The Associated Press story appeared in newspapers from Philadelphia to Phoenix: "Google to open new research facility in Pittsburgh."
The headline has enough weight to make some heads turn. The name of the high-tech giant might even mean more than all the stories about undervalued real estate, quality of life, breathtaking views from Mount Washington, low crime and easy commutes. It all doesn't mean much if the economy isn't there to back it up.
What's even more impressive about the news is the reported reason why Google chose Pittsburgh. The low cost of living? The great architecture? The cultural and sports attractions? The location? The weather? Well, the answer to all of these is both yes and no. That's because the reason Google chose Pittsburgh is because the talent they wanted to hire didn't want to leave. Can you say "No way San Jose?"
I was working on my masters in Urban Studies at the University of Akron as "Silicon Valley" was blossoming into what is to this point it's full manifestation. The generally accepted impetus for the economic boom was the great talent and technology that was fed into the economy and market by Stanford University.
Of course Stanford isn't the only great University. What about Carnegie Mellon? Why didn't that happen in Pittsburgh (or Rochester, or Boston...). It did in Boston to a degree, but the other factor may be having the entrepreneurial talent which takes the technology and brings it to market.
Which brought me to another recent headline "Pitt Sixth Nationally In University Start-up Company Creation."
According to the Association of University Technology Managers, Pitt was tied with Duke University and trailed only the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Chicago, Georgia Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, and University of Michigan in this measure of technology commercialization productivity in 2004.
No one can say for sure what this will add up to. It does convey something I've known for a long time. Comparatively, Pittsburgh is a pretty darn good city, especially for the price. It's also shown the outside world has started to take notice of my first conclusion. Things are starting to happen here.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
What do Honolulu, Boston, New York and San Francisco have in common? They are all places U.S. residents are moving from. Why? The high cost of living.
Where are they moving to? Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Charlotte. The trend has been chronicled recently by CNN, The New York Times and more. What city is missing the boat? Pittsburgh.
If the cost of living is the reason people are leaving Boston and San Francisco, it would seem Pittsburgh would be an obvious alternative. Pittsburgh has the culture, the housing stock, the lively downtown, the colleges, the infrastructure, the simple unmatched physical beauty and the low cost of living needed to grab the attention of those fleeing higher-priced markets.
If Boston’s loss isn’t Pittsburgh’s gain, we’ll have only ourselves to blame. Now is the time to pull our resources and get the word out. Now is the time to push ourselves up a notch or two.
No more ten year plans, please. It’s time to just do it before this window is closed.
Where are they moving to? Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Charlotte. The trend has been chronicled recently by CNN, The New York Times and more. What city is missing the boat? Pittsburgh.
If the cost of living is the reason people are leaving Boston and San Francisco, it would seem Pittsburgh would be an obvious alternative. Pittsburgh has the culture, the housing stock, the lively downtown, the colleges, the infrastructure, the simple unmatched physical beauty and the low cost of living needed to grab the attention of those fleeing higher-priced markets.
If Boston’s loss isn’t Pittsburgh’s gain, we’ll have only ourselves to blame. Now is the time to pull our resources and get the word out. Now is the time to push ourselves up a notch or two.
No more ten year plans, please. It’s time to just do it before this window is closed.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Downtown living is on the rise in Pittsburgh. That was one of the conclusions presented Friday by a group of students from the Heinz School for Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). The analysis was done for the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership.
The students did a cost/benefits analysis for living downtown compared with other neighborhoods.The report found that rents in downtown cost considerably more than in Mount Lebanon or Shadyside (presumably they chose these neighborhoods because of the demographic being targeted for downtown living).
Likewise the cost of buying a condo downtown was more than those two neighborhoods, plus Sewickley. Compared with single-family homes in those three neighborhoods, those willing to downsize might find downtown living attractive. (It seems some comparison of perception between downtown and these other neighborhoods should also be made. Actual comparisons in quantitative data on crime statistics, existing amenities etc. would be useful).
The numbers of folks looking to live downtown are apparently on the rise. The students concluded there would be 1006 more prospective tenants than units by Fall of 2006. It was also estimated downtown will measure a 16.5 percent growth rate in 2006 from 2000.
Held at the Gulf Tower, the forum also allowed downtown residents to listen to the conclusions and respond. One resident complained about the noise and odor from buses. Extending hours of stores and coffee shops seemed to be on everyone's mind and adding a grocery far out ranked other amenities young professionals found important to have downtown. (young professionals were one of two groups likely to see downtown as an attractive option, empty nesters the other).
One audience member felt the coffee shops would only be convinced to open later when the demand was there. As when people moved to the suburbs, it took some time for the stores to follow.
It is clear that downtown living desireability is on the increase, and the products being created, at least in terms of for sale downtown condos, is products that are in demand. Some of the presumptions about downtown living will sure to be challenged in the coming years, however. It is my contention that while more people are seeking out an urban lifestyle today, perhaps being close to work, a prime downtown attraction cited, will not hold true. I think that downtown living is becoming attractive for other reasons.
First, the condo lifestyle in general is again attractive. Small households, one or two people, want an investment with a standardized value. They want minimal upkeep and a customizable space. An increasingly mobile population wants a product that will not take time out of their busy lives and yet provide enough latitutude to make the space their own. Second, downtown office buildings are being converted into condominiums for economic reasons rather than social ones.
This is not only true of Pittsburgh, but of other downtowns. New condo buildings (of considerable height) are also being built in downtown areas. Economically this is likely because the price per square foot of living space has surpassed the price per square foot of office space (at least in these tall, slender buildings). It's also because of changes in the type of office space in demand. New offices are being built in outlying areas (including on the North and South shores and in like places in other cities). The new office buildings have much larger floorplans than the old downtown buildings.
Time will tell, but what we are probably seeing now is a change in downtown from an office center to a mixed-use center and eventually weighed heavily toward a residential center. It's too early to see how far into the future, and thus how far to the a complete residential center this trend will take us.
It may not seem realtistic today to think that downtown could be primarily a residential neighborhood. There will always be some offices of course, just the way there are a few apartments near Ross Park Mall. Today we may make the mistake of assuming that the residential trend will stop at some point, what point is unspecified, perhaps 25 percent. It may not stop, however, or may stop at 75 or 80 percent.
When I say "primarily residential," I mean homes and supportive retail services and cultural attractions. Cultural attractions will not be replaced because they are not a market-driven entity the way homes and offices are.
Today we know the concept of "edge cities," and the diminishing importance of a downtown as an office and retail center. I suspect there will always be an importance to having a "center," and downtown will always be that center.
The infrastructure needed for a residential center is much different than the infrastructure needed for an office center. As an office center, the workers commute, primarily by driving, from the suburbs. As a residential center, a larger portion of those living downtown won't have cars. They must be in walking-distance of amenities and have an efficient transportation system in order to get to work.
In regards to amenities, while it is important, as suggested, for existing amenities to have extended hours, the existing amenities aren’t built to cater to residents. As an example, compare the Starbucks on McKnight and Siebert with the one on Penn and Sixth. The suburban location is large enough to accommodate small meetings and allow residents who may spend the day alone at home, to linger. The downtown location is more of a “get your coffee and go” spot than a “third-place.”
The retail stores face similar barriers. I’m more likely to shop at Target and Walgreens for the things I need for everyday life than Kauman’s/Macy’s or Brooks Brothers. The types of stores downtown today are built to accommodate suburban destination shoppers or office workers.
I would also like to briefly compare “downtown” Pittsburgh with Center-City Philadelphia or Baltimore. While the primary type of housing in Downtown Pittsburgh is the condo or apartment, other successful downtowns include many different types of housing, including the row house. By expanding the definition of “downtown” to include places like East Allegheny, we can provide this type of housing in an area that is walkable and convenient—the hallmarks of downtown living.
To the students who undertook this project, good work. It was an engaging presentation that’s sure to help continued growth of Pittsburgh’s downtown as a place for living.
The students did a cost/benefits analysis for living downtown compared with other neighborhoods.The report found that rents in downtown cost considerably more than in Mount Lebanon or Shadyside (presumably they chose these neighborhoods because of the demographic being targeted for downtown living).
Likewise the cost of buying a condo downtown was more than those two neighborhoods, plus Sewickley. Compared with single-family homes in those three neighborhoods, those willing to downsize might find downtown living attractive. (It seems some comparison of perception between downtown and these other neighborhoods should also be made. Actual comparisons in quantitative data on crime statistics, existing amenities etc. would be useful).
The numbers of folks looking to live downtown are apparently on the rise. The students concluded there would be 1006 more prospective tenants than units by Fall of 2006. It was also estimated downtown will measure a 16.5 percent growth rate in 2006 from 2000.
Held at the Gulf Tower, the forum also allowed downtown residents to listen to the conclusions and respond. One resident complained about the noise and odor from buses. Extending hours of stores and coffee shops seemed to be on everyone's mind and adding a grocery far out ranked other amenities young professionals found important to have downtown. (young professionals were one of two groups likely to see downtown as an attractive option, empty nesters the other).
One audience member felt the coffee shops would only be convinced to open later when the demand was there. As when people moved to the suburbs, it took some time for the stores to follow.
It is clear that downtown living desireability is on the increase, and the products being created, at least in terms of for sale downtown condos, is products that are in demand. Some of the presumptions about downtown living will sure to be challenged in the coming years, however. It is my contention that while more people are seeking out an urban lifestyle today, perhaps being close to work, a prime downtown attraction cited, will not hold true. I think that downtown living is becoming attractive for other reasons.
First, the condo lifestyle in general is again attractive. Small households, one or two people, want an investment with a standardized value. They want minimal upkeep and a customizable space. An increasingly mobile population wants a product that will not take time out of their busy lives and yet provide enough latitutude to make the space their own. Second, downtown office buildings are being converted into condominiums for economic reasons rather than social ones.
This is not only true of Pittsburgh, but of other downtowns. New condo buildings (of considerable height) are also being built in downtown areas. Economically this is likely because the price per square foot of living space has surpassed the price per square foot of office space (at least in these tall, slender buildings). It's also because of changes in the type of office space in demand. New offices are being built in outlying areas (including on the North and South shores and in like places in other cities). The new office buildings have much larger floorplans than the old downtown buildings.
Time will tell, but what we are probably seeing now is a change in downtown from an office center to a mixed-use center and eventually weighed heavily toward a residential center. It's too early to see how far into the future, and thus how far to the a complete residential center this trend will take us.
It may not seem realtistic today to think that downtown could be primarily a residential neighborhood. There will always be some offices of course, just the way there are a few apartments near Ross Park Mall. Today we may make the mistake of assuming that the residential trend will stop at some point, what point is unspecified, perhaps 25 percent. It may not stop, however, or may stop at 75 or 80 percent.
When I say "primarily residential," I mean homes and supportive retail services and cultural attractions. Cultural attractions will not be replaced because they are not a market-driven entity the way homes and offices are.
Today we know the concept of "edge cities," and the diminishing importance of a downtown as an office and retail center. I suspect there will always be an importance to having a "center," and downtown will always be that center.
The infrastructure needed for a residential center is much different than the infrastructure needed for an office center. As an office center, the workers commute, primarily by driving, from the suburbs. As a residential center, a larger portion of those living downtown won't have cars. They must be in walking-distance of amenities and have an efficient transportation system in order to get to work.
In regards to amenities, while it is important, as suggested, for existing amenities to have extended hours, the existing amenities aren’t built to cater to residents. As an example, compare the Starbucks on McKnight and Siebert with the one on Penn and Sixth. The suburban location is large enough to accommodate small meetings and allow residents who may spend the day alone at home, to linger. The downtown location is more of a “get your coffee and go” spot than a “third-place.”
The retail stores face similar barriers. I’m more likely to shop at Target and Walgreens for the things I need for everyday life than Kauman’s/Macy’s or Brooks Brothers. The types of stores downtown today are built to accommodate suburban destination shoppers or office workers.
I would also like to briefly compare “downtown” Pittsburgh with Center-City Philadelphia or Baltimore. While the primary type of housing in Downtown Pittsburgh is the condo or apartment, other successful downtowns include many different types of housing, including the row house. By expanding the definition of “downtown” to include places like East Allegheny, we can provide this type of housing in an area that is walkable and convenient—the hallmarks of downtown living.
To the students who undertook this project, good work. It was an engaging presentation that’s sure to help continued growth of Pittsburgh’s downtown as a place for living.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
If the news I heard today is true, a record has been set for the sold price of a home in Central Northside. I'll report more as soon as I can confirm these details.
These last few days I have spent some time analyzing data for some other Northside neighborhoods so far this year. These numbers would seem to be easy to come by, but that's not always the case. Many homes are put in the multi-list under the wrong neighborhoods, either for marketing purposes or by mistake. I recently toured a home in Squirrel Hill that I pulled up on a Northside search. Anyway, here are my estimates on how these neighborhoods are doing.
These numbers include Jan 1 to mid-November. They do not count the sale of multi-unit or commercial buildings. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Spring Hill Spring Hill is pretty definable, only some of the hillsides are actually in East Allegheny.
Total Sold 27
Average Price $44,291
Median Price $45,500
Highest Price: $124,900
Lowest Price: $1,000
TROY HILL
Total Sold 27
Average Price $36,565
Median Price $30,000
Highest Price $80,000
Lowest price $10,500
EAST ALLEGHENY There are a number of complications with East Allegheny. Increasingly it's divided, psychologically at least, into East Deutschtown and West Deutschtown. More, commonly East Allegheny homes are incorrectly listed in Central Northside.
Total Sold 22
Average Price $48,656
Median Price $45,000
Highest Price $210,000
Lowest price $4,000
CENTRAL NORTHSIDE Some homes listed in Central Northside are actually located in adjacent neighborhoods.
Total Sold 45
Average Price $115,585
Median Price $126,000
Highest Price $301,000
Lowest Price $2,000
I thought I would compare these neighborhoods to another neighborhood that seemed to have a lot of buzz this year, Lawrenceville. Some eighty homes sold in Lawrenceville so far this year. The most expensive was $275,000 for a Butler Street loft/condo. The least a single-family foreclosure on Woolsayer way. The average was $73,766.66, more than East Allegheny, Troy Hill or Spring Hill. The median is $65,500. I should note that Lawrenceville is one of the city's largest neighborhoods.
A few other quick numbers.
About 43 homes were sold in Bloomfield so far this year. The highest price was $149,500, the lowest $15,500.
About 144 homes were sold on Southside this year, the highest $375,000 (A South Shore Court condo), the lowest $3,500.
About 31 units were sold in Downtown Pittsburgh so far this year. Downtown includes the Strip District. The highest was a Strip District loft for $635,000. The lowest a studio condo in Washington Place for $35,000.
These last few days I have spent some time analyzing data for some other Northside neighborhoods so far this year. These numbers would seem to be easy to come by, but that's not always the case. Many homes are put in the multi-list under the wrong neighborhoods, either for marketing purposes or by mistake. I recently toured a home in Squirrel Hill that I pulled up on a Northside search. Anyway, here are my estimates on how these neighborhoods are doing.
These numbers include Jan 1 to mid-November. They do not count the sale of multi-unit or commercial buildings. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Spring Hill Spring Hill is pretty definable, only some of the hillsides are actually in East Allegheny.
Total Sold 27
Average Price $44,291
Median Price $45,500
Highest Price: $124,900
Lowest Price: $1,000
TROY HILL
Total Sold 27
Average Price $36,565
Median Price $30,000
Highest Price $80,000
Lowest price $10,500
EAST ALLEGHENY There are a number of complications with East Allegheny. Increasingly it's divided, psychologically at least, into East Deutschtown and West Deutschtown. More, commonly East Allegheny homes are incorrectly listed in Central Northside.
Total Sold 22
Average Price $48,656
Median Price $45,000
Highest Price $210,000
Lowest price $4,000
CENTRAL NORTHSIDE Some homes listed in Central Northside are actually located in adjacent neighborhoods.
Total Sold 45
Average Price $115,585
Median Price $126,000
Highest Price $301,000
Lowest Price $2,000
I thought I would compare these neighborhoods to another neighborhood that seemed to have a lot of buzz this year, Lawrenceville. Some eighty homes sold in Lawrenceville so far this year. The most expensive was $275,000 for a Butler Street loft/condo. The least a single-family foreclosure on Woolsayer way. The average was $73,766.66, more than East Allegheny, Troy Hill or Spring Hill. The median is $65,500. I should note that Lawrenceville is one of the city's largest neighborhoods.
A few other quick numbers.
About 43 homes were sold in Bloomfield so far this year. The highest price was $149,500, the lowest $15,500.
About 144 homes were sold on Southside this year, the highest $375,000 (A South Shore Court condo), the lowest $3,500.
About 31 units were sold in Downtown Pittsburgh so far this year. Downtown includes the Strip District. The highest was a Strip District loft for $635,000. The lowest a studio condo in Washington Place for $35,000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)