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.
Just to piggy back - One has to also understand that not every corner of Downtown is going to be "Bustling, Thriving" @ night. I expect the heavy office areas to remain pretty much sleepers after 6....i.e Grant Street, 7th Av to the Blvd of Allies above Smithfield. It's pretty much setting up for Below Smithfield to contain the after 6pm/Weekend activity
I agree, and I have this vision (borrowed in part from the Downtown Partnership) of a few different non-working-hours districts emerging. The Cultural District and Market Square are already well-established, and I could see one or two such districts emerging in First Side eventually, fueled by a combination of growth at Point Park University and in general more residential on the Mon side of Downtown. Such First Side districts could also get a boost if they ever do more development in the South Shore.
A lot of her wishes are the same as what we've been spouting out right here.
I love many of the alleys Downtown--in some it is like looking back in time. So I think that is a great idea to try to get more value out of the alleys specifically.
While I hope nothing but the best for the downtown golden triangle area, some people have an unhealthy obsession with that specific area. There is nothing wrong with people choosing to go out to their local city neighborhood establishments to socialize rather then choosing to stay or go downtown to do so.
I don't see it as an either/or proposition. A healthy Downtown will be useful for several reasons. It will help Downtown employers attract high-value employees, particularly newcomers to the region. It will be a logical base for visitors to the region, which feeds into it being a general marketing tool for the region. And more people living there will help improve the overall efficiency of the region (including in terms of energy, health, the environment, transportation, and so on).
But of course at the end of the day, even with the most optimistic scenarios, no more than a small fraction of people in the region can actually live Downtown, nor would it be good if that was the only place for people to visit or have fun. So while I value the progress Downtown is making as a visit-live-and-play neighborhood, I also value our existing thriving neighborhoods, and in fact I hope and expect that many other core neighborhoods will be revitalizing at the same time as Downtown.
I do not understand the obsession with CBD nightlife and retail. Most CBDs in the US empty out after working hours. (e.g. LA) Regardless, Pittsburgh does have vibrant nightlife in various urban neighborhoods. As for the CBD, it packs in employees. Few CBDs in the Rust Belt can claim the same. Pittsburgh's job density is brilliant. I don't see a problem.
I sort of answered this in another post above, but I would just note that I think doing better than most CBDs in the US when it comes to residential density and non-working-hour amenities is a worthy goal. This isn't to deny that Downtown is already a success as a jobs center, and I wouldn't want to take away from that. But Downtown has the capacity to do both.
Incidentally, I tend to think of NYC's Financial District ("FiDi") as a model (others, like Central City in Philly, work equally well--I just happen to think of NYC first). Before the 1990s, the FiDi was also pretty desolate outside work hours, but in the last couple decades it has gone through a similar process of residential conversions and such. In the 2000s specifically its population count really took off, and it has even started to attract some families:
All that has come along with more amenities (restaurants, tourist attractions, and so on). But the FiDi still gets its huge daytime surge . . . it has just combined that with this new residential/24-hour neighborhood layered on top.
Of course part of the story behind the FiDi, captured in that article, is that it was relatively affordable (I stress relatively) for Manhattan. But in a broad sense that is Pittsburgh's pitch to young professionals these days--urban living that is relatively affordable. And that is part of why I see Downtown as an important (but not exclusively important) area for attracting such migrants to the region.
I sort of answered this in another post above, but I would just note that I think doing better than most CBDs in the US when it comes to residential density and non-working-hour amenities is a worthy goal. This isn't to deny that Downtown is already a success as a jobs center, and I wouldn't want to take away from that. But Downtown has the capacity to do both.
Incidentally, I tend to think of NYC's Financial District ("FiDi") as a model (others, like Central City in Philly, work equally well--I just happen to think of NYC first). Before the 1990s, the FiDi was also pretty desolate outside work hours, but in the last couple decades it has gone through a similar process of residential conversions and such. In the 2000s specifically its population count really took off, and it has even started to attract some families:
All that has come along with more amenities (restaurants, tourist attractions, and so on). But the FiDi still gets its huge daytime surge . . . it has just combined that with this new residential/24-hour neighborhood layered on top.
Of course part of the story behind the FiDi, captured in that article, is that it was relatively affordable (I stress relatively) for Manhattan. But in a broad sense that is Pittsburgh's pitch to young professionals these days--urban living that is relatively affordable. And that is part of why I see Downtown as an important (but not exclusively important) area for attracting such migrants to the region.
The "so what?" question keeps running through my head. Having a vibrant nightlife in the CBD strikes me as only a civic pride issue. Wouldn't it be cool if ...
I certainly don't think more downtown nightlife is a bad thing. This isn't a zero sum game with other city neighborhoods. But is it necessary? Important? No.
The "so what?" question keeps running through my head. Having a vibrant nightlife in the CBD strikes me as only a civic pride issue. Wouldn't it be cool if ...
That "so what?" is why I started that post by referring to a prior post. But to repeat, the concrete uses I foresee as Downtown becomes a more vibrant visit/play/live neighborhood are:
(1) "It will help Downtown employers attract high-value employees, particularly newcomers to the region."
(2) "It will be a logical base for visitors to the region, which feeds into it being a general marketing tool for the region."
(3) "And more people living there will help improve the overall efficiency of the region (including in terms of energy, health, the environment, transportation, and so on)."
That's not just a "civic pride" argument.
Quote:
But is it necessary? Important? No.
I'd give two different answers to those two questions--no to the first (these developments are not "necessary" in any strict sense), yes to the second (these developments are important). Although rather than "important", I might use a term like "very helpful".
The "so what?" question keeps running through my head. Having a vibrant nightlife in the CBD strikes me as only a civic pride issue. Wouldn't it be cool if ...
I certainly don't think more downtown nightlife is a bad thing. This isn't a zero sum game with other city neighborhoods. But is it necessary? Important? No.
Maybe so... but I think it largely depends on what your definition of "civic pride" is and whether or not that definition allows for the inclusion of any tangible benefits.
I think that perhaps the existence of downtown nightlife is more important due to Pittsburgh's geography. For better or worse most visitors to the City spend there time downtown, whether they be business people or tourists or even Western Pennsylvanian's who rarely venture in. Our neighborhoods take time to discover and explore, some more than others. To the degree that a CBD that is devoid of nightlife reinforces any preconceptions they might have concerning the relative health /vitality of Pittsburgh going forward and its desirability as a place to be, a disservice is done. Trying to remember back to my days as a newly minted freshman at CMU who rarely ventured outside of Oakland, I can remember being told about and observing a moribund downtown after 6pm and I can tell you that it was not a meaningless factor in forming my initial impressions of the City. That's the negative spin. The positive spin is that vibrant city centers are a blast to be in, at least for me, and with so few cities having the potential of Pittsburgh's CBD, it is a wasted oppotunity to not properly cultivate the vibe and then exploit it.
By the way, it might be useful for me to explain why Downtown is uniquely well-situated to serve those purposes. The reasons are basically threefold:
(1) It is already the center of our transportation network;
(2) It is already the densest and largest employment cluster in the region;
(3) And there is already a large collection of regionally-important amenities in and immediately around Downtown.
By those measures, the only other neighborhood that is similar is Oakland, and it still falls well short of Downtown on all three counts.
Again, this is not an argument for why developing Downtown as a visit/play/live neighborhood should be done to the exclusion of other neighborhoods, nor even why such developments are "necessary". But it explains why such developments are "important" (or, as I would prefer, "very helpful").
That "so what?" is why I started that post by referring to a prior post. But to repeat, the concrete uses I foresee as Downtown becomes a more vibrant visit/play/live neighborhood are:
(1) "It will help Downtown employers attract high-value employees, particularly newcomers to the region."
(2) "It will be a logical base for visitors to the region, which feeds into it being a general marketing tool for the region."
(3) "And more people living there will help improve the overall efficiency of the region (including in terms of energy, health, the environment, transportation, and so on)."
1) Pittsburgh doesn't have a problem attracting high-value employees. The region doesn't need a vibrant CBD nightlife to accomplish this.
2) To some extent, I can see the value regarding visitors. You stay downtown, go to a convention, and enjoy nightlife amenities all in the CBD. The nightlife adds to the overall experience and visitors then convey to their network how wonderful Pittsburgh is. Or, Pittsburgh has better CBD connectivity with established nightlife neighborhoods such as the South Side and even the Strip District. The tunnel to nowhere might help in that regard.
3) More people living anywhere inside city limits will help improve the efficiency of the region. I see no need to fetishize the CBD on this issue.
1) Pittsburgh doesn't have a problem attracting high-value employees. The region doesn't need a vibrant CBD nightlife to accomplish this.
Again, I would agree "need" is too strong a word.
On the other hand, I would disagree there is no good that can be done in this area. It is only recently that net migration to the region has turned positive, and very likely at least some of that trend is being driven by Pittsburgh's recent relatively favorable labor markets, a condition that may not last forever. To help solidify these trends, I think it would be useful to make it easier and more attractive for young professionals to move to Pittsburgh from outside the region and work, among other places, Downtown. Being able to offer an affordable walking commute (a walking commute is nice in general, and in particular for newcomers to the City) in a relatively vibrant Downtown would be useful toward that end.
In other words, I see Downtown in the future as something of a "gateway" neighborhood. Eventually I would expect many of these newcomers to move out to various other neighborhoods, particularly as they start families. But having Downtown, with all its employers, also be a very convenient place to start out in Pittsburgh would be helpful.
Quote:
2) To some extent, I can see the value regarding visitors. . . . Or, Pittsburgh has better CBD connectivity with established nightlife neighborhoods such as the South Side and even the Strip District.
Fortunately these are not mutually exclusive ideas (a better visit/play CBD AND better connectivity between the CBD and other established neighborhoods).
Quote:
3) More people living anywhere inside city limits will help improve the efficiency of the region. I see no need to fetishize the CBD on this issue.
Of course it isn't a "fetish". As I noted in a followup post, Downtown is uniquely situated in that it is already the center of our transportation network, already the densest and largest employment center in the region, and already proximate to a large collection of regionally-important amenities. More residents Downtown will therefore tend to have the highest marginal impact on our overall efficiency.
Again, I fully acknowledge that not everyone can or will live Downtown, so in no respect should this be taken as suggesting we should neglect developing other residential neighborhoods in the core area. So it is absolutely true all such developments can help improve our regional efficiency, but it is also true that more residents Downtown specifically would significantly help--probably more so, resident for resident, than any other place.
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.
