And herein lies the problem. Only, it’s not the problem more than a few observers ‘round these climes say it is.
The Post-Gazette, citing the latest CBRE real estate firm numbers, says that while office locations on the fringe of downtown Pittsburgh are seeing their vacancy rates drop, Downtown’s occupancy rates continue to suck for air.
And as one opinion writer put it, the more contemporary amenities offered on the fringe, coupled with Downtown office properties not keeping pace, “are bleeding Downtown dry.”
It’s that theory of so-called “flight to quality” that you hear so much about in this debate, not only locally but nationally.
As a P-G editorial succinctly offered:
“In other words, Downtown Pittsburgh is no longer the premium location for offices in southwestern Pennsylvania. This phenomenon isn’t new, but the pandemic accelerated it. And while some regional institutions, like the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, have been fighting to keep the Golden Triangle competitive, there’s no question the neighborhood has not been top-of-mind for the Gainey administration. The resulting complacency allowed Downtown to continue to lose ground against other compelling locations, while a reputation — partly fair, partly unfair — for dinginess and insecurity has continued to grow.”
Unfortunately, the editorial uses Downtown office building owners’ failures – their lack of keeping their spaces up to contemporary snuff, and, supposedly, government’s failure to throw money at the problem – as a jumping off point to shill for government action to help those owners to convert their languishing office spaces into residential or mixed-use offerings.
Sorry, but taxpayers have no business riding to the rescue of office building owners none too fleet on their feet to respond to marketplace changes.
But, but, but, but… the pandemic, some will wail. No one could have foreseen that, they’ll cry.
Of course, not. But downtown Pittsburgh’s high office vacancy rates long preceded the pandemic. And many building owners, although some did engage in ongoing updating programs, failed to get with the proverbial program.
Bottom line: The marketplace must address office buildings that failed to stay up to snuff. If there’s a market for the rehabilitation, it’s private investors that must risk their cash and credit in pursuit of private profit.
If there’s not, some of those buildings must come down, again, at private expense in pursuit of private profit on a cleared tract of property.
Government can’t create markets where there are none. And if they insist on attempting to do so, it only leads to perpetual taxpayer interventions to cover up the last taxpayer intervention that, predictably, failed.
Pittsburgh long has been a poster child for such money-down-a-rathole interventionist failures. And look what it has to show for it – a long-running population and jobs malaise.
That “Official Pittsburgh,” not to mention its official observers, continue to believe that all it will take is one more government/taxpayer intervention truly is the definition of insanity.
And nonfeasance.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
