2_Hill-District-Vacant-Property-Strategy_Report_(1).pdf

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy Hill District Consensus Group

Planning Team:

Studio for Spatial Practice

University of Pittsburgh Center for Social and Urban Research GTECH Strategies ELDI Real Estate

Earl Hord, Jr.

Chris Koch, Consultant Irene McLaughlin, J.D.

© 2013 Studio for Spatial Practice LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary............................................................................................... p. 3

Chapter 1 Approach............................................................................................. p. 6 Major Analysis Indicators................................................................. p. 6 Vacant Property Classification Sequence.................................... p. 7

Chapter 2 Vacant Building Recommendations............................................ p. 13 Vacant Building Classifications....................................................... p. 14 Hill District Residential Real Estate Market Variations............. p. 15

Chapter 3 Vacant Land Recommendations.................................................. p. 18 Green Use Classifications................................................................. p. 19 Action Required Classifications...................................................... p. 20 Additional Possible Green Uses...................................................... p. 21 Lot Condition Rank and Maintenance Costs................................ p. 22

Chapter 4 Next Steps for Planning and Development.............................. p. 36 Vacant Property Recommendations and Existing Planning 5 Recommended Development Focus Areas 5 Recommended Future planning Areas Hill District Wide Housing Strategy

Chapter 5 Implementation and Organizational Capacity........................ p. 40 WHAT Needs to be Done: 10 Key Steps......................................... p. 41 HOW Will the Work Get Done?......................................................... p. 42 Vacant Property Due Diligence and Site Evaluation.................. p. 43

Appendix.................................................................................................................... p. 41

Anti-Displacement Strategies:

How to Retain Hill District Residents............................................. p. 42

Vacancy Prevention:

How to Stabilize the Hill District’s Real Estate Markets............ p. 43

LIST OF FIGURES

Map 1.0 Vacant Property Baseline................................................................. p. 8 Map 1.1 Vacant Property Baseline + Master Plan and Greenprint......... p. 9 Map 1.2 Vacant Property Baseline + Public Ownership............................ p. 10 Map 1.3 Vacant Property Baseline + Homeownership.............................. p. 11 Map 1.4 Vacant Property Baseline + Undermining Risk........................... p. 12

Map 2.0 Vacant Building Recommendations............................................... p. 15 Map 2.1 Vacant Building Ownership & Foreclosure Activity.................... p. 16

Map 3.0 Vacant Land Including Recommended Demolitions.................. p. 22 Map 3.1 Recommended Greenway and Park Land..................................... p. 23 Map 3.2 Recommended Woodlands & Managed Green Corridors.......... p. 24 Map 3.3 Potential Urban Agriculture Overlay............................................. p. 25 Map 3.4 Existing Homeowner-Owned Sideyards........................................ p. 26 Map 3.5 Recommended Green Uses.............................................................. p. 27 Map 3.6 Recommended Green Uses + Greenprint Proposals.................. p. 28 Map 3.7 Vacant Lots Where Action is Required.......................................... p. 29 Map 3.8 Vacant Lot Conditions and Maintenance Costs........................... p. 30 Map 3.9 Existing and Potential Homeowner Sideyards............................ p. 31 Map 3.10 Planned New Development.............................................................. p. 32 Map 3.11 Further Community Planning Required........................................ p. 33 Map 3.12 Contiguous Vacant Land Opportunities........................................ p. 34

Map 4.0 Vacant Property Recommendations + Existing Planning......... p. 34 Map 4.1 Five Recommended Development Focus Areas.......................... p. 35 Map 4.2 Five Recommended Future Community Planning Areas.......... p. 36

Focus Area Maps..................................................................................................... p. 44

Map A1.1 Centre Business District & New Housing Map A1.2 Upper Hill Housing Stabilization Map A1.3 Cliffside Infill Housing Map A1.4 Chauncey Steps Park

Future Planning Areas.......................................................................................... p. 45

Map A2.1 Centre Avenue: Kirkpatrick-Junilla Map A2.2 Upper Hill Core Map A2.3 Middle Hill: Lawson-Herron Map A2.4 Granville Parklet Blocks Map A2.5 Colwell St. Hillside

Map A3.1 Recommended Green Uses and Undermining Risks.................. p. 50 Map A3.2 Planned New Development + Undermining Risks.......................p. 51

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 3

Study Overview and Approach

This study required a detailed parcel-by-parcel survey of vacant properties throughout the Hill District. The planning team compiled data about each vacant parcel and building, and reviewed relevant planning recommendations made as part of the Hill District Master Plan and Greenprint. For vacant lots, future uses that had been recommended in past neighborhood plans, such as new construction or green space, were matched precisely to specific vacant properties.

A wide range of other indicators, such as homeownership, tax status and potential risk of undermining, were collected along with an assessment of physical conditions. All of this data was analyzed, along with more generalized information about market conditions and neighborhood assets and challenges, providing a solid basis for developing this Hill District Vacant Property Strategy.

For vacant buildings, this study recommends which buildings should be kept and recycled and which should be demolished. This study also identifies a number of properties that will need to be discussed further among community members to determine the best course of action. At a broader scale, this study identifies priority areas where immediate

Executive Summary action should be taken to address vacancy.

Areas where more planning and study is required have also been identified, to create opportunities for community members to help shape and determine the best future use(s) for specific neighborhood areas.

Analysis and recommendations are summarized in this report and in an accompanying vacant property database. The update-able database is available as a set of GIS layers and can be accessed through an interactive online mapping and analysis tool.

What Counts as Vacant Property?

There is no single definition of vacant property. Different entities use different vacancy criteria and vacancy data itself becomes quickly outdated.

To create a comprehensive inventory of vacant Hill District properties, our team started with the City of Pittsburgh’s GIS layer of unbuilt city parcels. The city data is not up to date, failing to identify many empty lots and also including many uses that are not normally considered vacant land: parks, parking lots, playgrounds, cemeteries and other types of open space. The city database also does not include vacant buildings.

For this project, a new Hill District vacant property database was created that includes vacant lots and buildings. Vacant land includes urban empty lots where buildings once stood, wooded hillsides that are divided into taxable parcels, and in some cases, unbuilt homeowner sideyards or informal parking lots. Parcels with an established improved use, such as a paved parking lot, cemetery, official playground or athletic field, were not included. Public rights-of-way are not included though they were considered in areas where “paper streets” occur adjacent to large concentrations of vacant land. Vacant buildings were initially identified by their lack of gas and mail service.

A building’s vacancy status was correlated with a block by block walking survey to verify its status and assess its condition. In this study, vacant buildings recommended for demolition are treated as future vacant land.

The Big Picture

Numerically, just over half of all properties in the Hill District are vacant. Only 28% of the neighborhood’s total land area is vacant, however, including many “unbuildable” areas such as steep green hillsides and undermined parcels. Vacant property is

Hill District Land Area: 692.36 Acres*

194.59 acres are vacant - 28%

Vacant Buildings 4.0%

27.83 Acres

Occupied 71.9%

497.77 Acres

Vacant Lots 24.1%

166.76 Acres

Hill District Properties: 5087 Total 2681 properties are vacant - 53%

Vacant Buildings 7.3%

373 Properties

Occupied 47.3%

2406 Properties

Vacant Lots 45.4%

2308 Properties

Map E.1 Vacant Property Baseline

Numbers

Occupied Vacant Lots Vacant Buildings

*Land area includes the total land area of all properties in the neighborhood, not streets or vacant rights-of-way.

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 4

Key

Vacant Buildings - Mothball

Vacant Buildings - Demolish

Vacant Buildings - Mothball/Demolish

Recommended Hill District Greenway

Recommended Planned Park

Recommended Managed Green Corridor

Recommended Wild Woodlands

Homeowner Owned Sideyards

Possible Sideyards

Vacant Land Slated for Development

Parcels Requiring Additional Planning

Map E.2 Vacant Property Recommendations Summary Numbers*

213 Buildings 17.27 Acres 57% Buildings

80 Buildings 7.19 Acres 21.5% Buildings

80 Buildings 3.37 Acres 21.5% Buildings

123 Parcels 34.39 Acres 20% V. Land

61 Parcels 6.03 Acres 3% V. Land

151 Parcels 12.10 Acres 7% V. Land

324 Parcels 32.16 Acres 18% V. Land

133 Parcels 8.03 Acres 5% V. Land

475 Parcels 23.16 Acres 13% V. Land

575 Parcels 32.18 Acres 19% V. Land

699 Parcels 35.72 Acres 21% V. Land

*Some parcels have multiple recommendations, for example new construction or a possible sideyard.

373 Vacant Buildings - 6% of Hill District Buildings

2388 Vacant Lots - 47% of Hill District Properties (including buildings recommended for demolition)

Demolish 21.5%

80 Buildings

Mothball 57%

213 Buildings

Mothball/Demolish 21.5%

80 Buildings (additional planning & assessment is required)

New Development/Sideyard* 27%

47.46 Acres

Green Uses 52%

90.77 Acres

Additional Planning Required 21%

35.72 Acres

scattered throughout the neighborhood, with significant clusters in the Middle Hill. Much of the vacant land resulted from more than 50 years of abandoning and demolishing neighborhood houses and businesses. Some parcels have already been identified as sites for new development while properties in other areas will require further study. A significant number of vacant properties, particularly along neighborhood edges, are on wooded hillsides which may never have contained buildings. These areas are generally recommended to remain as open space, as per the recommendations of the Hill District Greenprint.

Just under half of all vacant properties are public owned, divided between the City of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh. Today, vacant property is one of the Hill District’s greatest challenges, but it could be leveraged as an asset in neighborhood revitalization efforts. If vacant property is successfully recycled, there is the potential to create over 250 units of renovated historic housing, to provide space for up to 32 acres of new development, to designate 34 acres of neighborhood Greenway and another 50 acres of long-term open space.

Vacant Buildings Recommendations

Of the 2681 vacant properties only 14% contain vacant buildings. The majority of these buildings, 57% or 213, are recommended for rehabilitation. Another 80 have the potential to be saved, should the resources and community consensus exist. Only 80 buildings are clear candidates for demolition due to their structural deterioration, location and variety of other factors. The majority of vacant buildings recommended for renovation are either publicly owned or tax delinquent. The largest cluster of vacant buildings with strong renovation potential is in the Upper Hill, which has both a high homeownership rate and a relatively strong residential real estate market.

Vacant Land Recommendations

The vast majority of vacant properties are empty lots. For analytical purposes, vacant buildings recommended for demolition were also categorized as future vacant lots and are included in vacant land recommendations and calculations.

Just over half of all vacant lots are recommended for green open space uses requiring minimal action from the community.

The recommended green uses include greenway, woodlands, managed open space corridors, proposed park expansions and homeowner sideyards. This study also identifies land that could potentially be used for urban agriculture. A menu of additional specific green uses are also discussed as long- and short-term strategies for vacant land, but not in relation to specific parcels.

Drawing on recommendations from the Hill District Greenprint and Master Plan, officially-sanctioned green uses could redesignate over 90 acres of vacant land as open space, making the Hill District a uniquely green community.

The remaining 48% of vacant lots need to be recycled into a new use. 19%, or 575, of these properties are recommended for new development in the Hill District Master Plan.

Around 13% have the potential to become sideyards because of their adjacency to an existing homeowner. The remaining 21% are parcels with no clear use based on the current planning documents. These parcels will require further community planning and discussion to determine the optimum future use. Some of these parcels may be suitable for new development, while others could become short- or long-term green uses such as playgrounds or community gardens. There is also the potential for some lots to become a large-scale urban farms especially in places where groups of contiguous vacant land add up to more than an acre in size.

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 5 be transferred to community organizations for development. A third option is to continue the system that exists today where multiple organizations work with the city land reserve process where the City and the URA acquire property through the tax sale process and then collaborate with community organizations on redevelopment efforts. The existing system has not been particularly successful at recycling large numbers of scattered site properties or renovating vacant buildings, thus the new land bank based models appear to the hold the most promise.

Whichever model is ultimately implemented in the Hill, it will need to be paired with other efforts to stabilize and improve the neighborhood, support existing homeowners and minimize resident displacement.

Implementation and Organizational Capacity

Recycling vacant property is a challenging task in any urban neighborhood due to the difficult process of gaining responsible control of properties, stabilizing them and then implementing financially feasible strategies for recycling them. A responsible organization needs to gain clear title to vacant properties and then stabilize and manage them. Next, a phased strategy needs to be put in place to renovate vacant buildings and recycle vacant land into new uses. This process will require forging new partnerships between existing organizations and in some cases building new organizational capacity.

There are a variety of models for how this process could unfold in the Hill District. Two new approaches would assemble vacant property in a land bank that is either a neighborhood-specific non profit, or a new city-wide public entity. Yielding the most community control, but also the highest financial risk and need for additional capacity, would be the creation of a Hill District-specific non-profit community land bank that would have direct control and responsibility for vacant property. Another land bank option would be for community groups to partner with a new city-wide public land bank responsible for acquiring, maintaining and redeveloping vacant property; in some cases property could

3. Four high-visibility streets in the Upper Hill, each having a large number of vacant lots and building rehabilitation candidates, together comprise a third focus area.

Focusing on Milwaukee, Adelaide, Camp and Lyon Streets will improve a key neighborhood gateway and stabilize the residential market in an area with a high percentage of homeowners.

Two additional focus areas include major open space projects:

4. Designating a new Hill District Greenway using city owned wooded hillside parcels and abandoned street rights-of way will allow key Greenprint proposals to be implemented including the Coal Seam Trail.

5. Creating the new Chauncey Steps Park will transform publicly-owned vacant land into a major new open space in the middle of the neighborhood - a key recommendation from the Greenprint. The new multi-level park could potentially accommodate passive recreation, an existing wetland, a new playground and urban agriculture.

Five areas of concentrated vacancy, for which the Master Plan and Greenprint do not make clear recommendations, should receive further planning. Two areas of immediate concern are:

1. Centre Avenue between Kirkpatrick and Junilla Streets, and

2. Core Upper Hill residential blocks between Milwaukee, Adelaide, Iowa and Shawnee Streets.

A larger planning effort is needed to address:

3. The Middle Hill between Bedford, Wylie Streets from Lawson Street to Herron Avenue where the topography is particularly complex.

Finally, two smaller areas with clusters of vacant lots, but no clear planning recommendation are:

4. The blocks around Granville Parklet and

5. The Hillside above and below Colwell Street.

A neighborhood-wide study of existing housing and housing needs should also be undertaken. This project would ideally examine both occupied and vacant housing stock to gain an understanding of the existing housing inventory and housing challenges for both homeowners and renters in the neighborhood.

It would consider existing and future market dynamics and identify a range of assistance and intervention actions that could help stabilize neighborhood housing and prevent both short-and long-term resident displacement.

Map E.3 Five Recommended Development Focus Areas

Vacant land was also assessed for its physical condition during a walking survey. Lots were ranked from 1-5, with one being the best. The lot condition ranking was used to estimate approximate clean up and ongoing maintenance costs for vacant land that is not recommended to become a green use.

The estimated cost for bringing all vacant lots to a consistent standard of mown lawn is approximately $1.1 million for the initial clean up, with costs decreasing in subsequent years.

Next Steps for Planning and Development

Five key areas are recommended as priority focus areas. In most cases, new construction and open space development are already underway in these areas based on existing planning. Three of these zones are recommended for targeted new construction and building rehabilitation:

1. The Centre Avenue Business District and the residential blocks to the immediate north have already seen significant new development and are a key focus area of the Hill District Master Plan.

2. The area just south of Cliffside Park is recommended for infill development. This small cluster of housing has a relatively strong market, excellent river valley views and access to the newly refurbished Cliffside Park.

Map E.4 Vacant Property Baseline + Master Plan and Greenprint

Chauncey Steps Park Centre Business District

& New Housing

Hill District Greenway & Coal Seam Trail

Cliffside Infill Housing

Upper Hill Housing Stabilization

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 6

During the first phase of the project, our team used GIS mapping and analysis, Census data, historic property research and a walking “sidewalk survey” to assess the general conditions of every property in the Hill District that had been identified as being vacant through existing Pittsburgh Neighborhood & Community Information System (PNCIS) GIS database resources. The database was updated and corrected to capture all vacant land and structures in the Hill District as accurately as possible. Properties with established improved uses, such as parking lots and athletic fields, were removed from the initial database and vacant lots and buildings were confirmed and corrected during on-the-ground surveys.

As part of the walking survey, general lot and building conditions were noted. That information was subsequently used to estimate lot maintenance costs and asses the viability of renovating vacant structures.

Next, the vacant property database was compared and cross-referenced with a series of indicators to identify possible future uses for vacant buildings and land. These Major Analysis Indicators were used to locate strategic areas for focused development.

Indicators were also used to identify parts of the neighborhood where additional community planning is needed to guide future development and advocacy efforts.

1. Approach

Major Analysis Indicators

Previous planning recommendations, parcel ownership and tax status, topography and undermining risk were the primary indicators used to guide recommendations regarding the future utilization of vacant properties.

In recent years, two major community-driven planning efforts laid out a vision for the neighborhood’s future. The Greater Hill District Master Plan (2011) and the Hill District Greenprint (2010) propose numerous major new development projects across the neighborhood.

The Master Plan recommended major new developments in a number of key sections of the neighborhood as well as infill and housing rehabilitation in others. The Greenprint proposed a network of existing and proposed open space, including the creation of new parks, trails and playgrounds; renovations to existing parks;

streetscape and City Steps improvements; and new green infrastructure. The Greenprint also proposed that a majority of the neighborhood’s wooded hillsides be preserved as passive, permanent woodlands with interconnected trails.

Both plans were analyzed in GIS to determine which specific neighborhood parcels would be required to implement the planned new development and open space projects.

This information was then compared to the

Vacant Property Analysis Indicators inventory of vacant properties to identify parcels for which planning recommendations had already been made. In many cases the plans indicate a clear recommendation, but for some parcels neither the Master Plan nor the Greenprint have a detailed proposal.

To further refine and develop the recommendations, vacant property was cross-referenced with ownership and tax status.

While the Hill District has unusually high levels of ownership by public entities, it also has maintained strong pockets of homeownership.

Public ownership of vacant land and buildings can help facilitate the implementation of recommendations for both new development and open space improvements. Like public ownership, tax delinquency can be an opportunity for community organizations to gain site control of a property. Understanding homeownership rates/trends in a neighborhood relative to vacancy helps to suggest areas where home renovations could be most strategic and aid in stabilizing the surrounding blocks. Vacant lots adjacent to existing homeowners could also become sideyards.

Finally, vacant properties were ranked according to their general risk for undermining, which could potentially cause subsidence and add costs to new development

- in some cases making it infeasible.

From the Hill District Greenprint (2009-2010)From The Greater Hill District Master Plan (2011)

Undermining Risk

DB: VBL

Tax Delinquent under 2 Years

DB: VBL_TXD

Tax Delinquent over 2 Years

DB: VBL_TXD2

Master Plan:

Residential

DB: VBL_MP_RES

Greenprint:

Open Space

DB: VBL_GP_OP

Master Plan:

Mixed-Use

DB: VBL_MP_MX

All vacant parcels identified for new development or open space in community plans

All vacant parcels that are tax delinquent for over or under two years

Vacant parcels ranked by risk of undermining

Public Ownership

DB: PUB_OWN

Master Plan:

Residential

DB: MP_RES

Greenprint:

Open Space

DB: GP_OP

Master Plan:

Mixed-Use

DB: MP_MX

Homeowners

DB: POTENTIALH

All neighborhood parcels identified for new development or open space in community plans

All publicly owned parcels in the neighborhood

All likely homeowners in the neighborhood

Hill District Master Plan & Hill District Greenprint

Vacant Property

DB: VBL

All Properties

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 7

Vacant Property Database Classification Sequence

Mothball

DB: VB_MB

Mothball/Demo

DB: VB_MB_D

Demolish

DB: VB_D

Tax Delinquent under 2 Years

DB: VB_TXD

Tax Delinquent over 2 Years

DB: VB_TXD2

Publicly Owned

DB: VL_GW

Privately Owned Taxes Paid

DB: VB_PRV

Tax Delinquent under 2 Years

DB: VL_PSY_TXD

Tax Delinquent over 2 Years

DB: VL_PSY_TXD2

Publicly Owned

DB: VL_PSY_PUB

Privately Owned Taxes Paid

DB: VL_PSY_PRV

Vacant Property

DB: VBL

Greenway

DB: VL_GW

Managed Corridor

DB: VL_MGC

Wild Woodland

DB: VL_WW

Existing Sideyard

DB: VL_OSY

Planned Park

DB: VL_PP

Vacant Lot

DB: VL_ALL

Green Use

Lot Condition 1

DB: VL_MR_1

Lot Condition 2/3

DB: VL_MR_2_3

Lot Condition 4/5

DB: VL_MR_4_5

Planning Required

DB: VL_PL_RQ

New Construction

DB: VL_NC

Mothball indicates buildings that should be preserved and rehabilitated. Mothball/ Demo properties could be saved if keeping the building makes sense as neighborhood plans evolve, or if there is a strong community preference.

Green Use includes a variety of existing and proposed open space uses for vacant land.

These are based on cur-rent ownership, physical conditions and recom-mendations from the Hill District Master Plan and Greenprint.

Foreclosure

DB: VB_FOR

Vacant building ownership affects the ability for community organizations to intervene, especially when the intent is to mothball and rehabilitate a property. Vacant buildings are divided into publicly and privately owned, and private ownership into various states of tax status. A small number of properties have had some level of fore-closure activity over the last two years.

Greenway and Planned Park consist entirely of publicly-owned parcels. Greenway parcels are primarily wooded hillsides. Planned Park indicates either a park expansion or a new park recommended in the community plans.

Managed Green Corridors are green open spaces that are highly visible and will require some level of ongoing maintenance, while Wild Woodlands are existing woodland areas that should remain undisturbed and require little maintenance.

Existing Sideyards are green lots owned by the adjacent homeowner.

Action Required indicates parcels that require community intervention.

These parcels are ranked by lot conditions to understand maintenance implications. They are then assigned all possible uses based on existing planning recommendations and homeowner adjacency.

Vacant lots adjacent to existing homeowners have the potential to become sideyards.

Possible sideyard parcels are divided into publicly and privately owned, and private ownership is again divided among various tax status categories.

Possible Urban Agriculture indicates parcels that may be suitable for urban agriculture. Parcels were tested for adjacency and then ranked by the size of the possible contiguous agricultural site. Possible Urban Agriculture includes parcels with recommendations for other long-term green uses as well as numerous parcels in the Action Required category.

New Construction indicates properties with a clear planning recommendation for new development. In limited cases, parcels vary slightly from new buildings shown in the Master Plan.

Possible Sideyard

Planning Required indicates parcels that are not a possible sideyard, nor do they have a clear planning recommendation. These areas will require further community-based planning.

Action Required

DB: VL_MR

Vacant BuildingVacant Property Classification

Based on the relationship of vacant proper-ties to the existing community plans and other indicators, parcels were then classified accord-ing to their recommended future use, possible alternative uses and in some cases a need for further community planning input.

The Vacant Property GIS Database contains a series of overlapping classifications for every vacant property in the neighborhood. The chart at right explains the classification strategy used for the database and the maps that follow.

Buildings are divided into potential candidates for rehabilitation or demolition. Buildings are also flagged for aspects of ownership, tax delin-quency and foreclosure activity.

The classification of vacant land is more com-plex. For planning purposes, vacant land also includes all vacant buildings recommended for demolition. All vacant lots suitable for long-term green uses - requiring limited or no maintenance and advancing the open space plans of the neighborhood - have been identi-fied. As part of this effort, a test was done to identify parcels that may be suitable for urban agriculture. However, rather than be a final clas-sification category, agriculture is treated as an overlay of possibly aggregated parcels.

The remaining vacant lots are considered those where community action will be required: in the short term for maintenance and in the long term for implementing a suitable future use. The physical condition of these parcels is ranked on a 1-5 scale to create a preliminary estimate of maintenance costs. Parcels are then flagged with possible uses. Lots with a clear and detailed planning recommendation for new construction in the Master Plan are classified as new construction. Lots adjacent to existing homeowners are flagged as possible sideyards and are then further distinguished by their own-ership, tax delinquency and foreclosure activity.

In some cases, a lot is both a sideyard candidate and an opportunity for new construction.

The remaining parcels that do not have a clear planning recommendation and are not a poten-tial sideyard are called out as needing additional community-based planning.

Vacant Lots includes all currently vacant land, as well as vacant building parcels recom-mended for demolition.

Baseline of all vacant property

Possible Urban Agriculture .5-1 ac

DB: VL_UA_B

Possible Urban Agriculture <1 ac

DB: VL_UA_A

Possible Urban Agriculture >1 ac

DB: VL_UA_C

Possible Urban Agriculture

DB: VL_UA

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 8

There are a total of 5087 parcels in the Hill District comprising 692.36 acres. In 2012, over half the parcels in the Hill District were either a vacant lot or had a vacant building.

2681, or 53%, of all Hill District properties are vacant. However, vacant properties only occupy 26% of the total neighborhood acre-age or land area. The majority of vacant prop-erties are empty lots with only 14% containing vacant buildings.

Vacant land is scattered across the entire neighborhood, sometimes in large groups of parcels and sometimes as individual empty lots between occupied houses. It is a mix of unbuilt wooded hillsides, scattered empty lots and entire blocks where houses once stood. Some properties have never been built on due to the steep terrain, and some areas where buildings have been demolished may not be suitable for redevelopment because of undermining and steep slopes.

Map 1.0 Vacant Property Baseline NumbersKey

Vacant Lots

Vacant Buildings

All Vacant Properties

N400’ 800’

1,200’ 1,600’

2,308 Lots 166.76 Acres

373 Buildings 27.83 Acres

2,681 Parcels 194.59 Acres

Existing Parks

Hill District Boundary

CENTRE AVE

KI

RK

PA

TR

IC

K

ST

WYLIE AVE

WEBSTER AVE

BEDFORD AVE

HE

RR

ON

AV

E

DIN

WI

DD

E S

T

FIFTH AVE

FORBES AVE

CH

Au

NC

EY

S T

MO

Rg

AN

S

T

WA

TT

S T

WA

ND

LE

SS

S T

MILWAuKEE ST

BRYN MAWR RD

ADELAIDE ST

IOWA ST

CAMP ST

BIgELOW BLVD

RO

BE

RT

S

ST

CR

AW

FO

RD

S T

MONROE ST

Ju

NI

LL

A

ST

ROSE ST

REED ST

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 9

In recent years, two major community-driven planning efforts laid out plans for the neighborhood’s future. The Greater Hill District Master Plan (2011) and the Hill District Greenprint (2010) propose numerous major new development projects across the neighborhood.

In addition, the City of Pittsburgh’s OpenSpacePgh planning process also identified a range of potential green uses suitable for specific vacant properties across the City.

The Master Plan created a vision for major new developments in a number of key sections of the neighborhood. It also suggested infill and housing rehabilitation in other areas. New development proposals from the Master Plan are illustrated above in blue, along with an approximation of the parcels that would be required to implement the plan as drawn. Most proposals are for infill buildings on vacant land, with the exception of two major public housing sites that are slated for redevelopment. This mapping analysis reveals that some infill proposals will need to be modified to reflect actual property ownership, especially in areas targeted for scattered-site residential infill.

The Greenprint proposed a series of open space projects including new parks, trails and playgrounds; renovations to existing parks; streetscape improvements and green infrastructure. The Greenprint also proposed that most of the wooded hillsides in the neighborhood should be treated as passive permanent woodlands with interconnected trails. Greenprint projects are outlined above in green and public parcels recommended for open space preservation are illustrated in yellow.

Map 1.1 Vacant Property Baseline + Master Plan and Greenprint NumbersKey

Vacant Lots

Vacant Buildings

All Vacant Properties

N400’ 800’

1,200’ 1,600’

2,308 Lots 166.76 Acres

373 Buildings 27.83 Acres

2,681 Parcels 194.59 Acres

475 New Buildings

+/- 612 Parcels +/- 178 Acres

9 Major Projects

+/- 423 Parcels +/- 57 Acres

Master Plan & Greenprint Proposals:

Master Plan Proposed Buildings

Land Required for Proposed Buildings

Hill District Greenprint Proposals

Land identified for Greenprint Proposals

CENTRE AVE

KI

RK

PA

TR

IC

K

ST

WYLIE AVE

WEBSTER AVE

BEDFORD AVE

HE

RR

ON

AV

E

DIN

WI

DD

E S

T

FIFTH AVE

FORBES AVE

CH

Au

NC

EY

S T

MO

Rg

AN

S

T

WA

TT

S T

WA

ND

LE

SS

S T

MILWAuKEE ST

BRYN MAWR RD

ADELAIDE ST

IOWA ST

CAMP ST

RO

BE

RT

S

ST

CR

AW

FO

RD

S T

MONROE ST

Ju

NI

LL

A

ST

ROSE ST

BIgELOW BLVD

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 10

The Hill District has unusually high levels of ownership by public entities. Overall, 1525 parcels (47% of the land area or 30% of all properties) in the Hill District are publicly owned. Bedford Dwellings, Addison Terrace and Oak Hill Housing Authority properties and various parks comprise a significant amount of this acreage. However the majority of publicly owned parcels are small vacant lots belonging to the City of Pittsburgh or the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA.)

84% of all publicly owned properties in the neighborhood are vacant.

There are 1277 publicly-owned vacant parcels in the neighborhood, including 27 vacant buildings. This comprises 48% of all vacant properties and 45% of the vacant parcel area.

Much of this vacant property has been assembled by the URA to facilitate redevelopment in the Hill District. In many cases, these parcels are strategically located where public ownership will aid in realizing proposals in the Hill District Master Plan, such as in the Centre Avenue Business District and the adjacent blocks.

However, the URA and the City of Pittsburgh also own a significant number of steeply-sloped wooded parcels that are not slated for redevelopment. Some of these parcels are well suited for designation as a Hill District Greenway, while others are best left as unmanaged urban woodlands. In a limited number of cases, new park space has been proposed for publicly owned land.

Map 1.2 Vacant Property Baseline + Public Ownership NumbersKey

Vacant Lots

Vacant Buildings

All Vacant Properties

N400’ 800’

1,200’ 1,600’

2,308 Lots 166.76 Acres

373 Buildings 27.83 Acres

2,681 Parcels 194.59 Acres

City of Pittsburgh

PGH Urban Redevelopment Authority

Housing Authority of the City of PGH

Public Ownership Overlay for all Properties:

655 Parcels 46.82 Acres

529 Parcels 35.87 Acres

83 Parcels 4.8 Acres

1,277 Parcels 87.49 Acres

Publicly Owned Vacant Parcels:

CENTRE AVE

KI

RK

PA

TR

IC

K

ST

WYLIE AVE

WEBSTER AVE

BEDFORD AVE

HE

RR

ON

AV

E

DIN

WI

DD

E S

T

FIFTH AVE

FORBES AVE

CH

Au

NC

EY

S T

MO

Rg

AN

S

T

WA

TT

S T

WA

ND

LE

SS

S T

MILWAuKEE ST

BRYN MAWR RD

ADELAIDE ST

IOWA ST

CAMP ST

BIgELOW BLVD

RO

BE

RT

S

ST

CR

AW

FO

RD

S T

MONROE ST

Ju

NI

LL

A

ST

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 11

Despite its high levels of vacancy the Hill District has maintained strong pockets of homeownership. According to an analysis of homestead act exemptions and tax address records there are 1266 properties likely owned by a homeowner. Homeowners own 25% of all properties in the neighborhood.

In addition there are 133 parcels identified through tax addresses as sideyards owned by the adjacent homeowner. Taken together homeowners own 28% of the properties in the neighborhood, or 15% of the land area.

The strongest Homeownership area is in the Upper Hill in Sugar Top and Schenley Heights, where the majority of houses are occupied by a homeowner. Smaller pockets exist especially where newer housing stock has been constructed around Roberts Street and Wylie Avenue, around Francis and Watt Streets and adjacent to Cliffside Park. In addition single homeowners are scattered across the community.

Vacant property is most detrimental to homeownership in areas where vacant buildings and lots are interspersed in blocks with strong homeownership. If scattered vacancy is not actively addressed, strong homeownership areas will erode and lose value, resulting in a loss of equity for community households. An area of particular concern where this pattern exists in a large area is in the core of the Upper Hill. This issue exists at a smaller scale in many of the blocks with strong homeownership.

Map 1.3 Vacant Property Baseline + Homeownership NumbersKey

Vacant Lots*

Vacant Buildings

All Vacant Properties

Homeowners

Adjacent Homeowner Sideyards

*Not including homeowner sideyards

N400’ 800’

1,200’ 1,600’

2,175 Parcels 158.73 Acres

373 Buildings 27.83 Acres

2,681 Parcels 194.59 Acres

1,266 Homes 95.04 Acres

133 Sideyards 8.03 Acres

1,399 Parcels 103.07 Acres

CENTRE AVE

KI

RK

PA

TR

IC

K

ST

WYLIE AVE

WEBSTER AVE

BEDFORD AVE

HE

RR

ON

AV

E

DIN

WI

DD

E S

T

FIFTH AVE

FORBES AVE

CH

Au

NC

EY

S T

MO

Rg

AN

S

T

WA

TT

S T

WA

ND

LE

SS

S T

MILWAuKEE ST

BRYN MAWR RD

ADELAIDE ST

IOWA ST

CAMP ST

BIgELOW BLVD

RO

BE

RT

S

ST

CR

AW

FO

RD

S T

MONROE ST

Ju

NI

LL

A

ST

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 12

Like many hilltop neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, the Hill District was the site of active underground coal mines during its early history.

The coal seam falls at a relatively constant elevation around 1055’ - 1065’ above sea level, sitting below the highest parts of the neighborhood. Areas of the neighborhood situated above this elevation are at risk should a historic mine collapse, causing the ground above to settle and shift. The higher a property sits above the coal seam the lesser the risk of serious settlement. No accurate map of actual mines is known to exist, thus undermining risk is best measured by the elevation of the property relative to the coal seam elevation. This is illustrated above, with the highest risk shown in red, medium in orange and low in yellow.

Parcels below the coal seam have no risk and are illustrated in grey.

28% of the vacant land in the neighborhood sits just above the coal seam and has a potentially serious risk of undermining. Many of these parcels are wooded hillsides that are not suitable for development, however some areas, such as the Herron Avenue Corridor, or some blocks between Wylie and Webster Avenues, are places where new development is planned.

Development on undermined parcels is possible, but it calls for careful geotechnical analysis and will likely require more expensive foundations.

Another 11% of vacant land sits between 25 and 50 feet and should be explored carefully prior to development. Parcels over 50’ above the coal seam, or entirely below it, are of less concern.

Map 1.4 Vacant Property Baseline + Undermining Risk NumbersKey

< 25’ Above Coal Seam - High Risk

Vacant Properties - High Risk (3)

25’-50’ Above Coal Seam - Medium Risk

Vacant Properties - Medium Risk (2)

> 50’ Above Coal Seam - Low Risk

Vacant Properties - Low Risk (1)

Vacant Properties - No Risk (0)

Vacant Buildings

N400’ 800’

1,200’ 1,600’

Elevation 1,060 - 1,085

434 Parcels 55.45 Acres

Elevation 1,085 - 1,110

329 Parcels 20.61 Acres

Elevation > 1,110

511 Parcels 32.20 Acres

1,377 Parcels 83.60 Acres

373 Buildings 27.83 Acres

Undermining Risk:Likely Historic Mine Entrance Mine entrances are known to have been located along Herron Avenue on either side of the crest near Bedford Avenue. In the mid 19th Century, Herron Avenue was actually called Miner Street, and Minersville Cemetery is also evidence of this history. Entrances are also believed to have existed on Junilla street between Wylie and Webster Avenues.

CENTRE AVE

KI

RK

PA

TR

IC

K

ST

WYLIE AVE

WEBSTER AVE

BEDFORD AVE

HE

RR

ON

AV

E

DIN

WI

DD

E S

T

FIFTH AVE

FORBES AVE

CH

Au

NC

EY

S T

MO

Rg

AN

S

T

WA

TT

S T

WA

ND

LE

SS

S T

MILWAuKEE ST

BRYN MAWR RD

ADELAIDE ST

IOWA ST

CAMP ST

BIgELOW BLVD

RO

BE

RT

S

ST

CR

AW

FO

RD

S T

MONROE ST

Ju

NI

LL

A

ST

ROSE ST

REED ST

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 13

Vacant buildings exist in most urban communities for a variety of reasons.

While a short-term vacancy is usually not detrimental to the larger neighborhood, long-term unmaintained vacant buildings negatively impact the buildings and blocks surrounding them. Most vacant buildings have the potential to be renovated if there is a mechanism in place to stabilize and recycle the property. However, some vacant structures are either beyond repair or are too small to meet contemporary market expectations, particularly for housing.

In Pittsburgh, there is no single data source for determining which buildings are vacant. In this study, potentially vacant buildings were identified by correlating a number of GIS sources including inactive postal addresses and gas meters, followed by a walking survey.

Vacancies were also confirmed and corrected during three community meetings.

Hill District Vacant Buildings

The Hill District has experienced a significant loss of population over the last 30 years, proportionally much higher than that of the surrounding city. Over this time period, hundreds of buildings have been abandoned

2. Vacant Building Recommendations and the vast majority of them have already been demolished. This incremental loss of building stock amounts to as much or more than the total number of buildings that were demolished during the large-scale urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 60s.

Today, a relatively small number of vacant buildings are scattered throughout the neighborhood with the greatest concentration in the Upper Hill District. In total, 373 vacant buildings were identified in the Hill District, with the majority of properties being vacant houses.

Vacant Building Classifications

The goal of the vacant building classification process is to identify potential candidates for recycling and renovation. In the project database, vacant buildings are grouped into three categories:

1. Buildings which are structurally sound and play an important role in the larger urban fabric are generally classified as Mothball properties. This means they should removed form demolition lists, sealed and if necessary stabilized with the ultimate intention of renovation and recycling.

2. In some cases, buildings are in less sound condition or their demolition will have a less-detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood due to their siting or relative isolation. A sound building may also be smaller than current housing market demand would prefer. This variety of vacant building is classified as Mothball/ Demolish. Further community discussion, planning and property assessment is needed to make a final decision as to whether the building should be renovated.

3. Finally, buildings with significant structural or roof damage, obsolete housing types, and in some cases buildings where redevelopment is recommended have been classified as Demolish.

More detailed criteria for Vacant Building Clas-sifications are discussed on the following page.

The majority of vacant buildings in the Hill District are viable candidates for rehabilitation.

At the time of the survey, there were 373 known vacant buildings in the community, amounting to roughly 6% of all structures in the Hill District. 213, or 57%, of these buildings are clear candidates for renovation and efforts should be made to preserve them. Another 80, or 21.5%, could be saved depending on further assessment. This study recommends that 80 buildings are not worth saving and should be demolished.

While vacant buildings are scattered throughout the neighborhood, there are a few notable concentrated areas. The Upper Hill District has one of the greatest concentrations of vacant housing, with the vast majority of buildings recommended for rehabilitation.

There are also smaller clusters of vacant buildings in the Middle Hill particularly in the blocks between Bedford and Wylie Avenues. The Crawford-Roberts section of the neighborhood has almost no vacant houses largely due to intensive redevelopment efforts in this area.

Recycling Vacant Buildings

There are numerous paths for recycling buildings. In some cases, transferring unencumbered ownership to an approved developer or a capable homeowner is a viable path. In other scenarios, a non-profit community-based organization takes on the role of stabilizing and rehabilitating property, often in partnership with the City. Often, vacant buildings are recycled using a mix of these strategies. A series of steps and a range of strategies for recycling vacant buildings are discussed in Chapter 5 Implementation and Organizational Capacity. One of the major factors in finding the right strategy for a vacant building is the nature of the real estate market where the building is located.

Hill District Market Variations

The viability of recycling a vacant building is always impacted by the real estate market of the surrounding neighborhood. Urban real estate markets tend to fluctuate at a micro-market scale exhibiting variations between properties a few blocks away within the same neighborhood. Market variations across the Hill District were taken into consideration as part of the vacant building classification process.

Market variations across the Hill District were examined by looking at residential real estate transactions over a multi-year period for different size houses in the lower, middle and upper sections of the neighborhood. In general, the Lower Hill (Crawford-Roberts) has the strongest residential real estate market, driven largely by recent redevelopment efforts and significant new residential construction.

The Upper Hill also has a relatively strong market. These parts of the neighborhood have strong enough sales that some houses can be renovated and resold with limited or no subsidy. The Middle Hill has a weaker market, with pockets of strong and weak sales. In general, home rehabilitation projects in this part of the neighborhood will require subsidy in the near term. Across the entire neighborhood, some houses requiring substantial renovation may require either subsidy or a multi-year mothball strategy.

Detailed findings on variations between the residential real estate markets are shown on page 15.

373 Vacant Buildings - 6% of Hill District Buildings

Demolish 21.5%

80 Buildings

Mothball 57%

213 Buildings

Mothball/Demolish 21.5%

80 Buildings (additional planning & assessment is required)

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 14

Vacant Building Classifications

Mothball indicates a building that should be preserved and ultimately rehabilitated.

Based on an on-site exterior inspection, these properties appear to be viable, structurally sound candidates for rehabilitation. In addition to structural integrity, recommendations in the Master Plan as well as general historic architectural character were considered In designating which buildings should be preserved. Buildings indicated as Mothball candidates should be removed from the city demolition list and preserved.

The criteria used to identify mothball candidates are below:

• Masonry structures

• High quality frame-built structures

• No major apparent structural issues

• Healthy adjacent neighborhood/uses

• Part of a strong row of houses

• Structures with historic and/or cultural value

• Areas with high rates of homeownership

• Areas where demolition would destabilize/ devalue adjacent/attached units

Mothball Mothball/Demolish Demolish Mothball/Demolish indicates a property that could be saved if keeping the building makes sense as neighborhood plans evolve, or if there is a strong community preference. These properties were judged by the same criteria as mothball candidates but the buildings were smaller, located in isolated locations, or in need of more significant renovations.

Buildings indicated as Mothball/Demolish candidates should be removed from the city demolition list and preserved in the short term.

As community plans and local development efforts evolve, the buildings should be reassessed for their viability and desirability as rehabilitation candidates.

Demolish indicates a building that should be demolished and treated as a vacant parcel to be addressed. The criteria used to identify demolition candidates are below:

• Buildings with major structural concerns or damage

• Buildings where extensive long term roof damage is visible

• Context: deteriorating vacant structures, overgrown and extensive vacant land

• Row houses generally vacant/deteriorating

• When demolition will help to make other units on a block more desirable

• Where demolition won’t destabilize attached units

• Obsolete, undesirable building products

• Obsolete structures due to social dysfunction

• Obsolete alley houses

• Where there is excessive density

Hill District Vacant Property Strategy | 15

Hill District…