McKees Rocks Versus Millvale (Pittsburgh, Etna: rentals, how much, home)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by globalburgh

Sure, you can hem and haw about neighborhoods within Larryville. Those rent increases you reference are full blown gentrification. End game. The gentrification process starts before that appreciation. That's happening now in Millvale.

Gentrification means the replacement of neighborhood old-timers with the gentry - the upper middle class, more or less. The process isn't anywhere near complete until the "SWPL" contingent is numerically dominant. Lawrenceville just isn't there yet. South Side is close to being there, but still hasn't quite gotten there.

For lack of a better way to represent it, I look at PGH SNAP data on what percentage of a neighborhood's over-25 population has college degrees or greater to see which are "gentrified." The only ones in the city with a majority (in ranked order) are Squirrel Hill North, Regent Square, Shadyside, Friendship, Squirrel Hill South, Point Breeze, North Oakland, Highland Park, Allegheny West, the Strip District, and Point Breeze North. In every other city neighborhood, the majority still has less than a college degree, which means you can't quite call them habitations of the gentry yet.

Originally Posted by globalburgh

You should be thinking about leading indicators (e.g. Whole Foods in East Liberty), not trailing indicators. Millvale is hot.

Whole Foods is notorious as being the trailing indicator of gentrification - a sign a neighborhood has fully transitioned. Eastside is in Shadyside anyway - that's who the Whole Foods was built for.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Artists have been living in Millvale for an extremely long time---longer than most artists living in Lawrenceville. They don't open studios in Millvale. As a matter of fact, I know a few artists who have studios in Lawrenceville but live in Millvale. Most just work out of their homes and sell their work online, festivals or via commission. You'll have to accept that not all artists want to live in the city neighborhoods. Many artists with children want to be in good school districts.

I knew the artist community was there long before Lawrenceville itself was "hot," although a few have moved out that way more recently. My point was you can't claim Millvale is the next it thing yet, because the people being pushed out of Lawrencville and into Millvale right now are poor yinzer families, not broke hipsters who can't afford Lawrenceville rents.

As for the school thing, it seems a strange aside, and probably isn't applicable here anyway. Shaler might be better school district than the city as a whole, but the elementary school which Millvale/Etna feed into has very low scores. I met a woman who teaches second grade there and she said half of her class cannot read, and most of them move around so frequently they don't spend the school year in one place. Admittedly, the low scores are probably a result of the social background of the families, not the school being bad itself, but it doesn't seem like the sort of place you'd want to relocate to go to a good school cheaply.

[globalburgh]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Gentrification means the replacement of neighborhood old-timers with the gentry - the upper middle class, more or less. The process isn't anywhere near complete until the "SWPL" contingent is numerically dominant. Lawrenceville just isn't there yet. South Side is close to being there, but still hasn't quite gotten there.

For lack of a better way to represent it, I look at PGH SNAP data on what percentage of a neighborhood's over-25 population has college degrees or greater to see which are "gentrified." The only ones in the city with a majority (in ranked order) are Squirrel Hill North, Regent Square, Shadyside, Friendship, Squirrel Hill South, Point Breeze, North Oakland, Highland Park, Allegheny West, the Strip District, and Point Breeze North. In every other city neighborhood, the majority still has less than a college degree, which means you can't quite call them habitations of the gentry yet.

Whole Foods is notorious as being the trailing indicator of gentrification - a sign a neighborhood has fully transitioned. Eastside is in Shadyside anyway - that's who the Whole Foods was built for.

I do a simple cohort analysis of age groups to figure out a neighborhood's gentrification progress. The South Side is done. Larryville has a lot of holes to fill before being done. But the neighborhood has peaked with the urban pioneers being priced out.

Whole Foods may be notorious for being a trailing indicator. That's neither here nor there. You might find this article interesting:

Whole Foods is coming? Time to buy
Forget Starbucks: It's the gourmet grocer that lands just before neighborhoods really explode

[HarryRSpooner]

It's incredibly true about "Whole Foods" and to a large extent "Trader Joe's." I would imagine parts of good ol' "Sliberty" are moving in the right direction. But I think it's going to take a bit more than just the brand spankin' new "Target" and "Google" office to "clean" it up. But for those adventurous "urban pioneers" I think "East Liberty" is the answer.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by JayTwila

It's incredibly true about "Whole Foods" and to a large extent "Trader Joe's." I would imagine parts of good ol' "Sliberty" are moving in the right direction. But I think it's going to take a bit more than just the brand spankin' new "Target" and "Google" office to "clean" it up. But for those adventurous "urban pioneers" I think "East Liberty" is the answer.

Do you mean Larimer and Lincoln-Lemington? East Liberty doesn't have many cheap houses these days.

When I think of being an urban pioneer in Pittsburgh, I think of places like Larimer, parts of Wilkinsburg, Esplen, Allentown, California-Kirkbride, Fairywood, McKees Rocks, East Deutschtown, Spring Garden, Bluff / Uptown, the Hill District, Hazelwood, Braddock, McKeesport, Homewood, etc. Rough neighborhoods where most people with means choose not to live, for whatever reason.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by globalburgh

I do a simple cohort analysis of age groups to figure out a neighborhood's gentrification progress. The South Side is done. Larryville has a lot of holes to fill before being done. But the neighborhood has peaked with the urban pioneers being priced out.

I'm not sure what you mean by a cohort analysis of age groups. Young people does not always equal gentrifiers. Do you think South Oakland is a gentrified area? I think it's a slum myself.

There are discrete stages that neighborhoods go in when they get gentrified. More or less as follows:

1. Artists move in to blighted area due to cheap rents or gays move into an area due to beautiful distressed housing which can be bought on the cheap.
2. Local businesses pop up which cater to subculture (galleries, vegetarian restaurants, vintage shops, etc).
3. Younger (20s to 30s) subculture-influenced people move in. In present parlance, hipsters, although this wasn't always the case historically.
4. As the neighborhood becomes safer and has more amenities, progressively more normal people move there.
5. Chain stores begin opening, pushing the local businesses out. A lot of the early inhabitants move on, either because it's too expensive, or because they are jaded by the changes.
6. Yuppies move in.

Originally Posted by globalburgh

Whole Foods may be notorious for being a trailing indicator. That's neither here nor there. You might find this article interesting:

Those are coming at it from a mainstream perspective. By the time Starbucks and Whole Foods move in, neighborhoods have reached the "yuppie" stage of gentrification, which is essentially the last step.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

First of all, I don't see Millvale as a place you would have to be an "urban pioneer" to live in. It's pretty tame and stable as-is. When I think of pioneers, I think of neighborhoods that are written off as unliveable by a segment of the population.

You have a good point. That said, "first-wave gentrifier" is considered controversial by some, because they tend to get gentrified just like the original inhabitants. In NYC, where there is rent control, usually the old-timers hang on just fine even in fully-gentrified neighborhoods - the newcomers tend to displace those who moved in ten years prior.

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Also, how do you figure that an "urban pioneer" will be displaced as gentrification takes hold, assuming they own their home? The same goes for the old timers. If you have your house paid off, you're not going to be pushed out of anywhere.

True enough. Pittsburgh is perhaps weird in that way, as our historically low housing prices meant so many people could buy if they so desired. That said, the changes in the neighborhood are often jarring even for a transplant as gentrification reaches the end point. I definitely know people a bit older than I am who moved to South Side in the 1990s, and despite owning their houses, later moved out because they couldn't stand the fratboy hangout it transformed into.

[globalburgh]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not sure what you mean by a cohort analysis of age groups. Young people does not always equal gentrifiers. Do you think South Oakland is a gentrified area? I think it's a slum myself.

There are discrete stages that neighborhoods go in when they get gentrified. More or less as follows:

1. Artists move in to blighted area due to cheap rents or gays move into an area due to beautiful distressed housing which can be bought on the cheap.
2. Local businesses pop up which cater to subculture (galleries, vegetarian restaurants, vintage shops, etc).
3. Younger (20s to 30s) subculture-influenced people move in. In present parlance, hipsters, although this wasn't always the case historically.
4. As the neighborhood becomes safer and has more amenities, progressively more normal people move there.
5. Chain stores begin opening, pushing the local businesses out. A lot of the early inhabitants move on, either because it's too expensive, or because they are jaded by the changes.
6. Yuppies move in.

The end game for gentrification is the appreciation of real estate. Hence the Underpants Gnomes problem:




Once a neighborhood is pricing out the urban pioneers (e.g. artists), gentrification is over. The job is done. This is the policy landscape of urban revitalization, not just some definition I made up on the fly. The trick is to identify gentrification before property values increase. Simple cohort analysis is one way to do that. I've heard that Whole Foods has some algorithms that they use to see the gentrification that everyone else is missing. I'd like to learn more about it, that's for sure.

[PreservationPioneer]

I think people place too much emphasis on buying in up-and-coming and gentrifying neighborhoods. Unless you are investing in property, rather than just looking for a nice place to live, it shouldn't matter whether your neighborhood is "cool" to everyone else, as long as it appeals to you! Even if you were to invest in a home in a rough area in Pittsburgh, the way property values in the metro are increasing across the board, you would probably still make money or break even I,f you were sensible about what you spent in renovation costs.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by globalburgh

Once a neighborhood is pricing out the urban pioneers (e.g. artists), gentrification is over. The job is done. This is the policy landscape of urban revitalization, not just some definition I made up on the fly. The trick is to identify gentrification before property values increase. Simple cohort analysis is one way to do that. I've heard that Whole Foods has some algorithms that they use to see the gentrification that everyone else is missing. I'd like to learn more about it, that's for sure.

I'm sorry, you're still not using the term gentrification properly. That article is interesting, but it's a bit heterodox in its interpretation, and it's focus is on something else entirely.

Gentrification is not redevelopment, it is not revitalization. It's not about the built character of a neighborhood changing at all. It's also not a real-estate driven process (I'm not sure why you talk about "job" as there is no initial agenda - real estate folks follow, they don't lead). It's the displacement of a working class population by a college-educated, upper-middle class one.

Even once a neighborhood reaches the point where yuppies are moving in, it's entirely possible gentrification can stall out, or even reverse. I seem to recall there was a neighborhood very similar to the South Side which failed in Cleveland around ten years ago.