"Victory Heights" announcement on Tuesday

[pittchagg]

True, it is kind of scary that the two most UPMC/Pitt friendly local politicians (Fitzgerald & Peduto) are both hard core nitters. Those two were both extremely friendly towards UPMC when all the hysteria was created by glory hound Shapiro and gossip columnist Karen Kane of the PG in the public smear campaign they waged.

I do think they could both do a little more for Pitt especially the Bigelow issue. But overall they aren't that bad, especially on the UPMC side of things.

Yeah, I think on the balance, it's pretty good...certainly better than it might have been in the past. Pitt hasn't encountered any pushback whatsoever on any of the things they've proposed in the campus master plan from the city, as far as I'm aware. We might get into some nitty-gritty things once the schematic renderings, etc. formally go to the planning commission, but I think the administrations in the city and county generally have a pretty good working relationship with Gallagher and Pitt. Peduto has his undergrad from Penn State and appears to be a fan of the football team, but he does have a degree from Pitt, as well. I only have my graduate degree from Pitt, but I still am invested in the overall institution's success.

Could they both be a little more rah-rah? Sure, especially given how often they both pump the tires of CMU (often, for good reason!). Should they close Bigelow Boulevard? Of course. But overall, they're both massively friendly to the city's and county's major institutions, whether that's UPMC, Pitt, the foundations, US Steel, PNC, CMU, Peoples Gas, EQT, or otherwise.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Bottom line... Pitt isn't building a new stadium and will continue being pedestrian in a half empty rented stadium.

Fans will continue thinking the fix is right around the corner.

 

[giveitarest]

1. Pitt doesnt own Bigelow Blvd.

2. I didnt say has to raze blocks of housing.

3. Pitt would own the land they would be building the stadium on.

Pitt does not own the streets around all the property you want them to take either

 

[pittchagg]

bwh, you might know this: heard at the press conference that Trees Hall is coming down. That wouldn't include Trees Pool, would it? If so, what are the plans for swimming and diving?

My impression was that the east wing of Trees Hall would be coming down, but the pool area would remain, or even be expanded. Am I incorrect?

 

[Ski11585]

Bottom line... Pitt isn't building a new stadium and will continue being pedestrian in a half empty rented stadium.

Fans will continue thinking the fix is right around the corner.

And other Pitt fans will use it as their excuse of the week to justify not supporting the program.

 

[Rickey]

Personally, I’d move BB back to Fitzgerald, tear down the Pete, and re-build a modern, amenity laden Pitt Stadium on the old site.

won’t happen. Best alternative now is the upper hill right below Victory Heights.

the Population density in that area is NOT dense. Hence no basis for political
Blowback.

 

[pittchagg]

Personally, I’d move BB back to Fitzgerald, tear down the Pete, and re-build a modern, amenity laden Pitt Stadium on the old site.

won’t happen. Best alternative now is the upper hill right below Victory Heights.

the Population density in that area is NOT dense. Hence no basis for political
Blowback.

I don't care what the population density is. After the Civic Arena/Lower Hill, I don't think any idea that involves bulldozing houses in the Hill District in order to build a stadium would go anywhere. The political pushback would be enormous.

 

[PittFamily2]

I don't care what the population density is. After the Civic Arena/Lower Hill, I don't think any idea that involves bulldozing houses in the Hill District in order to build a stadium would go anywhere. The political pushback would be enormous.

Relocate housing to less valuable real estate.
That's just plain common sense.
In most cities section 8 housing isn't on prime # 1 real estate.
Prime # 1 city real estate should be used on ventures which provide revenue for the city not for give away revenue negative projects.

 

[bwh05]

bwh, you might know this: heard at the press conference that Trees Hall is coming down. That wouldn't include Trees Pool, would it? If so, what are the plans for swimming and diving?

My impression was that the east wing of Trees Hall would be coming down, but the pool area would remain, or even be expanded. Am I incorrect?

The pool will remain. Yes there are plans to improve the pool going forward, but I believe they're quite far down the list of projects right now. The swim team facilities are actually pretty good compared to the rest of the country.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Relocate housing to less valuable real estate.
That's just plain common sense.
In most cities section 8 housing isn't on prime # 1 real estate.
Prime # 1 city real estate should be used on ventures which provide revenue for the city not for give away revenue negative projects.

You do realize that section eight housing isn't owned by the government, right? So they'd probably need to cut those landlords a pretty hefty check to get them to relocate.

 

[PittFamily2]

You do realize that section eight housing isn't owned by the government, right? So they'd probably need to cut those landlords a pretty hefty check to get them to relocate.

Yes.
Cities can determine what areas within the city allow section 8 housing.

This was just completed in a city where we just purchased some
investment property.

The city disallowed section 8 housing in a prime real estate area.
Section 8 residents were moved to other areas of the city.

People began to buy investment property, build homes, condos,
and the city benefited.

Property values in the area skyrocketed so did property taxes ( benefit for the city)
in addition to increased local spending by the new residents of the area.

 

[pittdan77]

Property values in the area skyrocketed so did property taxes ( benefit for the city)
in addition to increased local spending by the new residents of the area.

That model went sideways in Seattle and other cities are seeing problems with a lack of affordable housing in denser areas. Your point about favorable development isn't wrong but it's probably better to say that a healthy mix is most likely the best model.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

That model went sideways in Seattle and other cities are seeing problems with a lack of affordable housing in denser areas. Your point about favorable development isn't wrong but it's probably better to say that a healthy mix is most likely the best model.

Yes, otherwise you are just pushing large pockets poverty of into another area and that isn't good for the renter or the new neighborhood. Many decent city neighborhoods have been damaged this way including my old one, Sheraden. I know people generally don't care if the problem doesn't affect them.

 

[PittFamily2]

Yes, otherwise you are just pushing large pockets poverty of into another area and that isn't good for the renter or the new neighborhood. Many decent city neighborhoods have been damaged this way including my old one, Sheraden. I know people generally don't care if the problem doesn't affect them.

Not sure how it would work in Pittsburgh but the city I'm talking about handled it perfect by moving the section 8 residents to another area that was underutilized.

The prime real estate area upgraded allowing for real estate upgrades and the other area where section 8 moved to didn't downgrade and still has capacity for more affordable housing.

 

[pittdan77]

Here's the funny thing:

If Lyke and Gallagher got up there yesterday and announced they were putting $300 million toward the development of a new football stadium. Not one person on this board would have been crying that that money should have been spent on a new volleyball arena and workout facility. NOT ONE and you know it. Most of you guys just go with the flow with no ability to think independently or critically.

I don't think anyone would be upset about a football stadium. It's stupid to think otherwise. But that doesn't mean that anyone here views Victory Heights without independent and critical thought if you were actually reading this thread. There is a lot of really good discussion and concern for wanting Pitt to be a great university and well represented. Most of us don't remember Scott Barnes as being a brilliant AD but he was very correct to say that athletics are the "front porch" of the University. That didn't mean just football. We all know that.

Dude, your act is usually pretty entertaining but this thread is embarrassing, even for you. To take a swipe at thoughtful people who are trying to give you a realistic picture of what is possible and what is realistic is pretty weak. Like I said earlier in the thread, the football program already has world class facilities.

You personally don't like the location and you get butt hurt from hearing Nitters rib us for empty seats. Learn to live with the following truths:
1. Location won't change for the foreseeable future. Suck it up buttercup because that's reality.
2. You don't like empty seats, win. The diehards are already there. You need to win to create new fans and draw curious onlookers. Keep winning and that will do all of the talking for the program.

 

[pittdan77]

Not sure how it would work in Pittsburgh but the city I'm talking about handled it perfect by moving the section 8 residents to another area that worked out fine for everyone.

The prime real estate area upgraded allowing for real estate upgrades and the other area where section 8 moved to didn't downgrade.

Scale probably matters. Section 8 is a whole conversation in itself and its purpose was supposed to be about addressing a legitimate lack of public housing. It's turned into something else.

 

[HailtoPitt]

And other Pitt fans will use it as their excuse of the week to justify not supporting the program.

Of the week? Don't you mean the last 3 decades? At some point, it's no longer an excuse, but reality.

 

[PittFamily2]

Of the week? Don't you mean the last 3 decades? At some point, it's no longer an excuse, but reality.

 

[Ski11585]

Personally, I’d move BB back to Fitzgerald, tear down the Pete, and re-build a modern, amenity laden Pitt Stadium on the old site.

won’t happen. Best alternative now is the upper hill right below Victory Heights.

the Population density in that area is NOT dense. Hence no basis for political
Blowback.

What a terrible idea. Pitt will never win in football. They have a chance in basketball. If anything they should invest more in hoops.

Of the week? Don't you mean the last 3 decades? At some point, it's no longer an excuse, but reality.

if you don’t support the team because of a lack or on campus stadium you aren’t a fan.

 

[HailToPitt725]

What a terrible idea. Pitt will never win in football. They have a chance in basketball. If anything they should invest more in hoops.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I agree with you. Hoops has a higher ceiling considering Pitt basketball has and can make up for the lack of an NBA team in Pittsburgh.

 

[HailtoPitt]

What a terrible idea. Pitt will never win in football. They have a chance in basketball. If anything they should invest more in hoops.



if you don’t support the team because of a lack or on campus stadium you aren’t a fan.

Not so much anymore.

 

[Ski11585]

This is an unpopular opinion, but I agree with you. Hoops has a higher ceiling considering Pitt basketball has and can make up for the lack of an NBA team in Pittsburgh.

I’ve been on this train since the early 2010s.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And other Pitt fans will use it as their excuse of the week to justify not supporting the program.

Week, month, year, decade, lifetime.

 

[pittchagg]

The pool will remain. Yes there are plans to improve the pool going forward, but I believe they're quite far down the list of projects right now. The swim team facilities are actually pretty good compared to the rest of the country.

I did see the Trees Pool renovations that were previously listed as projects on hailtopitt.com have since been removed. I know they just did a decent amount of work on the pool and locker room area a few years ago, so I can understand it getting bumped down the priority list. Trees Pool has always had really good bones, so it's probably more minor than anything. I do think a dedicated diving well would probably open up some more opportunities, but I don't think the pool itself is holding the program back.

 

[srpst23]

Relocate housing to less valuable real estate.
That's just plain common sense.
In most cities section 8 housing isn't on prime # 1 real estate.
Prime # 1 city real estate should be used on ventures which provide revenue for the city not for give away revenue negative projects.

Would you be able to explain how a stadium, used about 7x per year, which would be owned by a nonprofit, would provide revenue for the City? I don't know how much in property taxes the real estate that you would like to eminent domain pays currently, but it is definitely more than $0. And I just don't see how the stadium would generate more revenue for the City than Pitt games at Heinz Field currently do. Please enlighten me.

 

[ERICCARTMAN]

If PITT's Victory Heights announcement is not an indictment of PITT's past Administrations I'm not sure what is. Terrible history of not understanding the value of college athletics to the entire university. With this announcement, we're playing catch-up, which this university has had too much experience.

I do believe PITT will have it's own football stadium someday. The Hazlewood Green site, very close to Oakland, is comprised of 178 acres ready for prime development, where PITT will have a major presence.

 

[pittchagg]

Would you be able to explain how a stadium, used about 7x per year, which would be owned by a nonprofit, would provide revenue for the City? I don't know how much in property taxes the real estate that you would like to eminent domain pays currently, but it is definitely more than $0. And I just don't see how the stadium would generate more revenue for the City than Pitt games at Heinz Field currently do. Please enlighten me.

Another thing: Heinz Field, as is, is owned by the Sports and Exhibition Authority, which means that Heinz Field (and PNC Park, PPG Paints Arena, and a handful of other sites) are essentially owned and controlled by the city. A football stadium for Pitt would be owned by the University of Pittsburgh. I suspect that is why the Steelers, at some point, will want to get out of Heinz Field. The city has been a very friendly landlord to the Steelers (and Pitt), but the Steelers still aren't fully in control of the stadium they play in.

 

[PittFamily2]

Would you be able to explain how a stadium, used about 7x per year, which would be owned by a nonprofit, would provide revenue for the City? I don't know how much in property taxes the real estate that you would like to eminent domain pays currently, but it is definitely more than $0. And I just don't see how the stadium would generate more revenue for the City than Pitt games at Heinz Field currently do. Please enlighten me.

Anyone who builds a stadium to be used only 7 times per year is an idiot.
And that's been a problem for PITT athletics since we've cornered the market for college sports idiots.

The new college stadiums especially the compact designs are built on campus and include regular seating, club seating, Corporate box seating, academic space, sports medicine and fitness areas for students including meeting/conference space which can be used by the University or rented out generating revenue.
They make room for these amenities by reducing the standing around space that you find in Hienz. No big lobby or large rotunda's. Come in and find your seat.

Usually the fitness and sports medicine complexes have an activity fee for students and membership fee associated with them for faculty, and other University personnel.

The stadium can be used for concerts, other sporting events, or any large scale event on fee basis. These events generate local spending and tax / fee revenues.

The list of these facilities is long.

A new on campus facility would generate local spending and employment for operations, maintenance, supplies, food and beverage for the conference center when occupied and all of the local expenditures that would take place on game day.

New employees and local vendors who would be needed for the new place pay all kinds of taxes and fees to the city.

Visitors would come to the conference center on a regular basis and spend money locally and hopefully game day attendance would increase generating ticket, and tax revenue not to mention local spending.

Inclusion of academic space would put off or elminate the need to develope and build the same space on another location on campus.

If the stadium isnt multi purpose than you're right its a waste of money.

 

[pittchagg]

Anyone who builds a stadium to be used only 7 times per year is an idiot.
And that's been a problem for PITT athletics since we've cornered the market for college sports idiots.

The new college stadiums especially the compact designs are built on campus and include regular seating, club seating, Corporate box seating, academic space, sports medicine and fitness areas for students including meeting/conference space which can be used by the University or rented out generating revenue.
They make room for these amenities by reducing the standing around space that you find in Hienz. No big lobby or large rotunda's. Come in and find your seat.

Usually the fitness and sports medicine complexes have an activity fee for students and membership fee associated with them for faculty, and other University personnel.

The stadium can be used for concerts, other sporting events, or any large scale event on fee basis. These events generate local spending and tax / fee revenues.

The list of these facilities is long.

A new on campus facility would generate local spending and employment for operations, maintenance, supplies, food and beverage for the conference center when occupied and all of the local expenditures that would take place on game day.

New employees and local vendors who would be needed for the new place pay all kinds of taxes and fees to the city.

Visitors would come to the conference center on a regular basis and spend money locally and hopefully game day attendance would increase generating ticket, and tax revenue not to mention local spending.

Inclusion of academic space would put off or elminate the need to develope and build the same space on another location on campus.

If the stadium isnt multi purpose than you're right its a waste of money.

Not trying to be rude, but I think Pitt fans generally know how that works...you just described the Petersen Events Center, with its student fitness space and food court, athletic administration offices, team shop, and now the TV studio that students take classes in. All that stuff is how Pitt got the money from the state to pay for it.

 

[PittFamily2]

Not trying to be rude, but I think Pitt fans generally know how that works...you just described the Petersen Events Center, with its student fitness space and food court, athletic administration offices, team shop, and now the TV studio that students take classes in. All that stuff is how Pitt got the money from the state to pay for it.

You're not being rude at all.
I do think you give some PITT fans and Pittsburghers to much credit.

I was responding to another poster who didn't seem to understand how things might work to benefit PITT and the city.

My wife and I have been very involved in a the construction and financing of a compact stadium for another U that is exactly as I described and works great.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Anyone who builds a stadium to be used only 7 times per year is an idiot.
And that's been a problem for PITT athletics since we've cornered the market for college sports idiots.

The new college stadiums especially the compact designs are built on campus and include regular seating, club seating, Corporate box seating, academic space, sports medicine and fitness areas for students including meeting/conference space which can be used by the University or rented out generating revenue.
They make room for these amenities by reducing the standing around space that you find in Hienz. No big lobby or large rotunda's. Come in and find your seat.

Usually the fitness and sports medicine complexes have an activity fee for students and membership fee associated with them for faculty, and other University personnel.

The stadium can be used for concerts, other sporting events, or any large scale event on fee basis. These events generate local spending and tax / fee revenues.

The list of these facilities is long.

A new on campus facility would generate local spending and employment for operations, maintenance, supplies, food and beverage for the conference center when occupied and all of the local expenditures that would take place on game day.

New employees and local vendors who would be needed for the new place pay all kinds of taxes and fees to the city.

Visitors would come to the conference center on a regular basis and spend money locally and hopefully game day attendance would increase generating ticket, and tax revenue not to mention local spending.

Inclusion of academic space would put off or elminate the need to develope and build the same space on another location on campus.

If the stadium isnt multi purpose than you're right its a waste of money.

While I do think you have some valid points and reasoning, I’d like to clarify two things.

1) Local spending as you described it is a little exaggerated due to the unseen economic activity theory. The idea is that even if the stadium was not there, those dollars would be spent on the next best alternative rather than being held altogether. So instead of looking at the raw revenue generated, you have to look at the difference between that and the money that would’ve been made if something else was there, say a restaurant or student housing. That shrinks the economic impact a tad.
2) I wouldn’t count on the stadium regularly hosting events as part of the solution to making up the up-front costs of building the stadium, because there’s already a market filled with different sized venues for different events in the city. Heinz Field and PNC Park host large-scale concerts and events, PPG Arena hosts traditional concerts and other similarly-sized events, and Highmark Stadium meets the need for small-scale events. It’s why the Pete doesn’t hold many events outside of Pitt Athletics and graduations. The only way you could rely on this on a regular basis is if it’s an enclosed stadium, which would fill the need of hosting events during the winter season that are too big for PPG.

Hope this doesn’t come off as snarky, and there certainly are advantages to building a stadium, but it differs from pro sports stadiums in that regard so the talking points for each are somewhat like comparing apples-to-oranges.

 

[PittFamily2]

While I do think you have some valid points and reasoning, I have to disagree with this, particularly for two reasons.

1) Local spending as you described it is a little exaggerated due to the unseen economic activity theory. The idea is that even if the stadium was not there, those dollars would be spent on the next best alternative rather than being held altogether. So instead of looking at the raw revenue generated, you have to look at the difference between that and the money that would’ve been made if something else was there, say a restaurant or student housing. That shrinks the economic impact a tad.
2) I wouldn’t count on the stadium regularly hosting events as part of the solution to making up the up-front costs of building the stadium, because there’s already a market filled with different sized venues for different events in the city. Heinz Field and PNC Park host large-scale concerts and events, PPG Arena hosts traditional concerts and other similarly-sized events, and Highmark Stadium meets the need for small-scale events. It’s why the Pete doesn’t hold many events outside of Pitt Athletics and graduations. The only way you could rely on this on a regular basis is if it’s an enclosed stadium, which would fill the need of hosting events during the winter season that are too big for PPG.

Hope this doesn’t come off as snarky, and there certainly are advantages to building a stadium, but it differs from pro sports stadiums in that regard so the talking points for each are somewhat like comparing apples-to-oranges.

Great points!
Its a complicated matter but if people make it more difficult than it actually is it will never happen.
Unfortunately universities aren't risk takers if fact if anyone can they can screw up a "sure thing."

One of the positive aspects is a University can control what they want to do and have the opportunity to do more with their asset than renting space from the cityl

Who knows how high that rent goes or if the space ( Heinz) will be available in the future.

If I was PITT and serious about college football Id want to own my house not rent!

 

[HailToPitt725]

Great points!
Its a complicated matter but if people make it more difficult than it actually is it will never happen.
Unfortunately universities aren't risk takers if fact if anyone can they can screw up a "sure thing."

Agreed, and I shouldn’t have said I disagree because you are right that any facility needs to be mult-purpose. Just meant to clarify a few things was all.

 

[PittInMissouri]

Not sure how it would work in Pittsburgh but the city I'm talking about handled it perfect by moving the section 8 residents to another area that was underutilized.

The prime real estate area upgraded allowing for real estate upgrades and the other area where section 8 moved to didn't downgrade and still has capacity for more affordable housing.

so your argument is to take poorer people and move them away from the neighborhoods they have lived in for years, sometimes generations, so that richer, more affluent people can have neighborhoods where they don't have to be bothered by the unwashed masses? And to have the government do this by force (rather than it happening naturally via market forces)?

I'm guessing you also consider yourself a limited government guy too, right?

 

[PittFamily2]

so your argument is to take poorer people and move them away from the neighborhoods they have lived in for years, sometimes generations, so that richer, more affluent people can have neighborhoods where they don't have to be bothered by the unwashed masses? And to have the government do this by force (rather than it happening naturally via market forces)?

I'm guessing you also consider yourself a limited government guy too, right?

I am a limited government person and don't think there should be a Section 8 program. Well maybe for the few who cant work or improve their situation.
But

Section 8 is a government give away program not a right for residents.
Since it was a program created by government, government should manage it properly which they don't.

When its not managed properly the same government that created the program should fix it.
Since government stepped in and established a section 8 program in an area it cancelled out free market forces and wont self correct.

For example no investor will build high end condos or homes in or next to section 8 housing.
If they do the construction will become more section 8 housing.

The city I invested in moved section 8 residents to another appropriate section 8 area.
The vacated area is developing with high end housing, creating huge spending and new tax revenues for the city.
​

Section 8 zoning in high value real estate areas was a government mistake from the get go.
Smart towns and cities are realizing this, fixing it, and generating more revenues for their town or city.

Section 8 never goes away naturally it just expands which wasn't its original design.

When Section 8 expands in high value real estate areas investment stops in those areas taking away valuable tax and other revenues from cities and towns.

Government should be expanding employment opportunities in their cities get people working and reducing Section 8 programs not expanding them.
No one wants hand outs.
It's a better quality of life when you work for and earn what you have.

fyi- you mentioned that Section 8 is generational. Doesn't that strike you as a big problem??
It should because it is and that's what programs like this cause. Reduces incentive or the drive to improve ones self to be able to afford to live where they want to live.
Kinda sounds like other big government problems Welfare, and Education in big cities.

 

[PittInMissouri]

I am a limited government person and don't think there should be a Section 8 program. Well maybe for the few who cant work or improve their situation.
But

Section 8 is a government give away program not a right for residents.
Since it was a program created by government, government should manage it properly.
When its not managed properly the same government that created the program should fix it.
​

Section 8 zoning in high value real estate areas was a government mistake from the get go.
Smart towns and cities are realizing this, fixing it, and generating more revenues for their town or city.

Section 8 never goes away naturally it just expands which wasn't its original design.

When Section 8 expands in high value real estate areas investment stops in those areas taking away valuable tax and other revenues from cities and towns.

Government should be expanding employment opportunities in their cities get people working and reducing Section 8 programs not expanding them.
No one wants hand outs.
It's a better quality of life when you work for and earn what you have.

fyi- you mentioned that Section 8 is generational. Doesn't that strike you as a big problem??
It should because it is and that's what programs like this cause. Reduces incentive or the drive to improve ones self to be able to afford to live where they want to live.
Kinda sounds like other big government problems Welfare, and Education in big cities.

I didn't say section 8 was generational - I said that people live in certain neighborhoods for generations. But I'd like to apologize for the initial response anyway - you have a certain opinion and pre-conceived notion of people that get section 8 housing or SNAP, and I'm not going to change your mind via a message board. You would learn more from getting outside of your bubble and actually interacting with people in these situations, but I'm doubtful you'd lower yourself to such a thing. Peace.

 

[PittFamily2]

I didn't say section 8 was generational - I said that people live in certain neighborhoods for generations. But I'd like to apologize for the initial response anyway - you have a certain opinion and pre-conceived notion of people that get section 8 housing or SNAP, and I'm not going to change your mind via a message board. You would learn more from getting outside of your bubble and actually interacting with people in these situations, but I'm doubtful you'd lower yourself to such a thing. Peace.

Thanks for the information and the nice peaceful signoff. Rare on here.

I understand the program fully since I've worked with various city and town governments as a volunteer to help on re-development plans providing the expertise that I use in the Corporate World.

I completely understand the Section Housing Choice Voucher System, its eligibility requirements, percents of local median income that must be met including family size differences to qualify.

I also know many states have capped section 8 applications and the program since they've found the benfits have created a dis-incentive to becoming independent of the program.

These states and cities are trying to fix section 8 by capping the program eventually shrinking it the levels originally contemplated and moving section 8 benefits out of areas where it was never intended.

These actions remind people to not rely on an ever expanding endless section 8 program. Which wasnt the original design.

Rent control is another "can of worms" developed with good intentions. Now multi millionaires live in rent controlled building, pay virtually nothing, reducing ROI for investors, forcing developers to stop developing which shrinks the supply of housing units, and raises housing costs. Rent control building are now in the high rent district. Same problem as section 8 housing. It expanded beyond the original plan because it was unmanaged!

High demand with limited supply = high prices

Another program that really lost its way so governments are trying to control and manage section 8 before it self destructs like rent control eventually will.

 

[TFBaum]

I get the love for old Pitt Stadium and as a kid I saw some incredible moments at Pitt Stadium, Tony's 303 versus ND, Pitt comeback against WVU 36 - 35 etc. I did not attend Pitt so I can't speak for the impact of an on campus stadium and attendance. Pitt Stadium was a dump. High schools had better press boxes. My understanding is that certain end zone seats were 100 yards from the end zone(please correct me if I am wrong). To rehab Pitt stadium would have been at least $200 million investment.

I have only ever been to one Pitt game at Heinz field (Pitt vs Cincinnati 2009). It was a sell out and imho was as good a college atmosphere as anywhere I have been to UCLA, Cal, Texas and Notre Dame, etc games. Imho the investment in Victory Heights will be one of the most important investments Pitt athletics. Pitt is in a major top shelf conference with Victory Heights, Pitt puts itself in a position to host conference championships. The exposure of the school will be greater with those facilities.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I get the love for old Pitt Stadium and as a kid I saw some incredible moments at Pitt Stadium, Tony's 303 versus ND, Pitt comeback against WVU 36 - 35 etc. I did not attend Pitt so I can't speak for the impact of an on campus stadium and attendance. Pitt Stadium was a dump. High schools had better press boxes. My understanding is that certain end zone seats were 100 yards from the end zone(please correct me if I am wrong). To rehab Pitt stadium would have been at least $200 million investment.

I have only ever been to one Pitt game at Heinz field (Pitt vs Cincinnati 2009). It was a sell out and imho was as good a college atmosphere as anywhere I have been to UCLA, Cal, Texas and Notre Dame, etc games. Imho the investment in Victory Heights will be one of the most important investments Pitt athletics. Pitt is in a major top shelf conference with Victory Heights, Pitt puts itself in a position to host conference championships. The exposure of the school will be greater with those facilities.

The only Pitt game at HF you've been to was probably the biggest game in 30+ years, so I would not call it a valid comparison. That's like saying the only game I've been to at Pitt Stadium was the last one against ND and then comparing that experience as a baseline.

But, why would it cost $200M to rehab Pitt Stadium. Stanford tore down their stadium and rebuilt a new one for $90M. Something doesn't compute.