America's Shame (Pittsburgh, Erie, Penn Hills: motels, Home Depot, employment)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I do think the necessary minimum for this critical mass is overstated, and one hardly needs to go to the fanciest school in the most exclusive suburb in order to achieve to the best of his or her ability. In the city, CAPA and Allderdice couldn't do a better job of catering to Pittsburgh's best and brightest. At less celebrated suburban schools like Woodland Hills, many top students been able to achieve outstanding things in college and beyond (although recent drastic cuts in honors/advanced courses could stymie this in the future). But I would bet the farm that such a promising student at, say, Carrick, would have a much tougher time feeling like anything but a big fish in a little pond.

Don't we have a forumite who went to Carrick? Or Brashear? It's not like there's a tremendous difference between the two schools.

[OniNoKen]

I am stuck firmly between Generation X and Y with a birthdate in 1977. It is entirely possible that my great grand parents were the original urban sprawlers, having been in the Oklahoma land rush. My great-great grand parents are unknown quantities to me, unfortunately.

I think one reason that people sometimes feel that urban advocates are 'holier-than-thou' or 'elitist' is because there is quite a bit of built in derision to the terminology of the discussion. While not all posters use them, the terms 'McMansion', 'soulless', 'sterile', and others commonly used to describe suburbs lends quite an air of disdain to comment. For example, the subject of this forum topic implies that wanting to live in a suburb is shameful. When that is done, it puts people who want to live outside of urban areas on the defensive.

I have a friend who moved from the same city I grew up in first to Boston, then to San Francisco. He loves the urban life style. Hates the idea of a car, etc. I'm a bit different. I don't particularly enjoy coffee shops (even though I love coffee), I'm not someone to go to bars, and eating out is just too expensive to be done more than occasionally. Urban neighborhoods make me feel claustrophobic. I lived in an urban area during college, and I could not wait to get out and into a rented house as soon as I could. Different strokes for different folks. I'd love better vehicles, electrical and what not.

Ultimately, I think the market will respond to where people want to live. My age demographic is so fractured on what they want, they're driving vendors crazy. Some of us are like SteelCityRising, some us are like me, and others want as much as they can get for their money. Ultimately, if people are willing to pay for track housing, they'll build track housing. If they're willing to pay for urban lofts and row houses, they'll invest there. The city can try to create incentives for companies to come in, and for people to build to attract people with those particular interests, but planning can only do so much. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but this issue is tainted with so much cognitive bias, I'm not sure we can get a concrete discussion on the topic. Certainly, nothing said here will ever make me want a house with a yard any less.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Don't we have a forumite who went to Carrick? Or Brashear? It's not like there's a tremendous difference between the two schools.

I wasn't saying it's impossible to go to one of these high schools and end up successful, just that going to a school that's low in certain key resources can put students at an objective disadvantage.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I wasn't saying it's impossible to go to one of these high schools and end up successful, just that going to a school that's low in certain key resources can put students at an objective disadvantage.

What are some of the key resources that some schools lack that put students at a disadvantage? I'm not really all that familiar with contemporary education trends so I'm just curious. Do some districts offer courses in Java, network security, database management, etc., and others don't? Are there some school districts that don't teach symbolic logic or require a critical thinking course?

I would guess language instruction could be limited depending on the number of participants (I graduated from West Mifflin - from what I understand is regarded as a marginal district - in the late 1990s and even then there were options for distance Japanese and Russian classes, which I think were satellite based). I really don't know if that was common or an experiment or what.

[jimmyev]

If you want to stop urban sprawl, cities need to provide residents what they want for a price they can afford. People don't choose to live in a place because it's a 'suburb' or because it's a 'city.' They choose where they live on specific factors. In cities, Politicians do the planning using other people's money at no risk to themselves; in suburbs Developers do the planning using their own money at great financial risk if they fail. Guess which one gives people what they want? Maybe the solution is as simple as stopping politicians from planning, zoning, etc. and letting the free market do it.

[ML North]

Zoning laws are often way more restrictive in the suburbs than in cities. Suburban areas are, however, made more attractive by favorable policies, which make living in such areas far more affordable than it otherwise would be. For instance, if rural areas were expected to be as self-sufficient as cities in terms of transportation funding, that expense alone would significantly inhibit sprawling growth. Another major issue is school funding. Sprawling development, which is inherently expensive, also fosters an environment in which wealthy people can isolate themselves in order to achieve high per-pupil funding for schools. If, alternatively, school funding was insulated from wealth, sprawling development would lose another perceived advantage over cities.

So it's not entirely true that suburbs are inherently better at satisfying consumer preferences. They also benefit tremendously from favorable policies.

[BrianTH]

Of course most suburban developments are anything but the product of a free market. Specifically, various regulations dictate the form of developments, and meanwhile all sorts of infrastructure and utilities are paid for by the public or funded through mandatory cross-subsidies.

That's not to say there would be no suburban development without all this government action, but the form and pattern of it is not being freely determined by developers in response to potential demand.

Edit: Also see the post above.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Of course most suburban developments are anything but the product of a free market. Specifically, various regulations dictate the form of developments, and meanwhile all sorts of infrastructure and utilities are paid for by the public or funded through mandatory cross-subsidies.

That's not to say there would be no suburban development without all this government action, but the form and pattern of it is not being freely determined by developers in response to potential demand.

Edit: Also see the post above.

I've talked to suburban developers who told me that they had to put in the infrastructure and utilities and then turn them over to the government.

Even so, developers won't respond if they didn't think there was a market, i.e. the free market.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I've talked to suburban developers who told me that they had to put in the infrastructure and utilities and then turn them over to the government.

I'd have to see what you are talking about to comment.

Even so, developers won't respond if they didn't think there was a market, i.e. the free market.

Of course you can have markets without those markets being free. People need places to live and do business, so there will always be markets for development even as the government interferes significantly with the specific outcomes in those markets.

This really shouldn't be hard to understand. If the law forbids high-density multi-unit walkable neighborhoods but allows low-density autocentric SFH neighborhoods, then even if a developer would prefer to build high-density multi-unit walkable neighborhoods, they will build low-density autocentric SFH neighborhoods instead. And if enough places have such laws, housing units in high-density multi-unit walkable neighborhoods will be artificially scarce and expensive, and housing units in low-density autocentric SFH neighborhoods will be artificially abundant and cheap, and so people who might prefer housing units in the former will end up in the latter, with price being the mechanism by which it is determined who has to settle for a less-preferred development form.

And that is exactly what is happening in very large portions of US metros. Indeed, if there wasn't so much unmet potential demand for higher-density multi-unit walkable neighborhoods, localities wouldn't need to make them illegal.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by PGHPA611

"So how is this specific to or even involve Pittsburgh? Did your travels even take you to Pittsburgh for that long? I'd also say a lot of the inner city of Pittsburgh is better off than in a lot of comparable cities."

Who is saying Pittsburgh is worse, I would love to see it as the city that breaks the Urban Sprawl fixation in this country. Once again Pittsburgh could be on the forefront of something beneficial to the nation.

Have lived in Pittsburgh for the majority my life by choice. If you check forums I am a major advocate of the city , BUT to say we do not have our share of deplorable housing or decaying neighborhoods in Pittsburgh would be an outright lie.

"I never considered Pittsburgh as a city with an urban sprawl problem."

Really, we build in Cranberry as Manchester and the North Shore craves development. Our river communities outside the city are in decline as newer suburbs BOOM

I Love this City more than anyone but there is always room for improvement.

Other Legacy Cities Youngstown, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Gary, Trenton, Camden, Steubenville, Wheeling, Dayton, Flint, Rochester NY, Syracuse and Toledo, this is a short list local to our region.

Is it better to tear down and rebuild than just run to green areas and develop new?

Why don't you go renovate one of these old houses and let us know how idealistic you're feeling afterward.

For what its worth I agree with you in principle, but there's a lot that you're simply not aware of or considering.