of these is Pittsburgh? Seems like a bit of a mix. Maybe one trying to become the other?