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.
Most of those comparisons neglect to include the effects of vacant lots and abandoned buildings. Pittsburgh has a massive supply of these because it has lost half its population. The significance of this is that property and housing won't be constrained in the foreseeable future. If the supply runs low, instead of skyrocketing prices, we will see the abandonned property and housing put back on the market.
Certainly there will be hot/trendy neighborhoods with inflated prices. But nobody has to buy in those neighborhoods. You can buy an entire block of houses in some parts of the city for the price of a single condo in Lawrenceville. That situation won't change even with the addition of 50k jobs. It will take many more jobs/new-residents than that to eat through Pittsburgh's property surplus.
But, but, but. . . doncha know these Amazon-bots want to live in the "hip" 'hoods?
Actually, I agree with the bold. It's not the housing, for Pittsburgh anyway. That's more of a problem in that "D" city that cannot be mentioned on this board. But it's the strain on services that will be a problem anywhere except possibly Chicago and NY and maybe the MD/DC/NOVA area. I'm talking transit, roads, etc.
Most of those comparisons neglect to include the effects of vacant lots and abandoned buildings. Pittsburgh has a massive supply of these because it has lost half its population. The significance of this is that property and housing won't be constrained in the foreseeable future. If the supply runs low, instead of skyrocketing prices, we will see the abandonned property and housing put back on the market.
Certainly there will be hot/trendy neighborhoods with inflated prices. But nobody has to buy in those neighborhoods. You can buy an entire block of houses in some parts of the city for the price of a single condo in Lawrenceville. That situation won't change even with the addition of 50k jobs. It will take many more jobs/new-residents than that to eat through Pittsburgh's property surplus.
It isn't as easy as you think to get some of these abandoned properties back on the market. A year or two ago I read that even in "trendy Lawrenceville" there are something like 300 vacant homes. Pennsylvania has some of the strongest laws in the country protecting homeowners, but as a side effect, it's incredibly difficult for municipalities to seize abandoned buildings and get them back on the market. The only legal way to do so is to wait until they are tax delinquent and put them up for a sheriff's sale. The problem is the houses at that point often have back liens on them besides property taxes, including utility bills and sometimes personal income taxes owed by the former homeowner. The lack of clear title makes many of these homes hard to auction, because without an expensive title search you won't know how much you're on the hook for. By the time the vacant houses actually get to the point where they can be seized, they're often in a state of extreme deterioration as well, meaning many go right from seizure to being condemned. Not to mention there's absolutely nothing that the city can do about absentee homeowners (something which happens often if someone goes into a nursing home or moves out of state and retires, but never gives a family member authority to sell) as long as they pay property taxes.
I'm not even sure what they're talking about here. Scores just for the core city's public schools? Or public and private? Are suburbs included? I'm guessing they'd need to do some sort of weight system then.
But, but, but. . . doncha know these Amazon-bots want to live in the "hip" 'hoods?
Actually, I agree with the bold. It's not the housing, for Pittsburgh anyway. That's more of a problem in that "D" city that cannot be mentioned on this board. But it's the strain on services that will be a problem anywhere except possibly Chicago and NY and maybe the MD/DC/NOVA area. I'm talking transit, roads, etc.
My prediction is the opposite. Pittsburgh doesn't have the population to support its current infrastructure and services. Our streets, power grid, sewers, water supply and gas lines are servicing a ton of vacant property. The same can be said for police, fire and school coverage. Restoring our population will provide funding for these.
That's a better situation than in other cities with population decline. Detroit has had to cut off entire blocks. It wasn't economically feasible to continue providing utilities and services to blocks with so few inhabited homes. The utilities are shut off, streets left to rot and buildings demolished. The same has happened with transit lines, schools, fire departments, police stations and hospitals. Many of these have had to close or consolidate.
If we were full to the brim, then yeah, additional population would strain services. But we have the opposite situation. Services are closing because there is no longer the population and tax base to support them.
It isn't as easy as you think to get some of these abandoned properties back on the market. A year or two ago I read that even in "trendy Lawrenceville" there are something like 300 vacant homes. Pennsylvania has some of the strongest laws in the country protecting homeowners, but as a side effect, it's incredibly difficult for municipalities to seize abandoned buildings and get them back on the market. The only legal way to do so is to wait until they are tax delinquent and put them up for a sheriff's sale. The problem is the houses at that point often have back liens on them besides property taxes, including utility bills and sometimes personal income taxes owed by the former homeowner. The lack of clear title makes many of these homes hard to auction, because without an expensive title search you won't know how much you're on the hook for. By the time the vacant houses actually get to the point where they can be seized, they're often in a state of extreme deterioration as well, meaning many go right from seizure to being condemned. Not to mention there's absolutely nothing that the city can do about absentee homeowners (something which happens often if someone goes into a nursing home or moves out of state and retires, but never gives a family member authority to sell) as long as they pay property taxes.
I'm not even sure what they're talking about here. Scores just for the core city's public schools? Or public and private? Are suburbs included? I'm guessing they'd need to do some sort of weight system then.
Good points! I always enjoy reading your posts. To me this seems like the most critical topic when evaluating the effects amazon would have on Pittsburgh.
Here's a website listing thousands of city owned properties for sale. I had fun pondering the distribution in various neighborhoods. The city owns roughly a quarter of all vacant properties. https://public-pgh.epropertyplus.com...A%5B%5D%7D%7D#
There are conflicting stats but it seems we have enough vacant land such that ALL of HQ2's workforce could conceivably be accommodated by it alone. As you said, it isn't so simple. But the shear number of vacant properties does shed light on how Pittsburgh differs from cities such as Seattle.
I think that if there was demand from a growing population, the Pgh real-estate industry would become adept at getting vacant/delinquent properties up for treasuer's sale. True, leans and title issues complicate the process. But would you agree that the vacant properties still represent a sizeable land bank that would prevent skyrocketing housing costs?
My prediction is the opposite. Pittsburgh doesn't have the population to support its current infrastructure and services. Our streets, power grid, sewers, water supply and gas lines are servicing a ton of vacant property. The same can be said for police, fire and school coverage. Restoring our population will provide funding for these.
That's a better situation than in other cities with population decline. Detroit has had to cut off entire blocks. It wasn't economically feasible to continue providing utilities and services to blocks with so few inhabited homes. The utilities are shut off, streets left to rot and buildings demolished. The same has happened with transit lines, schools, fire departments, police stations and hospitals. Many of these have had to close or consolidate.
If we were full to the brim, then yeah, additional population would strain services. But we have the opposite situation. Services are closing because there is no longer the population and tax base to support them.
I understand what you're saying to a point. However, transit runs the number of routes it thinks it needs to serve the present population of users, even if the miles run are the same whether the homes are full or empty. More people will require more buses, etc. Especially since the Amazon-bots all take PT! (sarc)
I don't know about the power grid. These abandoned properties aren't using much power, most generally the utilities have been turned off. And we use a lot more appliances, electronics, etc than in the days when those homes were built. I don't know if the power system in the Pgh area has excess capacity. Ditto sewage treatment and gas lines.
Police may patrol a larger territory with a lower population density, but the number of officers needed is lower with lower population. Firefighting coverage would be close, whether the homes are occupied or not, but an abandoned building wouldn't need the ambulances and such that an occupied one would in case of fire. The schools aren't servicing vacant property unless homeless people are "squatting" in it with their school age kids. If school population goes up, closed schools will need to be reopened and more teachers hired.
It isn't as easy as you think to get some of these abandoned properties back on the market. A year or two ago I read that even in "trendy Lawrenceville" there are something like 300 vacant homes. Pennsylvania has some of the strongest laws in the country protecting homeowners, but as a side effect, it's incredibly difficult for municipalities to seize abandoned buildings and get them back on the market. The only legal way to do so is to wait until they are tax delinquent and put them up for a sheriff's sale. The problem is the houses at that point often have back liens on them besides property taxes, including utility bills and sometimes personal income taxes owed by the former homeowner. The lack of clear title makes many of these homes hard to auction, because without an expensive title search you won't know how much you're on the hook for. By the time the vacant houses actually get to the point where they can be seized, they're often in a state of extreme deterioration as well, meaning many go right from seizure to being condemned. Not to mention there's absolutely nothing that the city can do about absentee homeowners (something which happens often if someone goes into a nursing home or moves out of state and retires, but never gives a family member authority to sell) as long as they pay property taxes.
I'm not even sure what they're talking about here. Scores just for the core city's public schools? Or public and private? Are suburbs included? I'm guessing they'd need to do some sort of weight system then.
That's where it will get sticky. Two of the finalists that I have some knowledge about, Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, have county wide school districts (well, Fairfax has a couple city based ones) and both, as County school systems, have the highest overall SAT scores for their public schools in their respective states.
I understand what you're saying to a point. However, transit runs the number of routes it thinks it needs to serve the present population of users, even if the miles run are the same whether the homes are full or empty. More people will require more buses, etc. Especially since the Amazon-bots all take PT! (sarc)
I don't know about the power grid. These abandoned properties aren't using much power, most generally the utilities have been turned off. And we use a lot more appliances, electronics, etc than in the days when those homes were built. I don't know if the power system in the Pgh area has excess capacity. Ditto sewage treatment and gas lines.
Police may patrol a larger territory with a lower population density, but the number of officers needed is lower with lower population. Firefighting coverage would be close, whether the homes are occupied or not, but an abandoned building wouldn't need the ambulances and such that an occupied one would in case of fire. The schools aren't servicing vacant property unless homeless people are "squatting" in it with their school age kids. If school population goes up, closed schools will need to be reopened and more teachers hired.
There are fixed costs associated with all of these. Those are key to understanding how a declining population makes utilities, services and infrastructure hard to fund.
For example, the power grid. If all the streets still have utility poles and power lines, the maintenance of those lines remains the same no matter how many houses on each street are serviced. If a tree falls and takes down a power line, that cost is split between fewer people.
The same is especially true for water and sewer. There are still the same miles of pipes and property connections no matter whether the water line valve is open or closed, or if sewage is flowing from a home or not. When old sewer lines decay and need to be relined, that cost is now carried by far fewer people than it used to be.
Same for gas. We just had the 10" main on my street replaced. It was over 100 years old. That cost is shared by a smaller customer base.
The police still have the same number of streets to patrol but with a smaller tax base. Intuitively, fewer people probably means fewer crimes. But i'm not sure if that is true. Is crime really lower in neighborhoods with lots of abandoned property?
School buildings are the same size despite losing half our population. Even though enrollment has dropped, the roof still needs to be repaired, busses still have to run the same routes, etc. That's one of the reasons why so many schools have had to close. Expensive renovations of historic buildings aren't feasible with a fraction of the old population.
In terms of transit... there is social pressure to keep historic transit lines in service despite declining ridership. But eventually that pressure meets budgetary constraints. If the population were restored, the increased density would justify those lines continuing to exist or being restored.
With all that said. Reversing Pgh's population decline isn't an answer to everything and it does come with negative impacts as well. And there would be an inflection point where population growth would start to strain services instead of better fund them. I think the discussion to be had is about when that inflection point would hit and what to do about it. This parallels concerns about population growth leading to skyrocketing housing costs.
Amazon employees aren’t a monolith, and surely some will want to live in the burbs, but the kind of people driving up Seattle’s housing costs typically don’t want to live in McCandless. I don’t think Pittsburghers realize how uniquely undesirable our suburbs are compared to most major cities. If you put a younger, highly paid workforce in a safe, affordable city, with lackluster suburbs, people are going to move to the city.
Amazon employees aren’t a monolith, and surely some will want to live in the burbs, but the kind of people driving up Seattle’s housing costs typically don’t want to live in McCandless. I don’t think Pittsburghers realize how uniquely undesirable our suburbs are compared to most major cities. If you put a younger, highly paid workforce in a safe, affordable city, with lackluster suburbs, people are going to move to the city.
please expand on this. i think many employees would kill to have an affordable house in a top ten district in the country 20 minutes from downtown. are you saying they lack public transit access? i could see that compared to the other big cities. you have to go considerably farther out to get that though. obviously there will be an urban preferring group though that would like the city.
please expand on this. i think many employees would kill to have an affordable house in a top ten district in the country 20 minutes from downtown. are you saying they lack public transit access? i could see that compared to the other big cities. you have to go considerably farther out to get that though. obviously there will be an urban preferring group though that would like the city.
I presume he's referring to three aspects.
1. Suburban housing stock isn't great. IMHO the Pittsburgh area stopped building nice houses on a massive scale in the 1920s. In the 50s in particular, mid-century modern never caught on here and we were building mostly those brick bunkerlike monstrosities which I guess you could call "colonials." Obviously from the 70s onward styles were more similar across the nation, but later housing just looks like everywhere else, which isn't an asset.
2. The number of high end walkable suburbs in Pittsburgh is very, very small. I mean, you can count it on one hand and still have fingers left over.
3. There's limited "sense of place" to a lot of the newer suburbs in the Pittsburgh area.
Last edited by eschaton; 04-05-2018 at 10:35 AM..
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.
