Anybody here hate the mills as much as me? (Pittsburgh: transplants, HOA)

[guylocke]

What is wrong with fighting sprawl? WHat is wrong with standing up for something you find wrong about the way we develop?

Nothing at all.

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by Stagger Lee

I know it is the latest craze in the Pittsburgh Metro since it opened. However, I despise it. I boycott buying anything from this urban sprawled catastrophe. It speaks nothing of smart growth, or good urban design. It is basically a plan to wipe out 100 acres of forest land to put big box sh%t up and acres and acres of parking lots for the suburbinites to me. I moved back not long ago and am surprised how much my brother and parents love the mills. I keep telling them how much I hate it, and won't go there. They just don't get it. I traveled to Cheswick and see there is a lot of stores closing down because of it. This was suppose to help these areas. I knew it would do the exact opposite. It supports the bland sprawl, and doesn't help anything with the core river towns in this area. The Cheswick theater is about to close down now. It is a nice old theater that is much more classic then a big urban sprawl mega theater. I came back and worked for a firm that designs crap like this. I am putting my pride where it belongs and turning in my two weeks notice. I won't be a part of this crap. I am excepting a job with a firm that does real urban design.

I'm all for it - except I think that all this new development should be done on top of the old stuff. I feel there is enough room for tear down and rebuilding in Pittsburgh, and that it is unnecessary to have to strip any more trees down. Pittsburgh would only help it's situation if it continued to reuse the space it already has. The city has the potential to be a huge Shadyside - or a larger South Side. No need to go "into the woods" for more land. Improve on what's here already, HIRE MORE POLICE (like in NYC) and you will see a VAST improvement in the city. If people feel safe, they will live anywhere.
I believe Pittsburgh is on the cusp of redevelopment and growth. And I don't even really live there!

[kpoeppel]

Originally Posted by Stagger Lee

I don't understand how saying something can make so many people jump on you. I am sorry I offend you people because I don't like urban sprawl tear down forest land for no reason, and decay existing towns more then they already are. I am sorry I stick up for something I believe in.

Well, that's what happens when you stand up for what you believe in. Think you've got it bad? Try being for "traditional values", conservative Christianity, etc...then you'll really know what it's like to be "jumped on."

Personally, I don't see how the destruction of a small (compared to the size of earth) patch of trees can compare to the destruction of the family, marriage, and Christianity since the late 60's. Which has had bigger consequences for societal health?

When you stand for something...people will attack you...that's just life.

[Stagger Lee]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I'm all for it - except I think that all this new development should be done on top of the old stuff. I feel there is enough room for tear down and rebuilding in Pittsburgh, and that it is unnecessary to have to strip any more trees down. Pittsburgh would only help it's situation if it continued to reuse the space it already has. The city has the potential to be a huge Shadyside - or a larger South Side. No need to go "into the woods" for more land. Improve on what's here already, HIRE MORE POLICE (like in NYC) and you will see a VAST improvement in the city. If people feel safe, they will live anywhere.
I believe Pittsburgh is on the cusp of redevelopment and growth. And I don't even really live there!

Exactly. There is a huge amount of brownfield nearby in New Ken. There are old buildings with much land that could have been torn down for this project. It also would of improved the town of New Ken very much also. Why develop a new area when you have a old area like this that could be rebuilt on. I personally think the Waterfront is another boring big box area. However, it is done on a former steel mill. That is cool they demolished a huge brownfield to make it retail. They had plenty of brownfields they could of developed on and helped out these older towns more.

Also, developing on a brownfield like the waterfront is considered smart growth.

I don't even understand though since I have little knowledge in civil engineering. However, I wonder if it would be easier to develop a huge swap of undeveloped land, or a old abandoned industrial swap of land. THe site would be already level in a existing brownfield, but providing electrical, sewage, and water service may be an issue.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I'm all for it - except I think that all this new development should be done on top of the old stuff. I feel there is enough room for tear down and rebuilding in Pittsburgh, and that it is unnecessary to have to strip any more trees down. Pittsburgh would only help it's situation if it continued to reuse the space it already has. The city has the potential to be a huge Shadyside - or a larger South Side. No need to go "into the woods" for more land. Improve on what's here already, HIRE MORE POLICE (like in NYC) and you will see a VAST improvement in the city. If people feel safe, they will live anywhere.
I believe Pittsburgh is on the cusp of redevelopment and growth. And I don't even really live there!

But there are lots of people that feel when you tear down the old stuff you tear down the past.... and that ignites a small fury. Not that I don't disagree with you about some places needing to go, but sometimes they tear down wonderful places and call it progress. Yes, I'm still ticked about the Jenkins Arcade...

Where I live now has practically declared everything historical. There was a huge fight over a an old warehouse from the forties that was literally a cement block box with doors. There were so many issues and in such bad need of repair that is was abandoned. It was truly honestly cheaper to tear it down than fix it up.

The fight to tear it down took three years. Three years of squatters, meth labs, fires, contamination, police calls, lawyers, trials... lots of money -- for I AM NOT KIDDING -- a cement block box with doors. Just because it's old.

The problem is where do you draw the line? Do we take down houses of a certain age because they have no architectural history? One can argue all houses have architectural history, even those with no real designer. Google Sears kit houses. Heck -- google ranch houses -- there are people out there that love the 1950's plain jane ranch house. (I'm one of them -- but I'd really love an Eichler!)

And what about the people we displace?

I'm sort of with the controlled growth guy. I live in sprawl out here -- not cool. And I also see a time out here where the government buys large areas of old houses razes them for the now popular "High Density Housing" -- or "Transit Village" where they put high end condos over high end shopping with a Starbucks on every corner. Makes my skin crawl.

Because they sure aren't interested in housing the poor anymore -- there's no money in it.

[Katiana]

And what about the people we displace?

This has been a huge issue in some cities. Every "gentrification" project displaces people. As for putting malls in the city, etc, the developers tend to go where the people are.

[Stagger Lee]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

But there are lots of people that feel when you tear down the old stuff you tear down the past.... and that ignites a small fury. Not that I don't disagree with you about some places needing to go, but sometimes they tear down wonderful places and call it progress. Yes, I'm still ticked about the Jenkins Arcade...

Where I live now has practically declared everything historical. There was a huge fight over a an old warehouse from the forties that was literally a cement block box with doors. There were so many issues and in such bad need of repair that is was abandoned. It was truly honestly cheaper to tear it down than fix it up.

The fight to tear it down took three years. Three years of squatters, meth labs, fires, contamination, police calls, lawyers, trials... lots of money -- for I AM NOT KIDDING -- a cement block box with doors. Just because it's old.

The problem is where do you draw the line? Do we take down houses of a certain age because they have no architectural history? One can argue all houses have architectural history, even those with no real designer. Google Sears kit houses. Heck -- google ranch houses -- there are people out there that love the 1950's plain jane ranch house. (I'm one of them -- but I'd really love an Eichler!)

And what about the people we displace?

I'm sort of with the controlled growth guy. I live in sprawl out here -- not cool. And I also see a time out here where the government buys large areas of old houses razes them for the now popular "High Density Housing" -- or "Transit Village" where they put high end condos over high end shopping with a Starbucks on every corner. Makes my skin crawl.

Because they sure aren't interested in housing the poor anymore -- there's no money in it.

I am one of those people that think we should save a lot of our historic structures. However, the land I am talking about in New Ken and Homestead is abandoned aluminum mills, and other ugly industrial buildings. They should have been torn down 2 decades ago. THey just give the area a blight look. I don't know why the mills didn't do what the Waterfront did and build on these areas instead.

NOw if they were going to tear down the old buildings in downtown new ken with cool and historic architecture about 100 years old for a target then I would be upset. I just wish these areas could get something to come into them instead of being abandoned.

[vwscottie]

Originally Posted by Stagger Lee

No, but when you're a tree hugger and see a bunch of suburbinites tearing down forest land for such crap then it upsets you. What is wrong with fighting sprawl? WHat is wrong with standing up for something you find wrong about the way we develop?

The whole point is, why stand up for it now? If you felt so strongly about it, where were you when it was being planned?

[Yac]

Everybody calm down or the thread will be closed and infractions will follow.
Yac.

[Stagger Lee]

lets just try to make this thread a happy smart growth thread without bashing people for it.

Also, we could just all have a thread where we think the Pittsburgh skyline is all great and all agree with each other?