New Ken: Riverfront development
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I have been involved in initiating four zoning ordinances for the city of New Kensington in the past 16 years. I have a degree in real estate and have done graduate work in commercial real estate analysis. Many of these courses dealt with the highest and best uses for land and their alternatives.
I propose New Kensington give serious consideration to rezoning for riverfront development and other commercial districts. Approximately 27,000 cars per day pass through the Parnassus Triangle and approximately 17,000 cars cross the Ninth Street Bridge daily. Industrial Boulevard has been reconfigured to handle additional traffic. Rezoning would strengthen Parnassus.
The area of Point State Park and Gateway Center was an industrial slum 65 years ago. Good planning, however, made them a source of Pittsburgh pride. Planning has helped development on the North Side. The commercial projects on the South Side and in Homestead are prime examples of old industrial uses being changed by riverfront development. There is proposed riverfront development for the Strip District.
The Edgewater development in Oakmont is the most recent example of converting an industrial riverfront property into a higher and better use. I envision the same for New Kensington — waterfront and public access, along with commercial, entertainment, office and residential uses. I know a lot of people from New Kensington, Arnold and Lower Burrell who take advantage of what Pittsburgh offers.
Our point of view needs to be that these results will occur over a 20- to 30-year period because that's what history has shown us. A great reference is the North Shore Master Plan developed for Pittsburgh in 2002.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Bloomberg & coal
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- Knives vs. guns II
- Knives vs. guns I
- Don’t trash Medicare
- Tragedy’s ramifications II
- Tragedy’s ramifications I
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Dems’ tax myth