Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole point of this thread wasn't for we urban dwellers to guilt-trip our suburban/exurban counterparts about how large their carbon footprints may or may not be. I'm well aware of the fact that regardless of incentivization there will always be some people who will prefer having more elbow room on a 3/4-acre lot on a cul-de-sac as opposed to living on a 1/10-acre lot on a tree-lined street in the city. I'm not advocating that all suburbanites move into the city. I just want us to capture as many people "on the fence" about suburb/exurb vs. city as we can into the city proper at a time when we need it most.
For me if the 2020 U.S. Census shows Pittsburgh with a population below 300,000 it will be a tremendous blow to me psychologically, and I'm sure it will be for many others as well. There are some who shrug and say "it's just a number". That's not the case for us all.
Thus far I'm noticing the rationale is coming in as I expected:
1.) Perceived (or actual) superior quality of public schools in the suburbs.
2.) Perceived (or actual) aura of safety and security in the suburbs.
3.) Larger lot sizes in the suburbs for a lower price point than the city.
4.) Some wish to be near to suburban employers.
5.) Lower taxes in the suburbs.
How can we Pittsburghers work on each of these?
1.) Nobody wants to have their own children serve as "guinea pigs" of sorts by sending them to a public school in a transitional area as some sort of social experiment. Children are precious---not expendible. Not everyone can afford Shady Side Academy in Park Place, Winchester Thurston in Shadyside, CAPA Downtown, etc. as private/chartered alternatives. With that being said I notice that most parents seem to judge a school purely by its median standardized test scores, which will ALWAYS be higher in the school districts with the lowest percentage of economically disadvantaged students (i.e. Fox Chapel Area, North Allegheny, Hampton, Pine-Richland, Shaler Area, Mt. Lebanon, etc.) Physicians, attorneys, accountants, consultants, engineers, and other college-educated professionals who dominate these suburban areas tend to beget children who feel more pressured to excel academically to please their parents than their counterparts in transitional living environments in the city. These children also have parents who are fiscally equipped to provide any and all additional necessary aides for their education. Cluster a bunch of upper-middle-class families together, and naturally the test scores will trail higher than in poorer areas. Nevertheless I attended a public school that wasn't exactly affluent, and I turned out very well. My SAT score of 1300 was much higher than our district average. What does that mean? It WAS possible to excel at my school, but fewer students at my school CHOSE to apply themselves and fewer had supportive parents than at some of the more posh suburban schools. Those of us who WANTED to learn at my school district were NOT shortchanged academically.
2.) Crime can and will occur anywhere that the opportunity exists. A man was recently arrested for exposing himself to women in Shadyside, which is more upscale than many suburban locales. In my native NEPA a gay porn producer was nearly decapitated, and his home was set ablaze in Dallas Township, a ritzy suburb of Wilkes-Barre. My parents' home in an upper-middle-class suburb of Scranton was the scene of a crime when a shoplifter from a nearby Wal-Mart led police on a foot chase into their backyard and holed himself up inside their shed. A couple of years ago a woman was abducted and raped from the Waterworks, which is adjacent to the sought-after suburb of Aspinwall. Are you more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the Hill District than in Fox Chapel? Yes. Can you then apply that as a blanket statement to say suburbs are safer than the city? No. Sadly, our suburbs are nearly exclusively non-African-American, so many who are more narrow-minded will then say they are "safer" as a result.
3.) Different strokes for different folks. Living with a small yard but living in Regent Square and being able to walk my children to Frick Park would be preferable in my mind to having a gigantic yard, which would require heavy maintenance and would mostly just be unused grass. Some people want more land to have a "buffer zone" between their neighbors. Others are insecure about themselves and want as much land as possible to feel better about their own social standing. I personally just want a backyard large enough for a hot tub and a front yard large enough for some sunflowers, and I'd be happy.
4.) There's not much that can be done about this. When I first relocated here I turned down more lucrative career opportunities because they happened to be in Moon Township and Robinson Township. Why live in the city if I would have a lengthy commute? I moved to the city to eschew my car as much as possible. It's a shame so many major employers in our metro area have decided to establish themselves in the suburbs, showcasing no loyalty to Pittsburgh, but it is what it is. I'd wither and die living in a place like Robinson Township, much as how I was wilting living in Reston, VA and working in Tysons Corner, VA---two of the worst urban planning gaffes NoVA had to offer.
5.) The wage tax may be lower, but often the property tax bills in the 'burbs may be higher to account for higher property values.
Kids in the city can't run down the street to their friend's house, or ride their bikes to baseball practice. Families in the city can't just send their kids outside to play like they can in suburbs.
Of course they often can, and in many cases do.
And incidentally, the most significant threat to the physical safety of children in the United States is car accidents.
When curriculum is mandated to hopefully raise test scores and bore the hell out of students & teachers, (No longer able to write a lesson plan), and there is zero wiggle room to adjust for your child, your neighbor's child or your niece/nephew does it matter then?
PPS teachers are handed a script they must adhere to. It is not a healthy learning environment. So many (lazy) teachers miss writing their own lesson plans vs. Shoving canned education/cardboard down kids throats everyday. How can they engage students when they can't veer off course? What if the class has further questions? I guess telling them to "google it" is easier than having a meaningful discussion.
And incidentally, the most significant threat to the physical safety of children in the United States is car accidents.
My kid runs down the sidewalks to his friends houses & parks. We live in the city. We like him enough to place restrictions on what he can do. (I also spy out the window at times to make certain he knows I hate one intersection) He does have a cell phone at a younger age by our choice. We had the same rules with our other kids, he is the youngest of a bunch of boys. When we lived in a secluded burb of Chicago, I had the same rules. We also lived in a very small town. (less than 6k). I actually found that more nerve-wracking. Driving on 2 lane county roads and the boredom of substance abuse was quite scary when your oldest is 16. I am proud to report they are 22, 21, & 18 & still alive and not in prison!
I think we can keep our 12 yr old intact!
*however paying for private schools is very challenging.
Last edited by Sideblinded; 04-03-2011 at 01:00 AM..
2.) Perceived (or actual) aura of safety and security in the suburbs.
...
2.) Crime can and will occur anywhere that the opportunity exists. A man was recently arrested for exposing himself to women in Shadyside, which is more upscale than many suburban locales.
I lived in Shadyside for two years. I guess most people would call Shadyside the most upscale of city neighborhoods. While I lived there my apartment was broken into. A classmate's car was stolen (she lived nearby). The East End rapist was going around, including in Shadyside. I think there may have even been a murder.
Since I have moved the the 'burbs I have called the police 3 times: a) to report a water main break on a well-traveled road that was just starting; b) to report a man sitting in a car in my neighborhood in front of a neighbor's house that I knew to be on vacation (the man ended up being someone who was waiting to pick up his kid from a nearby house); and c) to report someone soliciting door-to-door without a permit
While crime can happen anywhere, the kinds of crime that happened while I was living in Shadyside just doesn't happen where I live now. I think there may have been 1 murder in my township- but it was a domestic dispute.
Of course, this is all purely anecdotal, but this is part of why I (a young professional with a family) do not have any desire to live in the city.
Last edited by Burghgirl17; 04-03-2011 at 06:28 AM..
Reason: typo
Thus far I'm noticing the rationale is coming in as I expected:
1.) Perceived (or actual) superior quality of public schools in the suburbs.
2.) Perceived (or actual) aura of safety and security in the suburbs.
3.) Larger lot sizes in the suburbs for a lower price point than the city.
4.) Some wish to be near to suburban employers.
5.) Lower taxes in the suburbs.
How can we Pittsburghers work on each of these?
Sticking to the original topic of "how can we lure people to move back inside city limits" the answer to the above comes down to money.
1.) Perceived (or actual) superior quality of public schools in the suburbs.
If a large sum of money was spent to improve the schools, that would draw a lot of people back. It would have to be serious improvement, however. IF schools had twice the academic performance or twice the number of extracurricular activities, that might draw families.
2.) Perceived (or actual) aura of safety and security in the suburbs.
Spend $$$ for more police officers and added security devices? I'm not sure that would work--it might backfire and make the city appear to be a police state. That's what LA did during the 1984 Olympics to attract people into the downtown areas and it worked, but I'm not sure it would work on a permanent basis.
3.) Larger lot sizes in the suburbs for a lower price point than the city.
This one you can't really change. You can try a campaign to change people's values but IMO that doesn't work all that well. It's like trying to convince gay people not to be gay. People want larger lots for a variety of reasons and they're gonna want what they want.
4.) Some wish to be near to suburban employers.
Give the companies $$$ to move back to the city.
5.) Lower taxes in the suburbs.
Tax incentives to any suburban resident who moves back into the city. It would have to be a big tax incentive.
To be honest, I don't think any of these ideas are really desirable, but that's about the only thing I can think of that would even conceivably work.
While crime can happen anywhere, the kinds of crime that happened while I was living in Shadyside just don't happen where I live now. I think there may have been 1 murder in my township- but it was a domestic dispute.
Of course, this is all purely anecdotal, but this is part of why I (a young professional with a family) do not have any desire to live in the city.
Shadyside isn't the "most upscale", but it is nice. Unfortunately it is right next to East Liberty and that is an issue for the druggies to come over to get some money for their habit. Shadyside is close enough. Look at the Apple Store that is constantly being broken into. Last time I was there they had a temporary door in place. Not doubt the find work of some East Liberty residents. Shadyside is on the front lines. One of the biggest reasons I want East Liberty to go upscale, so the area can be nicer.
I do want to point out the density of city vs. suburbs. You should look at crime per capita to determine real crime. Hard to say how the whole East Liberty region will play out, but I surely hope more and more bad eggs are forced to move out.
1.) Perceived (or actual) superior quality of public schools in the suburbs.
If a large sum of money was spent to improve the schools, that would draw a lot of people back. It would have to be serious improvement, however. IF schools had twice the academic performance or twice the number of extracurricular activities, that might draw families.
NO! Money spent on city schools isn't the real answer. It is the % of disadvantaged kids that is the issue. You cannot have 50% disadvantage kids and expect to throw money at the problem and it magically goes away. I think people in the education business are starting to realize that kids with home lives that include guns, drugs and no food or help to the kids are not going to make it in an educated society, so they are going to fall into drugs and follow mom and dad's way. I remember living on the corner of Lincoln Larimer, E. Lib and Highland Park and being stopped by a parent and his 8 year old kid asking me for a donation to his son's baseball team. I said, sure let me get my checkbook so I can write the check out to his team. Interestedly he said he can't take checks. When he left empty handed I just thought to myself, there is a lost kid forever. He is learning at 7 years old from daddy. Wow. I am sure he will be stealing by breaking in homes soon or he probably already is. Anyway, the percentage of disadvantaged kids has to be very low. Lets take a look at Kerr School. Homes in the district can run around $200k or $20K. People complain about the school because the percentage of disadvantaged kids bringing all test scores down, etc. So what is the percentage that can be overcome? 10%? 20%? I don't have that answer, but I do know if the percentage is extremely low, the district thrives. Yet another reason I want E. Liberty to go upscale. The city needs it.
I was just thinking how upsetting my post was to some and then I was thinking, it is only statistics and numbers. It has nothing to do with anything, but statistics. You can read into all this as much as you like, but the bottom line is, you cannot argue against math. Math is easy to look at because it shows the correct answers and the incorrect answers very easily. The only thing that can be argued in a logical sense are solutions to the problem. Seems math would once again be on my side and it says, relocation of the disadvantaged is the answer if you want an area to thrive. Nothing else seems to work.
In the past the relocation was from the city to the suburbs to get away from the people that felt stealing for drug habits and having kids to get a bigger check from the government was an okay way of life. People of like-minds that didn't want to be around that created places for kids to grow into productive people with an education by moving to suburbs. You cannot blame them. Even then they knew there was no answer except relocation. Now that a push is to move back to the city, people are crying, where do these poor people go that might no longer afford to live in parts of the city that are being transformed into nice places to live? Personally I think they need to be relocated to areas that do not impede the City of Pittsburgh's growth. They had their turn and look at what happened to places like E. Liberty and East Hills. Look at that East Hills shopping center. There used to be a Kaufmann's there. Wow. It is time to take the city back and make it a nice place to be. Enough is enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
