Pittsburgh has an inferiority complex (Washington, Progress: crime rates, taxes, living in)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by highway29south

What I think a lot of "outsiders" object to is that natives seem to think Pittsburgh is the only place everyone should like, even given the fact that most of these natives have never lived anywhere else themselves.

Speaking just as one "outsider", I haven't really encountered much of this attitude (well, aside from people arguing I should give up my lifelong loyalty to the Detroit Lions and switch to the Steelers instead, and I think one would have to admit they have the facts on their side). Indeed, I'm more concerned about the people in Pittsburgh who seem unaware of many of its merits.

But I guess the upshot is that in a region with hundreds of thousands of people, you will encounter every imaginable attitude, and so there are undoubtedly people here backing up every possible generalization. So maybe none of them are really meaningfully true as generalizations (mine included).

[ditchdigger]

What I think a lot of "outsiders" object to is that natives seem to think Pittsburgh is the only place everyone should like, even given the fact that most of these natives have never lived anywhere else themselves. And if you live here and don't like it, you are treated differently because of that opinion.

Since the discussion in the last several pages of this thread has been stimulated by tjv189's "opinion"...

From tjv189's first post:

... Pittsburgh sucks,...

...Let's face it, Pittsburgh is a pretty sorry place to be guys....

....there are very few places in the US as depressing and lame as Pittsburgh is.....

....Pittsburgh sucks....

.... Pittsburgh sucks....

That has nothing to do with whether native Pittsburghers think someone should be allowed to like someplace else--that's unilaterally and unequivocally disparaging to Pittsburgh, without regard to how Pittsburgh compares to anywhere else.

On edit: Actually, it goes further. It says unequivocally that Pittsburgh compares unfavorably with just about anywhere else.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Off the top of my head, Providence, Boston, Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Columbus, San Jose-Santa Clara-Palo Alto . . . Washington DC in some respects, along with Minneapolis, San Diego, and Seattle too.

Of course if you think internationally, you could add cities like Melbourne, Bologna, Manchester, and I am sure many others.

You are joking, right. Boston is a big town that happens to have a lot of Universities. It also has shipping, fishing, technology, insurance and manufacturing. (I've lived and worked, there).

San Jose-Santa Clara-Palo Alto is also known as the Silicon Valley. You want to tell me that the Silicon Valley is a "college town"? (I've lived there, as well).

Raleigh-Durham has Research Triangle Park which is Silicon Valley, East.

San Diego has the Naval Air Base and Shipyards as well as tourism, farming, manufacturing and high technology.

Columbus, Ohio is going through the same problems as much of the Midwest (and Pittsburgh). Sure, OSU is big, but it isn't enough to keep downtown Columbus alive at night (I grew up there).

Providence is the capitol of Rhode Island.

None of the cities that you mention have economies based solely upon higher education (that includes Manchester, Melbourne or Bologna, all of which I have visited.

In Pittsburgh, the largest employers are education and government. Not a recipe for long term economic success (especially given the size of the population).

[BrianTH]

None of the cities that you mention have economies based solely upon higher education . . .

Right. The "overgrown" in my phrase "overgrown college town" is meant to convey that the city in question is not in fact just a pure college town. A university cluster will tend to also be associated with other "knowledge-based economy" sectors, such as health care, financial and business services, research and high-tech manufacturing, and so on.

In Pittsburgh, the largest employers are education and government.

Not exactly. Here is the latest job count:

Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area Job Count: March 2009

Educational & Health Services is indeed the largest job sector, but of course that is more than just education. Next is Trade, Transportation, & Utilities, and then is Professional & Business Services. Only then comes Government.

Not a recipe for long term economic success (especially given the size of the population).

The only major sector in Pittsburgh that depends heavily on the size of the population in the immediate area is local government. Generally, it is true that Pittsburgh has become much more of a service-center city than an industrial city (although manufacturing remains an important part of the mix in terms of overall productivity, just not so much in terms of direct employment). But I would suggest that is actually a very good idea when it comes to future economic prospects.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Katiana,

To clarify one point, the "here" in the first part of what you quoted was a reference to this board (specifically it was a reference back to my prior post, in which I stated "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."). I agree the Pittsburgh region itself currently has relatively few people from outside the nearby area (in fact, I suspect in your data, a high portion of those people from outside Allegheny County but inside PA actually came from Western PA specifically).

I inutited what you meant about the average person "here" meaning CD after I thought about your post for a while. What that does say is that the average CD poster is not the typical Pittsburgher.

Edit: By the way, it seems to me you have presented rather easily refuted versions of some of the points you are attributing to other people in these conversations. For example, it is true that Pittsburgh is not the only city in the United States with a significant cultural legacy, but on the other hand I would suggest the stronger version of that point is that it has a relatively high density of cultural amenities for a city of its current size. The same would apply to the role of universities in the city: again it is far from the only major city in the United States with a lot of universities, but I think it is also true that the universities play a relatively large role for a city of its size (e.g., as I recall among the Top 40 cities, only Providence ranks higher in terms of percentage of college and graduate students). And so on.

I think in re: Pittsburgh's cultural facilities, it is only honest to say that these facilities were built when Pittsburgh was a much bigger city. To compare it to a "city its size" like Colorado Springs (which actually has a larger population) is a bit misleading. Pittsburgh did have a real "sugar daddy" in Andrew Carnegie, who financed the building of many of these facilites. However, to think that no other city had any public benefactors is erroneous. Chicago had the Wrigleys, Milwaukee had the Schlitz' and the Pabsts, Minneapolis the Pillsburys, Denver has the Coors family (like the Heinzes, also politically active), Omaha has Warren Buffet, etc.

As for universities, most cities with a metro of 2+ million people have at least one tier one university. I don't know about Pittsburgh having the largest % of undergrad/grad students after Providence. The last time I read any such stats, it was the Boston metro area that had the largest %.

Minneapolis, BTW, is not an overgrown college town. Educational services is only the third most common industry for males there, and second most common for women (per CD).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I inutited what you meant about the average person "here" meaning CD after I thought about your post for a while. What that does say is that the average CD poster is not the typical Pittsburgher.

Absolutely. And as I was sorta getting around to above, I suppose none of us are really in the position to claim to know what the "typical Pittsburgher" thinks about any of this, if there even is such a thing.

I think in re: Pittsburgh's cultural facilities, it is only honest to say that these facilities were built when Pittsburgh was a much bigger city.

Oh sure.

To compare it to a "city its size" like Colorado Springs (which actually has a larger population) is a bit misleading.

As an aside, in this context with respect to size of cities I am referring more to urban area populations than the population within the core municipality's boundaries. In the 2000 Census, the Pittsburgh urban area had 1,753,136 people, and the Colorado Springs urban area had 466,122 people.

Anyway, what you are discussing is the history of how a city of Pittsburgh's current size ended up with an above-average density of cultural amenities. It is undoubtedly the case that a major reason that happened is that historically, the city was relatively more prominent, including with respect to population. But I don't see what is "misleading" about noting the actual outcome of that process--after all, the current residents still get to make use of those cultural amenities, and the fact that they have to compete with fewer other residents for access to those amenities these days is a plus.

However, to think that no other city had any public benefactors is erroneous.

Again, you are putting this in the most easily refuted form. The stronger claim would just be that looking back on its history, Pittsburgh had more concentrated wealth for longer than most other cities of its current size.

As for universities, most cities with a metro of 2+ million people have at least one tier one university. I don't know about Pittsburgh having the largest % of undergrad/grad students after Providence. The last time I read any such stats, it was the Boston metro area that had the largest %.

I was referring to the statistics available here:

Pittsburgh's Future: College Students and Seniors Make The City Seem Poor

That looks like city-only residents, so I would in fact prefer metro area percentages (or, ideally, urbanized area percentages).

Minneapolis, BTW, is not an overgrown college town. Educational services is only the third most common industry for males there, and second most common for women (per CD).

As I tried to make clear above, my concept of an "overgrown" college town is distinct from an actual college town in part by the fact that education need not be the largest segment of employment, but rather that the local universities were helping form the core of a knowledge-based economy. I further noted this was only true of cities like Minneapolis (and Washington, San Diego, and Seattle) "to some extent".

Edit:

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when including Minneapolis on the list of "overgrown college towns":

http://retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_minneapolis/

When you think of a “college town” you probably think of smallish cities where one (or more) campuses dominate all aspects of life. That's one conception. But how about a city that has 30 universities in it featuring more than 190,000 full- and part-time students within a 15-mile radius?

Welcome to the Minneapolis you didn't know. It's a far cry from the city that earned the nickname Murderapolis in the mid-1990s. Now, the city (along with its twin St. Paul) is experiencing a renaissance. The housing boom ushered in a wave of new condo projects downtown, many filled with twenty and thirtysomethings that graduated from one of the many local schools.

“The crime rate is down significantly, town homes and condominiums are springing up everywhere and the downtown population is now over 30,000, which is quite large for a community of our size,” says Todd Klingel, president of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce.

It is home to the University of Minnesota, North Central University, Saint Mary's University, Walden University and more than two dozen other schools. That's why the city is a magnet for big business — there are currently 19 Fortune 500 firms in Minneapolis. It also boasts the nation's fastest commute (at an average of 21.1 driving minutes), and is one of Money magazine's Best Places to Live. “The residents of Minneapolis are highly educated, very progressive and they love to dance,” jokes Richard Grones, founding principal of locally based Cambridge Commercial Realty.

To repeat, the concept here is not that places like Minneapolis are literally just big versions of State College--nor of course is Pittsburgh.

[highway29south]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Since the discussion in the last several pages of this thread has been stimulated by tjv189's "opinion"...

From tjv189's first post:



That has nothing to do with whether native Pittsburghers think someone should be allowed to like someplace else--that's unilaterally and unequivocally disparaging to Pittsburgh, without regard to how Pittsburgh compares to anywhere else.

On edit: Actually, it goes further. It says unequivocally that Pittsburgh compares unfavorably with just about anywhere else.

Yes, but again, that is tjv189's opinion. And I can bet you that Pittsburghers would not only reject him, but fight tooth and nail against him for that opinion. Maybe he just thinks Pittsburgh sucks. So what? The defensiveness in this town is amazing. And that is why Pittsburgh remains so closed off to outsiders. No other opinions are welcome.

[ditchdigger]

Sooo, you think it's 'amazingly defensive' for a Pittsburgher to not welcome the opinion that Pittsburgh compares unfavorably with most anywhere else?

That's actually pretty funny when you consider that the whole premise of this thread is that Pittsburghers themselves are too critical and unappreciative of the city.

[nuwaver88]

Originally Posted by highway29south

Yes, but again, that is tjv189's opinion. And I can bet you that Pittsburghers would not only reject him, but fight tooth and nail against him for that opinion. Maybe he just thinks Pittsburgh sucks. So what? The defensiveness in this town is amazing. And that is why Pittsburgh remains so closed off to outsiders. No other opinions are welcome.

Yes tjv189 is entitled to opinion. It is just that these opinions leave a lot of room for criticism. I detected in these opinions that every aspect of every other major city is better than Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh's attributes should be downplayed. Who cares if Pittsburgh has a world class symphony? Orlando has a symphony too. A great view from Mt. Washington? That nothing like the Golden Gate. Great Universities? Boston is better. Culture? Ha Ha. Ever been to NYC?
Bad roads? Oh yeah, for sure. Narrow minded people? The worst in the nation. Anything to do? Nothing at all unless you like to drink. How about Oakland, you know, Phipps Conservatory, Nationality Rooms, Schenley Park, etc. etc. etc. etc.? Chicago is better.
I heard that South Side got it going on, true? Not really. In Miami's South Beach, there are waaay more pretentious clubs.
I can handle objective crticism. I cannot handle someone who makes Pittsburgh out to be the worst in every category that matters. That is where the defensiveness comes in.

[Katiana]

It's one thing to be proud of your city. It's another to act like no other city is comparable, and get in a huff when someone dares to mention that hey, their city has symphonies, great parks, great theater, too.

Can't Mt. Washington and the Golden Gate Bridge (your examples) both be good? Different, but equal?

The defensiveness is where the inferiority complex comes in.