Signs, signs, everywhere signs

I agree with my fellow bloggers that it was wrong for the city Planning Commission to have reversed its decision on the UPMC sign in response to pressure from the mayor's office that, it appears, may be the result of a cozy relationship the mayor has with the medical giant.

However, I don't understand what the fuss is about over that sign. The USX building is a big ugly slab of a building whose appearance can only be improved with the addition of the large sign. And buildings aren't just to look at--they serve a function, and in this case, one of those functions is commerce. Cities don't exist merely to look pretty on a postcard. (Mike Madison has some good thoughts on this here, here and here.)

Dahntahn

This definitely isn't the impression of Downtown that the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership would want to leave visitors with. (Thanks to Null Space.)

Slow on the uptake

Sam at AntiRust has been questioning, for quite some time, exactly where all the people who are going to turn Downtown into a residential neighborhood are moving from. This is relevant given that some developers are receiving subsidies or tax breaks of one form or another to build high-end condos. If these buildings are not drawing new residents into the region, then all we are doing is spending tax dollars to shift people around from one neighborhood to another, with no net gain for the city.

Drawing from local media accounts, Sam concluded recently that this may in fact be the case (I discussed this some time ago), and today I find further evidence in the Pittsburgh Business Times (subscription required), and it comes from none other than Eve Picker, one of the best-known local condo developers:

Eve Picker, head of no wall productions and a developer of several loft projects Downtown, said that while sales of some properties may be sluggish, especially in unproved residential markets like Downtown, she expects them to pick up soon.

"Pittsburghers are not known for being quick on the uptake," Picker said. "There will be a small number of people who are pioneers ... and the others will be less brave. You have to reach the tipping point."

Note that she said "Pittsburghers are not known for being quick on the uptake", not "People from Texas" or even "People from Cranberry." Perhaps she meant Pittsburgh in the broadest sense. Perhaps she meant the entire 10-county metropolitan region. Maybe people from Fayette and Greene counties are going to flock to buy $300,000 condos in the Golden Triangle.

Of course, there may be state funds involved in some of these projects as well. So if I'm an elected official in Fayette or Greene counties, I wouldn't be too happy that my residents' state tax dollars are being used to reduce my local tax base. Not to mention that people in Fayette and Greene counties might think there are better uses of state funds than underwriting condos with granite countertops.

That's assuming that Picker meant to include the entire metropolitan region, that she was using Pittsburgh in the universal sense. Which I doubt. But I will say this: I'm one Pittsburgher who isn't very quick on the uptake, because I just can't understand why any of this is a good idea.

Pittsburgh math

Downtown Pittsburgh has a high office vacany rate. The solution? Build another office building! (With subsidies, of course.) Sam at AntiRust has the goods.

The suburbs keep looking better and better

So if there is so much demand for Downtown housing, why does the mayor want to bribe people to live there?

Ravenstahl has said he supports subsidies for affordable housing and tax breaks for those who move Downtown.

But it's a thought that doesn't sit well with some city residents who already feel overtaxed.

"I pay for my house. Why should I pay for someone to live here?" said Dan Johnson, 36, of Bloomfield, as he walked to work Downtown. "I don't think that will fly here."

Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson, I'm afraid it just might fly here, whether people like us like it or not. Pittsburgh isn't exactly synonymous with good government, and here is example number 5,679,456. As Sam at AntiRust points out, there is at least some overlap between the market for Downtown housing, and the market for housing elsewhere in the city, as the above referenced Tribune-Review article notes:

Heather Miller sold herself on buying a new condo Downtown. A Cranberry native who lives in Mt. Washington, Miller already shops in the Strip District and works as a site coordinator in the old Union National Bank building on Fourth Avenue, which is being converted into The Carlyle. That place will have 61 luxury condos.

Last I looked, Mt. Washington is inside the city limits. I fail to see why it makes sense to spend tax dollars to allow Ms. Miller to move across the river.