Pittsburgh has an inferiority complex (Washington, Carnegie: find a job, neighborhoods, universities)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There are quite a few regulars on this board who did not grow up in the area and/or have lived elsewhere for an extended period. For example, I grew up in the northern suburbs of Detroit, went to college in New Haven, law school in Chicago, and spent a couple years working in DC.

And you'll notice they tend to be the ones who think Pittsburgh is a reasonably livable city because they've seen the grass on the other side and know it isn't necessarily greener. It seems like 75% of the "Pittsburgh sucks" crowd are life-long natives who have never lived anywhere else; and the other 25% are transplants, usually from a major coastal city, who just plain can't adjust to the culture shock because let's face it, Pittsburgh isn't for everyone.

As I said upthread, it's interesting to me how wide the gulf of perception is regarding Pittsburgh between those who have never been there and those who have, and and even more interesting that many native Pittsburghers' perception of their own city matches that of the folks who have never been there. Similarly, I also find it interesting how fondly the Pittsburgh diaspora often speak of their hometown -- many wishing they could go back -- versus how often those who never left Pittsburgh run it down.

I don't mean any disrespect to those who stuck around, but the decline of the steel industry really transformed the culture of the city by compelling "the best and the brightest" (or at least the most self-motivated) to leave town while those who stayed behind seem to have become embittered that the high-paying semi-skilled jobs have not come back.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by tjv189

You are right, the friendliness factor is subjective to some extent. I don't know, from my experience it just seems like Pittsburghers I've met have seemed to be rather self-important and very difficult to get along with. I know this is just the ones I've met. I'm sure there are some very friendly people in Pittsburgh, but the majority of the several I've met seem to be rather narrow-minded and unfriendly. I guess it is possible that I've just met quite a few fools that are unfriendly for no reason.

That's really strange, I don't think I've ever met a more self-effacing bunch of people in my life. I always detected a certain humility about Pittsburghers that they know their place in life, they know their city's place in the grand scheme of things, and they're mostly fine with both.

That said, I find them quite suspicious of outsiders which can be misinterpreted as unfriendliness. But once they determine that you're not a jagtwit, a troublemaker or a bombastic braggart, they'll usually drop their guard. I've likened to having a skittish dog tentatively sniff your hand and check out your mannerisms to see if you're a threat, and after he figures out you're not, he'll let you pet him.

[JoeLeaphorn]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pittsburgh's greatest problem is the lack of a competitive political infrastructure. One party rule is never good for anyone and it is what hinders Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Moreover, the archaic system by which political systems, especially the Democrats, endorse the candidates almost guarantees that new ideas will never surface, politically. Forget the fact that Ravenstahl is young, the fact is that he is a product of the machine and even though he did endorse a few candidates who were not endorsed by the party, he is not the kind of guy who will make waves.

It used to be the large corporations that ran the city. Now it is the large institutions. That would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that the large corporations employed roughly 5 times more people than the large institutions and these people were the working class not the upper middle class.

The labor unions are the biggest fools. By making it obvious that they'll never endorse anyone other than a Democrat they give up their bargaining position. The Democrats, on the other hand, make promises that they can't keep, but "hey, that isn't my fault, it's the fault of the Act 47 people".

Silicon Valley comparisons are a joke. Sure, we have great technical universities, here. But tech transfer and commercialization occurs, elsewhere. Seagate is closing its operations, here, after only six years.

Pittsburgh was one a great manufacturing center due mostly to its proximity to coal, iron and the railroads and waterways to move them. There is nothing intrinsic about the city which makes it atttractive for commercial development. It is not easy to navigate, here (in comparison to Silicon Valley which is, predominantly, one big long stretch of road). Public transportation sucks in comparison to other big cities. Regional economic development consists, primarily, of cannibalizing existing retail centers to create new retail centers. There is no centralized planning and no real strategy for the region. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, the regional MOP, is made up of politicians, none of whom has much background in municipal planning. Although they hire a staff of people who do have such a background, they rarely listen to them. Instead, the members are more interesting in bringing home some bacon to their own constituents, which is what the constituents want but isn't necessarily in the best interests of the region as a whole.

There are many great things about Pittsburgh. But the city will never, again, reach the economic prominence of the industrial age unless it changes its leadership. And it can't or won't.

Too bad, really.

[BrianTH]

Pittsburgh actually went through multiple "boom" periods thanks to its strategic location (where passage through the Allegheny Mountains meets the confluence of the three rivers) and local resources (mostly coal and for a while oil).

Anyway, I don't actually want Pittsburgh to go through another boom or to try to regain the relative size and prominence it had during the height of the steel boom. I'd much prefer it place itself on a relatively stable slow growth model, one in which improving quality of life and not relative prominence is the goal. In other words, I have noted in the past that Pittsburgh has transformed itself from an industrial powerhouse to an overgrown college town, and I would personally prefer it stay on that new path.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Anyway, I don't actually want Pittsburgh to go through another boom or to try to regain the relative size and prominence it had during the height of the steel boom. I'd much prefer it place itself on a relatively stable slow growth model, one in which improving quality of life and not relative prominence is the goal. In other words, I have noted in the past that Pittsburgh has transformed itself from an industrial powerhouse to an overgrown college town, and I would personally prefer it stay on that new path.

Problem is that you can't sustain it, especially with the long term debt that the City has. Moreover, being a college town does not lead to retention of young people in any numbers. How many overgrown college towns can you actually name?

[iwonderwhy2124]

After living in Pittsburgh for several years I have noticed that everybody who has ever lived here falls into one of the following categories:

1. They love it and will stay forever.

2. They love it and had to leave because of job opportunities.

3. They hate it and stay.

4. They hate it and leave.

5. They hate it, leave, but still have a certain subconcious fondness for it.

[tjv189]

Some people are saying the people who hate Pittsburgh are probably lifelong natives..........I disagree. I think its usually quite the contrary, actually. At least it is with the guys I know who live in Pittsburgh: they never really travel or spend time in any other places too often. If they do, they usually don't really look at any other places and compare them to Pittsburgh, because they automatically see Pittsburgh as "their home".

That is all that makes me mad really. I think some of the people who think Pittsburgh is great need to get around and experience the great things about other metro areas. You might be pleasantly surprised how many good places are out there that you would rather be (like I was), or, you might come back and be glad to be back in Pittsburgh. But you will never know until you get out there and see the country.

[ditchdigger]

Pittsburgh has been rated the "most liveable city" a number of times, and by several different entities. While the criteria might differ slightly from one to another, in a comparison of Pittsburgh to anywhere else, those results speak for themselves. If it's your opinion that Pittsburgh sucks, then whatever criteria you're going by is apprently a lot different than that of those entities that have rated Pittsburgh highly--either that or you're just wrong.

Does Pittsburgh have its share of challenges? Certainly. Everyplace does.

The good news for you is that, even at the height of the afternoon rush hour, in any given diirection, it shouldn't take you more than an hour to be well out of town....

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by tjv189

Well I guess I can chip in with my reasons on why Pittsburgh sucks, like some others have already done. Note that this is my opinion, my outlook on the city:

-dirty, polluted
-rude, unfriendly, narrow-minded residents
-high taxes and corrupt people running the city (Ravenstahl, I'm looking right at you)
-extremely poor roadways
-lack of unique things to do (every big city has sports teams, people)
-terrible job market for everything except medical field and banking (not much opportunity)
-the city is dying, losing population very fast
-weather is extremely poor most of the year (either too hot/humid or way too cold/miserable)
-living in the past
-city has no identity other than a sports team (that is pretty lame if you ask me)
-relatively high crime for a city of only 300,000 people
-city is crowded for only having 300,000 people
-young population is moving away, so Pittsburgh can't keep any educated young people there

That's what comes to mind off the top of my head. Let's face it, Pittsburgh is a pretty sorry place to be guys. Anyone who thinks otherwise was either born there and lived there all their lives, or they just don't get around much. I used to travel quite a bit in a previous job I had, and I can say with all honesty, there are very few places in the US as depressing and lame as Pittsburgh is.

When a football team is the main attraction in your city, that should be a red flag that the place lacks anything fun or unique to do. That is lame if the 'Stillers' or 'Pens' is all Pittsburgh has to be proud of. I know I can't wait to get out of this area, like the many other young people I know. So with all the reasons I stated above of why Pittsburgh sucks, is it any surprise some people here might have a negative opinion of the city? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just stating why I think Pittsburgh sucks.

What makes me even more angry about Pittsburgh is the people who think it is the greatest place ever, when it is clearly not. If the people that live there would actually realize the city's faults, maybe they could work to make it better. But until then, it will remain the same.

When we were young, we felt much the same way. I think it's a common experience to hate where you grew up because it's lame.

But as the years go by, you change and grow, and get married and have a family, and the very things you hate about Pittsburgh may draw you back in.

And you also realize that where you picked to live isn't Utopia and has similar or worse problems.

So where are thinking of going to?

[ctoocheck]

Pittsburgh has been rated the "most liveable city" a number of times, and by several different entities.

Just a note that I think you have to take any ranking with a grain of salt. For example, the ALA ranking showing Pgh as the most polluted. There are issues with how that conclusion was drawn (see Region passes L.A. on pollution list - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review). Besides for the method used to determine this (based on what detection stations, etc) our ranking was based on "particle pollution" - is that really the only stat that determines pollution? Conversely, objectifying the "livability" of a city is extremely sticky. I read another article about how most of the cities on the Economist's list, like Geneva and Melbourne, are enormously unaffordable and therefore not really livable at all. I guess in Pittsburgh there is some clout of factuality (or verisimilitude, or truthiness ;-) ) to these rankings since they've come from various sources using various methodology. But anyway....yeah any ranking like these (and the ones TJV pointed out earlier, including "happiess") are often nice (when they're positive) but....just sticky.