America's Shame (Pittsburgh, Baldwin, Fox Chapel: apartment complexes, townhomes, buyers)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by jimmyev

I-279 was not a gift to developers in Cranberry. It was a gift to politicians in Lawrence, Beaver, Mercer, Butler, Venango, Crawford and Erie counties, allowing direct access to Pittsburgh from these northern counties.

It was both, of course. Indeed, developers are often prominent supporters of the relevant politicians.

The main purpose of highways is not movement of people, although they are often usurped for this purpose; it's the movement of product.

I agree with you that this is what highways SHOULD be for, and it is an ongoing issue that after WWII, we instead used urban highways as our primary means of moving people to work. That is a misuse of the technology, an inefficient use of resources, poor land-use policy, bad for the environment and public health, and so on.

But I was just pointing out that decisions like that about where we spend public funds can have profound effects on development patterns, and hence it is incorrect to assume that the observed development patterns simply reflect unfettered consumer demand. In fact, the dispersal effect arising from urban highways like I-279 was very deliberate: in the early Cold War, planners thought it was important to try to disperse the population and economic activity in major metropolitan areas to reduce their vulnerability to nuclear attack, and of course there were various power industrial interests (e.g., the car companies and road-building companies) that were eager to support that agenda.

Cranberry experienced its highest growth rate between 1970 and 1980, at least a decade before I-279 was built.

Here is Butler County's population by decade, with growth rate over prior decade:

1970 127,941 11.6%
1980 147,912 15.6%
1990 152,013 2.8%
2000 174,083 14.5%
2010 183,862 5.6%

It is true Butler County had a slightly higher growth rate in the 1970s than the 1990s, although the actual number of people added in the 1990s was higher than in the 1970s.

But more importantly, it had slowed way down in the 1980s before re-accelerating after the completion of I-279 in 1989. So the 20 years post-I-279 have beaten the 20 years pre-I-279 both by percentage and in gross.

Of course I-279 is only one example. I-79 was also a boon to Butler County, and I believe the relevant portions were mostly, if not all, completed before or during the early 1970s.

Anyways, most subsidization of public highways, which had been occurring since the 1950s, ended in the 1980s.

Of course that isn't true at all. We are still spending a LOT of money continually upgrading existing highways. I-279, for example, has had a ton of ramp work since 1989, including all sorts of work Downtown. Meanwhile, the new toll roads like the MFE have also gotten a LOT of public money.

In reality, developers carry a lot more infra-structure costs in the suburbs than they do in the city, at least in both states I've lived in.

Greenfield developments typically have higher infrastructure costs, so it may be true greenfield developers pay more out of pocket in infrastructure costs. But I do think you are likely overlooking all the other infrastructure investments leading up to those greenfields even being possible candidates for development.

[Oleg Bach]

Here is how it works...In Toronto the infrastructure is in very good shape...because corruption is frowned upon. Where as you take Montreal...Bridges roads and some parts of town are crumbling...Montreal is well known in Canada as being a mafia town...a very corrupt city..

The waste land that you see encroaching on some American cities...started with the seed of corruption...When criminals rule..things fall apart..I have not been in an American city for over 4 decades..I do remember seeing some stuff that I thought was very odd.....urban wasteland...if it existed back then- It must be much worse now...It might be better to remove the shame...Some cities that are beyond repair or there is no will or reason to bring them back...should be plowed under and returned to farm land or made wild again- better to have no city than on that is a constant reminder of failure.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Speaking from experience now in the South Hills, the trouble with commuter trains, either above or below ground, is the lack of access to them because of a lack of park and ride lots. Where there ARE such lots, people use the trains. Otherwise they're not heavily used, even during rush hour.

The T in the South Hills is not really a good analogy for a hypothetical subway through the East End. An East End subway would be much shorter, but with the potential for many more people to live within walking distance of stops.

Incidentally, the T isn't really using the right technology for providing commuter rail to the South Hills, and also has way too many stops. Collectively that makes it way too slow for what it is theoretically trying to do.

And since the same people who LOVE mass transit also hate cars . . .

Speaking just for myself, both sets of technologies obviously have many viable uses, and in fact in my household we regularly use both. So in my mind it is very unfortunate many people think of themselves as having to choose between being pro-car/anti-transit or pro-transit/anti-car. Rather, I wish people would think in terms of all these technologies being tools in our tool box, and the question is when to use which tool.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Clint.

What are some of the key resources that some schools lack that put students at a disadvantage? I'm not really all that familiar with contemporary education trends so I'm just curious. Do some districts offer courses in Java, network security, database management, etc., and others don't? Are there some school districts that don't teach symbolic logic or require a critical thinking course?

I would guess language instruction could be limited depending on the number of participants (I graduated from West Mifflin - from what I understand is regarded as a marginal district - in the late 1990s and even then there were options for distance Japanese and Russian classes, which I think were satellite based). I really don't know if that was common or an experiment or what.

I'm mostly referring to the need for a variety of substantive Honors/AP/IB courses, along with extracurricular activities geared toward gifted/talented students, which are essential in preparing students for a rigorous college course load.

[ditchdigger]

I often don't have time to keep up with these multi-page threads, let alone reply in a timely fashion, but sometimes somthing just jumps out as needing a response.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Eh, some do, but larger yards were basically an amenity that developers tried to sell people on for lack of anything else to market.

Baloney.

Developers develop. That's how they make their money, and the ones who make money know what customers are buying. Land costs money, and infrastructure costs money, and the fewer units per area of land, the less those costs can be recovered. There isn't one of them that's going to build less density than they can sell.

If they developed plans with large yards, it's because that what was in demand. There's no money in yards. The money is in the buildings. If they could've sold it out that way, Cranberry (and Monroeville, and Baldwin, and Moon, etc.), would've been as dense as some rowhouse side street in Bloomfield.

[PGHPA611]

Urban Sprawl in 2012 makes no sense, we need to go back to Main Street communities. Building new makes sense if demolishing the abandoned and deplorable are accomplished. Main Street towns are throughout our metro, the river town communities in particular. Would it to take imagination, creativity and cash? Without a doubt , but it makes sense. No one wants to drive through Appalachia to reach Green Acres!!

It is a different time from the post WW2 and post Vietnam Era, building effective cost efficient and energy saving communities makes more sense. Not everyone in 2012 wants a yard or a car !! Washington's Landing is the perfect example. Thinking outside of the box again ... utilizing river communities could spur rail traffic with existing lines and abandoned stations. Extensive use of river taxis make sense in a city with Three Rivers.

Pittsburgh's URA is either dragging their feet or are clueless !
Live in Moon park your car in Coraopolis along the river and commute via the river, no need for Golden Triangle Parking.
There will be a million nay sayers who think leave it the way it is !
They are keeping Pittsburgh from reaching its potential.

[ditchdigger]

Washington's Landing is the perfect example....

....Pittsburgh's URA is either dragging their feet or are clueless !...

To be fair, the URA had a lot to do with Washington's Landing.

http://www.ura.org/working_with_us/b...fieldBrief.pdf

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by PGHPA611

Urban Sprawl in 2012 makes no sense, we need to go back to Main Street communities. Building new makes sense if demolishing the abandoned and deplorable are accomplished. Main Street towns are throughout our metro, the river town communities in particular. Would it to take imagination, creativity and cash? Without a doubt , but it makes sense. No one wants to drive through Appalachia to reach Green Acres!!

It is a different time from the post WW2 and post Vietnam Era, building effective cost efficient and energy saving communities makes more sense. Not everyone in 2012 wants a yard or a car !! Washington's Landing is the perfect example. Thinking outside of the box again ... utilizing river communities could spur rail traffic with existing lines and abandoned stations. Extensive use of river taxis make sense in a city with Three Rivers.

Pittsburgh's URA is either dragging their feet or are clueless !
Live in Moon park your car in Coraopolis along the river and commute via the river, no need for Golden Triangle Parking.
There will be a million nay sayers who think leave it the way it is !
They are keeping Pittsburgh from reaching its potential.

River taxis don't sound like the most efficient/feasible mass transit option. Expanding the T would be nice.

[PGHPA611]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

To be fair, the URA had a lot to do with Washington's Landing.

http://www.ura.org/working_with_us/b...fieldBrief.pdf

Very true and thank you for pointing that out.
They played a huge part in the PTC ( Pittsburgh Technology Center) as well and Southside Works to name a couple more.
But
They have dragged their feet on many others including the once proposed river front development for the cultural center and including Penn Avenue
Things do take time
BUT
I would love to see these things come to fruition in my lifetime.
Some of the things which I am proposing could be implemented in a couple of years not centuries.

[PGHPA611]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

River taxis don't sound like the most efficient/feasible mass transit option. Expanding the T would be nice.

Expanding the T would be nice, unfortunately there is little in the federal, state or city budget to fund such an expansion at present.

River taxis could be funded by private money from their owners hint Gateway Clipper and others. The parking lots around river communites could be public or private as well. How much traffic would be alleviated from 376 or 28 ?

Keep in mind in NYC river taxis are used even with the most effective mass transit system in the nation.