Which neighborhood would you choose? (Lebanon, Washington: motel, new house, buying)

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

I'd vote for none of the above. Wait, I live in Sheraden...

Sheraden isn't half bad in places, not good in others. I never feel unsafe in our area of the neighborhood, on the side of Sheraden Park near the river. Its mainly just noisy trouble making kids on this end.

Why is Cranberry on the list?

[Blackbeauty212]

Sheraden would have to be my choice....

Now I'm not a West End expert, my Pittsburgh roots are all mostly East and South, and since I haven't lived in the Burgh in 15 years my analysis is probably somewhat outdated on Sheraden.

But it was never a bad neighborhood like a Homewood or Northview Heights it was pretty racially mixed with AAs and Poorer Whites (think Lawrenceville pre 2005).

Again not my side of town, but i'd have to somewhere relatively close to the city so New Ken and Cranberry are OUT! Plus I want decent public transit (while we still have it) there's the Busway. I dont want to have to worry about getting Raped, Mugged or Dodging Bullets.

Yep Sheraden it would have to be for me.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

If you had to live in one of the following neighborhoods, which would you choose?

Why did you put Cranberry in there? I don't want to live in Cranberry.

I have lived in Arnold, which I feel counts as New Ken. So, been there, done that. Too far from everything.

I'd give Braddock a try because I'd be able to actively help make a difference.

Aside from Hazelwood, I don't know much about the other areas listed, many I don't even know where they are located.

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

Sure as an AA family we hated the most that we were one of the FEW and far between AA families (though it's not nearly as bad as an outsider can imagine).

I lived in Manchester. We didn't hate that we were among the few and far between white people there. But I can relate feeling aware of it---especially at first when the neighborhood is still gawking. After that, we felt comfortable living there until we moved a couple blocks away and someone started shooting out the windows to our apartment. I can safely bet that nobody was shooting at you in Wexford for being different, yet you hated it? Doesn't make sense because I still can't say I "hated" living in Manchester.

[greg42]

Like others, I don't understand what the point is. You list a bunch of less desirable city neighborhoods, a few down and out suburbs and Cranberry. Most people with the means to live in Cranberry aren't going to choose any of the other places. Most people who live in the other places likely don't have much chance of getting out, but they would jump at the chance to live in Cranberry if they could.

The poll won't force people who would otherwise like to live in the city (just not in those places) to select either one of the less desirable places or Cranberry.

I think the goal may be to get city people to admit they would live in Cranberry over those other areas, but nobody is actually playing along. And why would they? There's no actual reason for someone who wants to live closer in to choose Cranberry vs a better closer in place where housing costs are similar.

Or perhaps the goal is just to pick on Cranberry again, I don't know. As if that is necessary. Why not pick on Peters or Murrysville for a while instead?

[squarian]

AA, what are you on about? Are you going to explain this to us at some point?

[ctoocheck]

An interesting hypothetical question. Just pick one, ya jagoffs! =p

[Uptown kid]

Ok "hated," is a strong word, but we felt comfortable at times. There would be less of a racial a barrier if more affluent black people lived up there. Also, in Westwood, Cincinnati or Wilkinsburg I never heard a black joke Going out somewhere nice would be easyer if some white people just knew that we weren't criminals... But all in all we had no major racial issues there (other than our Obama lawn sign being tagged with nig**r)

[Uptown kid]

0BTW~ Yes, I like spam... I meant west good catch

[Tallysmom]

Angel -- I chose Cranberry. Because I didn't have the option to choose a better city neighborhood. Like Ben Avon. Or another suburban area like Fox Chapel. And you didn't put any rural/suburban areas at all.

I get you -- better than you think. When we were 28, we bought a little wreck of a house with good bones in a declining urban area we thought would come back, and we wanted to be there for it's renaissance.

I'm nearing 52, we're still here, the house is still standing and very pretty with lots of green around it from an avocado tree (with the best 'cados!) and kiwi vines, walnut and orange and japanese maple trees and a pittosporum shrub that's about 50 feet high.... all on a postage stamp size property.... but we've realized the neighborhood is never going to get better.

So essentially, we did what you are doing.

And our next house, which we will buy when we retire -- will be out away from people, either in a rural/suburban area with some acreage or in a posh city envirnmont next to a park or cemetery. I'm tired of the boom boom music, the loud motorcycle roars (live near a "motorcycle club" -- not the Angels) hearing people fight and scream, and gun shots. And -- at this time of year -- fireworks.

What you're doing now, as we did back then, worked for us. It's not working for me anymore.

People change, and want different things.

[PreservationPioneer]

I thought it would be interesting to see if people, hypothetically, would rather live in depressed urban-like areas vs. a prosperous cookie-cutter area like Cranberry.

So far, more people picked the depressed urban neighborhoods, even though, on paper, Cranberry SHOULD be the obvious choice.

Personally, I would much rather live in an urban-like area than a strip mall area, even if it meant compromising on safety and living in a blighted neighborhood.

None of the neighborhoods in the poll are unliveable.