Where is the Ghetto? (Pittsburgh, Chester: work, housing, gangs)

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I agree with you 100%! I too am in favor of knocking down those unslightly homes and replacing them with newer buildings. It makes no sense to me that instead of tearing things down that are never going to be brought back up to code, the city boards them up and forgets about them. All it does is make parts of the city look disgusting and dirty.

The problem with replacing those ugly nasty buildings with nice new buildings is -- who will live there? If these neighborhoods are empty, just building new stuff there won't help...

But if you tear down the building and put in green space -- like a park... with the understanding that the area can be redeveloped later when you have the population.... you now have an attractive rather low cost solution to the ugliness. Maybe even put in community gardens where the rest of the population that is left there can grow flowers and veg....

I say take it down and put in trees!

[oktaren]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I agree with you 100%! I too am in favor of knocking down those unslightly homes and replacing them with newer buildings. It makes no sense to me that instead of tearing things down that are never going to be brought back up to code, the city boards them up and forgets about them. All it does is make parts of the city look disgusting and dirty.

It doesn't look any better when they are torn down. Look at Cleveland or Buffalo.

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

The problem with replacing those ugly nasty buildings with nice new buildings is -- who will live there? If these neighborhoods are empty, just building new stuff there won't help...

But if you tear down the building and put in green space -- like a park... with the understanding that the area can be redeveloped later when you have the population.... you now have an attractive rather low cost solution to the ugliness. Maybe even put in community gardens where the rest of the population that is left there can grow flowers and veg....

I say take it down and put in trees!

OK, I admit, that's a way better idea. *smile*

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

OK, I admit, that's a way better idea. *smile*

I didn't think of it -- supposedly that's what Youngstown is doing....

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by PghPlanner

Lady of the Lake,

You might check into those "boarded up homes". Many times they are actually owned by the City itself. That was one of the big problems in the Hill. The majority of "empty" homes were owned by the City.

To all, Drugs are EVERYWHERE. Even in the most upscale neighborhoods, drugs are for sale. In those neighborhoods people are more descrete and put up a show.

All urban areas are suffering right now. Anyone recall "urban flight". Those that could get out did. Yes, in Pittsburgh there are those who choose to live and the City and can afford to. Taxes in the City proper are higher than in surrounding suburbs. And yes, then there are those who just can't get out.

It is a difficult issue that has many in City government that care scratching their heads.

Well, the city could adopt an agressive solution to the problem, problem is that no one can decide exactly what should be done. People who represent poor neighborhoods want all the money to go to them... and so on for every distinct group/neighborhood. They key is to bring in business and improve the infrastructure. City living has great things to offer that you just won't find in the suburbs or in a rural area.

I agree with One Hill that revitalizing the Hill District is a huge key to revitalizing the city, but I don't agree with their approuch at all, or their motive, or their end game, for that matter. The Hill, as it stands, is a massive piece of property located right in the middle of the city... where almost anything can be accessed... and where young professionals working downtown or going to Pitt/CMU are a short hop away (one that they should be making on mass transit) from where they need to be. What ought to be the residential core of the city is rotted out.

One Hill's aim seems to be to Keep The Hill Black, keep out factors that lead to real growth, and make demands that are laughably unreasonable. They want a grocery store and hundreds of millions in community welfare, when what should be done is to bring in developers and create an environment that has far less concentrated poverty (which is a huge problem for any city).

And that's just one thing....

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

Well, the city could adopt an agressive solution to the problem, problem is that no one can decide exactly what should be done. People who represent poor neighborhoods want all the money to go to them... and so on for every distinct group/neighborhood. They key is to bring in business and improve the infrastructure. City living has great things to offer that you just won't find in the suburbs or in a rural area.

I agree with One Hill that revitalizing the Hill District is a huge key to revitalizing the city, but I don't agree with their approuch at all, or their motive, or their end game, for that matter. The Hill, as it stands, is a massive piece of property located right in the middle of the city... where almost anything can be accessed... and where young professionals working downtown or going to Pitt/CMU are a short hop away (one that they should be making on mass transit) from where they need to be. What ought to be the residential core of the city is rotted out.

One Hill's aim seems to be to Keep The Hill Black, keep out factors that lead to real growth, and make demands that are laughably unreasonable. They want a grocery store and hundreds of millions in community welfare, when what should be done is to bring in developers and create an environment that has far less concentrated poverty (which is a huge problem for any city).

And that's just one thing....

I was wondering -- does the city of Pittsburgh hold open city council meetings?

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I was wondering -- does the city of Pittsburgh hold open city council meetings?

Yes...

Rule VI

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/city_clerk/assets/06_Rules_Council_May_June.pdf (broken link)

[zip95]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

Well, the city could adopt an agressive solution to the problem, problem is that no one can decide exactly what should be done. People who represent poor neighborhoods want all the money to go to them... and so on for every distinct group/neighborhood. They key is to bring in business and improve the infrastructure. City living has great things to offer that you just won't find in the suburbs or in a rural area.

I agree with One Hill that revitalizing the Hill District is a huge key to revitalizing the city, but I don't agree with their approuch at all, or their motive, or their end game, for that matter. The Hill, as it stands, is a massive piece of property located right in the middle of the city... where almost anything can be accessed... and where young professionals working downtown or going to Pitt/CMU are a short hop away (one that they should be making on mass transit) from where they need to be. What ought to be the residential core of the city is rotted out.

One Hill's aim seems to be to Keep The Hill Black, keep out factors that lead to real growth, and make demands that are laughably unreasonable. They want a grocery store and hundreds of millions in community welfare, when what should be done is to bring in developers and create an environment that has far less concentrated poverty (which is a huge problem for any city).

And that's just one thing....

Groups like One Hill are largely symbolic. They exist to placate the public and let Hill District residents fell like some one is representing their interests. They have no power. It's all a big horse and pony show.

So here's the world in a nutshell: The people who control the money make the decisions.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by zip95

Groups like One Hill are largely symbolic. They exist to placate the public and let Hill District residents fell like some one is representing their interests. They have no power. It's all a big horse and pony show.

So here's the world in a nutshell: The people who control the money make the decisions.

I agree that One Hill's power is largely symbolic, but they do have political power, otherwise no one would be listening to them.

Now, granted, few people are listening, but that is in largepart because One Hill (or rather the people who eventually comprised it) misplayed their hand from the start. First, they got a rather generous offer from the city and development company, but they didn't support that proposal, backing the one that lost (to put the arena between Hienz and PNC). After they lost, they demanded more than was being offered origianally, when the people offering those deals could now get away with offering them less (if anything).

If they had done it the right way, they could have gotten most of what they wanted and really improved The Hill... it would have been win/win. I understnad their arguments, and I understand the history behind it, inspite only recently becoming a resident of the city, but... as I previously mentioned... they have to let go of a bit of that past to have a future. In the end, it would be better for The Hill and better for the city if they allowed large scale development to occur there.

That doesn't mean that all the people living in the Hill now (read "low-income blacks") are going to be kicked out. Indeed, cities that are serious about combating poverty take the approuch of mixing housing of differing income levels. As odd as it might seem, Pittsburgh could learn alot from Charleston and Shavanah in this area (and Alexandria to a lesser extent) where planners make sure that wealthy and poor are never to isolated from one another.

[MissShona]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

That doesn't mean that all the people living in the Hill now (read "low-income blacks") are going to be kicked out. Indeed, cities that are serious about combating poverty take the approuch of mixing housing of differing income levels. As odd as it might seem, Pittsburgh could learn alot from Charleston and Shavanah in this area (and Alexandria to a lesser extent) where planners make sure that wealthy and poor are never to isolated from one another.

Good points. I hope this is the case; Pittsburgh could really use more such areas.