Vacant Lawrenceville landmarks

[selltheburgh]

Originally Posted by aw_now_what

That's actually not true. The city has half its 1950 population because of smaller households (fewer children and fewer three-generation households) occupying more space, and because of urban renewal "clear-cutting" large swaths of neighborhoods, followed by the bottom dropping out of manufacturing three decades after the 1950 population peak.

In 1950, with the WW2 generation producing children and competing with each other and their elders for city housing, there was nowhere to go in the old neighborhoods. Places like Polish Hill, Lawrenceville, South Side, Friendship, and much of the North Side were bursting at the seams. Families moved out to Baldwin, Shaler, Wilkins, etc. because it was pretty much the only alternative to continuing to double up with grandma and unmarried siblings in the rowhouse or apartment they grew up in while they pumped out kid no. 2, 3, 4, and so forth. Note that while some families of course moved to the suburbs, those who could find houses in their longtime city neighborhoods, through either family ties or simply buying homes, did so. It wasn't until steel mills and other manufacturing crashed in the late '70s/early '80s that there were large numbers of vacant houses in the old neighborhoods. If the suburbs had held that much allure in 1950, those areas (again Polish Hill, Lawrenceville, South Side, Friendship, much of the North Side) would've emptied out well before the '80s.

Also, you forgot that there was the GI bill, which subsidized purchases and lead to a housing boom. All of those 100-1400 sqft brick houses in Penn Hills, Baldwin, Shaler, Ross, West Mifflin, etc were built for a reason. Soldiers were able to purchase a home with the GI bill. There were a lot of men coming home ready and able to buy a home, but somebody needed to build them.

This is also during the period that many city houses were split into 2 or 3 or 4 apartments because density was increasing.

[selltheburgh]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

There's a small but very vocal group of people without cars demanding a way of life that most don't want to participate in.

Yes, and I'm not a part of that. I actually have a very nice car that costs more than a house in Lawrenceville did 10 years ago.

I just like not having to get into it every time I leave the house.

[Neckbeard89]

I like not having to worry about gas prices because the only time I get in my car is to move it for street cleaning, get a bunch of groceries, or visit relatives far away. I'd much rather walk to a restaurant to eat or a small store for some milk then have to drive a couple miles, look for a spot, deal with traffic and waste money. If that's what you like to do, go head. While you're spending all your time mowing the lawn you barely use and driving everywhere, I'll be enjoying saving 1000s in gas and WEEKS OF TIME doing the same things "you'll get around to".

I also don't think the East End is "running out of room" for development. Depending on your definition of the East End, the results may differ, but consider that

Squirrell Hill still has several empty storefronts on Murray and Forbes
Shadyside has maybe 15 vacant houses (2 of them on Walnut no less!)
Friendship still has lots of crappy properties that landlords let fall to ****
Baum and Centre collectively has enough vacant land to build pretty much anything smaller than a walmart supercenter
Bloomfield has empty storefronts, along with many places that won't last (like cash 4 golds and odd dollar stores)
Garfield is still largely untouched, less the stupid looking "green" condos and office buildings near negley
East Liberty still has a buttload of vacant houses, some of them zoned R1 but built R3
Larimer (and Lincoln) - is mostly flat and undeveloped, perception of crime is the issue
Homewood - Frankstown is in the same boat except perception is definitely real
Polish Hill - is pretty much tapped outside of a couple buildings and people holding onto unlivable houses trying to get rich
Lawrenceville - the poster child for gentrification, right? Except its been 10 years in the making and the 50s are about as developed as Homestead, and the entire stretch of penn and liberty from main to butler is still very much "Old Lawrenceville"

As long as tech firms keep popping up here, and PNC keeps adding more skyscrapers, and all the international corporations in Pittsburgh keep expanding (because they can pay us less than Bostonians, New Yorkers, etc.) and as long as Pitt's billion dollar trust doesn't dry up, we're going to continue to see more development in these areas. But we are a looooong ways away from the city having to imminent domain anything. For one, they still have all the houses and lots they own to sell.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Neckbeard89

Lawrenceville - the poster child for gentrification, right? Except its been 10 years in the making and the 50s are about as developed as Homestead, and the entire stretch of penn and liberty from main to butler is still very much "Old Lawrenceville"

Liberty from Main to Downtown is one of the most depressing stretches of road in Pgh.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jay5835

Liberty from Main to Downtown is one of the most depressing stretches of road in Pgh.

I think he was referring more to the residential part of Lawrenceville in between Liberty and Penn, which is indeed far from gentrified overall. That said, some of the blocks between Penn and Denny have seen some reinvestment - and even new construction - lately.

I don't think there's anything that can really be done for that stretch of Liberty though. I feel sorry for the people who live in those houses on the far side of Liberty Avenue there - stuck between a ravine and a high-traffic street. Some beautiful homes there, but the location cuts into the appeal greatly.

[Goinback2011]

That's actually not true. The city has half its 1950 population because of smaller households (fewer children and fewer three-generation households) occupying more space, and because of urban renewal "clear-cutting" large swaths of neighborhoods, followed by the bottom dropping out of manufacturing three decades after the 1950 population peak.

The last time I looked, the current population of Allegheny County is about the same as it was in 1960 or so. But within the City limits, the population has been cut in half. That means the population has redistributed itself into the suburbs.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The last time I looked, the current population of Allegheny County is about the same as it was in 1960 or so. But within the City limits, the population has been cut in half. That means the population has redistributed itself into the suburbs.

That also explains why our traffic woes on the highways leading into and out of the city seem to worsen with each passing year. More cars on the same narrow roads is just a recipe for disaster.

[Goinback2011]

When traffic gets bad enough, people will move back into the city. And it will have zero to do with 'walkability' of the neighborhoods. It will have to do with taking back commute time.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

When traffic gets bad enough, people will move back into the city. And it will have zero to do with 'walkability' of the neighborhoods. It will have to do with taking back commute time.

Walkability is a factor in commute times, though. Either in the ability to walk to work or the ability to walk to transit.

I don't agree with the idea that bad traffic will result in people moving to the city. It could result in businesses moving to suburban business parks, better mass transit, or people lobbying for more highways. It could even result in more telecommuting. So many people with kids are so fearful of PPS that they wouldn't dare move to the city and would continue to sacrifice their own time and money commuting for the (perceived) sake of their children.