Which neighborhood would you choose? (Pittsburgh, Stowe Township: condos, high school, living)

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The problem, though, is when there are many more suburban-lovers than urban-lovers then the city is ultimately going to fail. I can think of so many homes that have been torn down just since I've moved here last year, and all I can do is shake my head wondering what will become of all these vacant lots. Pittsburgh is "resizing" itself, which may not necessarily be a terrible thing; however, I don't want to see the era in which Pittsburgh has only 250,000 people while having numerous exurbs with populations flirting with 40,000-50,000. You know what that is? That's pretty much the future of Detroit. For God's sake Arlington, Texas, a suburb of Fort Worth, is currently much larger than Pittsburgh!

It does this area no good if nearly no families find Pittsburgh attractive while only hipsters (mostly single and underemployed), gays/lesbians (mostly DINKs), and people who want to be "ahead of the curve" (mostly DINKs) do.

I don't know if Pittsburgh will "fail", it'll just be in the same state it's in right now. As far as houses being torn down, keep in mind that this is a very old city (by US standards) and these houses weren't built to stand the test of time. Folks don't want to spend time/money/energy repairing them when they can plop down in a Miranda turn key and call it day. It's sad and screwed up in many ways, but it's true. Who has time to work on a house when they get home from work at 6 and go to bed at 10 so that they can do it again the next day?

I also don't think we'll reach Detroit levels of abandonment. The reason they failed is because their main employers dried up. That isn't the case here, we have plenty of employment to go around. Suburban living isn't a dying trend in America quite yet and I don't think it will be in our life times. Especially with the Culture Of Fear telling people that cities are filled with death and destruction at every turn. But that's another discussion all together.

Also, what is a DINK? Like a dominant twink or something?

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Once all these homes are razed there's no way to replace them, either.

Check out these houses the city is demolishing on Pittsburgh's North Side (WHY?!):


Discovering Historic Pittsburgh: City plans to demolish nine historic North Side homes

The demolitions on Boyle are particularly distressing!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The problem in this metro area is that MOST people never want to live in the city and prefer the suburbs. How is that going to help Pittsburgh reinforce its residential tax base?

As I have pointed out before, the City is tiny in geographic area compared to the rest of the Metro. In fact there is absolutely no way that a majority of the Metro today (which would be something like 1.2 million people) could actually fit in the City, at least not without having to level the whole thing and start over.

You have to accept that it is always going to be the case that most people in the Metro will live in the suburbs. It is the precise size of the minority that lives in the City that matters for the future of the City.

[greg42]

You should have seen this place in 1991. And I'm sure those who have been here longer would tell me I should have seen it in the 70s. The newbies all think this places is falling apart! I know it's the reverse because I've been living through it.

There are a whole bunch of details that make up the decade to decade population loss. But you want to ignore the details. That's fine for the purpose of the point I'm going to make here.

Which is this: if this is what you believe, that somehow the continued growth of the suburbs are going to kill the city, are you just going to sit there and WHINE about the suburbs drawing more people? What the hell will that achieve? The suburbs aren't going to close shop and not allow people to move there, so you need to focus on the other end, what is going to draw people into the city to live.

Now personally I don't buy into this at all, that the suburbs could kill the city. The suburbs are popular because of the city being close by. They will die too without the city. So it's in everyone's interest for the city to do well. But that alone won't make more people live in the urban environment. It's not what everyone wants.

And I don't believe the city needs a ton of help drawing people in. People are moving in, more residential units are being built, and when you have a city full of OLD people, the population doesn't rise quickly because old people die off.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Also, what is a DINK? Like a dominant twink or something?

DINK = Dual-Income and No Kids

A "dominant twink" would be me.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Also, what is a DINK? Like a dominant twink or something?

DINK is a term going back a couple decades = Dual Income No Kids. Not heard as much recently but certainly the households like that (like mine) are perhaps more common than ever.

[PreservationPioneer]

The problem with our city is that more than half of it is abandoned and sinking, and the people who move into the city and fix things up are concentrated into a few select neighborhoods, while the rest of the city is sinking.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Check out these houses the city is demolishing on Pittsburgh's North Side (WHY?!):


Discovering Historic Pittsburgh: City plans to demolish nine historic North Side homes

The demolitions on Boyle are particularly distressing!

More urban prairie within a historic neighborhood. If the city wants to demolish these properties, then let them also UPKEEP the resulting vacant lots. I can speak from personal experience here in Polish Hill that the majority of our urban prairie is owned by the city, and they do a horrible job maintaining most of it. I'd rather have vacant rowhomes lining my block than overgrown lots.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

But also remember we've been losing population by decade (according to the census) while at the same time the Cranberry's and Robinson's of the world have been exploding in popularity. So if we are gaining back folks it's by a trickle while the suburbs are gaining people by a tsunami.

To be a little more precise, some suburbs have been gaining population, but others have been losing population. Even ignoring the other data, the Census showed the same thing about the City: although some neighborhoods lost population, other neighborhoods gained population.

So if anything we might see a resurgence in city living here but it's going to be awhile.

Again, holding aside the other data, we know such a resurgence is already happening in some areas in the City. The City needs to build on those trends in those areas, while expanding those trends into new areas. Which is in fact happening.

But seriously, it is simply physically impossible for the City to ever compete with the growing parts of the suburbs when it comes to total population gains. If you are concerned about that issue--and that is a legitimate concern--you have to be focused not on stopping that growth, but rather on modifying it into patterns that are more economically and environmentally sustainable.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

The problem with our city is that more than half of it is abandoned and sinking, and the people who move into the city and fix things up are concentrated into a few select neighborhoods, while the rest of the city is sinking.

Right. People look at Regent Square, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Highland Park, Point Breeze, Friendship, the Central North Side, and a few other select pockets and think "Wow. This place is growing." Venture not far off the beaten path, though, and you have California-Kirkbride, Esplen, Sheraden, Fairywood, Homewood, Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, Larimer, Hazelwood, Beltzhoover, Allentown, Knoxville, Mt. Oliver, Carrick, Chateau, Fineview, Hill District, and even parts of stable working-class neighborhoods like Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Troy Hill, and Polish Hill, to name a few, that are in serious trouble in terms of abandonment. Couple that with Wilkinsburg, Swissvale, Braddock, North Braddock, Duquesne, Millvale, Etna, Sharpsburg, McKees Rocks, and other "threatened" nearby communities, and I don't foresee how the majority of our metro area's growth being concentrated in the newer outer-tier suburbs like the Strabanes, Cranberry, the Fayettes, Peters, Robinson, Murrysville, etc. is a positive.