The Official Cranberry Township Thread (Pittsburgh, Lebanon: home, top school, university)

[trlstreet]

Diversity is great but its not anywhere near the top of my list when it comes to looking for a place to live. Things like crime/safety, good schools, access to recreational activities, walkable neighborhoods, ease of commute all come before diversity. If I am comparing two great neighborhoods that are identical and diversity is the only difference then I may well choose the more diverse town. To sacrifice other important qualities for the sake of diversity seems foolish to me. But everyone has their own list of priorities.

Also, there is a lot of diversity outside of the city as well. Just because a school district doesn't have a 50/50 racial mix doesn't mean its not diverse. Schools like Mt. Lebanon are diverse. And raising culturally aware children is as much about good parenting as it is about sending them to a diverse school. I was raised in a lily-white district in suburban Lancaster County but turned out OK because I had great parents.

SCR, you have not yet addressed the issue of schools in this thread, I'd like to hear your opinion on it. I know its a chicken/egg type of situation without a lot of great solutions. Should families like mine suck it up and stick with city schools so that they may improve down the road? I don't agree with this "guinea pig" approach.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The District of Columbia is growing in population, along with the majority of its inner suburbs and pretty much all of its outer-ring suburbs and exurbs. Pittsburgh is not growing, according to the ONLY statistical data available to us as of current.

As an aside, the ACS is statistical data, and it says the City population is growing. More below.

But anyway, recently the Pittsburgh Metro as a whole has been losing population, and the City of Pittsburgh has also been losing population. In other areas, both the metro and the central city have been gaining population. From this, you conclude that growth in other parts of the Pittsburgh Metro is bad for growth in the City?

Surely you see why that is flying in the face of the available evidence. Based on what we know from the experience of other metro areas, if you care about the City of Pittsburgh's future population, you need to be encouraging, not discouraging, overall growth in the Metro, because that is what increases demand for working and living in the central city as well.

Oh well. If you just can't wrap your head around the idea that the City and its suburbs are mutually dependent on each other for growth and prosperity, there is nothing more to say. But that's why almost no one is agreeing with you--not because we are "offended", but because we have observed the way the world works and think you don't understand what would be good for the City.

You have this notion in your head that Pittsburgh's city proper started growing again around 2007, yet you have yet to provide us with anything to reinforce that other than anecdotal evidence.

It isn't really relevant, but this statement is false. I have been noting what the American Community Survey is suggesting. The ACS isn't "anecdotal"--it is a survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Because it is a survey it comes with sampling error, but it is still data.

I've presented ACS data here many times in the past. But to summarize, the ACS had the City population at

2005 284,366
2006 297,061
2007 290,918
2008 297,187
2009 311,640

Fit a trend to that data using standard statistical tools, and it will obviously be an upward trend. Conclusive? No. But anecdotal? Also no.

The day that you can show me that Pittsburgh is GROWING again in terms of population will be the day I stop kvetching so much about suburbs like Cranberry draining economic vitality away from their host cities.

To be clear, I don't care what you do. I just think you don't understand what would be good for the City, and I am saying as much.

You keep saying, to paraphrase, "we can't fit everyone who is moving here into the city". I beg to differ.

You can "beg to differ" all you want, but it is a question of land area, not your personal opinion. What you should be seeking is not for all the growth in the area to happen in the City, but rather a decent percentage of the growth in the area to happen in the City.

But I guess if you adopted that view, you'd have to give up all this City versus Suburbs nonsense. So you deny physical realities, rather than give up your pet peeve.

[BrianTH]

By the way, a lot of the historic problems with central cities have already been greatly moderated, both in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Crime rates in particular are way, way down. Schools are still problematic, but in Pittsburgh there are a lot of good schools in the lower grades, and a couple good high schools with efforts underway to develop a few more.

Of course city living isn't going to be for everyone. But Pittsburgh is really on the same track as most other older central cities in the U.S., just at a substantial lag due to the steel bust. And that means that the biggest single problem the City is likely to have in the future is that it will become relatively expensive, basically because there will be more demand than supply for that sort of lifestyle.

All of which is why we should really be worrying less about persuading people to like cities--they are already persuading themselves--and more worried about not restricting our development of dense, walkable, transit-oriented areas to the City alone. Because the City isn't going to be big enough--really, it won't.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

All of which is why we should really be worrying less about persuading people to like cities--they are already persuading themselves--and more worried about not restricting our development of dense, walkable, transit-oriented areas to the City alone. Because the City isn't going to be big enough--really, it won't.

Definitely. You wouldn't see as many complaints about places like Cranberry if there were more sidewalks, a centralized business district, a few stores a little closer to houses, roads that made sense, etc. And if people say those are bad ideas and they like it the way it is . . . well, they're just being stubborn at that point.

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.

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Schools are still problematic, but in Pittsburgh there are a lot of good schools in the lower grades, and a couple good high schools with efforts underway to develop a few more.

The word "good" is subjective.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Definitely. You wouldn't see as many complaints about places like Cranberry if there were more sidewalks, a centralized business district, a few stores a little closer to houses, roads that made sense, etc. And if people say those are bad ideas and they like it the way it is . . . well, they're just being stubborn at that point.

Why wasn't Cranberry Township ORIGINALLY planned with bike lanes, sidewalks, a grid-shaped street network to reduce congestion by giving people plenty of alternate routes instead of funneling them all onto one or two "collector" roads, a centralized business district, walkability, etc.? How much will it cost to retrofit Cranberry Township to conform to that vision? I know Tysons Corner in Virginia is currently being retrofitted in an attempt to salvage it as some sort of meaningful, walkable, and sustainable "city center" of sorts, and it will now cost taxpayers BILLIONS to fix that urban planning gaffe. I suppose I'm just not thrilled with the prospect of spending billions of our tax dollars to retrofit Cranberry Township also just because the municipality was so short-sighted when it began to grow haphazardly.

I'm all for advocating growth in the suburbs IF that growth is "smart growth"; however, what people like BrianTH are going to have to accept is that very little, if any, of the growth in places like Cranberry Township appears to be "smart growth". Instead we have 30,000 people who all hop into their SUVs to drive to the Applebee's around the corner from their cul-de-sac because they can't walk there. I personally don't see how that can be "fixed", either, without large-scale demolition and reconstruction. I don't advocate MORE people moving to places like Cranberry Township until places like Cranberry Township can demonstrate that they are planning ahead to EFFICIENTLY and SUSTAINABLY accommodate them. Since this is Western Pennsylvania I don't foresee this happening, which is why I'm irritated.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

like I said before though, Cranberry SEEMS to be trying to move some of this in the right direction.

Smart suburbs all across the country can see what is coming, and are taking steps to change their development patterns accordingly. I certainly hope Cranberry succeeds, and again I think it is important to note they at least start out as a place where people both live and work--that is helpful.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

The word "good" is subjective.

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?

I suppose I don't like being told by everyone "fix the schools, and people will come back" when I know firsthand short of hiring Michelle Rhee to drastically overhaul the system while simultaneously being even MORE patient to see results that simply won't be happening anytime soon, if ever.

Also, are schools in the affluent suburban areas really "better"? I always wonder why people can't see that the correlation between suburban school districts and higher standardized test scores stems directly from the fact that these suburban schools have a denser concentration of children who are derived from affluent families---families who pressure their children more to excel academically and who have the fiduciary resources at their disposal to ensure that their children are successful in school. If you picked up a child from Mt. Lebanon who already had parents who demanded she or he prioritize their academic success above all else and plopped them down into Allerdice High School in Squirrel Hill, would they be worse off because of it? I personally went to a public school district that was ranked and rated horribly, yet most of my friends and I went on to complete college, didn't have any run-ins with the law, and are now productive members of society. Therefore, I'm not thoroughly convinced the public school system in Pittsburgh necessarily IS "broken".

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Why wasn't Cranberry Township ORIGINALLY planned with bike lanes, sidewalks, a grid-shaped street network to reduce congestion by giving people plenty of alternate routes instead of funneling them all onto one or two "collector" roads, a centralized business district, walkability, etc.?

Poor planning, less expensive infrastructure (no sidewalks) and cheap energy at the time of planning were the reasons. Now the place is a strip mall/non walking area. It is a shame they didn't plan as well as some of the old places like Greensburg, Butler, Franklin and many other nice towns. There are lots of people that wouldn't walk no matter what though. Maybe we like to, but I think we are in the minority.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I suppose I'm just not thrilled with the prospect of spending billions of our tax dollars to retrofit Cranberry Township also just because the municipality was so short-sighted when it began to grow haphazardly.

Note this is the exact same attitude as the people who benefit from the City but don't want to contribute in any way to helping the City recover from its own past mistakes.

You may want to think about whether encouraging all-out war between the City and the suburbs is such a good idea when the people in the suburbs outnumber the people in the City about 6 to 1.

however, what people like BrianTH are going to have to accept is that very little, if any, of the growth in places like Cranberry Township appears to be "smart growth".

Accepted. I have in no way implied I think the current development patterns in the Pittsburgh suburbs are acceptable, and over and over again the point I have been making is that precise issue is what we should be focusing on--not trying to end growth in the suburbs, but rather changing the way in which they are being developed to put them on a healthier and more sustainable path.

I personally don't see how that can be "fixed", either, without large-scale demolition and reconstruction.

Again, that is exactly what they believe about the City--just level it all and start over. 6 to 1.

It isn't going to be easy "retrofitting" the suburbs, but again, there really is no choice. 2.3 million people aren't going to fit in the City, and I can guarantee that you personally would hate it if they tried.