What Pittsburgh Neighborhoods would you define as "Urban?" (Duquesne: apartment, townhouses)

[eschaton]

When I first came to Pittsburgh from the Northeast Corridor seven years ago, I was surprised at how un-dense it seemed for a major city. I do not mean in the sense of a depopulated city - I mean in the sense the built environment of most of the city simply didn't seem urban to the eyes of someone who spent a lot of time in NYC, Boston, and DC. The first time I saw Squirrel Hill in particular I was dumbfounded, as it seemed like a wealthy part of a college town transplanted into a city.

Now, I have a much better sense of Pittsburgh. I'd say, counting residential areas, we basically have three main types, and three special types:

Urban Neighborhoods: Row houses/duplexes predominate, almost all built before 1900: Very dense, very car-unfriendly, as they tend towards narrow streets, and sometimes have houses in the rear alleys.

Manchester
California-Kirkbride (what's left)
Allegheny West
Central Northside
East Allegheny
Spring Garden
Troy Hill
Southside Flats
Bluff/Uptown
Crawford Roberts
Middle Hill (what's left)
Polish Hill
Bloomfield (discounting unofficial Friendship area)
Lawrenceville

Streetcar Suburbs: Well over half the city. Built up post-1900, but before the 1950s. Houses mostly detached, but lack driveways unless houses are infill or were added later. Instead, car access is from a rear-facing alley or streetside.

Classical Suburbs: Mostly built up post 1950. Driveways, and in some cases winding roads, predominate.

Summer Hill
Stanton Heights
New Homestead
Lincoln Place (mostly)
Overbrook
Banksville
Ridgemont
Westwood
Oakwood
Chartiers City
Windgap
Fairywood

The special types of neighborhoods are the projects (self-evident), the industrial areas (Strip, West End, Chateau), and the Downtown-area (including North Shore, South Shore, Allegheny Center).

[squarian]

How does Shadyside, for example, fit? Originally built up early 19th c., with large villas set in substantial grounds, for the most part, then in-filled over the next 150 years? Not classically urban, not a streetcar suburb, and certainly not a post-war car 'burb.

[speagles84]

Most Urban-like:

1. Downtown
2. Oakland
3. Uptown
4. North Shore
5. Strip District
6. South Side
7. North Side (West, East, Central Allegheny)
8. East Liberty
9. Lawrenceville
10. Bloomfield

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by squarian

How does Shadyside, for example, fit? Originally built up early 19th c., with large villas set in substantial grounds, for the most part, then in-filled over the next 150 years? Not classically urban, not a streetcar suburb, and certainly not a post-war car 'burb.

From reading the Frank Toker book on the history of Pittsburgh architecture, there was a division between the northern and southern portions of Shadyside essentially from the start, as the developers subdivided the land into smaller plots in the north. Point Breeze is a better example of this, since much of it used to be part of estates similar to the Frick, which were largely torn down in the 1920s, IIRC.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Most Urban-like:

1. Downtown
2. Oakland
3. Uptown
4. North Shore
5. Strip District
6. South Side
7. North Side (West, East, Central Allegheny)
8. East Liberty
9. Lawrenceville
10. Bloomfield

Overall I agree with the list, with two exceptions:

Oakland is a very dense neighborhood, but it was not constructed to be so - it was just later infill by apartment blocks which turned the areas around the Pitt campus into a high-density area. Discounting the real "Central Oakland" around Fifth and Forbes, it's mostly detached single-family housing in the stile of a lot of East End neighborhoods. Packed to the gills with students, of course, but then again most of the SFH areas probably had 6-8 people per house back in the day anyway

East Liberty has a very urban-looking core, but the residential area, once you get out of the core (where as I said in a post the other day, no one lives), it is pretty similar to Friendship or Highland Park, with generously-sized detached housing.

[Evergrey]

It amazes me how many people consider Squirrel Hill "suburban". It is one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the city... and has one of the most extensive neighborhood business districts. Squirrel Hill may have street trees and large detached houses, but the neighborhood is much more functionally urban than most of the rowhouse neighborhoods. Manchester, for example, is a historic structurally-dense neighborhood (besides the parts that were nuked for highways and 1960s split-levels)... but it doesn't really function as an urban neighborhood. A resident of Manchester has to go elsewhere for almost every daily need and activity. The "near" North Side was obviously built in a very urban fashion in the 1800s, but today it has a dearth of employment, commerce, amenities and connectivity.

The most urban part of Pittsburgh is the cluster of East End neighborhoods: Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, Oakland, Bloomfield, Lawrenceville. These neighborhoods range from crammed rowhouses to mid-rise apartment districts to lush estates... but these structurally-diverse neighborhoods coalesce to form a vast swath of urbanity that is the most densely populated and amenity-rich region of the city.




Your list, eschaton, is great for determining periods in urban design and development patterns... but it is not a proxy for what is "urban" IMO.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Overall I agree with the list, with two exceptions:

Oakland is a very dense neighborhood, but it was not constructed to be so - it was just later infill by apartment blocks which turned the areas around the Pitt campus into a high-density area. Discounting the real "Central Oakland" around Fifth and Forbes, it's mostly detached single-family housing in the stile of a lot of East End neighborhoods. Packed to the gills with students, of course, but then again most of the SFH areas probably had 6-8 people per house back in the day anyway

East Liberty has a very urban-looking core, but the residential area, once you get out of the core (where as I said in a post the other day, no one lives), it is pretty similar to Friendship or Highland Park, with generously-sized detached housing.

Well according to wikipedia, Oakland is PA's third largest "downtown". The corridor along Forbes and Fifth and up the hill around the Hospitals is very urban. The population isn't high in these areas, yet it isn't in the golden triangle either. The population density of central and North Oakland are the highest in the city with the exception of Bluff due to Duquesne University.

The University of Pittsburgh is also building two new 8+ story buildings in Oakland right now. First the new dormitory, which will be 11 stories, and also adding an addition to one of the health buildings farther down fifth.

The reason I threw East Liberty in there is more for its potential. Right now with its offices and churches, it gives the neighborhood a more "urban" feel than the majority of the city. But I do agree about the housing outside central East Liberty.

[SuburbanPioneer]

Urban neighborhoods are defined not by the number of row houses or when they were built. They are defined by higher population density.

United States urban area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Urban areas in the United States are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 /sq mi (390 /km2) with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500 /sq mi (190 /km2).

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

It amazes me how many people consider Squirrel Hill "suburban". It is one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the city... and has one of the most extensive neighborhood business districts. Squirrel Hill may have street trees and large detached houses, but the neighborhood is much more functionally urban than most of the rowhouse neighborhoods. Manchester, for example, is a historic structurally-dense neighborhood (besides the parts that were nuked for highways and 1960s split-levels)... but it doesn't really function as an urban neighborhood. A resident of Manchester has to go elsewhere for almost every daily need and activity. The "near" North Side was obviously built in a very urban fashion in the 1800s, but today it has a dearth of employment, commerce, amenities and connectivity.

The most urban part of Pittsburgh is the cluster of East End neighborhoods: Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, Oakland, Bloomfield, Lawrenceville. These neighborhoods range from crammed rowhouses to mid-rise apartment districts to lush estates... but these structurally-diverse neighborhoods coalesce to form a vast swath of urbanity that is the most densely populated and amenity-rich region of the city.




Your list, eschaton, is great for determining periods in urban design and development patterns... but it is not a proxy for what is "urban" IMO.

I think the OP was speaking strictly in terms of the built environment. The first group of neighborhoods are very much in line with what you'll find in the majority of eastern cities, outside of New England, save the core of Boston. I would definitely include most of Oakland in this group. In fact, the section of Oakland north of the Boulevand of the Allies, and east of Bates, may be the most densely built up residential area in Pittsburgh. His only mistake is some of the dates he attributes to certain areas. He is correct that all of the dense areas were largely built up by 1900, but large areas of detached homes date from the period between 1870, and 1900. These tend to be either very large brick homes, or frame construction. Construction of both frame detached, and brick rows, dropped precipitously in Pittsburgh between 1900, and 1910. Most 20th Century construction was smaller, detached brick houses. The variation in residential construction between cities is a subject that fascinates me, and is one of the reasons I started doing urban photoshoots in so many cities. Having been raised in Pittsburgh, and only traveling to Philly, DC, and Baltimore early on, I was surprised when I made my first trip to Cleveland, and found that they had basically, no rowhouses, and was amazed at the huge swaths of double decker houses that covered much of the city. I soon found out that the "two flat", or "duplex" (as opposed to the double houses that Pittsburghers call a duplex), was a staple of Great Lakes housing, but that the row was rare. I soon discovered the great variation in housing from city to city.

Bow windows, high stoop brick rows, and three deckers in Boston.
Brown sandstone high stooped rows in NYC
Low stoop, brick rows, and porch front rows in Philly and Baltimore, with Baltimore having marble steps and trim.
Turreted rows set back from the sidewalk, with iron railings in DC.
Dormered rows, sideways stoops, and carved wooden lintels over doors and windows in Pittsburgh.
Detached orange brick Italianate townhouses, and three and four story walkups in Cincy, and on and on.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

Urban neighborhoods are defined not by the number of row houses or when they were built. They are defined by higher population density.

United States urban area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is true, but again, as someone who is familiar with this particular type of discussion from years of posting here, and on the other site, most of the people who profess to love urbanity are generally making an aesthetic argument. They love the feel, look and walkability of densely built up areas. That these tend to be older areas, tends to add to the attraction.