OT: Walnut Capital

[paulbl99]

How should an urban campus should look? I would say fast-paced bustling world with a mix of cutting edge advancement side-by-side with historic preservation is what many would envision.

Hey, I loved PItt Stadium, but to imply that modern development has not resulted in today's Oakland being light years more attractive of a 'campus' for current and prospective students seems a completely out of touch. I work in Oakland now and lived on campus during the mid-late 90's. The campus during those two periods are not even comparable. The modern version wins by a mile.

Green space, while always far less than desired on urban campuses, has increased and countless run down dumps along the Fifth and Forbes corridor have been replaced by thriving modern academic buildings, businesses, and housing. That's not even to mention the leveling of the Robinson projects with the Petersen complex.
The "shrinking footprint" in Oakland is that of the slumlords and negligent business building owners, which is a great thing for the campus and the student experience... with or without a stadium on it's footprint. Expansion and re-development by Pitt, UPMC, Carlow, commercial business, and high-end housing development has been great for the campus, IMO. It never was, and never was intended to be, a cow pasture campus.

Who said it sb a cow college.

Just been thru Souf Oakland.......
And it’s a dump.

Pitt has no contiguous campus....nice buildings scattered here and there but campus , no.


Many if not most universities I’ve seen in cities are in locations which have a distinguishable footprint of its own..... Just saying.

 

[Jpripper88]

Absolutely. The differences are significant in the last 20 years, and it is actually feels more like a traditional campus with the creation of Schenley Plaza and other less major landscaping improvements and considerations like along Forbes Quad.

A lot of these new facilities, office spaces, new private student housing, and hotels were desperately needed and long overdue. Private development of these needs is a nation-wide trend, urban and rural campuses alike.

There is not any shrinking footprint. Pitt has only purchased property. It hasn't sold a thing. In fact, last year it bought the Chipotle building on Forbes and it just announced in December that it would purchase the Allegheny Health Department building on Forbes. That said, I still think it made a big mistake in not acquiring Schenley High.

It could be argued that Pitt is a victim of its own success in driving up real estate prices. The growth of the main campus is really up against some very real physical limitations.

Agree. I think it is just sometimes flabbergasting when Pitt doesn't win (or even really try) bids for places like Schenley or the PAA. People talk about Pitt not paying above market for sites, but for Pitt the value to them is so much higher than ANY private company, it is outrageous. They need to be responsible, but, essentially, they should never be outbid for pieces of land/buildings like those.

The footprint isn't shrinking, per se, but the ability to create or maintain a more contiguous footprint is shrinking because some of these opportunities will never come available again. I mean, Pitt missing out on the PAA is still unbelievable to me. That or Soldiers and Sailors (not saying that will ever or should ever be available/moved) being available is opportunity you just cannot miss on.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Agree. I think it is just sometimes flabbergasting when Pitt doesn't win (or even really try) bids for places like Schenley or the PAA. People talk about Pitt not paying above market for sites, but for Pitt the value to them is so much higher than ANY private company, it is outrageous. They need to be responsible, but, essentially, they should never be outbid for pieces of land/buildings like those.

The footprint isn't shrinking, per se, but the ability to create or maintain a more contiguous footprint is shrinking because some of these opportunities will never come available again. I mean, Pitt missing out on the PAA is still unbelievable to me. That or Soldiers and Sailors (not saying that will ever or should ever be available/moved) being available is opportunity you just cannot miss on.

Pitt should have had PAA, but Walnut might have been willing to give concessions to the PAA which Pitt was not from an operational standpoint. There is just no way to know without knowing the bids.

Soldiers & Sailors has been used by the university consistently since it moved to Oakland in 1909. It is, and has been since then, a major venue for Pitt events. You can't get more of a campus building that than that for something that isn't actually fully controlled by the university. And it likely never will be owned by the school and that is okay. Pitt isn't the only university with public or private facilities mixed in with ones it fully controls.

Schenley was just something both Pitt and CMU decided not to get involved in, and who knows why because both need that type of large facility adjacent to their campuses. I just don't know how you can not take such a large property adjacent to campus with an eye towards needed expansion...for a myriad of purposes... down the road. Heck, they need the space now. It was a dumb move, IMO, abestos or not.

The other building that is a must get if it ever goes on the market, and that has been bandied about from time to time, is the Public Schools building on Bellefield.

But the bottom line is that Pitt has to be fiscally responsible as well. It's not operating on substantial margins. It doesn't have some sort of Apple-like warchest. It's acquisitions and building programs have pretty much operated by the philosophy they new acquisitions have to be able to fund their own maintenance. I don't think people realize how expensive facilities are to maintain, whether they sit empty or not. Growing a school's reputation isn't just about facilities, it's about people acquisition and retention, and that is very expensive and competitive. There isn't infinite resources. You put money one place, you are removing it from somewhere else, and that somewhere else probably has a fantastic argument against removing it from them.

I'm not sure about the relevance of contiguous footprint in an urban setting like Pitt. There are urban schools that are gridded like Drexel and DePaul and urban schools that are set aside from the city like Chicago or Rice. If it means trying to generate a more traditional campus, than you have to shut down streets. No amount of building acquisition is going to help garner a contiguous footprint when Pitt has no overarching greenspace to tie it together, let along a homogeneous architectural theme. Pitt is an urban university not like Washington or Georgetown, but more like GWU or NYU. If Pitt could shut down some streets, it'd be better off than Penn. I know when I've toured people from Penn around Pitt, they actually thought Pitt had the nicer campus. And as far as truly urban campuses go, it is one of the nicer ones, and its collection of individual buildings stacks up against any university in this country, urban or not.

But, to be clear, since 1990, Pitt has acquired the First Church of Christ Scientist in Shadyside, the Oxford building on Forbes, the Masonic Temple on Forbes, the Eureka building on Forbes, Center Plaza Apartments in Shadyside, the Quality Inn on the Blvd of the Allies, Bellefield Towers on Forbes, the Gold building on Forbes, the Loeffler building on Forbes, bought both the University Club and Concordia Club, not to mention Robinson Court and Darragh St Apartments plots, and the above mentioned Chipotle building and will be buying the Allegheny Health Dept. Building. It's also built BST 1, 2, & 3, the Cost Center, Sutherland, Bouquet Gardens, Sennott Square, the Pete, Panther and Irvis Halls, the Rand Building, the Public Safety building, Nordenberg Hall, a steam plant, and helped build Forbes Tower with UPMC. That's not a diminishing footprint.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Look, if Pitt wanted they could acquire the land, or re purpose Pitt land, or a combination of both to make room for a new stadium. This would take time, and planning, and money... and they don't want to do that because renting space at HF is easier. There is a ceiling for the program and they are find with it.

1/2 of the city who are fans of either PSU, WVU or OSU and are fine with this solution because it keeps Pitt at bay. Another 1/4 don't care about college football. Of the 1/4 who went to Pitt, at least a third of them are fine with HF because they don't want to sit in traffic to get to Oakland. Oh the horror.

That's fine, but then the Pitt fans have to understand the ceiling of the program and be ok with it.

Why can’t Pitt acquire the road on 1/4 of a city block ?

Because the street is owned by the city. The street is used by tens of thousands of cars per day and the city feels the street is important to remain open.

You are comparing things that aren't equal. If Pitt owned the street, the city couldn't tell them not to close it.

If Pitt bought 25 acres of contiguous land, the stadium would get built if Pitt wanted to do it. I promise you that. Look at Temple. They hold less influenc in influence in a much bigger city. Local residents and the city itself don't want them to build it but they are going to. Guaranteed that stadium gets built, guaranteed.

The city wont stop a Pitt stadium. Local residents won't. Parking wont. Traffic won't. A lack of money won't. Only Pitt's lack of valuing it prevents it. If Pitt wanted an OCS, it would have one. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

 

[paulbl99]

Because the street is owned by the city. The street is used by tens of thousands of cars per day and the city feels the street is important to remain open.

You are comparing things that aren't equal. If Pitt owned the street, the city couldn't tell them not to close it.

If Pitt bought 25 acres of contiguous land, the stadium would get built if Pitt wanted to do it. I promise you that. Look at Temple. They hold less influenc in influence in a much bigger city. Local residents and the city itself don't want them to build it but they are going to. Guaranteed that stadium gets built, guaranteed.

The city wont stop a Pitt stadium. Local residents won't. Parking wont. Traffic won't. A lack of money won't. Only Pitt's lack of valuing it prevents it. If Pitt wanted an OCS, it would have one. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

Pitt can’t buy 25 acres of contiguous property unencumbered by city streets.
Many city streets that is...
You’re off your nut.


And Pitt can’t get those crooks on Grant St to budge on one intersection.....
Let alone 25 acres running in between the city streets of Oakland.

You’re blabbering things there is no way you know to be true.....wrt to the city and the neighbors ie the SlumLords.

Hoop a plane to Ft Lauderdale and take a break.
I hear it’s nice and warm there.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Because the street is owned by the city. The street is used by tens of thousands of cars per day and the city feels the street is important to remain open.

You are comparing things that aren't equal. If Pitt owned the street, the city couldn't tell them not to close it.

If Pitt bought 25 acres of contiguous land, the stadium would get built if Pitt wanted to do it. I promise you that. Look at Temple. They hold less influenc in influence in a much bigger city. Local residents and the city itself don't want them to build it but they are going to. Guaranteed that stadium gets built, guaranteed.

The city wont stop a Pitt stadium. Local residents won't. Parking wont. Traffic won't. A lack of money won't. Only Pitt's lack of valuing it prevents it. If Pitt wanted an OCS, it would have one. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

Pitt can’t buy 25 acres of contiguous property unencumbered by city streets.
Many city streets that is...
You’re off your nut.


And Pitt can’t get those crooks on Grant St to budge on one intersection.....
Let alone 25 acres running in between the city streets of Oakland.

You’re blabbering things there is no way you know to be true.....wrt to the city and the neighbors ie the SlumLords.

Hoop a plane to Ft Lauderdale and take a break.
I hear it’s nice and warm there.

And yet they were allowed to close that road between Fitzgerald Field House and the Pete....because its not a popular street and doesn't change the traffic footprint. To this day though, I dont understand why its closed. I think it should have remained open. But for little side streets like that, the city would gladly close them. Nobody is saying to build a stadium over Bigelow Blvd.

 

[paulbl99]

And yet they were allowed to close that road between Fitzgerald Field House and the Pete....because its not a popular street and doesn't change the traffic footprint. To this day though, I dont understand why its closed. I think it should have remained open. But for little side streets like that, the city would gladly close them. Nobody is saying to build a stadium over Bigelow Blvd.

Should know better than to continue with someone insane enough to keep at this....

100 yards or so of Street by the Pete ....that is priceless.

Maybe you can start your 5000th thread on a stadium in Oakland....tomorrow

Can only take so much crazy in one day.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And yet they were allowed to close that road between Fitzgerald Field House and the Pete....because its not a popular street and doesn't change the traffic footprint. To this day though, I dont understand why its closed. I think it should have remained open. But for little side streets like that, the city would gladly close them. Nobody is saying to build a stadium over Bigelow Blvd.

Should know better than to continue with someone insane enough to keep at this....

100 yards or so of Street by the Pete ....that is priceless.

Maybe you can start your 5000th thread on a stadium in Oakland....tomorrow

Can only take so much crazy in one day.

Those are the types of streets that Pitt would have closed if it decided to build a stadium. No 25 acre area they would buy would include a popular throughfare important to city traffic

 

[CrazyPaco]

And yet they were allowed to close that road between Fitzgerald Field House and the Pete....because its not a popular street and doesn't change the traffic footprint. To this day though, I dont understand why its closed. I think it should have remained open. But for little side streets like that, the city would gladly close them. Nobody is saying to build a stadium over Bigelow Blvd.

LOL. Sometimes I make the mistake of reading the board without logging in so ignore is off.

Pitt has always owned the stretch of Sutherland Drive between Allequippa and Terrace. That street was not a city owned parcel. It was closed primarily because it serves as a delivery space for both the Pete and the expanded Salk Hall labs and has effectively been closed to through traffic for a long time.

 

[cbpitt2]

How is buying existing structures,demolishing, and rebuilding on those sites “land”???

If it's not water, it's land.

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

Made my first trip to GT campus for the game last fall and was impressed (with the campus, not the QB play). That was a very nice urban campus.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Made my first trip to GT campus for the game last fall and was impressed (with the campus, not the QB play). That was a very nice urban campus.

Atlanta is a much smaller, less politically corrupt city than is Pittsburgh, so that is how GT can do more with their urban campus including space for their stadium.

 

[ThePanthers]

Made my first trip to GT campus for the game last fall and was impressed (with the campus, not the QB play). That was a very nice urban campus.

It was nice. They also have 3 times the acreage as Pitt so they can do a lot more.

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

It was nice. They also have 3 times the acreage as Pitt so they can do a lot more.

I didn't know that it was that much more land, but it is definitely more contiguous which allows them to incorporate open areas, green space and easier pedestrian flow.

I also learned that when John Heisman took the football coaching job he did so with the stipulation that GT build an on-campus stadium, which became Grant Field, site of Bobby Dodd Stadium. Previous to that they had played in municipal parks.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Pitt should have had PAA, but Walnut might have been willing to give concessions to the PAA which Pitt was not from an operational standpoint. There is just no way to know without knowing the bids.

Soldiers & Sailors has been used by the university consistently since it moved to Oakland in 1909. It is, and has been since then, a major venue for Pitt events. You can't get more of a campus building that than that for something that isn't actually fully controlled by the university. And it likely never will be owned by the school and that is okay. Pitt isn't the only university with public or private facilities mixed in with ones it fully controls.

Schenley was just something both Pitt and CMU decided not to get involved in, and who knows why because both need that type of large facility adjacent to their campuses. I just don't know how you can not take such a large property adjacent to campus with an eye towards needed expansion...for a myriad of purposes... down the road. Heck, they need the space now. It was a dumb move, IMO, abestos or not.

The other building that is a must get if it ever goes on the market, and that has been bandied about from time to time, is the Public Schools building on Bellefield.

But the bottom line is that Pitt has to be fiscally responsible as well. It's not operating on substantial margins. It doesn't have some sort of Apple-like warchest. It's acquisitions and building programs have pretty much operated by the philosophy they new acquisitions have to be able to fund their own maintenance. I don't think people realize how expensive facilities are to maintain, whether they sit empty or not. Growing a school's reputation isn't just about facilities, it's about people acquisition and retention, and that is very expensive and competitive. There isn't infinite resources. You put money one place, you are removing it from somewhere else, and that somewhere else probably has a fantastic argument against removing it from them.

I'm not sure about the relevance of contiguous footprint in an urban setting like Pitt. There are urban schools that are gridded like Drexel and DePaul and urban schools that are set aside from the city like Chicago or Rice. If it means trying to generate a more traditional campus, than you have to shut down streets. No amount of building acquisition is going to help garner a contiguous footprint when Pitt has no overarching greenspace to tie it together, let along a homogeneous architectural theme. Pitt is an urban university not like Washington or Georgetown, but more like GWU or NYU. If Pitt could shut down some streets, it'd be better off than Penn. I know when I've toured people from Penn around Pitt, they actually thought Pitt had the nicer campus. And as far as truly urban campuses go, it is one of the nicer ones, and its collection of individual buildings stacks up against any university in this country, urban or not.

But, to be clear, since 1990, Pitt has acquired the First Church of Christ Scientist in Shadyside, the Oxford building on Forbes, the Masonic Temple on Forbes, the Eureka building on Forbes, Center Plaza Apartments in Shadyside, the Quality Inn on the Blvd of the Allies, Bellefield Towers on Forbes, the Gold building on Forbes, the Loeffler building on Forbes, bought both the University Club and Concordia Club, not to mention Robinson Court and Darragh St Apartments plots, and the above mentioned Chipotle building and will be buying the Allegheny Health Dept. Building. It's also built BST 1, 2, & 3, the Cost Center, Sutherland, Bouquet Gardens, Sennott Square, the Pete, Panther and Irvis Halls, the Rand Building, the Public Safety building, Nordenberg Hall, a steam plant, and helped build Forbes Tower with UPMC. That's not a diminishing footprint.

Point Park University will be opening their "new" Playhouse in the city this summer.

Is the original Pittsburgh Playhouse land near Magee Hospital in Oakland available for purchase. Does Point Park own the land.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Bradlib Zannamaker]

No college stadium ever gets a ROI. That's not why they are built. Its better for the bottom line to rent a stadium. Yet, soon Pitt, UCLA, and Miami will be the last 3 renters. There's a reason that places like Temple, USF, South Alabama, and UAB are conducting studies and its not because they think that dropping 9 figures on a stadium is going to be a better ROI.

I have an inground pool in my backyard. I didn't get it for the ROI, to increase my property value. It doesn't do that. It would have been so much cheaper to get a summer pool pass somewhere. But we placed a high value on having one in our background, knowing full well what a terrible "investment" it is. Temple, USF, UAB, and South Alabama are also looking into making bad investments because they place a high intrensic value on playing on campus

I don't usually agree with you SMF, but this is a really good post. I think this really hits the nail on the head through a simple analogy.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I didn't know that it was that much more land, but it is definitely more contiguous which allows them to incorporate open areas, green space and easier pedestrian flow.

I also learned that when John Heisman took the football coaching job he did so with the stipulation that GT build an on-campus stadium, which became Grant Field, site of Bobby Dodd Stadium. Previous to that they had played in municipal parks.

Someone should have told that dumbass John Heisman that the on campus stadium was a waste and they should have continued playing in the municipal park and put that money into the program instead.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Heinz Field sits on 25 acres. So, the price tag for buying up enough buildings in Oakland to demolish would be around $75 million, lower than my estimate of $100 million and something that Pitt could easily afford if it wanted to.

LOL

No need to acquire land or build a new stadium.

Just "Right Size" Heinz Field down to 56,000 capacity for 6 games.

Won't need to do it for Notre Dame, WVU or Penn State.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Las Panteras]

I don't usually agree with you SMF, but this is a really good post. I think this really hits the nail on the head through a simple analogy.

Please tell me you are joking. No one can agree with this without being sarcastic or clueless.

What was in SMF s back yard before the pool?

Vacant buildable land

Exactly who does SMF answer to when the decision is made to install a pool?

No one but Mrs. Miller Fan.

No one.

By contrast....is there vacant buildable land in Oakland?

Can the board of trustees at Pitt choose to build a stadium because it is their "swimming pool"?

Of course not.

it simply is not feasible.....regardless of the rants of one imbecile who wants to have Sean Miller's baby.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Heinz Field sits on 25 acres. So, the price tag for buying up enough buildings in Oakland to demolish would be around $75 million, lower than my estimate of $100 million and something that Pitt could easily afford if it wanted to.

LOL

No need to acquire land or build a new stadium.

Just "Right Size" Heinz Field down to 56,000 capacity for 6 games.

Won't need to do it for Notre Dame, WVU or Penn State.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

45K and I would be good with doing that for a while to see how it would work.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I don't usually agree with you SMF, but this is a really good post. I think this really hits the nail on the head through a simple analogy.

Please tell me you are joking. No one can agree with this without being sarcastic or clueless.

What was in SMF s back yard before the pool?

Vacant buildable land

Exactly who does SMF answer to when the decision is made to install a pool?

No one but Mrs. Miller Fan.

No one.

By contrast....is there vacant buildable land in Oakland?

Can the board of trustees at Pitt choose to build a stadium because it is their "swimming pool"?

Of course not.

it simply is not feasible.....regardless of the rants of one imbecile who wants to have Sean Miller's baby.

Of course the comparison is not perfect. I was merely pointing out that there are some construction decisions in life that are not based on ROI and in fact, have a proven negative ROI

 

[Bradlib Zannamaker]

Please tell me you are joking. No one can agree with this without being sarcastic or clueless.

What was in SMF s back yard before the pool?

Vacant buildable land

Exactly who does SMF answer to when the decision is made to install a pool?

No one but Mrs. Miller Fan.

No one.

By contrast....is there vacant buildable land in Oakland?

Can the board of trustees at Pitt choose to build a stadium because it is their "swimming pool"?

Of course not.

it simply is not feasible.....regardless of the rants of one imbecile who wants to have Sean Miller's baby.

Jeeeeeze

 

[paulbl99]

SMF and H2P are just playing a silly ass game by continuing their insanity....

Oh blow up the Pete because it’s on our property....put a FB Field right over top........bc
The City nor Commonwealth Of PA wont even notice

Or we can build it anywhere in Oakland.

And the Eggheads are going to spend nearly half-a-bil on a FB Field.

well lol I’ve got some bad news.....

 

[Panthergrowl13]

45K and I would be good with doing that for a while to see how it would work.

Old Pitt stadium had the capacity of about 56,000 which seemed about right for Pitt.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[HailtoPitt]

Please tell me you are joking. No one can agree with this without being sarcastic or clueless.

What was in SMF s back yard before the pool?

Vacant buildable land

Exactly who does SMF answer to when the decision is made to install a pool?

No one but Mrs. Miller Fan.

No one.

By contrast....is there vacant buildable land in Oakland?

Can the board of trustees at Pitt choose to build a stadium because it is their "swimming pool"?

Of course not.

it simply is not feasible.....regardless of the rants of one imbecile who wants to have Sean Miller's baby.

He is right about return on investment. The real issue is money. We know that if someone wrote the check, then a stadium would get built. Pitt doesn't want to put forth the same type of effort that Temple is going through. It is easier for Pitt to continue renting HF.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

There are possibilities, but Pitt has not made it a priority. Even Interim AD Juhl pretty much said they could do it, but didn't want to spend the money unless a donor steps forward. So it's very doable.

Pitt needs to come out and emphatically say that they have ZERO interest. Instead of beating around the bush for fear of upsetting people. Crap or get off the pot.

Of course the comparison is not perfect. I was merely pointing out that there are some construction decisions in life that are not based on ROI and in fact, have a proven negative ROI

Did you buy your neighbor’s house, raise it, get building permits, have public debate, and then built your pool on that land?

Of all the silly things you say-
That was the smfingest!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

45K and I would be good with doing that for a while to see how it would work.

Old Pitt stadium had the capacity of about 56,000 which seemed about right for Pitt.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

56K is far, far too big. To my recollection, we have only had 50K Pitt fans at a game a handful of time at Heinz Field. Notice I said "Pitt fans." Usually if we get over 50K its because the other team brought a lot of fans. We dont need a capacity over 50K unless we are playing PSU, WVU,or a blue blood

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

SMF

17yrs
119 games
76-43
30 games over 50k (unofficial, me counting).
21 of those over 55k. (5 in 03)
15 of those over 60k ( 4 in 03)

 

[CrazyPaco]

Point Park University will be opening their "new" Playhouse in the city this summer.

Is the original Pittsburgh Playhouse land near Magee Hospital in Oakland available for purchase. Does Point Park own the land.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Yes, Point Park owns that. I do not know what their intention is for it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

SMF

17yrs
119 games
76-43
30 games over 50k (unofficial, me counting).
21 of those over 55k. (5 in 03)
15 of those over 60k ( 4 in 03)

First of all, attendance is embellished. But, even in saying that, how many of those games were against teams who don't bring a lot of their own fans?

My point is that Pitt should not make sizing decisions based on accommodating fans of other teams. The majority of teams playing in Pittsburgh will not bring many fans