Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bolmac t1_jd2kpky wrote

The city claims it found it was losing money with the old fee schedule. Inflation is causing prices of everything to go up, and it sounds like they just needed to adjust their fee to account for this, otherwise taxpayers are subsidizing the reviews. This isn't about putting up roadblocks or sending messages, it's just the rising cost of doing business for developers. This article just happened to totally frame it from the whiny developer's perspective.

34

Ryanh412 t1_jd3w464 wrote

It’s Andy Sheehan of course he’s writing from the developers side. They actually have to pay a fair price instead of dirt cheap and they cry about it.

7

igloojoe11 t1_jd2s09m wrote

Eh, if the prices they point out are remotely accurate, it's a pretty ridiculous raise. Inflation alone doesn't take something from 15k to 255k.

6

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd3081f wrote

The new rate is 0.3% of development cost.

How much they raised it by is irrelevant.
Throwing around random dollar amounts is annoying at best and being deceptive at worst. These buildings will stand for 50-100 years and should be reviewed thoroughly by the city.

Nimbys and astroturfing shills should be the focus of our outrage at reasonable developments being stymied

11

YIMBYYay t1_jd36g8u wrote

>These buildings will stand for 50-100 years and should be reviewed thoroughly by the city.

Absolutely, which is what PLI does for building permits. Building permit fees can easily be in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand because they are technical reviews for health and safety.

The zoning review process should be fairly straightforward and efficient. Unfortunately, the zoning code is so complicated and the review process so capricious that it takes the city many more months to complete than the building permit process.

So, of course, buildings should be reviewed, but the way Pittsburgh does it and the requirements within those reviews have serious negative impacts on housing affordability.

6

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd37uq5 wrote

A more agile and visionary administration would be shoulder deep in reforming the zoning and review process by now. Gainey, however, would rather concern himself with speed bumps.

3

RepeatedFailure t1_jd3odvc wrote

The speed bumps slow traffic and make the city more livable. They are a ban-aid on decades of car centric design baked into the fabric of the city.

6

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3pz44 wrote

An ugly, sticky, itchy, obstructive, annoying, wasteful, and noisy band aid. Compared to alternative solutions, the speed bumps needlessly create more fossil fuel and other emissions, increase road noise, and don't increase safety more than other traffic calming measures.

They also increase wear on vehicles, obstruct emergency vehicles, and make suburbanites less likely to patronize city businesses.

Probably the worst "solution" possible IMO. Lane narrowing and chicanes does the same thing, but that is harder to implement. Gainey took the easy but shitty road here.

2

dfiler t1_jd3rvvl wrote

We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Speed humps have been extremely beneficial in some parts of the city. Sure, a restructuring of our built environment would be a preferable solution. But that's extremely complicated and rarely succeeds. So while we continue pursuit of a better city structure, I am in favor of using speed humps.

7

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3y3yk wrote

Gainey isn't pursuing a better city structure though. He's simply taking the path of least resistance. Taking a bare minimum approach that gives no thought to the long term concerns shouldn't be good enough IMO.

Speed bumps are the very worst method of traffic calming. Literally anything else would be better.

0

S4ltyInt3ractions t1_jd9gyvg wrote

Social protest and just beep your horn over every bump they will be removed quickly

2

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jda0n4x wrote

Lol. Tempting, along with hard 0-60 pulls followed by slamming on the brakes in between the bumps.

/s

1

burritoace t1_jd63oam wrote

We could marginally slow traffic on a single stretch of road with chicanes or we could marginally slow traffic on many stretches of road with speed bumps. I know which I'd pick! This overheated stuff about their alleged harms does you no favors.

E: I'm no fan of Gainey but this program started under Peduto. Just a very weird thing to get on Gainey's case about.

0

dlppgh t1_jd3ym4x wrote

...it doesn't work that way. For one, Zoning Administrators should and do have a fair amount of autonomy/distance from the Administration. Also - mayors have come into office with all sorts of promises about changing zoning law and reforming the process. What exactly have any of them achieved? Namely, what did Peduto achieve, after promising all sorts of stuff? At the end of the day, it was all about "tweet at Dan Gilman if you need something"...a Kushner-esque process that was similarly ineffective

4

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd40kuy wrote

Zoning administrators are tasked with enforcing a Byzantine shithouse maize of restrictions contained within an enigma of a process. Gainey didn't promise much of anything before he was elected - his biggest asset in the primary was not being Peduto. It's no surprise he isn't delivering much when he never promised much in the first place.

Peduto was able to generate positive national attention for Pgh, and attract outside business interest and investment. So far, Gainey has done neither.

5

dlppgh t1_jd92v34 wrote

Like it or not, PGH had positive national press prior to Peduto's administration. Even while Ravenstahl's stature crumpled, the good press kept on going. I think it's fair to point out that this press cycle isn't tied directly to individual mayors in reality. Ravenstahl didn't come in and turn PGH around by himself, nor did Peduto...but both made contributions in that regard.

2

YIMBYYay t1_jd80qa1 wrote

Agree, but counterpoint. Peduto focused far too much on national and international issues, where he had zero impact, at the expense of effective governance in Pittsburgh. Almost all of the anti-development policies in the city were implemented under his watch and zoning staff and planning commission were all Peduto appointees.

Gainey inherited a mess and has let it get worse.

0

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3vb5e wrote

This is akin to saying "my mom needs to focus on getting rid of her cancer, but instead she makes herself lunch every day! Misplaced priorities!" The two things have nothing to do with each other, and the slow pace on the monumental task does not in any way affect the more manageable task.

It feels like "speed bumps" are becoming the new "bike lanes" ........ some random shit bitter yinzers bring up as a non sequitur whenever they're upset about something.

3

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3zlwl wrote

More like "My mom needs to focus on getting rid of her cancer, but she's concentrating on eating healthier instead of taking the chemo her doctor recommended." Misplaced priorities indeed. Gainey threw yinz a political bone with the speed bumps, and yinz chomped down on it without question. It does nothing to improve transit or decrease car dependancy.

I'm pro bike lane for the record, at least it makes it easier to not use a full size vehicle. The speed bumps make driving worse and actually slow public transit down instead of improving it.

1

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd40d83 wrote

I highly doubt Gainey believes speed bumps help alleviate the zoning review issue. Again, they are obviously completely separate issues.

3

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd412r6 wrote

Gainey is in over his head. He is looking for anything quick and easy that might give him political points. For him, political points are the issue. The speed bump binge is the quickest and easiest way he has found to score political points, which gives him breathing room on harder issues, such as zoning.

It's basic local politics.

4

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd41qir wrote

So it sounds like you recognize that these are separate issues, which is why it's mystifying that you brought up speed bumps in the first place. [shrug]

3

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3v26g wrote

Yes, but the "article" is ridiculously thin on details, so we don't know if inflation has anything to do with it. I don't know anything about the process, but just looking at the way things have gone in other areas of the city (a major example being the water and sewage system), I'd put a little bit of money down saying that the zoning review office has kept its rates the same for decades because the old people ... dare I say, boomers ... who apply for reviews came to expect cheap zoning reviews as a birthright.

Now we look around and realize that the city is way behind where it should be on those fees, and we have to make a huge jump. Just like we looked around after the flood on Washington Blvd and said "oh crap, we're not charging anywhere NEAR enough to do necessary maintenance and we haven't been for decades, better raise rates 300% overnight." The mismanagement of the past is making today's administrators look bad in the case of PWSA. Again, I would bet something similar is happening with zoning reviews.

4

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2sdbf wrote

> Eh, if the prices they point out are remotely accurate,

 
This is basically an opinion piece and I don't believe the numbers that get thrown around on this shit any more than I believe the guy on WTAE a few months back who claimed that he saved $3000 dollars by driving to Ohio to fill his truck with thirty cent cheaper gas.
 
People lie, all the time, and journalists in this country abdicated their responsibility to do journalism a long time ago.

2

[deleted] t1_jd2xfg9 wrote

The city has the zoning fee calculator online if you’d care to look.

1

YIMBYYay t1_jd2r2t8 wrote

The city adjusted the zoning fee schedule just a few years ago. No one is suggesting that the reviews should be fully subsidized. The problem is the city has spent the past decade making the code and reviews more complicated and time consuming all while complaining about being understaffed. Projects that used to take 3 months to review can now take over a year, and that’s before applying for a building permit.

The development review process in Pittsburgh is broken and is basically run by special interests and lefty activists. Architects, engineers developers and contractors do not have a seat at the table.

4

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3vo99 wrote

>Projects that used to take 3 months to review can now take over a year, and that’s before applying for a building permit.

I get the impression you know more about the process than I do, but as an outsider, can I suggest that maybe this is because they're woefully understaffed and underfunded?

5

Bolmac t1_jd2tgf6 wrote

I support the lefty activists and development oversight. Cities should be built in a rational manner.

3

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2z32u wrote

Most of the time, these activists have nothing resembling a workable plan, let alone funding. Their approach to "oversight" is to jam up the process so nothing new ever gets built unless they approve. Which they never do, because they're typical NIMBYs or tankies. People respond much better to complaints when the complainers present a workable solution to the problem they identify.

It blows my mind how resistant some people here are to development, even when Pgh has been badly lagging in this area since the 1980s. We have a declining population and some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Opposing development instead of compromising for smarter, more equitable development is a fool's errand.

5

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd31hxt wrote

Most of the anti development campaigns are just neighborhood nimbys and sometime worse, landlords astroturfing to reduce competition. Which developments have been blocked by actual housing equity activists?

5

Big-Naturals69 t1_jd32k5h wrote

Lol take a look at the post history of the dude you’re replying to, I think he has a modest proposal for the housing crisis

2

Icy_Photograph412 t1_jd3fyrj wrote

But what about the landlords in butler? Why wont you think of the unfortunate landlords

1

YIMBYYay t1_jd2u31j wrote

The problem is that it isn’t rational in Pittsburgh. And what exactly do you support? Less and more expensive housing? Because that’s what’s the city is serving up.

−1

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd316gy wrote

Lefty activists aren’t against development in most cases in Pittsburgh. Most of the anti development campaigns are just neighborhood nimbys and sometime worse, landlords astroturfing to reduce competition.

9

YIMBYYay t1_jd34t1u wrote

It's a mixed bag, and many of the NIMBYs are in the DSA/activist circles. Even those not outright anti-development advocate for policies and requirements that make building more time-consuming and expensive without considering the negative impacts. Take a look at the zoning code sometimes; there are some wildly impractical requirements that you can tell no architect or engineer, or even attorney, had any hand in writing.

1

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd382td wrote

Yeah I agree. With so many people in the room, the end product ends up as a strained compromise that looks nothing like what anybody wants. It’s just so hard to trust the developers to do the right thing. Look at how the news segment uses the old renderings for walnut capitals Oakland crossing project. The current project looks nothing like the pictures they showed originally and people are going to shit a brick when they see that thing built. They got an exception to build a 400 foot long building when they were showing two separate buildings for a long time. I though it was very important urban design principle to not build monolithic super-blocks like this building. The zoning only slows 250 feet which is the average block size in the area. Walnut capital gets whatever they want from the city and I can’t think of a zoning variance they didn’t get so it’s just obnoxious of them and shows how entitled they have become to getting their own way. I can just never tell what is reasonable to bring down costs of housing and what is a profit grab

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2023/03/01/oakland-crossing-walnut-capital-zoning-plan.html

https://nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/how-one-pittsburgh-developer-wants-to-fix-oaklands-dead-zone/

https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/oakland-crossings-what-it

3

burritoace t1_jd77sgh wrote

If there aren't specific rent caps associated with a project then it's a profit grab

1

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd849aj wrote

Everything is a profit grab in a capitalist economy. I think putting up barriers to constructing new housing serves to benefit existing landlords. I disagree with anything that makes it harder or more expensive to build more housing. More supply will lower prices. There is localized gentrification when developers build new expensive housing. I worry about low wage workers being pushed further away from employment and good transit. Requiring developers to provide a percentage of housing for low wage workers is possibly a good solution but it may lead to a little less housing being built overall.

0

Moogottrrgr t1_jd2zdpv wrote

You think trickle-down economics improved the world too, huh?

1

YIMBYYay t1_jd2zr36 wrote

No. I believe that you can’t address the housing crisis by making it more time consuming and expensive to build and constraining the supply of housing.

3

Moogottrrgr t1_jd31gw7 wrote

By allowing rich developers to replace affordable houses with giant unaffordable apartments in the hopes that someday they will become slums?

3

YIMBYYay t1_jd32i15 wrote

Where in Pittsburgh have affordable houses been knocked down to make way for new apartments?

2

Moogottrrgr t1_jd337rm wrote

Oh, you must have never been to East Liberty. Sorry.

4

LostEnroute t1_jd4fdm2 wrote

The stories about the buildings coming down are a lot louder than the ones about new affordable housing being built.

Every unit that was demolished in for Whole Foods has been replaced with new builds basically across the street. Did you know that?

4

Moogottrrgr t1_jd6169j wrote

And where did the people from all the projects go? What about the people living down the street in those cheap apartments on Negley? How many years of negotiations and regulations did it take to get those places replaced, or did the developers do that out of the goodness of their hearts?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that if we just let developers do whatever the hell they wanted, those houses would exist?

0

LostEnroute t1_jd7n2ff wrote

>Are you honestly trying to tell me that if we just let developers do whatever the hell they wanted, those houses would exist?

Of course they wouldn't exist. I never said that and I agree with holding developers accountable! I just don't think the public realizes how much that actually happens. East Liberty is full of affordable housing and luxury housing. It's a success story.

2

Moogottrrgr t1_jd7y1tp wrote

This whole thread is full of people insisting that holding developers accountable is going to hinder the growth of affordable housing. I also know a LOT of people who don't consider East Liberty a success story. There's an entire documentary series (East of Liberty) about it.

−1

LostEnroute t1_jd85b38 wrote

Neighborhoods go through transition and I think East Liberty's latest is balanced, considering.

I know the bitter documentary, if it was ever finally pieced together into one. I'm just glad there are less murders and street prostitutes near my home.

Walking the .75 miles from downtown East Liberty to my home was absolutely not a good idea 20 years ago.

1

Moogottrrgr t1_jd891zj wrote

East Liberty has been a huge success for a middle-aged white lady like me. I agree. I just do not feel good about it.

1

burritoace t1_jd77ukm wrote

It doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to tell you

1

YIMBYYay t1_jd33yxv wrote

East Liberty has more below-market housing units now than when the abysmal towers were there. No housing was torn down to make way for the "luxury" apartments.

3

Moogottrrgr t1_jd34nog wrote

Please have the lobbyist who pays you to make these posts provide you with actual data from an impartial source you can share.

−4