Pittsburgh Crime Report 2010 (Penn Hills, Wilkinsburg, Bedford: per square foot, income, place to live)

[BrianTH]

Even relatively large areas (and the Hill only counts as large in a City which is used to tiny neighborhoods) can see very rapid drops in crime over relatively short periods of time. In a nutshell, that is because it is a really only a small fraction of the people who are involved in the crime.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Even relatively large areas (and the Hill only counts as large in a City which is used to tiny neighborhoods) can see very rapid drops in crime over relatively short periods of time. In a nutshell, that is because it is a really only a small fraction of the people who are involved in the crime.

This all may be very true, but the Hill has been about the same for 50ish years or so. Riddled with crime and litter. Kind of a large area to do something about. Personally, I don't feel I will ever change in my lifetime, but I am pushing 50 years old. I think I will be gone long before the Hill makes any moves. Just hoping for East Liberty to get a tiny bit better so there isn't too many murders there. All we can do is hope it gets a little better in the next decade or so.

[PeterRabbit]

Originally Posted by ML North

2008 Estimates for the population of Hill District neighborhoods are as follows:

Bedford Dwellings - 1814
Bluff - 3825
Crawford Roberts - 2667
Middle Hill - 1763
Terrace Village - 2160
Upper Hill - 1973

Total is 14202.

Thank you for the correction. I got the figure from Wikipedia which also states the area is .179 square miles. I'm glad to change it.

[OnThaGrind]

Damn.... My neighborhood Brighton Heights did worse than I thought! It's worse here than some of the hill district, except for homicides. Funny because I feel safe here. Well, maybe it's because I'm comparing it to other places I've lived before that were much higher in crime. I think my block is probably the safest part of Brighton Heights.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

This all may be very true, but the Hill has been about the same for 50ish years or so. Riddled with crime and litter. Kind of a large area to do something about. Personally, I don't feel I will ever change in my lifetime, but I am pushing 50 years old. I think I will be gone long before the Hill makes any moves. Just hoping for East Liberty to get a tiny bit better so there isn't too many murders there. All we can do is hope it gets a little better in the next decade or so.

I think it's largely dependent on population growth. If there is enough demand citywide, I think the hill could quickly turn around.

To some extent there is already some redevelopment in progress. Between Crawford and Kirkpatrick on Centre Avenue is actually pretty nice with several newer buildings, especially the library. The grocery store currently being built will also hopefully reinforce this trend. As has been mentioned, Crawford Square is a great example of a mixed-income development. There is also new housing being built down on Dinwiddie. The redevelopment of the Lower Hill
and Uptown should also hopefully be a stimulus to more investment.

Regardless, I acknowledge that crime - and especially violent crime - is still a significant issue for the Hill. Though in my opinion, crime and depressed neighborhoods are largely a chicken-egg problem, both sides of which can hopefully be addressed by prudent development decisions.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

The problem is that it doesn't look like the whole "put nice developments there and the thugs will leave" idea hasn't exactly worked for the Hill. They're staying there despite all the pretty, new housing.

[gg]

Originally Posted by ML North

... Crawford Square is a great example of a mixed-income development.

People love to throw around terms like, "mixed-income" development. I hope people realize that the demand for such a thing is tiny in comparison to what goes on in 90+% or neighborhoods. Crawford Square it very little and right on the edge of the Hill/downtown. There is even a view of the city from many units, which was also a help. I guess it was successful, but you will find that most of that type of housing will run out of buyers pretty fast. Of course if Pittsburgh has some wild population increase all bets are off, but I would't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Mixed income areas are generally on the fringes of poor and nice areas. Get to the nucleus of either and the prices are usually quite similar for housing depending on square footage. Then there are areas that were meant to be mixed income and they turn into one or the other over time. That is what usually happens. East Liberty is trying to move away from the slum status, but it is hard to tell if it will. Plant a place like Terrace Village in an area and watch people flee. It has happened to an extent in Verona. That was a pretty vibrant town years ago and it is moving in the wrong direction due to a big section 8 plan dumped there. The downtown is becoming a ghost town except for a tattoo place and a gun store. Most mixed income places will be temporary.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

The problem is that it doesn't look like the whole "put nice developments there and the thugs will leave" idea hasn't exactly worked for the Hill. They're staying there despite all the pretty, new housing.

First, you're ignoring the fact that the "Hill" is in reference to a comparatively large area, which is not homogeneous in the concentration of crime. It's similar to how every neighborhood on the North Side is often given the reputation of it's worst parts. The most dangerous and undesirable parts of the Hill are those that have been excluded from redevelopment - Chauncey Drive, Elmore Square, Etc.

Second, the success of such redevelopment projects is obviously dependent on your definition of success. Crawford Square (CS) has seen significant investment and redevelopment. Its homes are occupied by a diverse cross section of people including professionals, old, young, black and white people, and many others.

The crime rate, especially for violent crimes, is significantly lower in CS than in the undeveloped parts of the Hill. One such example are the homicide maps. All of the homicides in the hill are outside of Crawford Square. The poverty rate in Crawford Roberts, which includes Crawford Square and some undeveloped areas that skew the stats, is 50% less than in undeveloped parts of the Hill and the tax delinquency rate is about 30% less. Of course it's not perfect, but it is an improvement and in that regard, I'd say it has 'worked.'

[gg]

Originally Posted by ML North

Crawford Square (CS) has seen significant investment and redevelopment. Its homes are occupied by a diverse cross section of people including professionals, old, young, black and white people, and many others.

Crawford Square seems to be a favorite topic as some example of this mix income success mecca. Maybe we should look at it from a developer's point of view. What does a developer want? To sell out as fast has he can to cut carry costs and get his money back fast to get into another project. There isn't some great plan saying, we need more mixed income areas. It is more of that thought, how to get as many buyers interested as we can in an area that has not been very good for a long time. The Hill isn't some easy sale. To attract more people they make it a mix because it is a fringe area and a mix brings more people that can afford it. The ultimate long term hope is people with more money move into an area and improve it because improving things take money and then they can work on the next section of the region and make more money developing that. People have this funny notion that a developer is looking out for the people first and his pocketbook second. There really is not such thing as a "mixed income" area if you are looking long term. There are only "transitional" areas. Any good investor knows that it is better to transition to a wealthier side. Profits are much higher if an area goes higher end over time and all parties involved including politicians make more money and also they look good because an area got nicer.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

The problem is that it doesn't look like the whole "put nice developments there and the thugs will leave" idea hasn't exactly worked for the Hill. They're staying there despite all the pretty, new housing.

But that process is just beginning. Are "thugs" roaming Crawford Square? I don't get that impression. [Edit: See MLNorth's more comprehensive post on this subject.]

In other words, I think it is true you need a critical mass of redevelopment in a specific area to drive out the problem-causers. But I think that critical mass can be developed faster than some people think, provided that the potential demand is there.

Edit #2: By the way, there are mixed-income neighborhoods all over Pittsburgh. It is strange that something which is supposedly impossible keeps happening.