Can we please stop recommending Pittsburgh's suburbs? (Erie, Penn Hills: chapel, big home)

[erieguy]

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.

Family is probably why most would prefer the suburbs of Pittsburgh to the suburbs of anywhere else. I have family in the city but would never move back to the city, only visit.

[stburr91]

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.

I don't follow that logic at all, simply because metros are not all the same. There's job markets, housing, culture, geographic, demographics, weather, hobby opportunities, and a million other reasons why someone may choose the Pittsburgh metro over just any other medium-to-large core city.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by tclifton

Whatever the pluses are of the city, you can utilize without actually living there.

Let's see somebody in Cranberry use my 30 minute, free, commute to Oakland.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tclifton

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.

No, I really don't think that's the case at all.

For example, one could argue from a suburban perspective, Cleveland is a better city than Pittsburgh. It surely has a more active nightlife, the stadiums are right in Downtown (rather than across the river) and it has much more ample parking.

That said, a lot more of Cleveland looks like a dumpster fire than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has nothing like Eastside - one side of town which is overwhelmingly black and impoverished barring a few neighborhoods. The traditionally working-class white west side of town is mostly in slow decline as well. Crime in Cleveland is significantly higher. Cleveland outshines Pittsburgh actually in having more top-notch walkable suburbs, like Lakewood and Shaker Heights.

So yes, if someone just wanted to drive into town to use some amenities, I'd suggest maybe Cleveland would be a better fit. Pittsburgh is a better city because we have strong neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, South Side, and Lawrenceville. Our suburbs don't really bring much to the table, except for a few notable exceptions, like Mount Lebanon.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

Let's see somebody in Cranberry use my 30 minute, free, commute to Oakland.

I don't know anybody out here including myself that would care to. It's just not a big deal to us as driving/traveling 30 minutes isn't an inconvenience whether it's free or not.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I don't follow that logic at all, simply because metros are not all the same. There's job markets, housing, culture, geographic, demographics, weather, hobby opportunities, and a million other reasons why someone may choose the Pittsburgh metro over just any other medium-to-large core city.

Yes, there are a ton of different reasons why someone could choose Pittsburgh over any other metro to live. But there are just as many reasons why they could choose another metro.

Say you have a hypothetical young single person who is offered the chance to relocate between six metros - Pittsburgh, Tampa, Sacramento, Charlotte, Saint Louis, and Cleveland. In each place they have a job lined up for them, and the pay will be adjusted to account for whatever the local cost-of-living differences are. They don't really care about weather, FWIW.

I can say if they are a "city person" they will enjoy Pittsburgh more than the other five options. What would you say to help Pittsburgh suburbs outshine the other five metros?

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

No, I really don't think that's the case at all.

For example, one could argue from a suburban perspective, Cleveland is a better city than Pittsburgh. It surely has a more active nightlife, the stadiums are right in Downtown (rather than across the river) and it has much more ample parking.

That said, a lot more of Cleveland looks like a dumpster fire than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has nothing like Eastside - one side of town which is overwhelmingly black and impoverished barring a few neighborhoods. The traditionally working-class white west side of town is mostly in slow decline as well. Crime in Cleveland is significantly higher. Cleveland outshines Pittsburgh actually in having more top-notch walkable suburbs, like Lakewood and Shaker Heights.

So yes, if someone just wanted to drive into town to use some amenities, I'd suggest maybe Cleveland would be a better fit. Pittsburgh is a better city because we have strong neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, South Side, and Lawrenceville. Our suburbs don't really bring much to the table, except for a few notable exceptions, like Mount Lebanon.

That's your opinion. Not everyone shares it. You're partial to Pittsburgh. Not everyone is.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

No, I really don't think that's the case at all.

For example, one could argue from a suburban perspective, Cleveland is a better city than Pittsburgh. It surely has a more active nightlife, the stadiums are right in Downtown (rather than across the river) and it has much more ample parking.

That said, a lot more of Cleveland looks like a dumpster fire than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has nothing like Eastside - one side of town which is overwhelmingly black and impoverished barring a few neighborhoods. The traditionally working-class white west side of town is mostly in slow decline as well. Crime in Cleveland is significantly higher. Cleveland outshines Pittsburgh actually in having more top-notch walkable suburbs, like Lakewood and Shaker Heights.

So yes, if someone just wanted to drive into town to use some amenities, I'd suggest maybe Cleveland would be a better fit. Pittsburgh is a better city because we have strong neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, South Side, and Lawrenceville. Our suburbs don't really bring much to the table, except for a few notable exceptions, like Mount Lebanon.

Although I 50% agree with the OP (the post I believe he was referring to was the guy moving from Texas and the suggestions that the suburbs have as much nightlife/young people is just ignorant), not everyone on this site is looking for a walk-able suburb, Eschaton. Some people like living on a half acre lot, with a driveway/detached garage and room for a pool/deck/whatever. Some people enjoy driving a car to work versus walking or taking transit.

Personally, I wish I could take the train to work and only use a car sparingly. But I can't due to the location of my job. But I live in a very walk-able neighborhood in the city and enjoy being able to walk or bike to everything else but work.

I could also see myself in ten years living outside the city in a more suburban setting. But I'm going to cross that bridge when I get to it.

Different strokes for different folks.

[erieguy]

^^^^This.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by eschaton

So yes, if someone just wanted to drive into town to use some amenities, I'd suggest maybe Cleveland would be a better fit. Pittsburgh is a better city because we have strong neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, South Side, and Lawrenceville. Our suburbs don't really bring much to the table, except for a few notable exceptions, like Mount Lebanon.

Yeah, but I can visit all of those neighborhoods from the suburbs and experience them without actually living in them.