Can we please stop recommending Pittsburgh's suburbs? (Mount Lebanon, Lebanon: crime, job market)

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Pittsburgh is an awesome city, but city life isn't for everyone. Some people prefer a suburban way of life. Unfortunately, Pittsburgh has some of the worst suburbs of any major city in the country. Bad roads (granted, it's mostly due to the topography), old housing stock (but, 50's/60's, not historical). Uninspired retail and dining options, poor transit infrastructure for commuters. I just can't see how Pittsburgh's suburbs would appeal to an outsider with out school-aged kids.

Pittsburgh's suburbs have a rich history that extends as far back as the city's.


I guess if people had never heard of the French & Indian War, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Underground Railroad or the pioneering industrial activities of Carnegie, Frick, Westinghouse and others, all of whom were active in Pittsburgh suburbia as well, you might think otherwise.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Pittsburgh's suburbs have a rich history that extends as far back as the city's.


I guess if people had never heard of the French & Indian War, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Underground Railroad or the pioneering industrial activities of Carnegie, Frick, Westinghouse and others, all of whom were active in Pittsburgh suburbia as well, you might think otherwise.

If Meadowcroft counts as suburban, then that rich history goes back literally to the first evidence of human habitation in the Western Hemisphere. What that has to do with the strip malls in Ross, I haven't the slightest idea.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

If Meadowcroft counts as suburban, then that rich history goes back literally to the first evidence of human habitation in the Western Hemisphere. What that has to do with the strip malls in Ross, I haven't the slightest idea.

The City of Pittsburgh has plenty of strip malls as well, from the Noble Manor shops to the Waterworks, they aren't confined to the suburbs.

[SteelCityRising]

Pittsburgh has varying degrees and intensities of "suburbs", and one must not be remiss to take this into consideration before broadly being so dismissive.

Pine Township (Wexford) is a suburb of Pittsburgh.
McKees Rocks is a suburb of Pittsburgh.
Oakmont is a suburb of Pittsburgh.

^ All three have vastly different built environments, though.

Wexford is traditional newer American suburbia---vinyl siding, cul-de-sacs, limited walkability, strip malls, a high level of car dependency. Transit connections into the city are poor because it's inefficient financially for PAT to run buses into individual residential subdivisions to pick up very few potential riders. I would consider living here to be absolute misery, yet it's an extremely popular community with other transplants.

McKees Rocks is an old factory town where everything is intact (in various levels of maintenance) except for the industry that brought it to its former glory. It has its own struggling business district and many narrow streets lined with older homes. Walkability is average here---would be higher if the downtown was fully revitalized with useful businesses. Transit connections to the city are good and will improve once the West Carson Street construction ebbs in 2076.

Oakmont is an "old money" town with a Norman Rockwell-like central business district surrounded by generally upper-middle-class neighborhoods comprised of a mixture of stately older homes and smaller mid-century homes. Walkability is above-average here, despite the lack of a grocery store, due to the presence of well-maintained sidewalks shaded by leafy trees. The town is mostly arranged in a grid, making it easier to maneuver on foot. Transit connections into the city are limited, but most town residents can walk to a bus stop.

All three areas will appeal to three distinctively different groups. People like PreservationPioneer or I will prefer a place like McKees Rocks---rough around the edges, dirt cheap, somewhat walkable, and oozing with revitalization potential. Many educated transplants WITH children moving here for work prefer "familiar" and "homogenized"---that would be Wexford, which might as well be a rapidly developing suburban area in any metropolitan area in the country due to its lack of aesthetic appeal or unique character. A place like Oakmont (or its more affluent peer of Sewickley)? It can appeal to a wide variety of different groups.

Pittsburgh city proper's main issue in why it is continuing to bleed residents while many surrounding newer suburbs continue to grow is the perceived (or real) abysmal quality of many public schools. For an IT manager with a $90,000 salary moving here with three children to work at Apple's new offices coming to the Strip District, is it worth living paycheck to paycheck in order to pay a pricing premium on housing to live within the Taylor Allderdice High School feeder pattern in the Lower East End; pay an average amount for housing to live in another city neighborhood and then spend a fortune annually on private schooling, bringing that cost up; OR just pay an above-average amount for a newer home in an above-average-performing school district, like Pine-Richland or South Fayette?

Pittsburgh's city proper is doing a TREMENDOUS job right now of competing with the likes of Wexford (or Moon Township or Robinson Township or South Fayette Township for that matter) for the coveted "brainy 20-something progressive" crowd, as that's all I'm seeing around me in the city these days. However, as we Millennials are all starting to push 30, marry, and either have kids or have their young children approach school age, can the city RETAIN us? Just on this sub-forum the city lost SlurmsMcKenzie (I'm guessing aged mid-to-late-30s?) to Crafton due to the public school situation for his child. However, it has also retained at least Eschaton (Morningside) and Lobick (Mexican War Streets), both of whom seem to be about the same age as SlurmsMcKenzie and both of whom seem to be determined to stay in the city and send their children to public schools outside the Taylor Allderdice feeder pattern. I'm curious to see updates from both of these gentlemen in five years and again in a decade to see if they've been feeling as if they're helping to turn the tide for the better with city schools OR if they're frustrated enough that they're likewise planning a suburban relocation.

This again begs the question.

a.) Do we want a smaller city of ~275,000 residents, but with the vast majority of those residents being educated, upper-middle-class, and childless (i.e. Richard Florida's "Creative Class"); or

b.) Do we want to promote growth up to ~350,000 residents, but with a more diverse population that includes those without degrees, those who are working-class, and those who are struggling financially to raise multiple children in a working-class lifestyle?

Obviously on purely financial terms for city officials the first option means fewer people utilizing fewer services are contributing higher wage tax revenues, which means more "free cash" for the city to burn through in order to try to continue rebuilding long-neglected infrastructure---not only in just the "trendy" neighborhoods. A smaller population also means fewer Federally-supported community development block grants (CDBC's) and a continued tumble down national city sizing rankings. It also means a smaller percentage of metropolitan residents residing within city limits, which further contributes to the notion that our population is too spread out.

[tclifton]

The suburbs can be the best of both worlds. You can live in a place that is great for raising a family with good schools and low crime, and easily drive into the city if you feel like going to a game, museum, show, etc.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by tclifton

The suburbs can be the best of both worlds. You can live in a place that is great for raising a family with good schools and low crime, and easily drive into the city if you feel like going to a game, museum, show, etc.

This x2.

The home I had in Shaler Township was perfect.
Nice home, close but not too close to my neighbors, a yard that wasnt hard to maintain but was large and private enough to enjoy with my son, quiet cul-de-sace where neighborhood kids could ride bikes and play basketball, undeveloped lot across the street that was home to a family of deer, easy access to Giant Eagle or McKnight Road.

Blissful suburbia. Yet, we could see the Steel Tower and Cathedral of Learning out of our windows. I could sit on my roof on the Fourth of July for a great view of the fireworks shows in the city. We could be downtown in 20 minutes via 279.

I truly miss that bliss very deeply.

[guy2073]

I always wanted to live in the country, I hope everyone moves to the city.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by tclifton

The suburbs can be the best of both worlds. You can live in a place that is great for raising a family with good schools and low crime, and easily drive into the city if you feel like going to a game, museum, show, etc.

This.

[eschaton]

Again, going back to my point - the question is not whether some people would prefer the suburbs to the city. Of course some people would. The question is why someone would prefer the suburbs of Pittsburgh to the suburbs of anywhere else. If your only real interaction with the City is occasional trips to museums, games, or the theater than just about any medium-to-large core city in the country can suffice.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Again, going back to my point - the question is not whether some people would prefer the suburbs to the city. Of course some people would. The question is why someone would prefer the suburbs of Pittsburgh to the suburbs of anywhere else. If your only real interaction with the City is occasional trips to museums, games, or the theater than just about any medium-to-large core city in the country can suffice.

It goes hand in hand with whether or not you recommend Pittsburgh over those other places. Whatever the pluses are of the city, you can utilize without actually living there.