question to those anti-suburbs people... (Pittsburgh, York: squatters, houses, neighborhood)

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

The idea that the suburbs are exploding while the city is declining in population is untrue. Sure, there are specific suburban areas that are booming but you'll find the same anywhere. As a whole, the population of the Pittsburgh metro is not exploding. The city population trends seem to have bottomed out and may be on the upswing as well.

How exactly is this untrue? Cranberry, as well as Peters, Robinson, Murrysville, ect. have shown huge increases in population since 1980. Pittsburgh has literally lost hundreds of thousands in that same time period. This is a fact that can't be denied out of existence.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

Some of us just want our space. I am not in my "final" location in the burbs but I will get there eventually. I really want to buy an existing house that has 10+ acres that go with it. I hate unplanned "sprawl" just as much as the next person but, with a family, neither myself or my wife want to live in the crowded conditions or high taxed areas currently provided within city limits. School quality is also a HUGE concern. Additionally, I live in one suburb in Westmoreland Co. and commute to work in a suburb in Allegheny Co. so it makes no sense for me to move within the city limits. Our recreation is 90% outside of the city. The 20-30 min. drive to the zoo, K-wood, Children's museum, Science Center, Carnegie museum, Aviary or the stadiums is not difficult at all for us to do when we decide to do it. For other people, living within the city makes sense. For me, not so much.

As an outdoorsman, I like having the space to store my boat and I am grateful I can pick up my bow and head out into the woods for an evening hunt right down the road. I couldn't do that in the city. Not to mention, I would be taking a 4-5% "pay cut" due to increased taxes if I were to live in a similar sized house within PGH city limits.

With close to a million hunters and probably triple that in fisherman in PA, I bet the majority of them feel exactly the same as me.

So you want 10+ acres? That is essentially rural living, which is fine. Just don't expect to get that in Allegheny county. And really there is a different place for all types of development, but I would go so far to say that you should really be looking outside Allegheny county and at a decent distance from surrounding urban areas if you want that much property.

Really though, no one here has an issue with someone that has similar preferences to you.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

BrianTH lectures me about how Cranberry Township's astronomical growth in all sectors is a positive for the city because, somehow, people moving out of Pittsburgh to be nearer to jobs in Cranberry (I know people who have done this) doesn't detrimentally impact the city's tax base, but I don't quite see it that way.

Of course that in no way resembles what I have said on this subject, but if you didn't get it the first five times, there is no point in me trying yet again.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

The idea that the suburbs are exploding while the city is declining in population is untrue.

Correct. I've posted this map several times before: blue is areas that increased in population since 2000, red is areas that decreased in population. The City has many areas that increases, and the suburbs have many areas that decreased:

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by airwave09

How exactly is this untrue? Cranberry, as well as Peters, Robinson, Murrysville, ect. have shown huge increases in population since 1980. Pittsburgh has literally lost hundreds of thousands in that same time period. This is a fact that can't be denied out of existence.

I'm not interested in population trends from 1980 onward. What the 2000 and 2010 census shows us is that population decline in the city looks to be leveling out. And the metro population over the same period as a whole (not looking at specific hot spots because they will always exist) has not seen a dramatic jump. So, I'd infer that many of these suburbanites are either coming in from outside of the region or moving from other suburbs.

I guess I scratch my head over the whole debate. From the data we have now, it appears as if both the city and the surrounding suburbs will see population growth going forward. So what is the big problem? Id prefer moderate, sustainable city growth over a rush of new residents.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by airwave09

How exactly is this untrue? Cranberry, as well as Peters, Robinson, Murrysville, ect. have shown huge increases in population since 1980. Pittsburgh has literally lost hundreds of thousands in that same time period. This is a fact that can't be denied out of existence.

I think it depends on the time period you choose to look at. You're looking at 30+ years so yes, you're correct, but this doesn't necessarily reflect what is currently taking place.

My belief is that we've recently undergone a tipping point in this regard. I suspect that over the last five years you would see different results.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

I don't see the problem with spaced out development and large lots. I don't see the harm if someone wants to live on a half acre with some room to breathe.

One problem is that such development patterns are relatively expensive in various ways, and through a combination of public policies developers and buyers have been shielded from paying the full costs of such housing.

Another problem is that alternative forms of development have been disfavored, and often outright prohibited, such that some people are effectively being forced into such housing due to an artificial lack of alternatives.

Personally, if there was truly a level playing field, I don't anticipate I would be particularly concerned about people choosing that sort of housing. But I also anticipate considerably fewer people would make that choice, since a level playing field would mean the costs of such housing would be higher and the availability lower, and meanwhile the availability of the alternatives would be higher and the costs lower.

[gg]

Originally Posted by rugerjitsu

since moving from Texas to the Pittsburgh area, i've noticed that there are groups of people here that dislike the suburban growth, or "sprawl"...

i get it to some extent, but here's my question...

suppose we stopped with the sprawl, and EVERYONE moved to the city...would that not be a disaster??

please don't flame me, it's an honest thought I had the other day while driving home to the suburbs after work...

I think there are ranges of sprawl. Cranberry to me is really far away and I hated it, but as it grows to the point it is now, I have to slowly change my thoughts on Cranberry. It has its own industries and is doing well as a self standing place separate from Pittsburgh. I think it is kind of sad to think people drive as far as Cranberry to Pittsburgh to commute everyday and that was my biggest dislike. All this was created by a very large road in and out of Pittsburgh so sprawl could really develop wildly in that region.

I fully understand why people want to get out of the city. There is so much crime and poverty throughout the city and many people just don't want to live around it. Sure you can live in a nice part of the city, but you are going to have to pay and then of course the massive taxes for the home as well as the income. Not cheap.

Cranberry is doing great! Can't really argue against it. It is crushing Pittsburgh's growth in every way.

[the-writer-guy]

no, it would not be a disaster at all, simply the cities would grow to accomadate the newer people. Most "anti-sprawl" people at least such as myself, are not opposed to the "suburbs" that are small scale and walkable, that are within walking distance of shops, schools and public transportation, and are close to a more densly populated areas. What most of us are opposed to is the huge sub-urban tracts that dont allow walking anywhere, where you MUST own a car, and that take huge tax dollars that could be put to better use to pay for ever expanding roads, and keep the us addicted to foreign oil. We need neighboorhoods, not subdivisions. And communities, not play dates. - just a thought!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

Some of us just want our space.

Again, I am fine with that, as long as you are willing to pay the full price associated with your preference, and don't prohibit other people from choosing the alternatives.

School quality is also a HUGE concern.

As an aside, there is no fundamental reason for these issues to be tied to school quality.