Is Squirrel Hill Over Priced and Over Rated ?? (Pittsburgh, Lebanon: hardwood floors, sale)

[ElijahAstin]

^Squirrel Hill has a "dense, inner ring suburban" feel which can easily apply to certain resedential city neighborhoods.

[SPSGuy]

I agree. I feel sections of S. Hill feel more urban than other sections. I lived on Hempstead for 2 years. This was as urban, or even more urban than any section in a major city I lived out in the west (besides for the downtown of course). Most of the S. Hill Area between Murry and Schenley is what I would consider "urban" or city feel.

hempstead street. - Google Maps

Also it is all in perspective. Lets remember that a New Yorker feels that Queens is "suburban", while in cities like Denver, Kansas City, or even sprawly more S.E. cookie cutter cities like Jacksonville, Tampa, Charlotte, these areas would be full blow "inner urban City".

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

I lived a few blocks below Forward by Monitor. To say, "Really, the good schools are the only really positive quality" is beyond insane. This section of the burgh is very nice and relaxing. The neighborhood around Monitor, and the streets around this area have attractive housing along with a fewer non-attractive housing, and are also closer to other areas of Greenfield. To get to Frick is easier than most sections of Pittsburgh and the access to a large park (unless you are morbidly obese and confined to your house that is)

It's not like I called the area a ghetto. I just mean the good local schools are the only thing that makes the far southern portion of Squirrel Hill stand out compared to somewhere like Stanton Heights, Morningside, or Beechview (to name three neighborhoods which are socially stable with overall mediocre housing - awful housing in the case of Stanton Heights)

I think this is mainly a fault of when the area was built up - Squirrel Hill was largely uninhabited until the 1920s, and most of the housing was built in that decade or the 1930s. While generally nicer than the home styles a few decades later, housing choices for regular folks (aside from Craftsmen) were simply put just not as nice, lacking the external woodwork and inlaid terra cotta you can find on slightly older houses in the Pittsburgh area.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

http://goo.gl/maps/o9WT

A typical residential street in the "no positive quality, ugly housing section of S. Squirrel Hill". I think it looks rather nice, but then again, I am not one that desires the major posh streets such as Murry Hill ave.

People tend to forget that Squirrel Hill is a very large neighborhood stretching from the Posh street of Murry Hill Avenue, sections of North Squirrel Hill with enormous spacious mansions, to a mix and eclectic S. Squirrel Hill, and big apartment sections below forward, and summerset at Frick which has all newer housing. It is a very large neighborhood.

squirrel Hill pittsburgh - Google Maps

and this is far from "suburban". But again, I am not a "holier than though, you are only urban if your area was developed in the mid-1800s, non-individual house" type, even I do live in a 1800 victorian duplex in eastern PA.

The first street view looks like it could be a street in Brentwood or West Mifflin. The second looks more urban. Come to think of it, Brentwood reminds me of a poor man's Squirrel Hill.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

I agree. I feel sections of S. Hill feel more urban than other sections. I lived on Hempstead for 2 years. This was as urban, or even more urban than any section in a major city I lived out in the west (besides for the downtown of course). Most of the S. Hill Area between Murry and Schenley is what I would consider "urban" or city feel.

hempstead street. - Google Maps

Also it is all in perspective. Lets remember that a New Yorker feels that Queens is "suburban", while in cities like Denver, Kansas City, or even sprawly more S.E. cookie cutter cities like Jacksonville, Tampa, Charlotte, these areas would be full blow "inner urban City".

I grew up outside of NYC (although in the suburbs) and I boggled the first time I went through Squirrel Hill. Just didn't look urban at all - looked like a well-to-do college town.

FWIW, I'd consider less than half of the city to have a truly urban feel. Basically the rowhouse neighborhoods and downtown, plus maybe Friendship/Shadyside/East Liberty/Oakland.

[SPSGuy]

So what is the difference between urban and suburban? Besides for obvious fact that one is in the city the other is out. Then we start comparing the decades development took place of certain areas. We have 1880s shadyside neighborhoods, earlier rowhome neighborhoods that are (more prominent in the N.E. cities), 1920 street car development (suburban in N.E. cities, while inner city in other cities), (and even newer dense urban apartment building complexes that you will find in cities like Denver) What makes one urban vs suburban? Some newer highrise developments and the first picture I posted of S. HIll is more dense than most rowhome neighborhoods such as Lawrenceville.

I am asking, not trying to engage in an argument.

[SPSGuy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I grew up outside of NYC (although in the suburbs) and I boggled the first time I went through Squirrel Hill. Just didn't look urban at all - looked like a well-to-do college town.

FWIW, I'd consider less than half of the city to have a truly urban feel. Basically the rowhouse neighborhoods and downtown, plus maybe Friendship/Shadyside/East Liberty/Oakland.

That is what I posted above. It is all in perspective. To a NYer S. Hill is going to look downright suburban compared to the Bronx, Brooklyn, and even Queens. I think many people refer to age of development as urban. Small towns in Eastern PA look more urban than S. Hill because they are 50-100 years older in development even though their density is less than that of S. Hill.

In Denver this street S. of the State Capitol was the "old urban street". Which in my mind has a lot of the S. Hill look by Schenley Park, and not really that urban. But again, it is all about perspective. Put S. HIll in Charlotte, and you got a full blown inner city hood.

denver - Google Maps

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

So what is the difference between urban and suburban? Besides for obvious fact that one is in the city the other is out. Then we start comparing the decades development took place of certain areas. We have 1880s shadyside neighborhoods, earlier rowhome neighborhoods that are (more prominent in the N.E. cities), 1920 street car development (suburban in N.E. cities, while inner city in other cities), (and even newer dense urban apartment building complexes that you will find in cities like Denver) What makes one urban vs suburban? Some newer highrise developments and the first picture I posted of S. HIll is more dense than most rowhome neighborhoods such as Lawrenceville.

I am asking, not trying to engage in an argument.

For me, the clincher is driveways and garages.

If a neighborhood was built before automobiles were common, driveways are rare. Either the houses are too close together to put in anything (touching or a few feet apart), or if they have them, but via a rear alley instead off off the front. Occasional driveways added by later residents are an exception of course. But if nearly every house has a driveway and/or a garage, it feels like a suburb.

Admittedly, this means a lot more neighborhoods than I just mentioned are really urban - places like Morningside, Mount Washington, etc. They are dominated by SFH, but they are put too close together to have been modded into suburban areas later. Still, large portions of Pittsburgh (Stanton Heights, East Hills, Greenfield, most of the West End, and yes, Squirrel Hill for the most part) fail this basic test.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

That is what I posted above. It is all in perspective. To a NYer S. Hill is going to look downright suburban compared to the Bronx, Brooklyn, and even Queens. I think many people refer to age of development as urban. Small towns in Eastern PA look more urban than S. Hill because they are 50-100 years older in development even though their density is less than that of S. Hill.

In Denver this street S. of the State Capitol was the "old urban street". Which in my mind has a lot of the S. Hill look by Schenley Park, and not really that urban. But again, it is all about perspective. Put S. HIll in Charlotte, and you got a full blown inner city hood.

denver - Google Maps

San Francisco is the only place I've been to or seen out west which really "felt like a city" to me, FWIW

[PreservationPioneer]

If I were to rank Pittsburgh's neighborhoods by how urban they look / feel:

1. Downtown / Strip / Bluff
2. War Streets / Manchester / Allegheny West / Deutschtown / Central North Side / South Side / Lawrenceville / Oakland / Bloomfield
3. Friendship / Shadyside / Point Breeze / Regent Square / Squirrel Hill / Highland Park / Brighton Heights / Observatory Hill

Not sure where to rank the hill-top neighborhoods such as Troy Hill, Elliott, and Mt Washington.