Suburbanites: What Would it Take to Entice You to Consider Urban Living? (Pittsburgh: apartments, neighborhood)

[BrianTH]

Interesting read, albeit in relation to a different city:

Is sprawl over? - The Transportationist

Again, I personally don't think suburban growth in general is going away entirely, but I do think the suburbs that will do relatively well are the ones evolving into something likes small cities/towns themselves, and in Pittsburgh. the ones that are really already well into the core area despite being outside the borders of the City.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I personally don't think suburban growth in general is going away entirely, but I do think the suburbs that will do relatively well are the ones evolving into something likes small cities/towns themselves, and in Pittsburgh. the ones that are really already well into the core area despite being outside the borders of the City.

I agree, and focusing on those suburbs that are strictly residential could be seen as a strategy for attracting more people to move to the city. The ones that don't have "city" aspects (such as local businesses or some sort of centralized shopping district) will be the most likely to have residents who will consider moving, IMO, especially if the commute to work is very long. Add some sort of financial incentive (a tax break of some sort, perhaps?) and you might snag a few.

To be honest, though, I don't think you're going to increase Pittsburgh's population by focusing on suburbanites. You'll have more success focusing on attracting people from other states who already like living in cities, IMO.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

To be honest, though, I don't think you're going to increase Pittsburgh's population by focusing on suburbanites. You'll have more success focusing on attracting people from other states who already like living in cities, IMO.

I tend to agree, although I would add young people in general (who may or may not have grown up in a Pittsburgh suburb).

But I am one of those people who really doesn't care about the population number in the City per se--which may have something to do with me actually living in Wilkinsburg, but I also tend to think raw numerical benchmarks for population, particularly round numbers, are overemphasized. I'm also quite sure that at least slow population growth is going to return to the City eventually without the need for any radical changes in policy, and in fact that may have already happened.

That said, I am in fact concerned about energy and environmental issues, and land use issues, and the looming potential for suburban/exurban slums, and so on. But addressing those issues will necessarily require addressing people who are living outside central cities, and for that reason I am more interested in how to get more suburbs looking the way they need to look than in getting more people into central cities.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

In my native NEPA a gay porn producer was nearly decapitated, and his home was set ablaze in Dallas Township, a ritzy suburb of Wilkes-Barre.

That was a hell of a story, wasn't it? I thought he died in a fire, though. I guess, nearly decapitated and then fire?

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Caladium

3.) Larger lot sizes in the suburbs for a lower price point than the city.

This one you can't really change. You can try a campaign to change people's values but IMO that doesn't work all that well. It's like trying to convince gay people not to be gay. People want larger lots for a variety of reasons and they're gonna want what they want.

Growing up in NJ, I never dreamed of having a lawn, like the one surrounding our house. It was my job to mow said lawn, since I did it so well. I knew that when I grew up, instead of having a lawn, or even a driver's license, I was going to live in NY and have a doorman. Which I did, both in NY and DC.

I still prefer that kind of living to anything suburban, in spite of liking midcentury modern houses. I would never want to do yard work, and I would resent having to pay someone to do it.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Katiana

While this starts out as "different strokes for different folks", it degenerates into a pyscholanaysis of "why people don't do it my way" with the bold.

Maybe you have something there. People who live in the city parts of cities like Pittsburgh can maybe be forgiven for feeling a certain pride in their choice, which isn't the easiest on the menu. In part, though, this is just the latest version of country mouse vs. city mouse, which is a story as old as cities themselves.

[BrianTH]

I was convinced my father only had kids so he would have someone to make take care of his yards (we had a 1/2 acre for our house and eventually a full acre for a cabin). Come to think of it, maybe that does color my personal preferences.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I was just thinking how upsetting my post was to some and then I was thinking, it is only statistics and numbers. It has nothing to do with anything, but statistics. You can read into all this as much as you like, but the bottom line is, you cannot argue against math. Math is easy to look at because it shows the correct answers and the incorrect answers very easily. The only thing that can be argued in a logical sense are solutions to the problem.

I agree that comparing figures and statistics can be straight-forward exercise (though usually it's not), however establishing the lines of causality is not. There aren't correct and incorrect answers when looking at non-theoretical problems, which makes it necessary to consider the complex causal relationships from which statistics are derived. Citing the higher percentage of impoverished students in poorer districts as a justification for "relocating the disadvantaged" is a gross oversimplification.

Originally Posted by h_curtis

...relocation of the disadvantaged is the answer if you want an area to thrive. Nothing else seems to work.

There is empirical indication that concentrated poverty is a dangerous, repressive, and backwards arrangement (Brian has written at greater length about this many times). Consider the areas of concentrated poverty in Pittsburgh, and think about how it correlates with violent crime. Having seen these trends develop over the last half-century, why would it be logical to simply repeat this course of action by doing everything possible to remove poor people from developing neighborhoods, stripping the kids that most need access to good leadership and guidance from teachers, and introducing violent crime into currently safe areas by relocating a centralized concentration of poverty? Relocating and concentrating poverty is not an "answer" and it would not "work" on a net basis whatsoever. It would simply move the crime, drug problems, low educational attainment, and other ills that we associate with bad neighborhoods away from more mainstream society where it wouldn't be dealt with by any substantive means.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by squarian

Maybe you have something there. People who live in the city parts of cities like Pittsburgh can maybe be forgiven for feeling a certain pride in their choice, which isn't the easiest on the menu. In part, though, this is just the latest version of country mouse vs. city mouse, which is a story as old as cities themselves.

The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Aesop's time on, at least.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I tend to agree, although I would add young people in general (who may or may not have grown up in a Pittsburgh suburb).

Yes, definitely. Young people naturally gravitate to cities. They tend to go together like bada bing and bada boom.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But I am one of those people who really doesn't care about the population number in the City per se--which may have something to do with me actually living in Wilkinsburg, but I also tend to think raw numerical benchmarks for population, particularly round numbers, are overemphasized.

Agreeing with you on this point, too.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm also quite sure that at least slow population growth is going to return to the City eventually without the need for any radical changes in policy, and in fact that may have already happened.

I also agree with this. I get the OP's concern, but I think growth is already returning at a good rate. There's really no need to go to great lengths to lure more people.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I am more interested in how to get more suburbs looking the way they need to look than in getting more people into central cities.

We really seem to be on the same wave length tonight, Brian. This is also something I agree with. And, I don't think they need to be competing interests.