Any BALANCED Views of the State of the City? (Pittsburgh: neighborhoods, school)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000

But I never heard anybody in this city saying they are trying to get to be number 10 again, and the quality of life here is good from what I and other Pittsburgh's believe.

I think your second point is true (I am, after all, in the designated "cheerleader" camp). But on your first point, I think sometimes people are basically asking for that even if they don't put it in those terms. I don't want to belabor this point since this thread isn't supposed to be all about me, but I think people in the region often have unrealistic expectations for particular neighborhoods, industries, and so on based on their memories of what Pittsburgh was like when it was much higher in population, which leads to ongoing disappointment as those expectations are not met. I also hear people talking about Pittsburgh needing a new boom industry, rapid population growth, or so on, which I think really only makes sense if one is looking to move Pittsburgh back up the size rankings, as opposed to improving in quality.

But again to clarify, it is not like everyone in Pittsburgh is like this. Plenty of people like Pittsburgh's current track just fine, and I think those people are growing in relative importance all the time. I just think a lot of the regional negativity people sometimes encounter is based on a backward-looking attitude and a relative failure to embrace this new path for Pittsburgh.

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think your second point is true (I am, after all, in the designated "cheerleader" camp). But on your first point, I think sometimes people are basically asking for that even if they don't put it in those terms. I don't want to belabor this point since this thread isn't supposed to be all about me, but I think people in the region often have unrealistic expectations for particular neighborhoods, industries, and so on based on their memories of what Pittsburgh was like when it was much higher in population, which leads to ongoing disappointment as those expectations are not met. I also hear people talking about Pittsburgh needing a new boom industry, rapid population growth, or so on, which I think really only makes sense if one is looking to move Pittsburgh back up the size rankings, as opposed to improving in quality.

But again to clarify, it is not like everyone in Pittsburgh is like this. Plenty of people like Pittsburgh's current track just fine, and I think those people are growing in relative importance all the time. I just think a lot of the regional negativity people sometimes encounter is based on a backward-looking attitude and a relative failure to embrace this new path for Pittsburgh.

Bravo! I for one believe a rapid population growth would spell disaster.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by dugdogmaster

Quality of life in Pittsburgh and the region is wonderful, but could always improve. Why do you think it's almost always in the top of lists of "most livable"? Pittsburgh WILL NEVER again reach that height, of top 10 by population, it can't. It just can't expand any further. Where as other cities around the nation can gobble up land all they want practically

Again I agree Pittsburgh quality of life is already high. I also agree it is unlikely to reach the same population rankings in the foreseeable future, but I disagree somewhat about the cause. I don't think land is the issue (and here I would note I am not talking necessarily about the incorporated City of Pittsburgh, but rather the urbanized area regardless of political boundaries). Rather, I think the economic conditions necessary for the Pittsburgh population to grow significantly faster than all the cities it would need to pass in the rankings are unlikely to occur. But again to be clear, I don't personally think that is a problem.

Edit: And having just seen your latest post, I think we are on the same page when it comes to the desirability of such conditions anyway.

[scrapp]

likes:
1. upscale residential areas of East End in walking distance of work (Oakland)
2. kid-friendly East End attractions (preschools, museums, parks, summer camps)
3. newer retail options in or close to city (E.Liberty, SS Works, Waterfront)
4. city brownfield redevelopment (PTC, etc.) (vs sprawling out in the sticks)
5. PGH Residential Parking Permit (keeps my street from being a de facto CMU parking lot)

dislikes:
1. the property tax assessment system. Unfair to new residents and poor folk.
2. City debt, government not living within its means and blaming everyone (e.g. the state, non-profits, etc.) but itself for the mess.
3. bad local infrastructure (sewers that overflow into rivers when it rains, substandard highways, decaying congested bridges and tunnels, having to drive through the city to reach the airport).
4. lack of diversity (in population, retail/dining, etc.) and too many run down "gritty" areas.
5. Residents who use ancient PGH history (e.g. building of the Civic Arena) to demand government handouts. Get over it!

reaction to other comments:

Architecture/McMansion: In PGH I find that location is more important to me than architecture. I would prefer to live in a modern house with a modern floor plan, but not at the expense of having to commute in a car to Oakland from the suburbs (especially with the state of our transportation infrastructure).

Strip Malls: they are useful to have in some degree. For example, Trader Joes is in a strip mall, and I would much rather have it here in the city than to have to drive out to the suburbs to get my TJ fix.

City School Board: I think the behavior of the board has improved alot since Roosevelt replaced John Thompson.

Drink tax: it is better than increasing property tax, but I'd be happy with County layoffs too.

Downtown housing: I believe Downtown is a non-family friendly niche market that is over-emphasized by the City government.

[raynist]

quote from scrapp

dislikes:

3. bad local infrastructure (sewers that overflow into rivers when it rains, substandard highways, decaying congested bridges and tunnels, having to drive through the city to reach the airport).

-----------------------------------------

Someone is always going to have to drive through the city to get to the airport though. This only affects people in the east primarily. I live in the southern part and don't have to do this.

My Dislikes:

1. City govt
2. Disconnected roadways (can't get on parkway west from 79 South, 279/28 interchange) although this is being corrected.
3. People resistant to change
4. Subway 'T' that only services one part of the city
5. Fort Pitt Bridge/Tunnel congestion/mess

[sunrico90]

Superb posts so far, I'm getting an idea of the area from your posts. Excellent...

[lifepgh2op]

The only thing "slow moving" about Pittsburgh is the Parkways
Too many cars and not enough road! And people wan't us to boom again? Eh...I'm hesitant about that. Small growth will be better and less decline would be ideal

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by dugdogmaster

Quality of life in Pittsburgh and the region is wonderful, but could always improve. Why do you think it's almost always in the top of lists of "most livable"? Pittsburgh WILL NEVER again reach that height, of top 10 by population, it can't. It just can't expand any further. Where as other cities around the nation can gobble up land all they want practically

This is a big myth perpetuated by the Pittsburgh media. It is NOT true that every other city is annexing land like there's no tomorrow. I actually went through CD's list of states, and checked the land size of cities of similar population (I used a fairly wide range)around the country. Pittsburgh is NOT the smallest in land area, despite what you read in the P-G, and there are many cities of comparable size. Here are some examples:

Louisville, KY: Pop. 256K, land area 62.1 sq mi.
Jefferson Co. KY: 385 sq mi.

Baltimore: 651K, 80.8 sq. mi., not in a county

Boston: 589 K, 48.4 sq mi.
Suffolk Co, MA: 59 sq. mi.

Minneapolis, MN: 382 K, 54.9 sq mi
Hennepin Co. MN: 557 sq. mi.

St. Paul, MN: 287K, 52.8 sq mil
Ramsey Co. MN: 156 sq mi.

St. Louis, MO: 348K, 61.9 sq mi., no county

Denver: City and County, 558 K, 153 sq mi, includes 50 sq. mi airport and connector

Pittsburgh: 334K, 55.6 sq mi.
Allegheny Co, PA 730 sq. mi.

Some may say "what's your point?" My point is that cities and counties come in many different sizes and permutations. Pittsburgh is a smallish city in a large county. Some other cities that are under 100 sq miles are: DC, 62 sq mi; Cleveland 77.6; Cincinatti, 78; Sacramento, 97.2; Seattle, 83.9 (though KIng County WA is 2126 sq mi), Milwaukee, 96.1.

The About.com link mentioned Phoenix, Houston and another western city as gobbling up land, which may be true. And there are a few cities, inside a county, with 150+ sq. miles of land: Kansas City, MO; Albuquerque, NM; Columbus, OH; Oklahoma City, OK, at a whopping 607 sq. mi, with only 506K pop; Austin, TX 251 sq mi. I did not include any of the big guns such as NY, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix in my stats, as these are much larger cities than Pgh.

No matter how you interpret the above, I found it interesting.

[BrianTH]

Katiana,

Well, you have partially made this a self-fulfilling prophecy by only looking at incorporated cities with relatively less population. And to make this point less controversial, lets think about, say, Boston for a moment. The Boston Metropolitan Area has a higher population than the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. So I think it would be just as reasonable to say the only reason the City of Phoenix ends up higher than the City of Boston in the city population rankings is that the City of Phoenix is over ten times the size of the City of Boston. And yet you excluded Phoenix as a "big gun", but not Boston.

Anyway, though, you are certainly right that the City of Pittsburgh is not alone in being a relatively small city (although I would note there is obviously a pretty big difference between 55.6 square miles and, say, around 80 or 100 square miles). But that doesn't make it any less true that if City A has incorporated a lot more land than City B, then population comparisons between just the incorporated part of City A and the incorporated part of City B aren't really particularly meaningful.

[Katiana]

I wasn't making ANY prophecy! I am saying, cities come in all sorts of sizes, as do counties. Allegheny County is one of the larger ones.

I am saying, and have said before, it is NOT true that all (or most) other cities are annexing land and that Pittsburgh can't do that, therefore, something is somehow "unfair". The only city I personally know of that is constantly annexing land is Omaha, Nebraska. They just annexed some more recently.