Plans for housing in the strip district (Pittsburgh, Penn Hills: section 8, renters)

[Denton56]

Should we give the poor more money so that they can afford to live in the city? How much money do we give them so that they can live in Bethesda or buy a house on Capitol Hill? Or do you have some other way to get around those pesky economic markets and supply and demand?

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

While it was bad to see so many people get displaced from the Lower Hill, in truth, a lot of those homes were dumps/squalor.

That is simply not true. I have seen pictures of what was demolished in the Lower Hill, and the houses there were about equivalent to what we have in the North Side, Bluff, and South Side Flats today (brick and Victorian row-homes dating to the mid 19th century, and some even earlier).

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by stburr91

Let's not forget that people only have the right to live somewhere they can afford, if that's not the core area, so be it.

Well, I can walk to downtown Stowe.

But if I want to be able to afford to live in the downtown of an actual city and not a suburb, it looks like I will be moving to York or Buffalo soon.

[Denton56]

Originally Posted by UKyank

If a landlord out of the goodness of their hearts want to charge less then their place is worth for someone to live in their house i'm fine with that, but i dont think thats going to happen much - but I hope you're not advocating somehow forcing tlandlords to charge less then the market price dictates though.

If that should happen, there will be no landlords. Why would anyone buy a house and rent it out if they can't make a profit? If landlords are prohibited from charging the market rate in an area, why would anyone invest in that area? They wouldn't. They would invest in an area where the market dictates the price.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Denton56

If that should happen, there will be no landlords. Why would anyone buy a house and rent it out if they can't make a profit? If landlords are prohibited from charging the market rate in an area, why would anyone invest in that area? They wouldn't. They would invest in an area where the market dictates the price.

I don't know. There are (nice) apartment buildings in downtown Lincoln, Nebraska advertising studio and 1br apartments for $295 with all utilities included!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Could you identify those core areas?

Not by list--it would be a long one. But I have in mind the densely-developed area which is in reasonably close proximity to Downtown and Oakland, which includes most of the City and a lot of the inner suburbs.

[Copanut]

My point is the people moving back into Pgh will be mainly upper income. I have a friend who just bought a home 1/2 block off Walnut Street. A 2 br, 1600 sf, stucco sided home for 380K. For that kind of money, I'd be on 6 acres in The Great White North, but not near Hopes.

[BrianTH]

Some big picture thoughts:

It is a good thing for people to live close to where they work if they want to, so generally we should embrace the notion of higher-income people working in the City finding places they want to live nearby. However, lower-income people also work (or are seeking to find work) in the City, and it would be bad if they were entirely priced out of the core area, and in particular areas with convenient public transit to the City's job centers.

As it happens, the supply of housing in walkable areas with good public transit to local jobs centers is in part a function of various public policies. Most obviously, transit policy determines how many locations will have such transit service. But another important issue is how many housing units are available within locations with such transit service, and that is often constrained by various regulations, often driven by varieties of NIMBYism. This is part of why the core areas in a lot of coastal cities have gotten so expensive: developers have been prevented from building as many units as they would like in convenient locations.

Incidentally, this is where affordable housing advocates and strong property rights advocates should be able to make common cause: if you believe property owners have a right to charge whatever rents they like as a matter of principle, it would also seem they should have a right to develop more housing units on their property as a matter of principle. Unfortunately, there are a decent number of people who are actually in favor of the former but not the latter, often for selfish pecuniary reasons: they are incumbent property owners in the relevant area who are self-constrained from redeveloping (e.g., SFH owner-occupiers), and the return on their investment will be maximized by artificially constraining the supply of new units in their vicinity. But if you truly believe in strong property rights (as opposed to just protecting the financial interests of a certain favored class of property owners), then these people should not be empowered to override the property rights of developers who wish to add more units to their properties.

Returning to Pittsburgh, the availability of public transit is obviously an immediate concern, and will have long-ranging consequences for affordable housing options and poverty in the region if the current trends are not reversed. In the short term, we face less of an issue with NIMBYism artificially constraining the housing supply, but we should keep that issue in mind because based on the experience of other U.S. cities, it is likely to arise.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Some big picture thoughts:

It is a good thing for people to live close to where they work if they want to, so generally we should embrace the notion of higher-income people working in the City finding places they want to live nearby. However, lower-income people also work (or are seeking to find work) in the City, and it would be bad if they were entirely priced out of the core area, and in particular areas with convenient public transit to the City's job centers.

I don't think its going to be any real problem transporting low level support staff to jobs in town if they become priced out of the market. UPMC as well as West Penn do run shuttles from distant parking lots in L'ville and the South Side to get their staff to work, and I can see major businesses collectively or individually doing what they need to do. The new airport was built and staffed before the 28x bus started running and the folks out at the airmall found ways to accomplish the task.

As far as ordinary Pittsburgh working class folks, I can see the principal manufacturing, warehouse and other lower paid functions moving out of the core area and out to where there is more affordable arrangements as they get priced out.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't think its going to be any real problem transporting low level support staff to jobs in town if they become priced out of the market.

What has happened in other cities--and your scenarios are consistent with this--is that lower-income people are forced into long commutes requiring the use of cars. That can be very costly for those lower-income people, financially and otherwise, and in some cases can make it impossible for them to access the relevant employment opportunities.

As far as ordinary Pittsburgh working class folks, I can see the principal manufacturing, warehouse and other lower paid functions moving out of the core area and out to where there is more affordable arrangements as they get priced out.

By far most of the present and future entry-level jobs will be in service industries, and many of the best such opportunities (in terms of pay, benefits, training, and potential for advancement) will likely be in the core area.

And of course it typically is not doing lower-income people any favors to move jobs to father-flung locations. Typically these is not much housing within close proximity to such locations to begin with, and it also makes job searches and job changes much more difficult if potential employers are scattered all over.