There's an office building going up there that isn't affiliated with Pitt. The land is right on Pitt's campus. Similar to Schenley HS, its my opinion that any time Oakland land becomes available, Pitt should buy it. Schenley HS was so cheap because of the asbestos, they should have bought that and knocked it down.
Paco, why didn't Pitt buy the land on Bigelow & Ruskin
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
It does seem like an odd choice not to just buy whatever becomes available whenever you can in Oakland considering the space situation. However I will say this, the philosophy under Nordenberg and Co was to no overpay what they considered "fair market value" for real estate. In some ways its smart policy, in other situations you can miss opportunities to improve the campus.
Maybe Paco knows more about that particular parcel.
Maybe Paco knows more about that particular parcel.
Well....that parking lot behind the PAA is about to become a Hyatt. There goes that fantasy.
That's 3 prime properties in a row that Pitt has passed on. I guess they aren't looking to further expand their campus.
Pitt didn't pass on the PAA property. The property wasn't for sale. The PAA agreed to a deal to lease the space for a hotel to give them a 99 year source of income.
Schenley School was on the National Register of Historic Places so it could not just been knocked down. Pitt would have had a hard time tearing it down. Most likely they would have been forced into a costly renovation project.
Yes that was also a major concern in the renovation. I think that made it cost prohibitive. I believe the developer who did buy it was able to get some redevelopment grants/tax credits to help with some of those costs.
I do not know any of the answers to the questions. However, all University Chancellors and Presidents are facing big challenges. The Cost of Construction, Maintenance, Staff Training & Retention, is falling as more Tuition is needed and that in itself is coming under limits in light of Technology Innovations that will require less Classrooms and Buildings. With each passing year, High Tech Teaching, does more and costs less, and schools have recognized that they have to offer students access to Technology to provide a well-rounded education and much of it can be done from the Home or Work rather in Classrooms.
Institutions are now balancing investments in quality, in modern facilities that will attract and retain students and faculty, and keeping costs in check. The keystone problems come up when Campus facilities are aging more rapidly than the resources available to fix them. Institutions are now facing a growing backlog of deferred maintenance.
Moreover, many Private Smaller Institutions have generally a leveling in student enrollment, while other Public Institutions are adding students faster than space. The Private Smaller Universities have often increased their debt burden by adding new facilities without the tuition revenue to support them. Therefore, strategies now include maximizing the value of existing campus facilities include building strategically, eliminating buildings, looking ahead, keeping up with buildings' life cycles, and preventative maintenance.
High Schools in 1999, 95% had Internet access, and 63% of classrooms were connected and that was just High Schools. In that same year, the average school had one computer for every nine students. Today it is even greater. Moon Township just finished a large Campus Construction of its Schools and the Taxpayers will be paying for it a long time, just when Students can learn from Home and the Schools District may not need such large facilities?
Most important High Educational Technology is changing so fast even Infrastructure designs to match today, can becomes obsolete within a few years. Beyond the classroom, schools also are exploiting technology to improve their business practices. The "dot-com" Startup companies, bringing some of the billions spent by schools to the Internet, are luring schools to use their businesses. Apple and Google are not just located in Pittsburgh but near CMU & Pitt? While still this area of Education is in the infancy, these businesses have the potential to let schools buy products more cheaply, more quickly, and with less paperwork and bureaucracy and still adapt to new ways of learning that will require less buildings and classrooms.
The trend is a true challenge for all Universities that are offering Education will continue to go High Tech, and lower costs to stay competitive with others, and innovations, are replacing the need for Universities to expand facilities. Adding student by Computers and Smart Phones is bigger and cheaper than putting them in Classrooms and needing buildings and Properties to do it.
Pitt grabbed a younger dynamic Chancellor with Innovations Management at Commerce, and he knows and understands this area and challenges better than what WVU & PSU hired, in my opinion.
Crazy Paco and others will know so much more and tell all of us.
Last edited:
The office building is going up on space owned by the Baptist church; the land wasn't for sale.
Yea, ok, they donated it to some corporate real estate group, right? If Pitt would have bid more money than whoever is building that office building, Pitt would have gotten it. Pretty simple.
The church is leasing out the space to the real estate group for a pretty hefty sum. It sounded like the church (like most churches these days) was struggling financially. I suppose the lease, as opposed to a sale, gives them a large say in what is built along with ongoing revenue into the future. Perhaps Pitt does not enter into such agreements?
I know few idealists want to believe it but this would be yet another advantage, and one of those intangible priceless and invaluable ones, that Pitt would get from committing deeply to winning football and basketball. This particular situation may not be relevant but we can all agree that the hostility Pitt receives to buy land, construct facilities, etc is outrageous, considering the massive good that the university does. Pitt would never have struggles getting land (or zoning, or municipal cooperation or neighborhood obstacles, seed funding, etc) if it's teams were big winners. The Steelers and Penguins prove this daily. The expense they lay out to be winners are far outweighed by the advantages they get back ... profits of course, but also the obstacles to doing new business. Politicians fall over themselves to do them favors. It would be true for Pitt too, because Everyone Loves A Winner.
Wring your hands in progressive rage, call that a black eye of society, or whatever you want, but it's reality. Pitt sorely shortchanges itself by giving only half assed commitment to winning sports.
Wring your hands in progressive rage, call that a black eye of society, or whatever you want, but it's reality. Pitt sorely shortchanges itself by giving only half assed commitment to winning sports.
