Should Pittsburgh let its "nooks and crannies" die?

[Joel_Rosenbaum]

Originally Posted by Hopes

There's no reason to take these properties away from owners. If the city chooses to not maintain a road, ownership of the road can be transferred to the homeowners. The roads can become their driveways.

An interesting proposal, but what if the homeowners are unable to buy them? A city street is a considerable amount of property.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I know many people here in Pittsburgh have a weird sort of appreciation for the odd backwoods sub-neighborhoods that are often found on steep hillsides, or down in ravines. In some cases, they even have houses with no street access. Feel like areas from times long ago.

I don't think people realize how endangered these areas are. The city has rezoned the majority of them as Hillside. In theory, this still allows for new construction of three story houses on lots of 3,200 square feet or larger. However, the City purposefully did this to try and stop these areas from redeveloping. My wife heard a guy from the City Zoning give a presentation where he basically said "There's a lot of places where they built houses 100 years ago we wouldn't now. We can't knock down what's there, but we can stop anything new from being built.

Another example are floodplain areas. Most of these areas have long since become non-residential, either industrial or vacant land. However, two notable exceptions where there are still houses are the West End and Hays, both of which are still blighted and falling apart. Being in a flood zone makes insuring existing houses impossible, and basically precludes infill construction, meaning the neighborhoods literally can only be ground further down as time passes.

Regardless, it strikes me that if current trends continue, Pittsburgh (at least outside of the core of the East End) is going to look a lot patchier in the future, with developable flat land increasingly dense, while larger portions of our land area are given over to wilderness. From a standpoint of efficient distribution of city resources, this makes perfect sense. But I do wonder if something is going to be lost in the transition.

Personally, I LOVE the nooks and crannies. This is what makes a place so unique and so filled with character. This is part of what I love about Asia. They add the rich spice to life.

The excessive zoning and control and on and on and on, in the U.S., are one of the most annoying parts about it. You can't even open up a Hot Dog stand in the U.S., the whole country is so zoned and sterile.

Part of my personal appeal to Pittsburgh, is it's one of the few cities in the U.S., that has a very nice organic and eclectic feel to it.

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Joel_Rosenbaum

An interesting proposal, but what if the homeowners are unable to buy them? A city street is a considerable amount of property.

I would think it would be a wash, since they will no longer need to maintain the road. In most cases these roads are not on desirable or buildable land anyways.

[tallydude02]

I love the nooks and crannies. Such places exist all over the tri-state region. Steep hills, steep and narrow streets, houses so close you can touch your neighbor, even isolated houses in hollows....all within city limits. It creates an rural vibe in an urban setting.

[PennHillsNative80]

I think it would be fun to live in one of those homes on Toboggan Street.......for about a year.

Then after falling down the steps, getting my car stuck or having it slide down the road on the ice hitting everything in its path, carrying groceries up all those stairs, etc. I would be itching to get out.

As inconvenient as those homes are to live in, I do find them quite unique. They give character to the city of Pittsburgh. It's amazing that they were able to build them on such steep cliffs well over a hundred years ago.