What pieces of the puzzle does Pittsburgh lack to be a great city? (Philadelphia: to move, suburbs)

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

I find ignoring the pre-Super Bowl era to be as tiresome as the tendency to ignore all forms of popular music before "Rock Around the Clock", as if everything that came before was meaningless and not worthy of comment.

The Packers, the Bears, and the Giants all have won more NFL championships than the Steelers, and only by picking some cutoff date does this change.

NFL championships won since the Steelers (né Pirates) were founded before the 1933 season:
Green Bay Packers: 10
Chicago Bears: 7
New York Giants: 7
Pittsburgh Steelers: 6
Everybody else: 5 or fewer.

Does this have any bearing on Pittsburgh's worthiness as a city? Not in the slightest.

I think having major league sports adds to the worthiness of a city. Name all the great ones in this country, Boston, NY, Chicago, Philly, they all have major league teams.

Although I gotta admit, I love the Altoona Curve.

[ipaper]

Originally Posted by zman63

Which truly mean very little to the creative class or people that are thinking of moving here from elsewhere.

lol, I was just having a little fun with the topic being that i'm a steelers fan. but its still a beautiful city in a beautiful setting.

[pman]

6 super bowls did nothing to stem the tide of creative and non-creative class fleeing. sports are irrelevant (to the overall economic vibrancy).

[ipaper]

Originally Posted by Caladium

LOL, nothing like indulging in stereotypes. Good to know that you can like sports or you can be creative but you can't do both! Also interesting to know that people moving in never care about football. Who knew that all interest in sports evaporates if you move to a new town?

But hey, if you're going to indulge in stereotypes and skewed logic, why not go for the gusto? Like this:

Pittsburgh is a great city because is has so many museums and opportunities for creative people.
Which truly mean very little to the sports fans.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has such attractive scenery.
Which truly mean very little to the blind.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has great architecture.
Which truly mean very little to people who have batophobia.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has so many great bridges.
Which truly mean very little to people who have gephyrophobia.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it's relatively affordable.
Which truly mean very little to people who have less than $5 in their bank account.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it's interesting to people who move in from elsewhere.
Which truly mean very little to the local residents.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has such a rich culture of long term residents.
Which truly mean very little to the people who move in from elsewhere.

Add up all these arguments and you have a city with sports, museums, opportunities for creative people, is interesting to newcomers, has a rich culture of long term residents, has attractive scenery, great architecture, great bridges, and is relatively affordable. Sounds like all the ingredients ofa great city to me, even if each detail has some group that couldn't care less.

thanks I could not have said it any better. as a life long steelers fan I have learn much about the city they call home its a beautiful place. i'm just in that football mode because of the game today,sorry.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

I find ignoring the pre-Super Bowl era to be as tiresome as the tendency to ignore all forms of popular music before "Rock Around the Clock", as if everything that came before was meaningless and not worthy of comment.

The Packers, the Bears, and the Giants all have won more NFL championships than the Steelers, and only by picking some cutoff date does this change.

NFL championships won since the Steelers (né Pirates) were founded before the 1933 season:
Green Bay Packers: 10
Chicago Bears: 7
New York Giants: 7
Pittsburgh Steelers: 6
Everybody else: 5 or fewer.

Does this have any bearing on Pittsburgh's worthiness as a city? Not in the slightest.

Say all you want about "before there was the superbowl" but there were only a few teams back then as well.... So really comparing pre-superbowl to nowadays is useless. We could say they were historically good, but were more recently a better team.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Say all you want about "before there was the superbowl" but there were only a few teams back then as well.... So really comparing pre-superbowl to nowadays is useless. We could say they were historically good, but were more recently a better team.

The steelers of the 70s were on roids

[gortonator]

Originally Posted by zman63

The steelers of the 70s were on roids

You OD-ed on turkey again, man of 63 zzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz zzzzzzzZZZZzz's. You really shouldn't inject all that cheap whiskey in the bird.

If the Stillers win tonight, rest of season might be interesting. I love the contribution of high quality professional sport to Pittsburgh. It adds vibrancy and color.

Keep eating zman .. (hic)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh's sprawl goes out pretty far, but our topography means that it's concentrated in corridors in a way which isn't really replicated in flat metros. One could argue this predisposes Pittsburgh towards effective mass-transit networks more than elsewhere.

Denver, the city, is pretty flat, as are all but the far western suburbs, and we have corridors, too. Pittsburgh is not unique in that regard.

Originally Posted by Caladium

LOL, nothing like indulging in stereotypes. Good to know that you can like sports or you can be creative but you can't do both! Also interesting to know that people moving in never care about football. Who knew that all interest in sports evaporates if you move to a new town?

But hey, if you're going to indulge in stereotypes and skewed logic, why not go for the gusto? Like this:

Pittsburgh is a great city because is has so many museums and opportunities for creative people.
Which truly mean very little to the sports fans.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has such attractive scenery.
Which truly mean very little to the blind.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has great architecture.
Which truly mean very little to people who have batophobia.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has so many great bridges.
Which truly mean very little to people who have gephyrophobia.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it's relatively affordable.
Which truly mean very little to people who have less than $5 in their bank account.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it's interesting to people who move in from elsewhere.
Which truly mean very little to the local residents.

Pittsburgh is a great city because it has such a rich culture of long term residents.
Which truly mean very little to the people who move in from elsewhere.

Add up all these arguments and you have a city with sports, museums, opportunities for creative people, is interesting to newcomers, has a rich culture of long term residents, has attractive scenery, great architecture, great bridges, and is relatively affordable. Sounds like all the ingredients ofa great city to me, even if each detail has some group that couldn't care less.

Wish I could rep you again!

Originally Posted by zman63

Because as city residents we pay taxes to the county and the city. Right now what is the purpose to pay county taxes when the city provides my services? What do I see for my tax dollars? I am paying to keep the parks and pools in the suburban county parks afloat.

The amount of money wasted on 42 school districts is incredible. Each has their own governing board and they do not do joint purchase agreements on books, supplies, services etc. You have sto rox with hardly any tax base left and unable to pay their teachers or keep their lights on, then you have montour high school five miles away with tens of millions in surplus. I am sorry I just do not see how this is sustainable. These kids have no hope and no access to quality education. You could have a child living in section 8 that is well behaved and has the intelligence to contribute positively to society. You have to give hope to them.

Plus we do not need 200 fire departments, 130 police departments, 130 public works and a county public works.

Merge all of these governments and school districts into one, set a flat tax that everybody in the entire county pays. It doesn't matter if you live in the urban proper or wexford, everybody has the chance at the same education and is paying the same police/fire/public works chiefs.

I have seen some mergers here in Colorado where the school districts are left intact. I have long advocated for inter-governmental cooperation, as in joint purchase agreements. I've also long thought the school districts in PA are verging on the "too small" in many cases, but I don't know exactly what can be done about that.

I do not understand the merger mania that seems to be so attractive to some people on this board.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Say all you want about "before there was the superbowl" but there were only a few teams back then as well.... So really comparing pre-superbowl to nowadays is useless. We could say they were historically good, but were more recently a better team.

Not mention that almost nobody who would be moving to Pittsburgh would have been alive during the pre-superbowl era - meaning it probably has no impact on their view of the team.

[MonVoyage]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

Cars provide the ability to go wherever you want, whenever you want. You aren't limited by the service locations or times, or when it is in operation. You also aren't forced to walk long distances. Cars also offer storage, so you can buy big things and transport them in the trunk. If you like to travel, especially to places that are not on the grid, cars are the way to go.

With a good, reliable transit system, scheduling is rarely an issue. Granted you might not be able to go somewhere at 4am, but how necessary is that?

Sure, cars do all those things in rural and su(ex)burban areas. But in an urban area it's still more efficient to travel via public transit, and public transit has the capacity to do those things better in a city. Moreover transportation right of ways encourages adjacent TOD; not sprawled and fragmented as is often the case around automobile developments. Therefore, it is often not necessary to run around in your car going to several different places to get what you need (which can be extremely annoying in the city). Take East Liberty for example it's a motor vehicle trap.

You don't have to worry about extraneous expenses like gas, car insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. And beautiful thing is, you don't have to focus on driving while your traveling; you can do other things with your time like read. Also, I would argue that transit provides more autonomy as long as your adjacent communities are walkable. People who live near transit are often healthier as a result.