What areas could Pittsburgh do without? (McKees Rocks, North Braddock: section 8, crime, appliances)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I have a solution: demolish the suburbs and force people to move back to the city.

I'm totally fine with that. Indeed, in all ways it's the best possible solution, given modern building standards are so much ****tier.

However, Pittsburgh can't use imminent domain on the suburbs of course. The closest it could do is demolish some of the suburban-like portions of the city which have the least merit, in terms of housing stock, transit access, and overall density.

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I think alley houses are historically significant, and the destruction of them would be a mistake. Alley houses are unique to urban areas and they add to the sense of place. They also provide more affordable and smaller alternatives for people than the often larger and more expensive street-side homes. Also, they are practical and make good use of space, and are energy efficient and green because of their small footprint (it doesn't take much to heat them). What practical improvement does demolishing alley houses create? Lawrenceville is gentrifying. Soon those alley houses will be filled with single yuppies.

While I really love your blog since I discovered it, you do have a bit of a sentimentalist streak when it comes to this stuff. Far too many old, historical houses are being demolished in Pittsburgh, even today. This doesn't mean that every old house is historical, and every historical house is in a neighborhood where it can be saved. As an extreme example, within another few decades, one could make the argument that Allegheny Center is historic. If a municipal plan came along to demolish much of it and re-institute the North Side grid, would that be something we shouldn't consider due to the value of the buildings involved.

Also, an aside - despite the gentrification of Lawrenceville, all three sections still shrunk over the last decade - two of them more rapidly than the city average. To a degree this seems to be because of demographic transition - with the gentrifiers having smaller families than those leaving. Still, comparing 2000 to 2010, both the absolute number of housing units, as well as the amount of non-vacant units, fell in Lawrenceville. So there's still clearly at least some portions in all three portions of Lawrenceville which are in low demand and vanishing.

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

Most of the city's forgotten formal urban renewal areas like St. Clair, Arlington Heights, & Fairywood...
BroadHead Manor's property & the old mall's property are just wasting space... Old St. Clair Village's space is being wasted too. A.H. besides the seven rough barracks of housing projects & a few small houses is a waste too! Hays is an unknown/useless area to most Pittsburghers, but I don't think they have to raze it.

A bit off topic, but Northview Heights and Glen Hazel are the only "project neighborhoods" still standing right?

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

It seems so arrogant and snobbish to me when someone says, "This neighborhood looks ugly. It should be demolished." I think sprawl is ugly -- can we demolish Robinson, McKnight Rd., and Monroeville?

No, because their residents contribute to the tax base. Not that I'm a fan of all-out bulldozing bad neighborhoods (or suburban sprawl). I just think you're getting your feathers ruffled over nothing.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

However, Pittsburgh can't use imminent domain on the suburbs of course. The closest it could do is demolish some of the suburban-like portions of the city which have the least merit, in terms of housing stock, transit access, and overall density.

I just made that statement to make a point. I don't think we really should demolish the suburbs. My point was that it is arrogant to deem certain neighborhoods disposable. These are peoples' homes. If something belongs to someone, you shouldn't be able to take it away from them. I know that it happens, but I don't agree with it, from an ethical standpoint.

While I really love your blog since I discovered it, you do have a bit of a sentimentalist streak when it comes to this stuff.

I do have a sentimentalist streak and if I didn't romanticize the past, I would find absolutely nothing endearing about Pittsburgh. I would live in a Cranberry housing complex, if that was the case. The problem with our culture today is there is nothing that we can even remotely get sentimental about. Who is going to look back and say, "I miss that Steak n Shake parking lot?" So we have to save the things that were created long ago, because they aren't being created anymore. And who wants to live in a world where there is nothing to cherish?

As an extreme example, within another few decades, one could make the argument that Allegheny Center is historic. If a municipal plan came along to demolish much of it and re-institute the North Side grid, would that be something we shouldn't consider due to the value of the buildings involved.

The difference is, I don't know anyone who feels any level of attachment to Allegheny Center or, for that matter, most suburban-mall type architecture of the last century. It doesn't inspire love. It's cold, utilitarian, minimalist, designed for purpose rather than charm, like a washing machine. There may be someone who disagrees with me. You could make the point that alley houses were minimalist and utilitarian, but they are also symbols of a bygone world, which is what makes them endearing. And I stand by my point that they are practical.

Also, an aside - despite the gentrification of Lawrenceville, all three sections still shrunk over the last decade - two of them more rapidly than the city average. To a degree this seems to be because of demographic transition - with the gentrifiers having smaller families than those leaving. Still, comparing 2000 to 2010, both the absolute number of housing units, as well as the amount of non-vacant units, fell in Lawrenceville. So there's still clearly at least some portions in all three portions of Lawrenceville which are in low demand and vanishing.

That's actually a good thing. It will keep home prices down as they neighborhood continues to revitalize. Housing shortage in upcoming neighborhoods = rapid price increases, and pricing out less affluent populations, like artists and social workers.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

No, because their residents contribute to the tax base.

Residents in blighted neighborhoods also contribute to the tax base.

I'm not getting my feathers ruffled at all. I'm enjoying the debate.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Residents in blighted neighborhoods also contribute to the tax base.

I'm not getting my feathers ruffled at all. I'm enjoying the debate.

Not enough to "pull their weight" in utilitarian terms. Not that I think it's morally justifiable to evict someone on that basis. It's just the way the world often works. Everything comes down to politics. Money talks 'n at.

Of course, sometimes neighborhoods are dilapidated to the point that starting fresh makes sense. I'm not talking merely "ugly," I mean structurally unsound (and there are definitely a few in Pittsburgh that fit this description).

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Not enough to "pull their weight" in utilitarian terms. Not that I think it's morally justifiable to evict someone on that basis. It's just the way the world often works. Everything comes down to politics. Money talks 'n at.

If it's not morally justifiable, then it shouldn't be done. That's the problem with politics, and why our country is running into the ground. Money is considered more important than the people. The people we elect should be bound by ethics and FOR the people. Just because it's business as usual, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Of course, sometimes neighborhoods are dilapidated to the point that starting fresh makes sense. I'm not talking merely "ugly," I mean structurally unsound (and there are definitely a few in Pittsburgh that fit this description).

Examples?

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Examples?

Parts of Homewood, the Hill, Midtown, etc. Some places are just rundown beyond repair.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Parts of Homewood, the Hill, Midtown, etc. Some places are just rundown beyond repair.

From what I understand about the downsizing of Flint, Detroit, and Youngstown (where existing residents are being relocated from certain neighborhoods to houses in more dense neighborhoods), this is completely voluntary on the part of the residents. Also, the neighborhoods that are being taken down are mostly urban prairie, with a house scattered here and there, maybe only a couple left on a block. These neighborhoods have become impractical for the city to maintain because they are large in area, with only a few residents scattered sparsely throughout. This makes sense for these cities, because they have urban prairie neighborhoods. Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are very different. Even Esplen and Hays are quite dense compared to the typical urban prairie neighborhoods in Flint or Detroit, and are not large in area. Also, Flint and Detroit are mainly interested in decreasing the footprint of the city, or rightsizing the city to make it comparable to the existing population. Demolishing neighborhoods in the core of Pittsburgh will not make the city's footprint smaller.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Parts of Homewood, the Hill, Midtown, etc. Some places are just rundown beyond repair.

And indeed the city does this in some cases (you've probably pointed out a few yourself, AA, though usually only one building and not a whole sections). Perhaps part of Garfield, for example, might be the closest instance we've got.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

From what I understand about the downsizing of Flint, Detroit, and Youngstown (where existing residents are being relocated from certain neighborhoods to houses in more dense neighborhoods), this is completely voluntary on the part of the residents. Also, the neighborhoods that are being taken down are mostly urban prairie, with a house scattered here and there, maybe only a couple left on a block. These neighborhoods have become impractical for the city to maintain because they are large in area, with only a few residents scattered sparsely throughout. This makes sense for these cities, because they have urban prairie neighborhoods. Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are very different. Even Esplen and Hays are quite dense compared to the typical urban prairie neighborhoods in Flint or Detroit, and are not large in area.

Note I said "parts of." You get rid of problematic structures here and there. Maybe occasionally you have to take down a city block.