Best Neiborhood (Oliver, Bloomfield, Oakland: to live in, restaurant, shop)

[ferrarisnowday]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Go there yourself and check it out please. We drive/bike through the area fairly often. Out of all the commercial zones I frequent, it's most similar to Garfield - except Garfield has some great galleries and other businesses now. East Ohio has the Priory. Most of the "gentrified" businesses are off of East Ohio, in the neighborhood.

Then you're misusing the term gentrification. It means the gentry (upper-middle class, more or less) take over a neighborhood. There's a pretty set progression too.

Stage 1: Either artists (looking for cheap housing so they don't need to get day jobs) or gay men (who want nice houses cheap, have plenty of time to fix them up, and don't give a crap about local schools).

Stage 2: Young hip people more generally, which trends into...

Stage 3: Yuppies.

South Side has clearly stepped into Stage 3 now. My wife's old friends have pretty much left, their bars have been taken over by meathead brahs, and all the galleries are long since gone. It's increasingly a place for Google employees and people with CMU-related startup jobs.

Lawrenceville isn't as far along quite yet. As I said, don't just look at the LOLA ****. Unlike South Side, there's still a fair amount of blight, and a huge amount of unrestored housing, once you get off Butler Street. We might be where South Side is now in another 10 years, but I don't think the exact character of the neighborhood will be copied.

Hmmm, I suppose you're right about the term gentrification. I guess I applied some extra connotation to the term for some reason.

It's not like I hang out on E. Ohio on a weekly basis, but I'm over there a decent bit. There's more than just the Priory on E. Ohio itself; I personally go to Bistro Soul, Rita's, Pickles & Rite Aid. For what's basically a 2 block area, that's pretty decent. I really don't think it feels very vacant at all. It's not high class or anything, though.

It feels quite different from Garfield if you ask me. Garfield has the potential to have a solid business district from Mathilda to Negley, but right now it's pretty spread out. E. Ohio is limited to just a few blocks that are already dense with businesses, which helps explains why some places are spread out within the neighborhood itself (which is not a bad thing in my opinion).

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I lived in Bloomfield from 2007-2011. It's one of the most awesome neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. Why do you hate it so much?

Actually, I don't hate it. I think the business district is great. I just wouldn't buy property to live in there at the rates some of the houses are selling for. That's all.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't think it is so much a matter of agreeing to disagree on some factual matter, as agreeing that different people can have different preferences.

Agreed.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The Pittsburgh police publish annual reports which include crime statistics by neighborhood. . . . In the latest report for 2010 (2011 should be coming out soon) Bloomfield . . . Total Part One crime was 479.

Random followup. The 2011 annual report has been released:

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/pghbop/...port_final.pdf

Crime was down (again) in the City, and it was also down in Bloomfield specifically: last year Total Part One crime in Bloomfield was 394 (down from the above-noted 479 in 2010).

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Random followup. The 2011 annual report has been released:

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/pghbop/...port_final.pdf

Crime was down (again) in the City, and it was also down in Bloomfield specifically: last year Total Part One crime in Bloomfield was 394 (down from the above-noted 479 in 2010).

You're still at this?

8.4 crimes per 100 citizens isn't a place I want to buy a house for $150,000. To put it in perspective, Mt. Oliver is 7.0 per 100 citizens.

[steindle]

Originally Posted by interested_burgher

You're still at this?

8.4 crimes per 100 citizens isn't a place I want to buy a house for $150,000. To put it in perspective, Mt. Oliver is 7.0 per 100 citizens.

Give me a break. Don't take everything at face value.

Mt. Oliver (city neighborhood) is literally entirely residential and doesn't get virtually any traffic from people outside of the neighborhood. The 7.0 per 100 citizens stat there is probably relatively accurate as a reflection of reality (and -- gasp to those who constantly malign Mt. Oliver -- it's not that bad!).

Bloomfield, comparatively, gets TONS of traffic from people outside of the neighborhood -- coming in to eat at its restaurants, hang out at its bars, shop there during the day, etc. There are thousands more people in Bloomfield each week than is accounted for by the # of citizens within it, so the "x crimes per 100 citizens" measure of crime is largely irrelevant.

If that's hard for you to understand: The Downtown stat is a more obvious example of this. 61.4 crimes per 100 residents of Downtown? Does that mean that 61% of people who live Downtown are the victims of crime? Of course not. It's actually probably indicative of a remarkably LOW level of crime Downtown, since something like 150,000 people work there each weekday, people visit the bars and cultural district amenities in the evening, people park there to go to the baseball games, etc. Judging # of crimes by residential population is essentially meaningless in this context.

Somehow I doubt that a little logic will stop you from believing that the sky is falling, though.

[BrianTH]

Part One crime was about 4.7 per 100. As I noted above, in Shadyside in 2001, it was 6.7 per 100. Of course it would have been INSANE to buy in Shadyside in 2001.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by steindle

Give me a break. Don't take everything at face value.

Mt. Oliver (city neighborhood) is literally entirely residential and doesn't get virtually any traffic from people outside of the neighborhood. The 7.0 per 100 citizens stat there is probably relatively accurate as a reflection of reality (and -- gasp to those who constantly malign Mt. Oliver -- it's not that bad!).

Bloomfield, comparatively, gets TONS of traffic from people outside of the neighborhood -- coming in to eat at its restaurants, hang out at its bars, shop there during the day, etc. There are thousands more people in Bloomfield each week than is accounted for by the # of citizens within it, so the "x crimes per 100 citizens" measure of crime is largely irrelevant.

If that's hard for you to understand: The Downtown stat is a more obvious example of this. 61.4 crimes per 100 residents of Downtown? Does that mean that 61% of people who live Downtown are the victims of crime? Of course not. It's actually probably indicative of a remarkably LOW level of crime Downtown, since something like 150,000 people work there each weekday, people visit the bars and cultural district amenities in the evening, people park there to go to the baseball games, etc. Judging # of crimes by residential population is essentially meaningless in this context.

Somehow I doubt that a little logic will stop you from believing that the sky is falling, though.

Exactly. I'm sure for similar reasons, South Side and Oakland have high rates as well, and those are some of the nicer places to live in the city.

[BrianTH]

South Side Flats had 14.6 Part One crimes per 100 people in 2001. I'm sure it would have been a TERRIBLE investment buying there!

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

South Side Flats had 14.6 Part One crimes per 100 people in 2001. I'm sure it would have been a TERRIBLE investment buying there!

Oh for sure. According to that, if you go to the South Side 7 times, you WILL be a victim of a crime.... Ya right...

[interested_burgher]

AGAIN, I'm not talking about investment property!

It's not worth arguing with close-minded people.