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.
EDIT--like I said before though, Cranberry SEEMS to be trying to move some of this in the right direction. No, it will never be the same as an older town (which I prefer), but I hope they're going in the right direction. If the rest of the state/area/country was "organized" the same way as Cranberry was at one point we'd all be screwed. We would have run out of space decades ago.
I suppose I just never understand the affinity for the cul-de-sac. You can have a Ryan or Maronda home of your very own---complete with vinyl siding, an oversized front-facing garage, a "bonus" room, a yard with grass you can stare at, and no shade trees in the vicinity---in a grid-shaped street network as well. The homes can be spaced out as far apart as they are now in Cranberry, and rear alleys can be built to give people the option for rear attached or detached garages for aesthetic preferences. Arborvitae or other similar plants are great for privacy. Having a grid-shaped (or at least a rough grid-shaped) street network reduces traffic congestion by providing people with alternate routes to take to move around. It is also a traffic calming measure in and of itself because people will likely have a four-way stop sign (or at least have to slow down) as they approach intersections whereas in most subdivisions in Cranberry you can literally fly down the residential streets at 40 miles per hour unobstructed if you so chose, barring speed humps. Having a grid-shaped pattern also makes it easier and more attractive for people to walk or bike to destinations.
I'm not as diametrically opposed to the notion of newer suburbs and exurbs in general as I am to the way they're being so inefficiently constructed. What purpose does the cul-de-sac serve, anyways, other than to add to the ambiance of exclusivity, privacy, and affluence?
It is true I am partially basing that on the fact I know parents with children in the schools in question, and they are happy with their schools. There is also measurable evidence to this effect, but given that we are discussing whether parents with children will be happy living in the City, I'd suggest that subjective experience of the parents is probably the most directly relevant issue.
In regards to suburbs where people can "Live, Play, Work", I can definitely point out my former community of Reston, Virginia as a prime example. Reston was about twice the size of Cranberry Township. It also had major employers, developed a "faux" town center in the 1990s in an attempt to give the community a central business district, and boasted about being "self-sustaining". The end result? Picture Cranberry Township in its current state with primary arteries that are twice as wide (ironically with greater traffic congestion, too, showcasing that widening roads doesn't necessarily mean a viable long-term solution to reducing congestion), a sterile town center that most people in the community drive to, and a dense tree canopy (one of the few things I miss) thrown in for good measure. Like Cranberry Township there was limited public transportation available to get to the primary host city (in their case DC). Reston sounded like it was going to "work" on paper, but by and large it still bears the same scars that many other suburbs bear. I lived there for over a year-and-a-half and still didn't feel like I was a member of any cohesive community atmosphere.
I'm not saying this is the fate of Cranberry Township if it continues its rapid growth; however, if places like Reston were consciously designed from inception to incorporate that "Live, Play, Work", mantra and fell short, then I worry about a community that already has 30,000 residents and hasn't yet begun to plan itself more efficiently.
Also, BrianTH, there's a big difference between people in the city bemoaning spending billions of dollars to fix places that intentionally developed irresponsibly over the past 30 years due to their own blissful ignorance or arrogance and people in the suburbs bemoaning spending billions of dollars to fix a city that in and of itself has very few, if any, planning gaffes with the built environment and instead has issues with urban decay, brownfields, questionable school quality, poverty, crime, etc. as a direct or indirect result of those aforementioned suburbs/exurbs draining the tax base and economic vitality out of the city proper.
So if Pittsburgh can't recover its residential tax base while simultaneously having sub-sustandard public schools, and if it is incredibly unlikely the city's public schools will EVER be able to compete with the reputation of the schools in Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, Fox Chapel, etc., then what, pray tell, is your solution to convince more people with children to move into the city?
Desegregation of schools was something that really hurt the city. Of course everyone will call me racist and whatever because some can't deal with real life, but it is a fact. Many parents demand good schools. If PPS had smaller schools that had geographic boundaries it may have done much better as far as keeping families in the city. That didn't happen.
Now the city does see the situation and they are trying magnet schools to try and separate kids again in a different way. I think it is a pretty good solution, but there is a hitch. Imagine you have a child and you live in the city. Your child is going to school next year. Your choice is move to a suburb and ensure your child's future OR you send you child to an elementary that is not as good, but exceptable and then postpone your decision about middle schools and high school. Most people move to the burbs because of this problem.
As much as I would like to have a solution, I don't. You can't geographically separate the schools anymore, because the race card would prevent it.
All anyone can do is provide for their kids the best they can. Less than 4 years ago I was living in the city. I now moved to a suburb because I have a child. Can you blame me... really? I am doing this for my child, which... is obviously very important to me. I do hope to move back to the city, but not now.
I don't think you can judge people for a natural feel to provide a nice childhood for their children. It is in many people's nature and not everyone can afford private schools. Plus some of the private schools are not as good as some of the public schools in the burbs.
It is true I am partially basing that on the fact I know parents with children in the schools in question, and they are happy with their schools. There is also measurable evidence to this effect, but given that we are discussing whether parents with children will be happy living in the City, I'd suggest that subjective experience of the parents is probably the most directly relevant issue.
Bottom line. Subjective. I know you will agree because this is a fact and cannot be argued against. What one parent wants may be completely different than another. What is exceptable to one may not be for another.
In regards to suburbs where people can "Live, Play, Work", I can definitely point out my former community of Reston, Virginia as a prime example.
I think we all understand the ghost of Reston is haunting this thread. But no one is claiming that transforming US development patterns can be done overnight--it happened over the course of decades, and it will take a similar period of time to fix. Again, though, there is no other choice--you can't fit 2.3 million people into the City.
Quote:
Also, BrianTH, there's a big difference between people in the city bemoaning spending billions of dollars to fix places that intentionally developed irresponsibly over the past 30 years due to their own blissful ignorance or arrogance and people in the suburbs bemoaning spending billions of dollars to fix a city that in and of itself has very few, if any, planning gaffes with the built environment and instead has issues with urban decay, brownfields, questionable school quality, poverty, crime, etc. as a direct or indirect result of those aforementioned suburbs/exurbs draining the tax base and economic vitality out of the city proper.
Yeah, that isn't how they see it. They blame governance in the City for the City's problems and they make the same argument you are making--because the City was poorly governed in the past, that absolves them of any need to care about the health of the City today.
And incidentally, although I think they are often overstating their case with respect to recent governance, it is certainly true that the City leaders in the past did some very stupid things that are still negatively affecting the City today: they destroyed neighborhoods with mass redevelopment projects, ran up legacy costs, and so on.
So again, you are encouraging an "every area for itself" attitude, which is extremely foolish for someone who cares about the City to be encouraging, because the City is high on the list of areas that would benefit if more people in the Metro realized that all these areas are actually mutually dependent on each other.
What one parent wants may be completely different than another. What is exceptable to one may not be for another.
That's fine. The issue is whether the City schools are an impediment to revitalization in the City. But for that purpose, the City schools don't have to appeal to every parent in the Metro. In fact they don't have to appeal to a majority of parents in the Metro. They actually just have to appeal to a small minority of parents in the Metro in order for them not to be a significant impediment to revitalization.
Desegregation of schools was something that really hurt the city. Of course everyone will call me racist and whatever because some can't deal with real life, but it is a fact.
I disagree, at least with my experience in Carrick. There were both whites and blacks who didn't give a sh*t about school and would rather get high, throw away the day and sleep, drop out, or beat the piss out of each other.
The problem with my high school was not the teachers (in fact I can safely say I've had teachers in high school that were better than my private university professors). The problem was the kids not caring and the administration treating all of us like wild animals. You know why Fox Chapel has a better high school? It's because the kids there aren't savages.
Also, are schools in the affluent suburban areas really "better"?
I don't know. All I have to go off of is test scores and parent reviews. Where do the best and brightest teachers go to teach? This is an honest question. I know suburban schools pay their teachers more but don't know if this means they are better teachers. Do I send my kid to Allderdice where they will probably get a decent, maybe great education. Or do I send them to a Mt. Lebanon where they will get a good, probably great, and maybe superior education? Or at least a better education in Seneca Valley (Cranberry).
The school system in our state is in dire need of some sort of reform, I'll agree. I don't how PPS can break out of the cycle. I think they are starting in the right direction but it will probably take years of improvement from within before they start to attract/retain middle/upper class families.
Edit: I'm a kid who spent years in a city/county school system in Florida so I guess I'm somewhat jaded. I was sent to a city middle school and while the education wasn't horrible, the atmosphere was. Out of control students were commonplace as well as fighting and bullying. Does it happen in suburban schools too? Aboslutely. But you definitely hear of these things more in city schools.
I don't want to just repeat prior discussions, but to sum up: the research shows there is a threshhold effect with disadvantaged students, such that you can demonstrably help disadvantaged students without harming advantaged students provided that you spread the disadvantaged students around and don't concentrate them too much in any one school.
Fox Chapel is actually a good example of this--it has more disadvantaged students than many other suburban districts, but is still one of the top school districts in the area. The schools I am referencing within the City are also examples along these lines. Most of the parents/kids I know count as advantaged, and they are happy with their City schools precisely because while the schools are serving both advantaged and disadvantaged kids, their kid personally is getting a good school experience.
There are limits to what the City can do in general right now because it really has too many disadvantaged students overall (although I suspect over time those numbers will shift). But it can still have many successful schools, and in fact it does (although not as many in the higher grades as it could and should).
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.
