U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2009, 05:49 AM
 
40,271 posts, read 43,324,140 times
Reputation: 25337
I hope you're right, Brian. Unfortunately, I have a feeling this is going to be a disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2009, 07:10 AM
 
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,045 posts, read 1,835,429 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Dear G-20: Pittsburgh is art: But you wouldn't know it from what our public officials say



Interesting viewpoint there. And as I pointed out in another thread, the fact that Warhol left Pittsburgh in 1949 and never looked back has no bearing on what the city is today, but I think there could be an interesting discussion of whether he'd choose to stay or leave here in today's world. Obviously that's a topic for a different thread, and it's not even one I'd feel qualified to render an insightful opinion on, but I digress...

I'd like to comment on this:

Quote:
We've heard all these reasons for bringing the G-20 summit to Pittsburgh: Rust to revitalization. High tech; higher ed. Robots and health care...
I haven't said this on here before, but it really bugs me whenever I hear this rationalization. If Pittsburgh had been the first city on the list of possibilities, ok, I could swallow it hook line and sinker.

The reality is that the process went something like, "Ok, New York, Chicago, and Philly, (and maybe some others), have all said "Unh-uh. No thanks. Not me." Who we gonna get to host this sucker? Hey, how about Pittsburgh? If we tell them it's cause they've done so well coping with adversity they'll be sure to go for it."

The point being that the rationalization was presented before the little tidbit that we were a forth pick at the very best. Think back to high school. How would you feel about an invitation to the prom if you learned you were that person's fourth, fifth, or sixth choice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,872 posts, read 8,593,729 times
Reputation: 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchdigger View Post
I haven't said this on here before, but it really bugs me whenever I hear this rationalization. If Pittsburgh had been the first city on the list of possibilities, ok, I could swallow it hook line and sinker.

The reality is that the process went something like, "Ok, New York, Chicago, and Philly, (and maybe some others), have all said "Unh-uh. No thanks. Not me." Who we gonna get to host this sucker? Hey, how about Pittsburgh? If we tell them it's cause they've done so well coping with adversity they'll be sure to go for it."

The point being that the rationalization was presented before the little tidbit that we were a forth pick at the very best. Think back to high school. How would you feel about an invitation to the prom if you learned you were that person's fourth, fifth, or sixth choice?
I don't doubt that this may be true, but I was wondering if you have a source, since I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but right here. I tried a search or two but didn't turn anything up. I'm sure I could have missed it somewhere.

Meanwhile, a fun article about Pittsburgh food from the LA Times: Pittsburgh welcomes world leaders with open-faced sandwiches - Travel - LATimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 07:57 AM
 
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,045 posts, read 1,835,429 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
I don't doubt that this may be true, but I was wondering if you have a source, since I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but right here.
It's really difficult to find an online source, since the seach terms are much too common and there's a gazillion results to wade through.

I have heard it said on KDKA by Fred Honsberger and Marty Griffin, and repeated often enough to know that I didn't mis-hear what was being said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,872 posts, read 8,593,729 times
Reputation: 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchdigger View Post
It's really difficult to find an online source, since the seach terms are much too common and there's a gazillion results to wade through.

I have heard it said on KDKA by Fred Honsberger and Marty Griffin, and repeated often enough to know that I didn't mis-hear what was being said.
Interesting. They may have heard that from someone they talked to who would know, or, they may just be stirring the pot, particularly Honsberger, although Griffin does that too at times. It's talk radio after all; stirring the pot breeds listeners. I haven't listened recently but it wouldn't surprise me for the calls in to be full of frustration right now at the preparation for this and wondering what is so great about having it here. I know I think about it, given that I work downtown in the middle of the stuff. The idea that other places actually turned down an invitation to host the summit would play into this sentiment for sure.

But it still strikes me as odd that the White House would actually be turned down like that. More likely, it seems to me, is that the White House internal selection said okay, which place, considered those places like Chicago, NY, etc, then rejected them before talking to them for some reason or other. Perhaps the most likely reason is security-related. After all, don't you think there would be a lot more protesters if held in NY, just because of the sheer difference in local population? I certainly do. But choosing Pittsburgh for security reasons doesn't play well, hence all the other positive remarks.

The difference in those two scenarios may be subtle, but it is a distinction worth noting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 09:06 AM
 
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,045 posts, read 1,835,429 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42 View Post
Interesting. They may have heard that from someone they talked to who would know, or, they may just be stirring the pot, particularly Honsberger, although Griffin does that too at times. It's talk radio after all; stirring the pot breeds listeners. I haven't listened recently but it wouldn't surprise me for the calls in to be full of frustration right now at the preparation for this and wondering what is so great about having it here. I know I think about it, given that I work downtown in the middle of the stuff. The idea that other places actually turned down an invitation to host the summit would play into this sentiment for sure.
Oh, I have no doubt that for both of them their bread and butter is to stir the pot, and not just on this subject, but any subject. That having been said, I'd think they'd avoid making statements with no basis in fact whatsoever. I'd hope they would anyway.

I'm not even a frequent listener, but there are occasions where I'm in a position to listen for a few hours at a time. (Like when I'm in a truck or an excavator that has a radio, for an extended period. Yes, I really do dig ditches for a living.) As I said, I heard it repeated often enough to be sure of what they said.

Quote:
But it still strikes me as odd that the White House would actually be turned down like that. More likely, it seems to me, is that the White House internal selection said okay, which place, considered those places like Chicago, NY, etc, then rejected them before talking to them for some reason or other. Perhaps the most likely reason is security-related. After all, don't you think there would be a lot more protesters if held in NY, just because of the sheer difference in local population? I certainly do. But choosing Pittsburgh for security reasons doesn't play well, hence all the other positive remarks.

The difference in those two scenarios may be subtle, but it is a distinction worth noting.
Actually, (and not with respect to local population per se, but with respect to the number of protesters in total), I voiced something very similar way back when the news first broke:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchdigger View Post
I made a few joking posts in the other thread on this subject. This one is perfectly serious.

In the thread "Cities with unfair reputations" here, this article in the PG was cited: City's lack of glitz now a selling point for conventions You remember it.

I've read a few articles about the protests in London, which attracted hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of protestors, depending on which article you read about which protest.

I honestly wonder if the "glamorless destination" factor didn't play into the decision to host the summit here. In the other thread, I was only partly joking about whether protestors will drink on the South Side. If they do come, they're not going to spend every minute protesting. If you were going to go protest something, would you be more likely to want to do it in a 'destination city', like London, or in glamorless, glitzless, why-the-hell-would-I-wanna-go-there, Pittsburgh?

Maybe they decided to do it here for a reason they didn't actually state...
Obviously, security would be easier in a smaller city with smaller numbers of protesters.

If the talking heads on KDKA are misrepresenting the question of whether Pittsburgh was the first choice, or much lower on the list, I'll retract my stated annoyance, but then I'll be annoyed at them for misleading me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 11:55 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 17,296,572 times
Reputation: 2802
The one thing I have seen documented is that the G-20 was originally heading for New York, but then coordinating it with the opening of the UN General Assembly proved too difficult, so they looked for an alternative. I have actually never seen a well-sourced account of how exactly Pittsburgh was chosen as a substitute, aside from the public rationale given by the Obama Administration.

I'm not sure why some people are claiming that Pittsburgh was actually low down some sort of list. My guess is that when New York fell through, the Obama Administration did indeed talk to several cities at once, and maybe some of the other cities were less enthusiastic than Pittsburgh (we have gotten very aggressive about pursuing these things, so it wouldn't surprise me if Pittsburgh stood out as the most enthusiastic). But that isn't the same thing as actually saying the Obama Administrative had formed a firm list of preferences, and that doesn't even make sense to me knowing how these things usually go (usually you ascertain potential interest as you are scouting locations, not form a list first then see if the relevant location is interested).

But honestly I don't care--to me the much more important issue is how this works out for Pittsburgh, and not how much love the Obama Administration was feeling for Pittsburgh at any given step in the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 06:57 PM
 
40,271 posts, read 43,324,140 times
Reputation: 25337
Other cities were asked first. They all said NO WAY. We were just crazy enough to say yes when he got around to us.

Obama was clearly aiming for larger cities at first. Logistically a larger city makes better sense.

That's not an indication of less love. And it does seem like you do care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 07:49 PM
 
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,045 posts, read 1,835,429 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
But honestly I don't care--to me the much more important issue is how this works out for Pittsburgh, and not how much love the Obama Administration was feeling for Pittsburgh at any given step in the process.
I agree that how this works out is now the important thing, and I feel much more optimistic than those foretelling doom and gloom. If, just for the sake of arguement, even one influential visitor is impressed enough with the city to play a role in one multi-million dollar per year business operation locating here, we'll more than break even in the long run.

As far as the process of choosing Pittsburgh goes though, if we were someplace well down the list of potential locations, I just feel there's a certain amount of disrespect in telling us any different. There's certainly a distinction to be made between us giving the most enthusiastic response and us being the top choice.

It may be an emotional reaction, rather than a rational one, but I'm annoyed by the thought that we're having some proverbial sunshine blown up our proverbial behinds, even if it might happen work out to our long term advantage...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 09:59 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 17,296,572 times
Reputation: 2802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes View Post
Other cities were asked first. They all said NO WAY. We were just crazy enough to say yes when he got around to us.

Obama was clearly aiming for larger cities at first. Logistically a larger city makes better sense.

That's not an indication of less love. And it does seem like you do care.
Well, it is true I care to the extent I am curious about these sorts of things. Again, I've heard people claiming we were low down on some list, but what I haven't seen yet is a source for that claim (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist--I just haven't seen it if it does).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top