What areas could Pittsburgh do without? (California, Braddock: real estate, apartments, renters)

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Note I said "parts of." You get rid of problematic structures here and there. Maybe occasionally you have to take down a city block.

Well, the city already does this. Have you ever seen the demolition lists posted by the city? They knock down old buildings constantly. Many of those do need to be knocked down, but occasionally there are some that I think should have been saved, which I post on my blog. The main issue raised by the OP was whether there are neighborhoods that Pittsburgh could do without, not whether it could do without a few buildings here and there.

[Uptown kid]

[quote]A bit off topic, but Northview Heights and Glen Hazel are the only "project neighborhoods" still standing right?[quote]

Yah but technically Arlington Heights is too... Though the original urban renewal had:
*Northvew Heights/Allegheny Dwellings
*The Bedford Dwellings Projects/***Addison Terrace/***Allequppia Terrace
*Arlington Heights/***St. Clair Village
**Westgate/***BroadHead Manor
*Garfield Heights/Glen Hazel Heights/Aburn Street Manor/***East Liberty Towers/**Pennly Place North

While not far behind were complexes like: Bruston Hilltop Molher Courts-Homewood-North, ***Sretett Street-Collier Apts, Chadwick Place, Three Rivers Manor, Hays Manor, **McKees Rocks Terrace Phase One, ***the Fairywood East Courts, ***Reed Roberts Manor, **the East Hills Projects, Hawkins Village, *Crawford Village, Harrison Village, Soltis Drive, ***Burns Heights, & **Braddock-Riverview Place Phase One.
Newer age projects/section 8/mixed income: East Liberty Gardens, Parkview Estates, Hi View Gardens, Mill Vue Acres, Pasildes Place, Riverview Manor, Rolling Woods Estates, Bedford Hills, Garfield Commons, Leland Point, Hulton Arbors, Leechburg Gardens, Bale Drive, North Braddock Towers & Myres-Ridge...

Note one * means partially razed/boarded up. Two ** means razed and then renamed. Three *** means already-soon to be totally razed/boarded up. So most of Allegheny County's old 'jects are gone...

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

A neighborhood might not look like much to you, but it might be beautiful to someone else.

Have you ever done a photo tour of Hays? It sounds like a worthy subject for your discerning eye.

[Garvdog]

I'm actually a big fan of razing blocks/neighborhoods that are mostly abandoned/falling apart. I've always thought the problem with cities (and suburbs) is that once they grow, they never shrink. It's easy for developers to build on pristine land but you never see dead neighborhoods made back into pristine land, becuase it costs money and there is no "profit" to be made for anyone.

The issue of course, is who decides when a neighborhood is beyond hope and what do you do with the few remaining residents who are not squatters?

And its not just old city neighborhoods. In this economy there have been a few recent examples outside of PA due to overbuilding. Entire new but unsold housing developments in Vegas come to mind.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Note I said "parts of." You get rid of problematic structures here and there. Maybe occasionally you have to take down a city block.

Might I recommend Portland Street between Wellesley and Jackson in Highland Park.
I'd add a few absentee landlord houses on Wellesley between Portland and Mellon.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Lots of Sim City 2000 fans in this thread.

[Tinare]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Lots of Sim City 2000 fans in this thread.

Can we send in Godzilla to do the destruction???

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I just made that statement to make a point. I don't think we really should demolish the suburbs. My point was that it is arrogant to deem certain neighborhoods disposable. These are peoples' homes. If something belongs to someone, you shouldn't be able to take it away from them. I know that it happens, but I don't agree with it, from an ethical standpoint.

I don't think you can just throw neighborhoods away. I think there are a lot of things to consider, including.

1. The percentage of "missing teeth" the area has
2. The accessibility of the area
3. The quality of the remaining housing stock
4. The availability of other affordable housing in the area.

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

The difference is, I don't know anyone who feels any level of attachment to Allegheny Center or, for that matter, most suburban-mall type architecture of the last century. It doesn't inspire love. It's cold, utilitarian, minimalist, designed for purpose rather than charm, like a washing machine. There may be someone who disagrees with me. You could make the point that alley houses were minimalist and utilitarian, but they are also symbols of a bygone world, which is what makes them endearing. And I stand by my point that they are practical.

I dunno. I tend to thing aesthetics are almost entirely cultural. Look at how out avocado appliances are now, versus modern stainless steel. One is not objectively nicer than the other. I've talked with Lawrenceville natives, and they sincerely thought things like replacing their old windows with horizontal sliders made their houses more attractive - it was the style at that time.

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

From what I understand about the downsizing of Flint, Detroit, and Youngstown (where existing residents are being relocated from certain neighborhoods to houses in more dense neighborhoods), this is completely voluntary on the part of the residents. Also, the neighborhoods that are being taken down are mostly urban prairie, with a house scattered here and there, maybe only a couple left on a block. These neighborhoods have become impractical for the city to maintain because they are large in area, with only a few residents scattered sparsely throughout. This makes sense for these cities, because they have urban prairie neighborhoods. Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are very different. Even Esplen and Hays are quite dense compared to the typical urban prairie neighborhoods in Flint or Detroit, and are not large in area. Also, Flint and Detroit are mainly interested in decreasing the footprint of the city, or rightsizing the city to make it comparable to the existing population. Demolishing neighborhoods in the core of Pittsburgh will not make the city's footprint smaller.

I don't think you can say we're in a different league. Look at the population decline since 1950

Detroit: 61%
Youngstown: 60%
Pittsburgh: 55%
Flint: 37%

Mind you, Youngstown peaked in 1930, and Flint didn't until 1960. Adjusting these numbers, you get a 61% decline for Youngstown, and a 48% decline for Flint. Still, we're in the same boat in terms of general population decline.

Of course, by a lot of other measures, such as safety, we're worlds apart. In some ways it's remarkable Pittsburgh has shrunk as much as it has and remains such a vibrant, active, comparably low-crime city.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Note I said "parts of." You get rid of problematic structures here and there. Maybe occasionally you have to take down a city block.

The problem with the "parts of" is:

1. The city already does this on a house-by-house basis.
2. it doesn't actually save any money for the city, unless you take out a dead-end street or something which could be rewilded.

[escilade18]

One thing to consider is how many houses are actually abandoned. In Pittsburgh a good percentage of the population decline has to do with some of the children moving out of the city, while their parents still occupy the houses. Also, you may have one person occupying a house that used to house a family of 7 or 8 people. With the exception of a few neighborhoods, I don't see the abandonment of city neighborhoods as bad as it is in other cities. Pittsburgh got that abandonment more in the Mon Valley towns such as Braddock