Loading ...Us
by Mountain Girl ~ November 16th, 2009. Filed under: Community, Revitalization, The View, Zoning.I’ve had some interesting conversations with people since the Planning Commission approved the new zoning designation at One Grandview last week. Some are in favor of the development, some are opposed. The theme that emerged most often in these discussions was the notion that we’re in an “us” vs. “them” battle. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t always the same “us” or “them”.
The Community vs. The Developer
Some people are wary of accepting a proposal from an out-of-town developer/investor and wondered why we weren’t looking to local talent to develop this site. The fact is that Desmone & Associates is a family-owned, Pittsburgh-based architecture firm that has been around since 1958. Mr. Desmone himself is spearheading this project and has been working on some version of the design for decades. While it’s true that the developer is from Chicago, I believe his wife is from Pittsburgh (for those of you skeptical of anyone living outside of the 152-something zip code).
To add to that, local developers haven’t exactly been standing in line to scoop up The Edge. If they have, they certainly haven’t come to multiple community meetings with viable plans in hand to get feedback from us.
The Community vs. Itself
As the saying goes, sometimes we are our own worst enemy. It’s fairly common to hear people identify themselves as being from the “Duquesne Heights side” or “Mt. Washington side” of the Mount. Some drill down even further. One person I corresponded with was casting aside the opinions of the “rich liberals on Grandview” and championing the “working middle class” without a view.
Our neighborhood is much more diverse than that—in age and means (not so much race, but that’s another story for another time). I’ve posted demographic information in the past that shows young couples and students living among families that have owned a home for generations. I’m also sure that many of the people in homes with a view have worked hard to get what they have just as there are middle-class residents who would consider themselves left-of-center on the political spectrum….and so on and so on.
Isn’t that why we choose to live in Mt. Washington? We’re tough to categorize and uniquely “us” with our collective issues and complications. This should make for spirited discourse, but it shouldn’t create an impenetrable divide. Maybe we should begin to measure success not by how many times “our” side beats “yours”, but rather our continued ability to maintain the diversity of experience, background, thought and opinion that makes Mt. Washington Mt. Washington.
Email This Post
Print This Post
November 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
If I may correct one sentence. Just about everyone is in favor of the development, a very small percentage are against it. You will never get everyone to agree on anything…..
I’ve lived here almost 30 years and I never quite understood what differance it makes if you live in Mt. Washington or Duquesne Heights? Does one side think they are better than the other? Is there some past history that we don’t know about?
I agree some neighborhoods get more attention by the city but its because certain people get more involved in where they live than others.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Some people are wary of accepting a proposal from an out-of-town developer/investor and wondered why we weren’t looking to local talent to develop this site.
That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard from the anti-development folks. You want a local developer? Craig Cozza is a local developer. Look what that got us. (Two dirt fields covered with weeds and surrounded by a chain link fence that take up a significant portion of Grandview Ave.) Sometimes I think these people that are against development will protest no matter what you put in front of them. They are a laughable bunch.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
15211 have scared away any good local developers. Folks, that property has been available to develop for 28 YEARS !!!Do you realize what they have gone through over the years with certain anti-development groups here? We have a bad reputation in dealing with anyone wanting to invest in our community. They end up going to East Liberty or Lawrenceville or South Side on and on….
November 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
…working hard to overcome the “anti development” reputation….
just for the record
November 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I, for one, do not know what you are all talking about–”anti-development reputation.” Could someone set me straight?
What developments have ever been stopped? I see lots of things that I never saw years ago around here now. They were all developments. Please give me examples. Just trying to understand where you are all coming from.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Circusview – This is part one of a two part series:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08023/851282-28.stm
November 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Here is part two
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08024/851686-28.stm
November 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
This developement is not about one person, or one street…it is about Pittsburgh. This project will change the look of Grandview Ave, the outlook of the City of Pittsburgh and re-establish West Pennsylvania as the Gateway to America.
I love this project.
The anti-development people want a percentage of jobs to go to Mt Washington residents…how can the hotel be certain that people in Mt Washington want to work in the hotel industry? They want a local developer to fund this project…hey if you know of a local developer with 90 million, please give me his name I am still single and would love to meet a man in the Burgh with that much cash.
I love this project.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Pro-Neighborhood Not Anti-Development
In addressing (1) the community v. developers and (2) the community v. itself, you have forgotten (3) the developer v. the community. Developers have been guilty of the following:
(a) buying properties and letting them sit for years on end as eyesores in our community–huge pits, weeds, concrete debris, construction material stored about, chain-link fences, desecrating our community making it look like we live in a war zone.
(b) not fulfilling promises made at meetings.
(c) the inconvenience of traffic congestion, re-routing, noise, dirt and dust, all in all an “unsightly scene”. Currently 6 such “unsightly scenes” exist: the old Edge, Bertha/Grandview, Augusta/Grandview, Shaler/Grandview, Shaler/Republic and Seward Street.
Tax breaks and tax abatements are also offered from the public dollar. In return for all the aforesaid, why shouldn’t we get a community benefits agreement for what we are enduring instead of just being used and abused.
In all good conscience, how can anyone state this community is not pro-development?
Currently under construction are the following:
• Eutaw Street townhouses (3 already built)
• South Hills Retirement Residence
• Southern Avenue home
• Sweetbriar Village (4 already built)
• Vista Grande
Since I have lived here, the following have been developed and built:
• Grandview Crest
• Grandview Point (Monterey Bay)
• Grandview Towers
• Medicine Shoppe/Cogo’s
• Mountvue Apartments
• Mt. Washington Senior Center
• The Plaza at Grandview
• Rite Aid Pharmacy
• Shiloh Street Parking Garage
• South Hills Republican Club
• St. Justin Plaza
• Sweetbriar Place
• Trimont
Also, remodeling and reuse of many existing structures such as the SHMS apartments on Sycamore Street, Foodland and the re-opening of the Wabash Tunnel have occurred.
New homes and townhouses [such as: at both ends of Augusta Street, Bailey Avenue, Bigbee Street, Cowan Street, Grace Street, Halfway Way, Prospect Street, Southern Avenue and both ends of Sweetbriar Street] have been popping up all over Mt. Washington/Duquesne Heights like wild mushrooms in a forest, bubbles in soda water, gophers on a golf course, potholes in the winter or pimples on a teenager’s face.
Any thinking person will have an opinion regarding parking, traffic, zoning, the environment—things that will impact your life. Don’t forget we have to live with what is developed.
As to the usual development issues, if setbacks are not honored, then every time we drive by to enter the main street, we will be entering blind-sided, placing ourselves in a clear and present danger. If parking is not addressed, nothing is convenient and all is a constant, unrelenting headache. If zoning is not taken into account, our community scene is distorted and disproportionate with overcrowding and not enough space creating an unhappy, claustrophobic atmosphere.
Another thing, are we just giving lip service to the word “green”? In a very real sense we should be addressing the already vacant commercial areas in addition to, if not before, creating more commercial development. The greenest building is the one that already exists.
And last, but certainly, not least, the old, old Edge: we have our chance to all work together on the most recent project in the beginning stages and take a reasonable approach. Full speed ahead with an effective partnership.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
As an addendum to the above comment I would like to add some developments that I have overlooked: townhomes on Plymouth and Hallock Streets, the home on Grandview next to the library and the Karlovich mansion on Bailey.
YouHaveToBeKiddingMe: I have read both Post-Gazette articles you referred to above and I find them to be inflammatory and unproductive slurs on our community using words such as “tribal warfare, acrimony, paralyzed, slinging mud, hostility, penny-ante feuds, malaise, inertia, falling behind, scaring off and anti-development.”
I looked for any real substance and examples of anti-development given in these articles and could only find four which in and of themselves are questionable:
(1) former grocery store parcel (which I have researched and found was not developed for good reason);
(2) the former Edge property (which is currently in progress and being developed);
(3) Cozza property in the 1400 block of Grandview (see your own reply in the second comment above) and
(4) last the three townhomes on Bailey which were developed and built for which the community is not only being blamed as anti-development but now blamed for the properties not selling!!!!!! Can you believe that one? You have to be kidding ME.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Number 4: The townhouses did not sell initially (2 are sold now) because some folks were against the developer clearing and landscaping the property in the rear. Its really a very long story.. Lets face it would you spend $700,000 plus not to see the city?
Number 2: Many many developers over the years have approached the neighborhood to do something with The Edge. Even the Ritz Carlton!! People here were against that too. I still have my fingers crossed that the current plans will be voted on in city council and then approved by zoning again. That building has been empty for 28 years!!
November 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I would not spend $700,000. However, if I could not see the city, I would never have built in the first place. It seems like the cart before the horse or as I heard recently at a community meeting, ready, fire, aim! One question, how can anyone stop you from clearing and landscaping your own property? What finally happened to the view since as you say 2 units were sold?
As to the Ritz Carlton, I thought I heard they could not get the financing. It is a disgrace that the Edge has stayed so long in that condition. I guess every development is not always a success and then the community bears the brunt (in that case for 28 years).
I am rooting for the current proposal at that site.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
circusvue, as I said long story. The property is owned by the city that the developers wanted to clear and landscape. I think the Developer didnt realize the difficulty he would have in getting approval. It has since been cleaned up. Lots of folks used to dump there. The developer got a permit from the city to open some of the view. But it sure would have been nice to have had it all filled in and landscaped professionally. That is just part of the reason Mt. Washington sometimes has had problems getting good developers to invest in our community over the years..I think that will change once the Edge property is approved.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Further addressing the questionable “anti-development” tag being placed by a certain few on the many here in Mt. Washington, I have to add to my above listing more that I have overlooked: townhouses on Cohassett and Meridan Streets and a new home on Olympia Street.
Does anyone care to add more examples of anti-development in addition to the two spoken of: townhouses on Bailey (which are in fact standing now) and the empty grocery store parcel?
December 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
just an aside comment, probably in the wrong spot. i posted a comment on here initially against the development next to st marys church. i actually think it is starting to look nice. i just wish it did not block the view of the church steeple coming down grandview from western side heading east. anyway, it doesnt look bad.
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Thank yo very much for this awesome article. I’ve read your articles for a decent time now, and they are always getting better.
Cheers