Buying a house around Pittsburgh

[Bong477]

Third for Ross.

[Rodeno]

I guess my thinking on wanting to be somewhat close to the city is that I love our life style right now, the ability to walk to most places and the pace of the city, but I know that can't last. I guess my thoughts are there because I'm having a difficult time thinking about our lives changing to being in the 'burbs, but I guess that is only natural. Being close to the city, when it really comes down to it, isn't all that important. I don't really have any customers inside the triangle, actually most aren't in the city at all. I just want to be able to access the city when we feel like it, which I guess could be done from almost anywhere.

Thank you all for your opinions.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I just have a general distaste for Kennedy because it was built up as suburban sprawl for people who gave up on McKees Rocks and Stowe.

That is basically the story of most of Pittsburgh.

People moved to the South Side slopes to escape the pollution on the flats.

Similar story with folks moving from the strip up to Polish Hill.

Moving away from industrial areas to more bucolic surroundings has always been a life goal of many folks, especially the old immigrants who were still around in the 50's and 60's who came from rural villages in Italy and eastern Europe.

It wasn't giving up on the Rocks, but simply seeking a better life. BTW, much of Stowe is also quite suburban, up off of McCoy and that.

[PreservationPioneer]

Stowe Township (West Park, anyway) was built up circa 1900 as a suburb of McKees Rocks and a streetcar suburb, due to the population of McKees Rocks booming and having no more space to build housing within the McKees Rocks borders. Kennedy, on the other hand, was built up long after the population of McKees Rocks and Stowe had peaked, and functioned more as a newer alternative to the older towns. I prefer Stowe because it is a walkable community with a business district, and the houses are older and closer together. There's more density and character. I see Kennedy as the definition of post-war sprawl.

[nuwaver88]

If I were looking to horse around in Pittsburgh near Pittsburgh I would go to State College, PA. Jerry Sandusky said he would sometimes just "horse around" with the schoolboys at his camp.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Rodeno

I guess my thinking on wanting to be somewhat close to the city is that I love our life style right now, the ability to walk to most places and the pace of the city, but I know that can't last. I guess my thoughts are there because I'm having a difficult time thinking about our lives changing to being in the 'burbs, but I guess that is only natural. Being close to the city, when it really comes down to it, isn't all that important. I don't really have any customers inside the triangle, actually most aren't in the city at all. I just want to be able to access the city when we feel like it, which I guess could be done from almost anywhere.

Thank you all for your opinions.

[soapbox]
I just want to address something that is implicit within your several posts but I think is representative of a societal group-think. Simply put; "You can't raise a family in the City or it's somehow irresponsible parenting to do so." This is a vestige of the last 50 years of the suburbanization of America and honestly I think the notions are kept alive by suburbanites to justify their pseudo-pozni scheme of elevated home values and rising, exceed the Jones' school district spending.

You explicitly state that you love your life style right now, walkability, urban living, but then seem to suggest that you have to give all of that up in order to find a home that you can "grow into" and the other canard that urban taxes are so high that you're practically forced to live in the outlying Counties, let alone stay within the City limits. Hogwash. How much room do you actually think you'll need? What's the additional cost of a soul-sapping commute? Are the Pittsburgh schools great and in totality comparable to some of the suburban districts? Of course not, but they need to be honestly appraised and not simply dismissed with a waive of the hand as a non-option. There are many wonderful teachers and programs within the district and, due to its size, you're provided with a large number of choices that suburban districts can't provide. This is an interesting link:
Top public schools: Large U.S. cities - Pittsburgh | GreatSchools

Obviously, ultimately this is your choice, and whatever is best for you and your family is what you should do. I just want to point out that there is a choice to be made and giving up, in it's entirety, the lifestyle that you love can certainly wait until the kids come along and force that change upon you .

We chose to stay within the City to raise our family and so far could not be happier. Many of our relatives, including my in-laws, expected us to do the standard move to suburbia when their first grand-kid showed up, but that would have made his parents miserable and I believe ultimate worse role-models. If more people choose to do so, and I believe that it's on the upswing, I think you'll see an improvement in the schools and the types of things you think the outlying areas can provide to your kids coupled with the experiences that they clearly can't.
[/soapbox]

Thanks for letting me vent, best of luck with your search.

[greg42]

Good points Lobick, can't give you any rep yet.

I vaguely recall having a couple thoughts along that line myself while reading this thread at some point, not strongly enough to put them into a post though really (obviously). So it's good someone did. I tend to think with Rodeno he may have thought that part through already, but maybe not.