Pittsburgh gets love from K-thug. (Washington, Braddock: 2013, new house, neighborhoods)

[eschaton]

Always nice to get national attention. Paul Krugman explains when (and possibly how) the fates of Detroit and Pittsburgh diverged.

[I_Like_Spam]

I don't understand Krugman's explanation.

He assigns blame for Detroit's economic collapse to "sprawl", but I don't see the logic. Plenty of sprawling cities are doing just fine, and Pittsburgh's biggest areas of growth are outside the center core- in Washington County and points north.


I think he's just choosing to blame Detroit on one of his boogeymen, "sprawl", because that's why he's preconditioned to do.

A conservative that was as preconditioned might assign Detroit's failure to its ultraliberal politics- but that wouldn't be fair either, as some hard left towns like Austin Texas seem to be doing just fine.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't understand Krugman's explanation.

He assigns blame for Detroit's economic collapse to "sprawl", but I don't see the logic. Plenty of sprawling cities are doing just fine, and Pittsburgh's biggest areas of growth are outside the center core- in Washington County and points north.


I think he's just choosing to blame Detroit on one of his boogeymen, "sprawl", because that's why he's preconditioned to do.

A conservative that was as preconditioned might assign Detroit's failure to its ultraliberal politics- but that wouldn't be fair either, as some hard left towns like Austin Texas seem to be doing just fine.

As former posts have noted, Pittsburgh is highly unusual in terms of the number of jobs we've retained downtown, so I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility to suggest part of why we've stayed so healthy is our downtown has stayed so important to the region.

On the other hand, one could argue, as I think Krugman is in his last sentence, that the Detroit metro is an excellent example of why what the Detroit suburbs needed was not so much a healthy auto industry, but a healthy core city. A ring of sprawling, decentralized suburbs cannot reinvent themselves when the central city is shot to hell. Cities are (except in rare cases, like Silicon valley) the engines of new ideas, new industries, and new businesses. Even if everyone doesn't want to live there, they still can't be lived without.

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

He assigns blame for Detroit's economic collapse to "sprawl", but I don't see the logic. Plenty of sprawling cities are doing just fine, and Pittsburgh's biggest areas of growth are outside the center core- in Washington County and points north.

Imagine if those sprawling cities and Pittsburgh had abandoned huge swaths of their central business districts and core urban neighborhoods. Imagine if the East End were a collection of largely abandoned residential areas and manufacturing plants. That is essentially what happened in central Detroit. A city needs those areas to thrive. Most people don't understand that the "ruins of Detroit" are not fringe areas. They are walking distance from downtown. The nice parts within the city limits are largely farther out closer to the suburbs (Palmer Woods, Bagley, Rosedale Park, etc). In the 1950s Detroit became a sprawling city without a cohesive urban center and this contributed to its decline.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

Imagine if those sprawling cities and Pittsburgh had abandoned huge swaths of their central business districts and core urban neighborhoods. Imagine if the East End were a collection of largely abandoned residential areas and manufacturing plants. That is essentially what happened in central Detroit. A city needs those areas to thrive. Most people don't understand that the "ruins of Detroit" are not fringe areas. They are walking distance from downtown. The nice parts within the city limits are largely farther out closer to the suburbs (Palmer Woods, Bagley, Rosedale Park, etc). In the 1950s Detroit became a sprawling city without a cohesive urban center and this contributed to its decline.

Pittsburgh has a fair number of "ruins" as well, if you've been out to Esplen, Homewood Brushton, Braddock and other areas not terribly far from the center of the area.

Of course our geography is a lot different than Detroit's, a lot more physical and natural barriers around

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Pittsburgh has a fair number of "ruins" as well, if you've been out to Esplen, Homewood Brushton, Braddock and other areas not terribly far from the center of the area.

Of course our geography is a lot different than Detroit's, a lot more physical and natural barriers around

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The areas I'm talking about are adjacent to downtown and well within the city limits. They are core areas. Homewood-Brushton and Esplen are not within the urban core and Braddock isn't even part of Pittsburgh. I'm not trying to downplay the obvious decay that exists here. But in Pittsburgh many of the most desirable areas are relatively close to downtown and even have their own commercial districts. The opposite is true in Detroit. The sprawl is a serious problem.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Pittsburgh has a fair number of "ruins" as well, if you've been out to Esplen, Homewood Brushton, Braddock and other areas not terribly far from the center of the area.

Of course our geography is a lot different than Detroit's, a lot more physical and natural barriers around

I agree. I think I read somewhere that Pittsburgh has over 20,000 vacant lots and around 20,000 vacant houses. As a city resident I do see a change in that things are getting better in my area. I reside in the north side area. It seems to be a double edged sword. Do you keep the vacant houses or tear them down? I am in favor of both. If houses can be saved then save them, refurbish and connect to new housing a buildings built around them. Pittsburgh and other cities facing similar issues such as cleveland, buffalo and detroit need to have a controlled growth plan as a region. They need to reuse old abandoned areas and put in restrictions not to destroy forests or farms to build new houses. Places like cranberry township are unsustainable without a strong city.

Pittsburgh cannot grow without migration (either from domestic and/or foreign). People have to want to move here. The issue is when they get here will their family and new ideas be welcomed? That to me is the biggest problem. Without new blood things stay stagnant.

The next biggest problem with western pa is going to be the suburbs and rural towns. If Pittsburgh does grow, the new migrants will be coming to the city and not the suburbs. There is going to be a surplus of vacant rural and suburban housing when the baby boomers pass away. Who is going to occupy them? Will they be the new slums in 10 years?

[politiker]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't understand Krugman's explanation.

He assigns blame for Detroit's economic collapse to "sprawl", but I don't see the logic. Plenty of sprawling cities are doing just fine, and Pittsburgh's biggest areas of growth are outside the center core- in Washington County and points north.


I think he's just choosing to blame Detroit on one of his boogeymen, "sprawl", because that's why he's preconditioned to do.

A conservative that was as preconditioned might assign Detroit's failure to its ultraliberal politics- but that wouldn't be fair either, as some hard left towns like Austin Texas seem to be doing just fine.

Name one big city in America that's conservative. I'll wait (I can think of Miami but Republicans do very well there due to Cuban poltiics). Even Houston has an openly gay democratic mayor.

Sprawl is a huge factor, crime, poor management. It's tragic. Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor look great though in comparison.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by politiker

Name one big city in America that's conservative. I'll wait (I can think of Miami but Republicans do very well there due to Cuban poltiics). Even Houston has an openly gay democratic mayor.

Sprawl is a huge factor, crime, poor management. It's tragic. Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor look great though in comparison.

Correlation does not equal causation.

[Joe Magarac]

I don't understand Krugman's explanation, either. A couple of points:

1. Krugman notes that the metro areas of both Pittsburgh and Detroit were doing comparably until about 2006. But Detroit went ghetto long before that: its white population went from 70% of the city in 1960 to 30% of the city in 1980. The white population didn't flee the area; it just fled the city for the suburbs. So we have the question: if sprawl caused Detroit to decline post-2006, why did it wait 25 years (from 1980 or so) to do it?

2. Yes, Detroit has ghettos immediately adjacent to downtown. So does Pittsburgh: it's called the Hill District.

3. Pittsburgh has also sprawled; the Brookings Institute, which Krugman cites, found in 2001 that Pittsburgh had one of the worst sprawl issues in the country, as other metro areas were sprawling and adding population, while we were sprawling but losing or staying static in population.

4. Krugman suggested that Pittsburgh was once a once-industry town just like Detroit. Not so; Pittsburgh had US Steel but also Heinz, Westinghouse, Koppers, Alcoa, Gulf, and many more. Steel was huge here, but never as huge as the auto industry was for Detroit.

I grew up in metro Detroit and can think of reason after reason why metro Pittsburgh is a better place; the health of the center city is one of them. But sprawl didn't cause metro Detroit's economy to tank post-2006.