Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed, they will be less concerned about actually patronizing such a restaurant if they see fit.
In Veblen's "Theory of the leisure class" he makes a distinction between conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. He argues that areas with a stronger community will resort to conspicuous leisure more than conspicuous consumption to display their status. I think Pittsburgh is an area with a fairly strong community and thus conspicuous consumption has never gotten out of control as it has in areas like Las Vegas, LA etc. But this doesn't mean status displays don't happen, they happen in other ways (via the display of conspicuous leisure). In some sense Pittsburgh sense of community is a positive thing, but when you want to attract entrepreneurs and money it creates a problem. It is not by accident that all the hot business areas of the country are very materialistic. It is at least not clear to me how you can bring this culture to Pittsburgh without adding its negatives (conspicuous consumption, extreme status seeking etc).
So this is what I think is so funny about the Eat'n park suggestion, its just so very Pittsburgh. But if Pittsburgh is going to be more successful it has to un-Pittsburgh itself a bit. I think Pittsburghers mistakenly belief they can both keep their community as is and create a more economically vibrant area.
Lastly, to your comments about upper class etc. I think you can identify around 5-6 different classes in America (and actually many regional variations), its not just "low, middle, upper". So there are things between your standard "middle-class" and the upper class. Although in Pittsburgh there isn't too much between them.
As an aside, I agree one could define many more than three American economic classes, but you were the one insisting that places like Squirrel Hill were entirely "middle class". Since Squirrel Hill has everything from student apartments to homes that cost well over $1 million, I thought it was you who was insisting on a broad definition of middle class.
Anyway, I guess I am not entirely sure I would want Pittsburgh to be "more successful" in the way you are describing. Indeed, I think you are hinting at some of the reasons why a "slow-and steady" growth model is arguably more conducive to a high quality of life in a locality than a "boom town" model. In fact, Pittsburgh already had its boom, and as often happens, a bust followed. So, I would not personally be hoping for Pittsburgh to enter that cycle again.
But I think the slow-and-steady model is consistent with gradually developing more residential space Downtown. In fact, I think the current trend toward more people favoring urban living suggests that development would be a good idea even with no overall growth in the Pittsburgh population, as in fact the current sky-high occupation rates Downtown suggest.
Pittsburgh already had its boom, and as often happens, a bust followed.
Pittsburgh boom busted because it was based on a single industry. There are many areas that have boomed and are still doing well, but its because their boom was not based on a single industry but rather favorable business conditions. Ironically Pittsburgh hasn't learned its lesson as its industry is still dominated by two industries (education, medical). Also, I'm not suggesting the "slow-and-steady" growth model works....it doesn't. People always focus on the negative side of booms (creative destruction) but fail to notice all the positives. Without Pittsburgh's boom the city would be a wasteland, the universities wouldn't exist, most of the fortune 1000 companies wouldn't be here.
Quote:
But I think the slow-and-steady model is consistent with gradually developing more residential space Downtown.
Whatever model Pittsburgh is using its failing because its job growth is below the national average (by a lot mind you). In order for conditions to improve in Pittsburgh it will need to see a boom. Not on the level of the dot-com bubble in the bay area, but a boom nonetheless.
Also, at least to me its completely not clear what the residential development of downtown is suppose to achieve. If there is one thing that the Pittsburgh area does not need is more residential development. All you're doing is moving people around, so if the residential development of downtown is successful it will only be at the cost of another (local) area. Also, the high occupation rates don't suggest much due to the limited supply of units.
High occupancy rates do indeed suggest high demand relative to supply, but that is why it makes sense to develop more units. Any unfulfilled demand will have a net negative effect on the overall attractiveness of the region, because it means some prospective residents are having to move on to their second choice of locales. And I suspect Downtown in particular would be an attractive first choice for many prospective residents from outside the area (e.g., someone coming to work Downtown who wants a convenient apartment and who is not yet comfortable with their knowledge of the area).
By the way, I actually don't believe Pittsburgh's steel industry boom was entirely necessary for Pittsburgh to develop to its current point, although it is true it created a legacy (e.g., cultural institutions and housing stock) being enjoyed by the residents today. Pittsburgh is in the process of transforming itself into a service center, and the region of which it is the de facto capital (what I would call the northern parts of Appalachia) would have needed this service center anyway. So, there would still be a need for a city in this region with the hospitals, and probably the universities too, and the banks, and law offices, and so on.
Finally, I think the overall job growth numbers are somewhat deceptive. I think Pittsburgh is still completing its transition to this new smaller service center city model, which does mean job stagnation or loss in some areas. For example, Pittsburgh certainly hasn't had the housing sector boom that fueled job growth in many other places (of course that boom that is now going bust, and that bust is having the predictable effects in many of those other places). On the other hand, my understanding is that some of the job segments specifically relating to the new service center economy have experienced job growth.
So, I think a lot of these overall statistics represent the fact that Pittsburgh is still completing a painful transition. But I also think there are encouraging signs of a new, admittedly smaller but more stable, economy emerging.
High occupancy rates do indeed suggest high demand relative to supply
If I make 100 widgets and sale 95 of them that does not imply I can scale this and sale 95% of 10,000 widgets. There really is no way to know whether the residential development will work out. I'm really 50/50 on it, but I do not think its going to help the city. Adding residential units in an area with a declining population makes little sense. Also note, that the crash in residential real estate is going to effect Pittsburgh. The problems in the credit markets aren't regional, they effect the whole country. These problems will soften the demand in the Pittsburgh area and given that there is already a supply problem you'll see prices decline. Additionally as prices decline in other areas Pittsburgh will be less and less attractive to outsiders.
Quote:
still completing a painful transition.
Yes yes..."still in transition", "encouraging signs", etc these are the phrases that have been used for years and years and years. Wake me up when its done, in the mean time people will move to more attractive areas that offer interesting employment (or better environments for business). Honestly, much of this talk falls on deaf ears as the people are just leaving.
If I make 100 widgets and sale 95 of them that does not imply I can scale this and sale 95% of 10,000 widgets.
First, in your example that is a 100-fold increase in supply, and I don't think anyone is talking about trying to do that in the near term.
Second, this is actually an inventory issue, not a sales issue, meaning what we are measuring is not how many units will eventually be rented, but rather how many are available for rent at any given time. I am not an expert on inventory issues in the real estate industry, but I am told that a 95% occupancy rate is very high by industry standards. Therefore, this seems like good evidence supply is not meeting demand.
Quote:
I'm really 50/50 on it, but I do not think its going to help the city. Adding residential units in an area with a declining population makes little sense.
But again, not all residential units are the same. As I understand it, the high occupany rates Downtown indicate there is insufficient supply relative to current demand. And as I noted, that means people who would ideally like to live Downtown are being forced to live elsewhere. And elsewhere could be somewhere else in the Pittsburgh area, but it could also be in another city entirely. In short, it almost never makes sense for an area to try to force people into existing residential units they find less desirable by keeping the supply of new residential units they would find more desirable low. All that is likely to do is make the area less attractive overall.
Quote:
Also note, that the crash in residential real estate is going to effect Pittsburgh. The problems in the credit markets aren't regional, they effect the whole country. These problems will soften the demand in the Pittsburgh area and given that there is already a supply problem you'll see prices decline.
Well, we already have some data on this issue, and it appears that Pittsburgh housing prices have actually held up relatively well compared to many other places. To be sure Pittsburgh is not quite unique in this regard: for example, in Washington, D.C., there has been a sharp price decline in the farthest out housing developments, but much less of a decline in the District itself and the closest neighborhoods in Maryland and Virginia. Incidentally, this is pretty good evidence that while there was undoubtedly an oversupply in certain kinds of housing across the country, it remains true in many cities that there is still an undersupply in urban housing.
Quote:
Additionally as prices decline in other areas Pittsburgh will be less and less attractive to outsiders.
That all depends on why the prices are declining. Usually declining prices indicate declining demand, or at least oversupply relative to demand which is being unwound. In either case, if Pittsburgh can provide more of the sorts of housing people actually want at a price they can afford, then it should be an attractive destination. And even with housing prices in some other places crashing and Pittsburgh remaining relatively stable or even appreciating a bit, Pittsburgh is starting from such a lower base that it will likely remain competitively priced. And that is certainly true with respect to urban housing, because again that sort of housing has not been coming down in price nearly as much elsewhere.
Quote:
Yes yes..."still in transition", "encouraging signs", etc these are the phrases that have been used for years and years and years. Wake me up when its done, in the mean time people will move to more attractive areas that offer interesting employment (or better environments for business). Honestly, much of this talk falls on deaf ears as the people are just leaving.
Well, in fact those words have also been true for years. You have two different dynamics going on: the continued unwinding of the population and economy that was built up in the steel boom days, and the gradual building up of a service center economy and matching population. When you aggregate the overall econometric and population data, you can't disentangle these two dynamics. So, if you are waiting for the overall numbers to only reflect the second dynamic, you are in effect waiting for the first dynamic to be completely finished. And you might well have a while to wait for that, but in the meantime the second dynamic is going to be continuing.
Pittsburgh boom busted because it was based on a single industry. There are many areas that have boomed and are still doing well, but its because their boom was not based on a single industry but rather favorable business conditions. Ironically Pittsburgh hasn't learned its lesson as its industry is still dominated by two industries (education, medical). Also, I'm not suggesting the "slow-and-steady" growth model works....it doesn't. People always focus on the negative side of booms (creative destruction) but fail to notice all the positives. Without Pittsburgh's boom the city would be a wasteland, the universities wouldn't exist, most of the fortune 1000 companies wouldn't be here.
Whatever model Pittsburgh is using its failing because its job growth is below the national average (by a lot mind you). In order for conditions to improve in Pittsburgh it will need to see a boom. Not on the level of the dot-com bubble in the bay area, but a boom nonetheless.
Also, at least to me its completely not clear what the residential development of downtown is suppose to achieve. If there is one thing that the Pittsburgh area does not need is more residential development. All you're doing is moving people around, so if the residential development of downtown is successful it will only be at the cost of another (local) area. Also, the high occupation rates don't suggest much due to the limited supply of units.
I've been saying this for such a long time, but no one appears to agree with me. Perhaps it would be best if we had city government leaders who have lived and worked in more prosperous areas to show Pittsburgh how it's done.
I have said the same thing about the retail here. There is none. Well, very little compared to the amount of population that is here. Also, the office space here is at a four year high. That means, no one is renting or buying the available space. That does not appear to me to be an improvement....
Also, the office space here is at a four year high. That means, no one is renting or buying the available space. That does not appear to me to be an improvement....
That's incorrect in a big way. The office OCCUPANCY rate is at a a four year high. The metro finished 2007 with a vacancy rate of 12.6% compared to 14.5% in the first quarter. The downtown vacancy rate is also on the decline and UPMC of course just bought a huge chunk of the US Steel building which will drop the rate even more, probably to a low that Pittsburgh hasn't seen in many years. People are renting and buying available office space in Pittsburgh at a very appreciable rate (comparative to Pittsburgh).
By the way, my understanding is that what Downtown does have quite a bit of in terms of vacancy is unmarketed upper floor space in many smaller buildings. And that is what people are talking about developing into additional residential units.
As I understand it, the high occupany rates Downtown indicate there is insufficient supply relative to current demand.
Again, the are so few units it says very little. Also, who is renting them? Are they being rented as corporate apartments by local companies or are they being rented by individuals?
Quote:
And that is certainly true with respect to urban housing, because again that sort of housing has not been coming down in price nearly as much elsewhere.
No not yet, that is because we are currently moving through the subprime resets. Most of the urban housing was not purchased by subprime folks. In 2009-2010 we will see a massive wave of prime ARM resets (most importantly including option-ARMs) this will drive the prices on more upscale areas down in much the same way the subprime resets are doing to the less desirable areas.
Anyhow, I would like to stress again that the prices are going to decline due to reduced demand. The decline in demand will be nation wide as the credit crisis will effect all areas equally. Now of course areas like Pittsburgh that didn't see a big increase in prices probably will not decline as much as say Florida. But it will decline. Also, there is no way that "urbane housing" is going to go up while everything down. People try to use this same thinking to justify the prices in the Bay area and on the coast in CA. But...alas prices in those areas are now starting to go down. Even if people prefer urbane living they will sacrifice it for cheaper housing elsewhere in the city (or elsewhere in the country).
Regardless, this country is going through a financial crisis at levels not seen since the Depression. Even if the Fed avoids a major economic meltdown, the crisis in the credit markets will be felt for some time. Investors just aren't interested in buying toxic America debt anymore and many of the debt markets are pretty much illiquid at this point.
Quote:
Perhaps it would be best if we had city government leaders who have lived and worked in more prosperous areas to show Pittsburgh how it's done.
I do not think its just the city leaders its also the people. They want to keep their city as is, but also want it to grow economically.
Economic growth will change some of Pittsburgh's dynamics, but the folks in Pittsburgh do not seem to want that. But, oh well. I've left never to return.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
