What is the "core" of the city? (Liberty: organic, versus)

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

The definition of core is "the central part." (Dictionary.com)

OK, good. Now explain to me how on its face, that should only include the golden triangle. Most city centers encompass more than one neighborhood.

I've been thinking, all of downtown isn't created equal, could we not break it down further. The point is only a park, first-side is underdeveloped and on the periphery of downtown anyway, the scale of parts of the cultural district (specifically Penn) is different from most of Downtown, the convention center is for mostly non-residents, Grant street is dead after 5:15 so really the core is Stanwix to Smithfield between the Boulevard and Liberty.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Lobick

OK, good. Now explain to me how on its face, that should only include the golden triangle.

The core could also include the central neighborhoods surrounding downtown, but I've maintained that from the beginning.

Since we are talking about the core of the city, we can't really say that the city limits are the core unless we are talking about the county or the region, perhaps. The city limits are the map, and within that map we have to pick the core.

There can really only be one center. If we were looking for the core of the East End, then we could say Oakland or East Liberty, perhaps.

As Brian pointed out, redevelopment is radiating out from Downtown and Oakland, but does that mean Oakland is the core as well as downtown? Can there be two central parts of the city?

My main question when I posted this, besides where the core of the city was located, was whether or not Pittsburgh follows the pattern of revitalization radiating out from the core, and poverty being directed into edge city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs. If downtown is the core, then Pittsburgh has not followed this pattern. If downtown and Oakland are two separate cores, then yes it does follow this pattern. I think it would be less accurate to say that Pittsburgh has two cores than to say that revitalization radiates from more than one place than simply the core.

Regarding "doublespeak," I think the "East End is really the center" argument is full of it.

[UKyank]

I don't know the specific geographic layout of enough cities to make this anymore then a theory, but could the geography make what is considered the core to be unique for each city based on geography. For example most of Manhatten would be the core ending where the rivers are. London's traditional core is pretty sprawling east & west but not at all south because of the barrior of sorts the river makes.
Are there many city cores that span rivers? I can only think of Paris off the top of my head.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

The core could also include the central neighborhoods surrounding downtown, but I've maintained that from the beginning.

Since we are talking about the core of the city, we can't really say that the city limits are the core unless we are talking about the county or the region, perhaps. The city limits are the map, and within that map we have to pick the core.

There can really only be one center. If we were looking for the core of the East End, then we could say Oakland or East Liberty, perhaps.

As Brian pointed out, redevelopment is radiating out from Downtown and Oakland, but does that mean Oakland is the core as well as downtown? Can there be two central parts of the city?

My main question when I posted this, besides where the core of the city was located, was whether or not Pittsburgh follows the pattern of revitalization radiating out from the core, and poverty being directed into edge city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs. If downtown is the core, then Pittsburgh has not followed this pattern. If downtown and Oakland are two separate cores, then yes it does follow this pattern. I think it would be less accurate to say that Pittsburgh has two cores than to say that revitalization radiates from more than one place than simply the core.

Regarding "doublespeak," I think the "East End is really the center" argument is full of it.

No reason to further beat this to death. Obviously, my view of what can constitute a "core" is a more expansive one than yours. I fail to see why Downtown and Oakland and several other neighborhoods can't all be included in the same "core" but apparently this causes some kind of dissonance within you.

The distraction of the "East End" being labeled as such and thus being dispositive on it's face is silly (to borrow Curtis' phrase). That historically Pittsburgh began at the point is obvious, that names of places would derive from that fact is easily understood. To raise such a point as evidence suggests to me an inability to seriously consider opposing viewpoints on this subject.

That Downtown should be included in any definition of a "core" has not been debated.

To me its hard to conceive of driving down Fifth or Forbes in Oakland and not considering myself comfortably within the heart of the city, but to each his own.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Pittsburgh is unique from many resurging major American cities in that it has numerous secondary cores in addition to Downtown, which, as noted, is the primary epicenter for the entire region. Oakland is a secondary core and radiates its effects to surrounding neighborhoods. East Liberty is an emerging secondary core. To a lesser extent one can argue that the Central North Side is an emerging "core" for the North Side of the city, and that the South Side Flats are an emerging "core" for the South Side. Brookline has potential to be an emerging "core" for the city's South Hills given its rather large and improving business district.

I'm not familiar enough with the suburbs to proclaim myself as an expert, but I'd presume that the Washington Road corridor through Downtown Mt. Lebanon can be viewed as the "core" of the South Hills suburbs, perhaps the area around Ross Park Mall is the "core" of the North Hills, and Monroeville is the "core" of the East Hills. I'm uncertain about the "core" for the West End of the city and suburbs---Robinson Township? Moon Township? McKees Rocks?

I agree with this. As for the West Hills, it's probably a combination of the developed areas of Robinson and Moon. One could also argue that Cranberry is the core of Pittsburgh's northern exurbs.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I don't know the specific geographic layout of enough cities to make this anymore then a theory, but could the geography make what is considered the core to be unique for each city based on geography. For example most of Manhatten would be the core ending where the rivers are. London's traditional core is pretty sprawling east & west but not at all south because of the barrior of sorts the river makes.
Are there many city cores that span rivers? I can only think of Paris off the top of my head.

I do think there is still a lot to this despite what our modern sensibilities try a tell us about the ease of crossing rivers. I do think the lack of a physical boundary to the east is significant to this discussion and to development patterns. Boston and SF immediately come to mind as city centers that are hemmed in and lopsided from the central business district.

To stretch the Manhattan analogy a little, nobody would suggest that the financial district alone is the core of NYC.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Can there be two central parts of the city?

There certainly can be two CBDs, because that is just the fact of the situation.

I don't see why you need two "central parts". If you are willing to add non-CBD neighborhoods around Downtown, you can add non-CBD neighborhoods around Oakland, and then these two zones around Downtown and Oakland can merge into a single "central part" (or "core area") with two CBDs within it.

Generally, language should serve the purpose of accurately describing the situation. So if your choice of terms is making it harder to accurately describe the role Oakland plays in Pittsburgh, then maybe you need new terms.

My main question when I posted this, besides where the core of the city was located, was whether or not Pittsburgh follows the pattern of revitalization radiating out from the core, and poverty being directed into edge city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs.

This is what I mean about not insisting on a rigid terminology at the cost of accurately describing a situation.

Oakland being a CBD means it contains a concentration of high-paying jobs and regional amenities. Accordingly, redevelopment radiating out from Oakland and poverty being pushed farther out from Oakland raises the same sorts of issues as with any such CBD-centric redevelopment pattern. Of course the same sort of pattern is also going on with Downtown, but you shouldn't let the fact that there are two such overlapping patterns in Pittsburgh lead you to the conclusion that somehow something radically different is going on with our redevelopment patterns. It is just a variation on that same theme, with the variation between dictated by the "binary star" relationship of Downtown and Oakland.

[PreservationPioneer]

I was spending some time thinking about why I was so insistent that downtown (not including Oakland) was the core, and why adding Oakland into the core area was not working for me. In my mind, downtown represents the core because it is the original city, and development originally radiated out from it. I see Oakland as a suburb, and as such it is hard for me to view it as the true core. Obviously, it is not a suburb now, but the fact that it was built up as one makes me think of it as an extension of the city rather than the center.

At any rate, I agree with Brian's post and that maybe we need new terms.

[BrianTH]

It is true that most of the East End started off as suburbs, although it was in fact largely annexed in the late 1860s and early 1870s--well-before the North Side, of course (Allegheny held off until 1907).

The story of Oakland is even stranger than that, however. It was more or less just another East End residential neighborhood until local leaders decided to transform it into a new civic center for the City. That "City Beautiful" effort in Oakland (starting roughly in the mid-1890s) completely transformed it by the 1920s.

Again, I don't really want to get bogged down in semantics, but that deliberate transformation of Oakland is what led to it being the "companion star" to Downtown today, in a way that no other neighborhood in Pittsburgh can claim.

[BrianTH]

By the way, this 1872 map (so right after annexation of the East End) is pretty interesting to contemplate:

maps:*76v01p10*1

As of that time, Oakland and Squirrel Hill were not yet very developed. But you can see that development had already been spreading out from the stations along the Pennsylvania RR main line (in fact those stations are prominently marked on that map).

I don't know what that means as far as terms like "core" are concerned, but it demonstrates that the railroad (which came through in the 1850s) immediately anchored development in the East End. And in that sense the East Busway corridor (which follows the same route, with some of the same stations) constitutes yet another long-standing focus of development, with East Liberty at its heart.