A rental house in Mars (Monroe: living, trailer, parking)

[Copanut]

Ok, so all yinz guys against suburbs, do we all have to live in the City? Living on 25 x 100 foot lots 3 feet away from the next house? Sorry, not my cup of tea, and more than a few people agree with me.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Ok, so all yinz guys against suburbs, do we all have to live in the City? Living on 25 x 100 foot lots 3 feet away from the next house? Sorry, not my cup of tea, and more than a few people agree with me.

I am not against the suburbs at all, I am just against poorly planned suburbs and urban sprawl for no reason. The Pittsburgh metro is not as bad as some other cities in terms of sprawl, but it seems like it is getting worse every year, especially in the northern burbs. It makes no sense to me when you have vacant lots/buildings in the city and sparsely populated close in suburbs, yet people are still building further and further away from the city center. I understand that people want land and the demand for the suburbs, but at what point do we stop spreading out and start better utilizing the land that is already developed?

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by track2514

I am not against the suburbs at all, I am just against poorly planned suburbs and urban sprawl for no reason. The Pittsburgh metro is not as bad as some other cities in terms of sprawl, but it seems like it is getting worse every year, especially in the northern burbs. It makes no sense to me when you have vacant lots/buildings in the city and sparsely populated close in suburbs, yet people are still building further and further away from the city center. I understand that people want land and the demand for the suburbs, but at what point do we stop spreading out and start better utilizing the land that is already developed?

Well, it's possible that Cranberry, Soulless, is growing because more and more companies are making it their headquarters, Westinghouse comes to mind. How do you set up a suburb like a City? Hey, I'm all for bringing back Trolley cars, but GM killed that. If I work in Cranberry, why would I live in the City?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by track2514

I am not against the suburbs at all, I am just against poorly planned suburbs and urban sprawl for no reason. The Pittsburgh metro is not as bad as some other cities in terms of sprawl, but it seems like it is getting worse every year, especially in the northern burbs. It makes no sense to me when you have vacant lots/buildings in the city and sparsely populated close in suburbs, yet people are still building further and further away from the city center. I understand that people want land and the demand for the suburbs, but at what point do we stop spreading out and start better utilizing the land that is already developed?

You can't because it's capitalism. Private citizens own the undeveloped land. They sell it to developers. That's why there is no urban planning in the suburbs. The only way to utilize the space in the sparsly populated suburbs is for the government to seize land and farms. That's not very American. And I like that Pittsburgh's immediate suburbs have space. I like that there are farms in Reserve Township overlooking the city skyline. Your desire for a more densely populated area goes against what the majority of people want. Capitalism is fair via supply and demand. If people didn't want to live in the suburbs, builders would be building on vacant lots in the city.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Well, it's possible that Cranberry, Soulless, is growing because more and more companies are making it their headquarters, Westinghouse comes to mind. How do you set up a suburb like a City? Hey, I'm all for bringing back Trolley cars, but GM killed that. If I work in Cranberry, why would I live in the City?

What you are talking about is all part of the Race to the Bottom and when Cranberry needs more infrastructure or the corporate tax breaks expire it will be time for the companies to find a new Cranberry or move to a new state/country. I actually like Cranberry, but what worries me the most is where does it stop? Zelienople? Grove City? Greenvlle?

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Hopes

You can't because it's capitalism. Private citizens own the undeveloped land. They sell it to developers. That's why there is no urban planning in the suburbs. The only way to utilize the space in the sparsly populated suburbs is for the government to seize land and farms. That's not very American. And I like that Pittsburgh's immediate suburbs have space. I like that there are farms in Reserve Township overlooking the city skyline. Your desire for a more densely populated area goes against what the majority of people want. Capitalism is fair via supply and demand. If people didn't want to live in the suburbs, builders would be building on vacant lots in the city.

?Smart growth? communities generate more tax revenue than conventional suburbs - Puget Sound Business Journal

"In addition to generating 10 times more tax revenue than conventional suburban development, the group found that smart- growth development:
— Costs at least one third less for upfront infrastructure construction.
— Saves taxpayers at least 10 percent on ongoing delivery of services."


Maybe people are unaware that "Smart Growth" suburbs cost less upfront and save them tax dollars in the long run.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by track2514

What you are talking about is all part of the Race to the Bottom and when Cranberry needs more infrastructure or the corporate tax breaks expire it will be time for the companies to find a new Cranberry or move to a new state/country.

Exactly. I'm not allowed to rep you more, apparently. I didn't think we agreed on that much.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by track2514

I am not against the suburbs at all, I am just against poorly planned suburbs and urban sprawl for no reason. The Pittsburgh metro is not as bad as some other cities in terms of sprawl, but it seems like it is getting worse every year, especially in the northern burbs. It makes no sense to me when you have vacant lots/buildings in the city and sparsely populated close in suburbs, yet people are still building further and further away from the city center. I understand that people want land and the demand for the suburbs, but at what point do we stop spreading out and start better utilizing the land that is already developed?

There are a lot of people that want a house in a safe area with good schools. Sure the city and some suburbs have some cheap houses but they don't have the schools. The argument for city schools is that if you are involved your kid will do fine. But some parents want to send their kids to a school where most parents are involved.

The other thing is that some older inner ring suburbs have small 1950's houses. Few people want them.

[trackstar13]

OP

You may also want to check out Slippery Rock and Prospect as potential areas for rentals. The Slippery Rock school district is pretty good and as long as you are not right by the campus there are some options for rental houses that are pretty affordable, but they are hard to find on Craigslist so you might want to contact an agent familiar with the area.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by track2514

What you are talking about is all part of the Race to the Bottom and when Cranberry needs more infrastructure or the corporate tax breaks expire it will be time for the companies to find a new Cranberry or move to a new state/country. I actually like Cranberry, but what worries me the most is where does it stop? Zelienople? Grove City? Greenvlle?

Ah, didn't they say that about Monroeville 30 years ago? Seems like they are doing fine.