“It seems to be a housing project, not an economic development project,” quipped one wag with whom this scrivener regularly converses.
She was referring to a $600 million plan made public last week that, as the Post-Gazette described it, is “designed to pump new life into downtown Pittsburgh at a time when the city center is reeling from high office vacancies, foreclosures, plummeting property values and concerns about crime.”
“The 10-year strategy will be fueled by $62.6 million in state investment; more than $40 million from a local coalition that includes top businesses, foundations and all three of the city’s sports teams” — though negligible by comparison – “and $22.1 million through the city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority,” the P-G reports..
The coalition contends those contributions are expected to leverage an additional $376.9 million in private investment “largely involving the conversion of seven Downtown buildings for residential reuse, including the historic Gulf Tower.”
Gov. Josh Shapiro says the plan, which also includes millions to gussy up the Cultural District, Market Square and Point State Park – some of it in advance of 2026’s NFL Draft — “will write the next chapter of this great city’s story.”
“With the commonwealth’s significant support, we have a plan to invest in and revitalize Downtown — and help it reach its full potential as a great neighborhood where thousands of Pennsylvanians can live, work, enjoy safe public spaces, and contribute to our vibrant culture,” he said.
But Jake Haulk, president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute, says it’s seriously time to “hold the phone”:
“Wasn’t the building of two new sports stadiums and a hockey arena — not to forget a new convention center — supposed to ignite a new era of expansion and progress?
“Instead, population continued to decline in the city” and jobs numbers remained flat.
Haulk, a Ph.D. economist, wryly notes that the only way the conversion of office space to residential can work is with a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
“Pittsburgh is not a major draw for living in town,” he notes.
Haulk reminds that the largest market for in-town living is young couples who enjoy nightlife, theater, etc. “But unless they are high- income earners, they will not be able to afford in-town living.
“And rents and sales prices will be high,” he adds.
“People with school-age or younger children will not be a primary market. Maybe young, 60ish retirees. But access to medical care becomes a big issue for the older crowd.”
Of course, this new and grandiose plan for Pittsburgh’s latest supposed “renaissance” includes provisions for a large bolus (one-third of the total housing units to be created or preserved) of “affordable housing” that will raise prices for everybody else and create less housing.
That is, unless it is taxpayer subsidized – necessary to cover up the lie that such interventionism somehow works. And this will be publicly subsidized – heavily.
Gee, what could go wrong when these units don’t lease? More and perpetual public subsidies to make even more units “affordable housing”?
Thus, the wag’s reference to a “housing project” – and all of the negative connotations that come with it — certainly seems to be apropos.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
