Second phase of Liberty Park (East Liberty) to start this spring (Pittsburgh: high crime, mortgages)

[BrianTH]

Here are a couple articles on what h_curtis confidently claimed has never and could never happen, based on his vast experience as someone who used to bike near these areas many years ago:

East Liberty tenants move into new complex - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Mixed-income redevelopment East Liberty Place North is ready for tenants

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Here are a couple articles on what h_curtis confidently claimed has never and could never happen, based on his vast experience as someone who used to bike near these areas many years ago.

I will read the articles later, but want to correct you. I LIVED there and it was 3 years ago. I lived there for about 6 years on Stanton Ave. That would be considered the front lines if you were from Highland Park.

[gg]

Brian, you seem to be obsessed with the word, "clueless". Every time East Liberty builds a section 8 housing plan, which I am well aware that they have and probably will continue to do, they are moving in the wrong direction. It will just be polishing a turd. I don't think you get around much or you don't look at the bad areas of the city. Maybe you have blinders on? I have no idea why you don't see things clearly? I would enjoy living in fantasy land as well, but I am a realist with over 15 years of real estate sales experience. I also flipped many homes in and out of the city limits. That being said, I really have a difficult time talking to a layman that doesn't listen to someone who knows markets extremely well and knows what people in masses are looking for. You may find a few people that have good jobs and saved money to buy a home that are okay with living next to section 8 housing plans, but they are few and far between. I have lived in bad areas in my life. The worst was in North Miami when I was in my early 20's. That was a very tough huge complex that had tons of crime. I am not living in some enclave not knowing what is going on in city life. I have an understanding of issues and Pittsburgh as a whole is VERY segregated to the point that it may be one of the most segregated places I have ever encountered.

Good luck in thinking there are large numbers of people that can afford $200K and up that want to live along side of big section 8 plans. East Liberty is doomed if it were to go your way. No cafe's, tons of litter and a polished turd that will be a slum again in 10 years. I am hoping that Bakery Square, Trader Joes and Whole Foods becomes more of a theme for the area. Not a ton of polished section 8 housing that will look like a bomb went off in 10 years. I am looking to a more hopeful destination for the area than your fantasyland view.

[gg]

Seems East Liberty lost between 10 and 30% of their population. Must be they relocated from the huge high rises that housed so many and were some of the worst living conditions in the city. Hope the trend continues and it shifts to a better place.

[Ann_Arbor]

Brian, I get the quote division, it was just a lot to address all at once!

Listen, I think it is novel that people with mixed incomes live next to each other- I live in Lawrenceville which is a patch-work of incomes- I have no problem with it. I believe with my neighborhood, as well as several others here, this is a very feasible objective without over-government involvement. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to other poorer people like myself, but I just except the fact at this point of my life, I don't have a lot of money and am happy to live where I can afford with a roommate. Heck, when I lived in LA, I shared a bedroom- it's called roughing it.

I truly believe that cities need to evolve naturally. When I use naturally, I mean with limited government authority and allowing for choices to made by individuals based on the greatest and best use of their property, with basic parameters. As an Independent, I hate to say this, but Capitalism made our North American cities what they are today. This is not to say government should have no involvement in our cities, just at basic limits. Again, I don't think dictating development based on a 'low or mixed-income' objectives is something they should have a say in.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Brian, you seem to be obsessed with the word, "clueless".

I am just using an appropriate description for you.

Every time East Liberty builds a section 8 housing plan, which I am well aware that they have and probably will continue to do, they are moving in the wrong direction.

You JUST claimed all the people from the high rises were gone, and I proved differently. So much for your vastly superior experience and knowledge.

You have also claimed that people of superior means will not live next to people living in subsidized housing. And yet the market rate units in these developments have immediately filled up. So much for that being impossible.

You have further claimed that unless all the former residents of East Liberty are forced out of the neighborhood, it can't improve. And yet many are staying, and the neighborhood is improving. So much for THAT being impossible.

Now when a rational person assumes something is impossible, and then it actually happens, that rational person will question those assumptions. What sort of person are you?

I have an understanding of issues and Pittsburgh as a whole is VERY segregated to the point that it may be one of the most segregated places I have ever encountered.

I think we have established you have no idea what you are talking about in general. But I will note it is NOT true that Pittsburgh as a whole is highly segregated by INCOME, because there are many neighborhoods with a wide range of incomes. And I thought we were talking about income--or are you finally admitting you are really talking about race?

I am looking to a more hopeful destination for the area than your fantasyland view.

Nah. What is really going on here is you want to push all the lower-income people in the City into suburban shantytowns. On some level, though, you understand that goal makes you into a monster in the eyes of most people. So, you are trying to rationalize that goal by suggesting it is impossible to do any better.

I am pointing out that what you claim is impossible is already happening. Again, a rational person would at that point question those assumptions. But since you don't actually care what is true or not, and just want to rationalize your monstrous goals, you keep insisting that black is white and up is down, and everyone should believe you and not their lying eyes.

Like I said, there is really no point trying to talk to someone like you. But I am in fact willing to make sure that other people understand that things you are claiming are demonstrably false.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Ann_Arbor

I hate to say this, but Capitalism made our North American cities what they are today.

I can't tell if you mean that's a good thing or a bad thing - but will you be spending any time in rush hour traffic this afternoon?

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I am just using an appropriate description for you.

I suggest you read the forum rules:


"Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments."

[Ann_Arbor]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But you already allowed for "necessary zoning and building restrictions". Are you also opposed to safety codes? Nuisance laws?

Seriously, I think you are actually misstating your own position. You like good rules, not bad rules, and good plans, not bad plans. But you are not nearly as opposed to the idea of rules and plans per se as you are sometimes suggesting.

There was a moment in the early 20th century when planning had very good intentions, as our cities were become overly dense and polluted. Basic zoning such as industry being zoned away from residential was established, as well as density/height/setback restrictions were enacted. This was to provide some level of clean air and sunlight to even the deepest parts of a city- a very novel idea. Somewhere along the way, this planned zoning and restrictions went way beyond its good intention and, in my opinion, is the primary reason we have suburban sprawl. Not only did planners think we should separate residential and industry, they thought we should separate whole neighborhoods and commercial. They thought that diminishing air space and over densification could best be compensated for by ensuring lot sizes that are spaced really far apart and forcing ridiculous setbacks. So in my opinion, government urban planners are either really flat-footed (maybe from bureaucracy), out of touch, or really like suburban spaces and sprawl. Whichever way, I am skeptical of them today, think they should not be concerned with mixing incomes and I definitely don't adore them.

[Ann_Arbor]

Originally Posted by squarian

I can't tell if you mean that's a good thing or a bad thing - but will you be spending any time in rush hour traffic this afternoon?

That is a good thing in my opinion- if you observe the best parts and spaces of the city and understand their history, you can trace their heyday to the period of intense Capitalism. I use the term "Capitalist City" in reference to Spiro Kostof's North American city of the early 20th century. Did Capitalism have adverse affects on a large segment of our population, absolutely- but I did have a profound impact on creating one great cities. Somewhere done the line, after WWII, people abandoned them in-masse, got in their cars, and headed to the suburbs.

I don't have to endure rush hour traffic because I choose to live close to where I work here in the city..