What is the "core" of the city? (Pittsburgh: live in, restaurants)

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I also think it's important to note that the neighborhoods are actually named in relation to their location from downtown. You have the West End, North Side, South Side, and East End, all named in relation to what side of downtown they are on, which seems to suggest to me that downtown is the core or center.

I'm not sure why you insist on rigidly applying a "one neighborhood" criteria to the term "core" or restricting it's size but to each his own. That Downtown has to be included in any definition of Pittsburgh's core seems to me self-evident.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I also think it's important to note that the neighborhoods are actually named in relation to their location from downtown. You have the West End, North Side, South Side, and East End, all named in relation to what side of downtown they are on, which seems to suggest to me that downtown is the core or center. For instance, Downtown isn't referred to as the West End of the East End, but that's how some people think of it.

Right, but these names were created when this wasn't even a discussion... downtown WAS the center back then and it wasn't really an argument since many of the other areas mentioned weren't built up yet. Things can always change.

[PreservationPioneer]

I just see this as people wanting to re-define the meaning of core, when it seems so clear to me that it means downtown. And my main argument is that development patterns in Pittsburgh have not necessarily followed a downtown/core/city center-outward approach.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by airwave09

So all of the redeveloping areas of the city that are connected to each other are the "core". I guess that's an easy way to do it because the remaining neighborhoods have much less economic clout, small deteriorating commercial areas if any at all, and are quite a bit farther away from downtown.

Well, I think you've seen redevelopment in those areas first because of their location and proximity to Downtown and Oakland.

For me it's almost a "feel" thing with regard to the "core" When I'm in one of these areas of the City does it feel like I'm in the city, is there activity, congestion, a certain vibe within the architecture. If your city neighborhood looks like a nearby borough or township it simply feels less "core" to me.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I just see this as people wanting to re-define the meaning of core, when it seems so clear to me that it means downtown. And my main argument is that development patterns in Pittsburgh have not necessarily followed a downtown/core/city center-outward approach.

Which is only true is you narrowly view the core of Pittsburgh as the CBD.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I just see this as people wanting to re-define the meaning of core, when it seems so clear to me that it means downtown. And my main argument is that development patterns in Pittsburgh have not necessarily followed a downtown/core/city center-outward approach.

Which is precisely the reason why we are having this discussion, is it not?

[SteelCityRising]

The neighborhoods in the city I'd include in the "core" definition:

Allegheny Center
Allegheny West
Bloomfield
Central North Side
Downtown
East Allegheny
East Liberty
Friendship
Garfield
Hill District
Lawrenceville (Namely Lower and Central)
Mexican War Streets
North Shore
Oakland
Polish Hill
Shadyside
South Shore/Station Square
South Side Flats
Squirrel Hill (North of I-376 and West of Shady Avenue)
Strip District
Troy Hill (Including Washington's Landing)
Uptown/Bluff/SoHo (What is the real name of this neighborhood?!)

[barneyg]

I understand your question but I don't think the answers are mutually exclusive. I see the Golden Triangle as the definite center of the city, but I'd go with Lobick's boundaries or maybe something a bit smaller for what constitutes the core. IMO it'd be useless to have a "core-outward" strategy for revitalization if the core is restricted to Downtown -- that strategy could then only include large-scale Market Square-type stuff, while a lot of what can be (and has been) done in Uptown, Lawrenceville, Deutschtown, all the way to Hazelwood... is on a smaller scale (i.e. anything smaller than a block). In my mind, regardless of how you slice it, neighborhoods like Oakland, Mexican War Streets, South Side, Lawrenceville are part of the core.. we can argue whether Highland Park, Squirrel Hill, Hazelwood are part of it, but I wouldn't understand a functional definition that would exclude everything but Downtown.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Lobick

Which is only true is you narrowly view the core of Pittsburgh as the CBD.

I don't think that is a narrow view. I think the CBD and the immediately surrounding neighborhoods are the definition of core, and to re-define core to include neighborhoods that are near the edges of the city is not really what core means. It would be better to say that revitalization in the city is dependent on other factors than the traditional downtown-outward approach.

It seems that any vital neighborhood is grouped into a "core" neighborhood group, and the declining neighborhoods are considered "not core," when core really has more to do with proximity to downtown than neighborhood vitality, in my opinion. For example, Carrick and Regent Square are both neighborhoods near the edge of the city, but Regent Square is somehow "core" and Carrick is somehow not.

[wpipkins]

To me, downtown is much more than the CBD. The urban center of the city would include East Liberty, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Oakland, Carson Street and the immediate North Side. Most of the regions cultural amentites can be found within this area. The East End is the most Urban and diverse section of the city and has easy access to parts of the city.