Something very simple happened today. In any other urban neighborhood, coffee shops come and go. Here in Pittsburgh's North City Flats, a coffee shop was a long time coming.

Over the years I've heard stories about neighbors coming out to oppose coffee shops because they would attract people and bring about "loitering." These city suburbanites lost out. From today on there will be more to our neighborhoods than just decorative doors with homeowners hiding beside alarm systems.

Yesterday was the first day of operation for Beleza. This coffee shop is opening at a time when many "coasters" are looking for new cities to live in. Pittsburgh is high on the list (New York magazine recently named Pittsburgh as one of the top places New Yorkers are moving to. Many city neighborhoods are overlooked and one primary reason is because we can't always answer positively questions about whether there are grocery stores and coffee shops nearby.

From today foreward I can say "there's a great coffee shop over on Buenta Vista!"

Beleza opened at 8 yesterday morning. I arrived at 11:30. A young women was sitting out front with her dog. Three people stood on the opposite corner taking photos. Inside I was greeted with warm colors and aromas. A few sat in their solitary corners, but for many others it was like walking into a friendly living room. I had the sense that all these coffee-starved folk knew of each other, had exchanged friendly glances, but had few opportunities to interact.

"Where do you live?" the person at the counter asked. Hell, I thought, that may be a rather rude question in Starbuck's, but here it seemed normal, even welcomed. "Over by the Schoolhouse," I said. She lived up the block on Buena Vista.

Sometimes it seems day by day each of our little pockets we call "neighborhoods" are entrenched in their own provincial corners. We're stuck on Deutschtown being somehow distinct, if not better than the Mexican War Streets or Allegheny West. Today those lines were not the only ones to blur. Today those lines that kept us seperated by the sense of personal space on a city street were blurred by this third-place where we can meet and interact from today on as neighbors.

A side note, Beleza serves Peace Coffee.

With or without gambling, it may be possible for much good to come from Casino dreaming. It would seem a shame for all the plans to go to waste for lack of a casino license. Faced with the prospect of not getting a license, the dreamers seem to be asking: "do we really need a casino to make this work?"

It's a good question to ask, and more often the answer seems to be "no."

Word is Forest City may develop South Shore condos with or without the Casino license. Likewise, after pulling his bid for a North Shore Casino near PNC Park, Merrill Stabile wants to develop anyway.

According to the Post-Gazette (which undoubtably must find some joy in the new parking garage rising in front of the Tribune-Review sign), Stabile and Kratsa Properties are putting together plans for a proposed residential, retail, entertainment and hotel development at the site.

In other recent developments, the developer of the DelMonte and Equitable office buildings, Continental recently announced the addition of three restaurants in time for the All-Star game in July.

More often than not, what developers and planners are coming up with are dense mixed-use developments with casino's in them. These kinds of developments, sometimes known as cities have existed for centuries. We are perhaps now realizing they will work with or without casinos.

Just before heading out to spend an afternoon showing a New Yorker houses in Pittsburgh, I received a note from Virginia, a frequent poster to a yahoo group and a potential Pittsburgher currently living in New Jersey.

Virginia described the current New York Magazine and an article called "A Moveable Fiesta", about Buenos Aires becoming an "expat Haven", and she quotes: "New Yorkers are also Fleeing to:", the places listed were: "Shanghai, Budapest, and Pittsburgh"

Virginia just happened on the article and hey, I'm a subscriber and I didn't notice that. "I thought, (oh, God, no, not before I take a look around) Dammit, why do New Yorkers have to "discover" everything, everywhere. That's exactly what happened in Philly?" Virginia asked aloud in the email.

The magazine notes that $300,000 gets you a three-bedroom home in Pittsburgh. Hell, I think $30,000 would.

I can see the change in myself since I moved back to Pittsburgh from San Francisco. Where once I would run out the door any time of day to make a dash for Walgreen's or the organic food store around the corner, now I hop in the Beetle and head for the suburbs. In my case the reason may not be so much the built environment as a lack of retail options around me.

In any case, even life in East Allegheny is far removed from that in many a suburb. There are many occasions now where I do walk that would be lost should I move to say Cranberry. As it turns out, such a move would be bad for my health.

Researchers have shown for the first time that the same pattern of unwise land use can adversely affect a wide range of health indicators, including obesity and air pollution. This comprehensive study is the first to be commissioned by a local government to assess multiple health impacts of the built environment. The study's findings were reported in the winter edition of the Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA), the scholarly journal of the American Planning Association.

The study examined the impacts the built environment could have on residents' health if it reduces opportunities for active transportation (walking or biking) and encourages more time spent in vehicles that can lead to an increase in vehicle emissions and air pollution. The authors explained that such a built environment could lead to an increased risk for several major chronic diseases, obesity, exposure to pollutants and risk of respiratory ailments.

"Our findings are consistent with literature suggesting that current laws and regulations are producing negative health outcomes," said Lawrence Frank, J. Armand Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation in the school of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.

The findings were generated from two studies conducted in King County, Washington. Use of the same walkability index in each study in the same region allowed for a strong comparison of association across multiple outcomes.

The first study conducted was the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. It concentrated on the relationship of urban form to physical activity and obesity. The results from this study were consistent with findings of previous studies.

"Walkability of neighborhoods around each participant's home was significantly related to overall physical activity levels, minutes per week devoted to active transportation, and BMI," said Frank. "People living in high-walkable neighborhoods were more physically active, walked more and had lower BMI."

The second study was the King County Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, and Health Study that assessed the effects of land use and transportation network design on travel patterns and per capita vehicle emissions, which influences air quality.

The authors found that a modest 5 percent increase in neighborhood walkability was associated with 32.1 percent more minutes per week of physically active travel, approximately a one-quarter point lower BMI (about 1.5 pounds), 6.5 percent fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita and lower vehicle emissions (5.6 fewer grams of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 5.5 percent fewer grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per capita). These compounds react in sunlight to form harmful ozone.

"These findings have begun to untangle highly complex relationships and produce some astonishing and yet practical answers for promoting healthier people," said King County Executive Ron Sims. "The studies bring clarity to the gains that can be realized by bringing all the different disciplines together, working toward a common goal. King County and its partners are already putting these findings to work in land use management and transportation policy that will have lasting rewards for our communities and the people who live in them."

Bob O’Connor has been pretty lucky. Downtown development has gained serious momentum, and now the Steeler’s victory threw the city into the national spotlight. Today’s victory rally, however has brought to light the mistakes of the past and, through poor planning has thrust the troubles of our downtown (namely the Fifth-Forbes corridor) into the national spotlight.

Instead of choosing a route that would lead the Steelers through a revitalized areas that could really show off the city, the organizers lead the thousand of fans and countless tv cameras along Fifth Avenue, past real estate signs and vacant, boarded storefronts. Today we saw the best of the city and the worst of downtown.

Why couldn’t the route have gone from the Civic Area past Mellon Park, to Fort Duquesne Boulevard or perhaps Penn Avenue? Unfortunately today’s parade likely served to reinforce an incomplete and negative image of downtown Pittsburgh to television viewers. If I were watching from another city the downtown I saw today probably couldn’t be distinguished from one in the late 70s. In fact, there are even seeminly fewer stores today.

On the good side, the thousands (I’ve heard numbers as high as 200,000) folks who went downtown for the day undoubtedly saw real changes in downtown Pittsburgh for the first time. Unfortunately television viewers couldn’t get that sense. To them it’s the same old steel town, and when the crowd goes home to Cranberry, the same old forlorn downtown Pittsburgh.

MORE

The East Allegheny Community Council is looking for people interested in restoring an old house. There are currently four houses in the Deutschtown National Historic District (one is on the local) available for restoration. It would also be great if those wanting to restore the homes planned to live in them. More information on the homes is available at historicproperties.com or at the Deutschtown web site

I received a call the other day from a man who wanted to buy an fixer-upper for an investment. His main requirement was that it be close to town. "I listen to a lot of talk shows and talk to a lot of people," he said. "A lot of the older folks are saying they're thinking about moving back to the city."

A lot of us can see these trends in our own neighborhoods. While once urban neighborhoods were populated with youth, in a few years they may be taken over by those approaching the golden years.

At any rate, a new book begins to confirm that repopulating the core as a trend is indeed more than talk. Tomorrow's Cities, Tomorrow's Suburbs, published by the American Planning Association (APA), analyzed metro areas and found that by 2000, old city neighborhoods were thriving while middle-aged suburbs were in decline.

Of the 2,586 suburbs and 35 large metropolitan areas analyzed, the authors found that 155 suburbs were worse off than Detroit, with per capita incomes of less than 60 percent of their metropolitan area's income. Detroit was used as a benchmark for cities with problems because it had the lowest ratio of city residents' per capita income to metropolitan income in 2000.

Additionally, the authors report that more than 50 percent of suburbs in the study had declined faster, or increased slower than their central cities in relative per capita income.

Suburban malaise measured by suburban income decline was especially severe in the Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, Orlando, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas, where 50 percent or more of the suburbs lagged behind their central cities relative income performance between 1990 and 2000.

Neighborhoods built between 1940 and 1990 were much more likely to decline in relative family income than were pre-1940 neighborhoods. Approximately half of pre-1940 neighborhoods were going up in relative family income during the 1990s in the six metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Richmond, and Washington, D.C.) where the authors analyzed income changes in census tracts. In contrast, more than 75 percent of neighborhoods built substantially during the 1960s were going down in relative family income during the 1990s.

The authors partially attribute city revival to the ability to attract more middle- and upper-income households. Faster revival of old neighborhoods is likely within the next decade because cities have been good at attracting empty nesters, middle-aged neighborhoods dominated by small houses are now considered obsolete, and fewer people believe the best neighborhoods are formed from isolated detached houses in an auto-dependent suburban development.

In the book, the authors attribute suburban decline partially to the size of available housing, citing the increase in the median size of a new house from 1,100 square feet in 1950 to 2,000 square feet in 2000. The authors theorize that suburbs dominated by housing built between 1945 and 1970 will likely have trouble attracting and retaining middle-income households since larger housing stock became more readily available in the 1990s.

Another reason for future suburban decline may be increasing awareness that the exurbs are proving to be more dangerous than the central cities. "Our research in 10 large metropolitan areas shows that in each area, one or more exurban counties had more deaths associated with leaving home, mainly traffic deaths, than occur in central cities from the combination of traffic deaths and homicides by strangers."

Additionally, the authors caution that when parents realize the perceived safety of cul-de-sac neighborhoods is in fact "bogus," support for families preferring suburbs may erode further.

While the authors' book focuses on analysis of the 2000 census data, Lucy and Phillips did analyze data from the new American Community Survey of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Early data analysis for 20 large cities indicates cities continued to experience revivals between 2000 and 2003.

The authors argue that opportunities for condominium ownership have influenced middle-income residents' location decisions. Increased availability of condo ownership is partially a result of changing consumer preferences, but also partly a belated adaptation by developers to provide a housing ownership opportunity that has been underserved in many metropolitan housing markets. According to Lucy and Phillips, where developers respond to this condo market demand, as many more have done since the 2000 census, central cities are more likely to make comebacks that can be measured by increases in relative income.

The book is by William H. Lucy and David L. Phillips, professors of urban planning at the University of Virginia. The two have spent more than 20 years studying city and suburban trends.

I met some neighbors for a pre-dinner drink Friday. They were hosting someone visiting from Japan here to learn about affordable housing programs in the U.S. Pittsburgh is of course filled with affordable housing (to get an idea, visit link. So with so much housing available, why are condos, priced significantly higher, selling so well. My neighbor wondered at what point the market would be saturated with condos. With three thousand scheduled to come online in the near term, how many would remain unsold? "All those and more will sell and be occupied," I responded.

This morning's paper had some information that helps explain why. "Allegheny County has 12,000 people turning 60 this year, according to the 2000 census, with another 354,000 boomers to follow in their wake over the next 18 years."

Some might want to spend the golden years mowing lawns in distant suburbs, but countless others want a more convenient life in a place where someone else takes care of the building. And hey, you can walk outside and get a bite to eat or see a show.

At least in Pittsburgh, the condo boom is in its infancy.

Great cities to live in are supported by great transit systems. These transit systems are centered on extensive netwoks of light-rail and subway lines rather than buses. These notions are supported by a recent Post-Gazette article that outlines increases gained in Port Authority ridership following sustained higher gasoline prices.

The gasoline prices, the article concludes, have lead to increased transit ridership. More, rail ridership in Pittsburgh and elsewhere had an increase more than twice that of transit ridership over-all (which means buses had an even smaller percentage increase).

This reaffirms two of my already held notions.

1. Imposing gasoline tax's (as roadway user fees rather than subsidies) will serve to boost transit ridership (and thus help clean the air and slow co2 emmissions that cause global warming).

2. Those who would otherwise drive much prefer rail over buses.

Statistics from Saturday's paper reveal the amazing opportunity that exits for the center City of Pittsburgh. According to the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,more than 180,000 suburbanites flow into Downtown, Oakland and other city neighborhoods each day to work, boosting Pittsburgh's population by 41 percent, the fourth-highest proportional "day surge" among large cities in the nation.

This is amazing in itself. Center-city employment is actually higher now than in the past when many jobs were at steel mills along the rivers. A large number of these come by public transit, but a majority come by car. The number has also increase over the past decade from about 300,000 in 1992 to 320,000 in 2001.

These trends run counter to much of what has happened in cities in general over the past half-century. They also spotlight two areas of opportunity.

The first is to get some of these commuters to move into the city. This is already happening to some degree. Empty-nesters, boomer retirees, childless couples and singles are already moving into downtown and other areas, attracted by new housing opportunities. This is great news, but the numbers we saw Saturday reveal much greater opportunity.

The second area of opportunity, which should serve to booster the first, is to improve transportation within the city. This should be done using surface light-rail and streetcar lines that can be built in short amounts of time. The lack of such systems will keep the downtown housing boom from moving into other neighborhoods. New housing thus far has been concentrated in areas in very close proximity to downtown and Oakland, including South Side, North Shore, Squirrel Hill and the lower Hill District. Improving the time it takes (and ease of use) of transit systems will allow, in essence, other neighborhoods to become closer and "transit villages" to emerge.

In the more immediate term, city housing advocates should focus attention on selling city living to these commuters. More increasing the variety and quantity of in-city housing will serve to insure something more than a day-time population boost, a real reversal of suburban flight.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It looks as though plan E, or whatever we're on now, is quietly materializing. An article that just appeared on the PG's web site says the governor has pledged $30 million for three projects underway in the Fifth-Forbes district?

It seems they're skipping the glossy pamphlets this time.

The PG says the three projects underway are: retail and residential development near Market Street by the "Pittsburgh Task Force and developer Madison Marquette," a retail, residential and office complex between Wood and Market by PNC Financial Services and "reuse" of Lazarus now owned by the Regional Industrial Development Corp.

An earlier PG (Nov. 10) article reported a company called Millcraft Industries was close to securing the Lazarus building for transformation into a retail and residential condominium complex.

All this is good news. Downtown condo's are hot and more will be sure to add up to a more lively center city. Residential needs retail to work, however, and getting the right stores in place will be the key to long-term success.

What are the right stores? Ones that supply residents rather than serve as a destination for shoppers. They include grocers, discount stores, housewares even coffee shops. With any luck we'll see a Crate and Barrel, Trader Joes, Target and more in Downtown Pittsburgh. These would serve not only downtown residents, but retail-starved residents of Northside and Mount Washington as well.

The big question everyone's asking now is "Has the market slowed?" The answer is most likely a "yes." I'm not sure that's cause for alarm, especially concearning Pittsburgh. I was reading an article concearning Philadelphia the other day. Those quoted didn't expect the price drops many in overheated markets like Boston and Washington DC fear. Rather, homes are expected to stay on the market longer in Philadelphia.

Pittsburgh is frequently noted as being a "safe bet." It's also viewed as "undervalued." We haven't experienced the frenzy here folks on the coasts have. Prices in most areas haven't doubled or tripled in the last few years, rather have kept the pace at around 5 percent a year.

In my own neighborhood I've noticed the upper end homes have been on the market for quite a while, while the lower end has kept pace. With more to choose from, the average time it takes to sell a given house should increase.

The idea of pre-fabricated housing goes back quite a way. A process perfected by the U.S. military during World War II was applied by at Levittown and other subdivisions. The appeal was and is obvious as the cost of a comfortable home is reduced dramatically when numerous homes are produced using standardized parts, specialized labor, rapidly and even off-site.

Before that, Sears and other companies offered standard, ready-to-assemble homes. The earliest prefab house may have been 400 years ago when a wood house broken into panels was shipped from England to Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Today prefab homes are again gaining in popularity. In recent days Ikea announced the company would enter the prefab market. Smaller companies offer pre-built homes that are delivered as placed on your lot. Michael Graves is apparently working on a prefab house for Target. Gone are the days when prefab meant standardized and boring. Today that’s the story of the suburban monster home. A prefab home today and in the future will mean customized.

Yet in all the history of the prefab house, from Sears to Ikea anyway, prefab homes have been anything but urban. A city town home is, in essence, two rectangles stacked onto each other. These fit in-between like shapes. Many of these homes are existing, but some need replaced or have been lost. It is a great challenge to provide affordable homes to the masses. While we have record homeownership in the United States today, it would seem we have provided unaffordable homes to the masses—foreclosures are also at a record. Let’s meet the challenge of both living smart and building smart by creating affordable and energy-efficient urban prefab designs.

Read the expanded column Dec. 1, 2005 at http://www.newcolonist.com

"A cottage small is all I'm after,Not one that's spacious and wide.A house that rings with joy and laughterand the ones you love inside.Some like the high road, I like the low road,Free from the care and strife.Sounds corny and seedy, but yes, indeed-y;Give me the simple life."

The size of homes in the United States (urban and suburban) continues to grow. According to the National Association of Realtors, in 2001 about one in eight homes exceeded 3,500 square feet, which was more than triple the average new home in 1950 (983 square feet). Since 1970 the size of the average home has increased 55 percent (to 2,330 square feet), while the size of the average family has decreased 13 percent. Meanwhile, according to the Energy Information Administration, homes exceeding 3,500 square feet use about 40 percent more energy than those between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet.

Like my brother-in-law's big truck, the houses are getting bigger in part because Uncle Sam is promoting it. The folks at the Urban Institute figure about 80 percent of the estimated $200 billion of federal housing subsidies consists of tax breaks for "upscale Americans" to buy bigger homes. That study found Federal housing benefits average $8,268 for those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 and $365 for those with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000. (Haven't heard many Libertarians out there whining about these government giveaways; come to think of it I've never heard ?em whine about public parking.)

Look around?perhaps it's time to scale down. Ask yourself, "Do I need all this space? Does it make my life better or easier?"

read the column in newcolonist.com