Can anything be done to save the "Mon Towns?" (Pittsburgh: neighborhoods, casino)

[Goinback2011]

it sounds like Dormont is doing it right. The reason new people are being attracted there is the generally urban character, access to the T, and fairly low cost, all of which make it in some ways a premier first-ring suburb for those who work downtown.

What would you have them do? Put in surface lots to charge T commuters? Where? IMHO, if there are large vacant spots near the T, putting in medium-density apartment buildings would be a better choice, both in terms of urban design and the future of Dormont, than parking. Dormont's future is a place for commuters to LIVE, not to drop their cars off at.

Dormont is already about 50% rental. There are lots of apartment buildings there, many near the T. But its business districts on W. Liberty and Potomac are in bad shape. Dormont is very hilly. Living 4 or 5 blocks from the T in Dormont is not the same as living that distance from a bus in the East End or the South Side flats. There are already small surface lots owned by the borough that could be used as a footprint for multi-level parking garages near both business districts (and the T). This would breathe new life into the place.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Dormont is already about 50% rental. .

Got any hard stats to back that up?

[Goinback2011]

I've read that stat in various places, but can't recall where exactly.

Here's one site that has it at 42%:

Dormont Housing

An estimated 58% of living spaces in Dormont are occupied by their owners, not by renters....

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

[Evergrey]

Dormont has the highest population density of the 130 municipalities in Allegheny County (roughly twice as dense as the City of Pittsburgh), so it should be no surprise that there are many apartment buildings there.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Dormont is already about 50% rental. There are lots of apartment buildings there, many near the T. But its business districts on W. Liberty and Potomac are in bad shape. Dormont is very hilly. Living 4 or 5 blocks from the T in Dormont is not the same as living that distance from a bus in the East End or the South Side flats. There are already small surface lots owned by the borough that could be used as a footprint for multi-level parking garages near both business districts (and the T). This would breathe new life into the place.

It's not so much a question of rental or not, it's a question of density. Dormont might already be dense, but with the access to the T, it could be built to an even denser state. I just suggested apartments because the condo market is so weak.

As to the weakness of the commercial area, I think in time that will take care of itself. Some of the South Side businesses which have been priced out are relocating there, and as more young transplants take over houses occupied by retirees you'll see a change in character of the commercial area regardless. The more new residents, the better it should get.

On the whole though, I don't understand what the parking garages would get Dormont in terms of commercial traffic. I just can't see park-n-ride type commuters getting off the T and lingering in Dormont, except perhaps to stop into a Rite-Aid for some essential.

[Goinback2011]

eschaton, there's a large section of Dormont itself that doesn't have easy access to the T (or the business districts) due to the hilly terrain.

[BrianTH]

If there are lots available near both the T and business districts you would want to revitalize, parking is unlikely to be a good use of those lots, in part because your most likely scenario would be commuters using those lots, and in general because destination retail is an incredibly tough game to try to play. Of course if local people are having trouble finding parking convenient to the business districts then you could consider more parking, but that is not something you would want to do speculatively (meaning you would want a real parking study confirming that locals were being deterred from using the business districts by a lack of convenient parking).

Residential, hotel, and office, on the other hand, could leverage the T and provide you with a larger local market for the business district. It would also contribute a lot more to the local tax base, allowing you to lower taxes for existing properties.

[alleghenyangel]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Recently, I was reading Frank Toker's book about the architectural history of Pittsburgh. While I knew the general history of the mill towns, I was surprised at how virtually all of them (Homestead, Braddock, East Pittsburgh, Wilmerding, Glassport, Clairton, Duquense, etc) were essentially founded as company towns by a single employer. The same could be said for some communities on the other rivers, like Aliquippa or New Kensington.

A lot of them existed before the industries moved in that made them "company towns." Brownsville and Fayette City are good examples of that. Both have extensive history going back to the 18th century. I believe there are many more cities along the rivers that have pre-industrial history.

Regardless, this shows part of why they have failed so badly. If a borough was explicitly set up to have its focus on one employer, it loses its reason to exist once that employer closes, or even if that employer remains, but only a shell of the original workforce is there (as is the case in Clairton, IIRC).

I think you're disregarding the role that suburbanization has played in the downfall of these communities. Even if someone were to have a job in, say, Clairton or McKeesport, is is unlikely that they would choose to live within one of these communities. Because all of these towns have their own (sometimes thriving) suburban areas. The fact that each of these towns usually has a rather healthy suburban area shows that the jobs are still there, but nobody wants to live in the actual old towns. To me, this says that the main issue here is not a jobs issue, but a suburb vs. city issue. Take McKees Rocks/ Stowe and Kennedy Township/ Robinson Township for an example.

But as part of it, I think you'd need to tear down the rest. Maybe have all of the Mon towns unify into a common governmental structure. Build infill housing in McKeesport. Move people out of the other municipalities, and rezone the entire area as industrial/commercial parks - areas which could provide tax benefits but would not need to be provided amenities.

Horrible idea.

[alleghenyangel]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Call me crazy, but letting them die a slow death is definitely better (and far less morally abhorrent) than forcibly displacing 100,000+ people. Besides, there's a lot of great architecture in those towns you'd be needlessly destroying.

Yes! Thank you.

[alleghenyangel]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I was not thinking about it being quite that brutal. I was thinking more along the lines of rezoning the land in the other river towns so no new houses could be built, and working to clear out homeowners voluntarily with the incentive of rehabbed/newly constructed housing in McKeesport which would be offered at reduced costs (grants in exchange for giving up title to their old land, etc. Some would probably stay on in a die-hard fashion of course, but at least instead of making every effort to prop the communities up, the government would be working on an orderly wind-down, and building up the population in a more concentrated area.

McKeesport is, in my opinion, probably the city in the Mon Valley that has the least intact neighborhood and downtown areas. It has suffered more than perhaps any of the others, besides Braddock.

I think it's foolish to only pick one river town to save. A lot of them are in much better condition than our own city neighborhoods in Pittsburgh! Monongahela and Donora are suprisingly intact. Brownsville is intact, but largely vacant, however they have an active preservation group and an enthusiastic mayor who are working to restore the rich collection of early and mid 19th century architecture.