Washington County's own apartment boom (Pittsburgh, Penn Hills: transplants, 2015, apartments)

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Yes. Very much so. I grew up on the periphery of a small city, Pittston, which has a present-day population of around 7,500---down from a peak of ~21,000 in its heyday generations ago. While the town's main drag is enjoying some level of revitalization success in recent years, it still looks awful due to the presence of so many "gap-teeth" in the urban fabric where so many historic edifices were felled over the years due to neglect and abandonment brought on by urban sprawl. The surrounding townships are home to dozens of upper-middle-class residential subdivisions with huge homes that house former Pittston residents. This has shifted the "haves" to the periphery while the "have-nots" are concentrated in the city proper.

Seeing the historic Borr & Casey Building on Pittston's Main Street torn down in the '90's as a child cemented my aversion towards urban sprawl. I couldn't understand why a dwindling population to begin with thought it was "better" to abandon existing structures to tear down trees and build new homes and businesses outside the city limits. It just seemed incredibly wasteful to me. Today unchecked suburban sprawl has led Pittston Township to endure terrible rush-hour traffic congestion (for a township of ~3,500 souls) along PA State Highway 315. On a larger scale I-81 is often stop-and-go between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre during the evening rush while the population of this metro area has imploded over the past several generations. Why? A dwindling population (not unlike what we have in Allegheny County) was just spread around further and further like butter on a piece of toast until enough people were living far enough removed from existing infrastructure that their cars clogged the roadways leading back to urban centers beyond capacity.

I'm seeing this on a local level, too. Everyone on here always talks about how I-279 into town from the North Hills is a "smooth-sailing commute", yet whenever I head up to go running at Presque Isle in Erie on a weekday and take I-279 outbound I see traffic backed up INTO town for miles. More and more people are moving to Marshall, Pine, Richland, Adams, Cranberry, and, eventually, Jackson Townships. While some of those people may work at Westinghouse or the Thornhill Business Park, MANY more commute southbound into Pittsburgh. As more and more people move out to these suburban areas, traffic congestion on I-279 will rival (or exceed) traffic congestion on I-376, and people in the North Hills will complain that they "need" a wider highway. As an urban-dweller I resent that money will be spent to widen I-279 and/or I-79 to facilitate shorter commutes for suburban North Hills residents while we in the heavily-populated East End corridor are stuck in terrible surface street congestion because we still don't have a "T" line.

I don't see the "boom" in Washington County as anything worthy of celebration unless the CITY of Washington and BOROUGH of Canonsburg are included in this "boom". As of present they are being excluded, so any and all of this "boom" is a colossal waste of open space being destroyed adjacent to historic yet decaying urban centers.

So you are okay with using the freeway to travel for your pleasure but complain when people use it to commute into the city where they contribute to the Pittsburgh economy? okay....

Also, doubtful that the commute from the north will ever end up like 376. The tunnels are the main reason that traffic backs up. The downtown area would have to explode to support the jobs in which commuters would travel from up that way.

Also, as someone that rails against the east end culture, you really seem desperate to attach yourself to the area.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

While some of those people may work at Westinghouse or the Thornhill Business Park, MANY more commute southbound into Pittsburgh. As more and more people move out to these suburban areas, traffic congestion on I-279 will rival (or exceed) traffic congestion on I-376, and people in the North Hills will complain that they "need" a wider highway. .

Actually, the stats I've seen show that more people commute TO Cranberry than live in Cranberry and commute to jobs elsewhere.



Last month, I was out in Washington County, the number of offices adjacent to I79 are pretty impressive.

Certainly some people, even a lot of people, commute to Pittsburgh. But there are a lot of jobs out in the 'burbs. Looking a rush traffic on I79, I'd suspect that a majority are going somewhere other that downtown.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by lettert

So you are okay with using the freeway to travel for your pleasure but complain when people use it to commute into the city where they contribute to the Pittsburgh economy? okay....

Also, doubtful that the commute from the north will ever end up like 376. The tunnels are the main reason that traffic backs up. The downtown area would have to explode to support the jobs in which commuters would travel from up that way.

Also, as someone that rails against the east end culture, you really seem desperate to attach yourself to the area.

You're right. Eschaton just provided a map that shows Polish Hill as being part of Downtown, so from now on I'm going to say I live in "Downtown Pittsburgh". I've lived and worked in the East End since 2010. Adjacent neighborhoods like Bloomfield and Lawrenceville are the East End; however, to appease you I will start saying I live in "Downtown Pittsburgh" to be more accurate.

Also, Interstate highways were NEVER intended to funnel suburban commuters to urban job centers. They were intended to connect metropolitan areas to other metropolitan areas, which is what I do when I use I-279 to get to I-79 to access Erie (or Buffalo, where we want to go on vacation the next time I have money saved). Interstate highways were supposed to be LIMITED ACCESS but have since morphed into having exits surrounded by seas of sprawl every two miles.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Also, Interstate highways were NEVER intended to funnel suburban commuters to urban job centers. They were intended to connect metropolitan areas to other metropolitan areas, which is what I do when I use I-279 to get to I-79 to access Erie (or Buffalo, where we want to go on vacation the next time I have money saved). Interstate highways were supposed to be LIMITED ACCESS but have since morphed into having exits surrounded by seas of sprawl every two miles.

A lot of people like living in the suburbs, they don't particularly care to live that close to too many people. My octogenarian mum lives is a rather spread out area of the city, alone in a single family house. I asked her if she ever would want to move into an apartment- the answer was 'heck no'. Grew up in a small house with 7 people, just doesn't care to live that close to that many other people.


You got to respect that people have different tastes.


I don't understand why anyone would want to vacation in Buffalo, but I respect that different people have different tastes, and not everyone likes to go to Florida for their vacays.

[UKyank]

--

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

... Americans....

The popularity of suburbs & city exodus aren't an American thing by any means however

[eschaton]

It could always be worse. My brother just got back from Japan (his wife is working there for a year on a Fulbright). In Japan, houses are considered to depreciate like cars. They constantly lose value, and then after 30-40 years, they are knocked down and something new is built there.

We might not have a European level of respect for our past history, but we do much better than some other areas.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It could always be worse. My brother just got back from Japan (his wife is working there for a year on a Fulbright). In Japan, houses are considered to depreciate like cars. They constantly lose value, and then after 30-40 years, they are knocked down and something new is built there.

We might not have a European level of respect for our past history, but we do much better than some other areas.

Houses ARE a depreciating asset. It's the land they are built on that can appreciate or not.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Houses ARE a depreciating asset. It's the land they are built on that can appreciate or not.

It's true that a new house on an identical plot of land to an old house of the same size will sell for more. However, that doesn't mean that it's always more cost effective to knock down an old house and build another one rather than restore the old house to present tastes.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's true that a new house on an identical plot of land to an old house of the same size will sell for more. However, that doesn't mean that it's always more cost effective to knock down an old house and build another one rather than restore the old house to present tastes.

Not necessarily. A well-restored historic home may command more value (in the same location) than a new builder grade home. A well-restored historic home in Lawrenceville might command more than a new home of the same size in Lawrenceville. I don't think those split levels from the 1960s command more value in Manchester than the restored houses from the 1860s! And I don't think a 1950s brick colonial in Penn Hills or Blackridge would sell for more than well-maintained or restored 1910s-1920s four square in the same neighborhood! Sometimes history and quality and beauty and condition trump any other factor.