Should Pittsburgh let its "nooks and crannies" die? (Springfield: houses, neighborhood)

[ditchdigger]

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.

It also assures that, from time to time, they'll be underwater, which is, generally speaking, not good for them...

[Goinback2011]

With flood insurance rates skyrocketing, I'm not sure anyone will be able to afford to live in flood prone neighborhoods in the future, unless they own the property outright and pay for their own flood damage.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

what is the zoning office's motivation? i would think that money and public safety are a big issue. really, arent you paving a road for ONE unit? we just cant have that in this town. and, God forbid you need to get an ambulance down there someday if its blocked with snow and too many cars.

Have they ever posted how much money would be saved by closing these streets? I'm curious if it's a lot of money, or really not that significant. As for the ambulance--consider getting a firetruck there, not to mention accessing a hydrant! Hope if they have a fire they don't try to sue the city if the house burns down. But, I guess people who own houses like that consider that part of the tradeoff for the advantages of their odd little locations. I do agree that it's sorta neat to have little quirks like that in your town.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Have they ever posted how much money would be saved by closing these streets? I'm curious if it's a lot of money, or really not that significant.

The money certainly becomes significant is the street is on a hillside that is unstable. The biggest recent issue of potential street closing I ever heard of was Ivondale Street in Greenfield. I can't find anything saying if it was resolved or not, but it looks like the city is expected to buy out a house before closing a road.


http://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsbur...nt?oid=1344064

(The "geology issue" is why I don't think the city should allow building in many of these places."

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Those people are lucky to have such an isolated house with a view. You're worrying me with your suggesting that houses should be taken and demolished simply because you don't like where they are located. People own these properties. How would you feel if the government came and forced you out of your home because it was determined to be ridiculous and not worth taxpayer money to maintain your road?

I'm not taking a supportive or opposing viewpoint, I'm simply exploring the trade-offs here. Keep in mind though, in places like Detroit, the local government is effectively abandoning isolated houses, insofar as they've said they're going to stop providing services like trash collection and road maintenance in areas too few houses are left standing.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I'm sorry, but I actually adore Pittsburgh's "nooks and crannies". While San Francisco may better utilize its hilly topography overall because nearly every square inch of it is densely-developed to maximize usage we have "weirdness" to our built environment, and I like that. There's currently a home on the market for over a half-million dollars in a "hidden" part of Polish Hill below Frank Curto Park, overlooking the Strip District, only accessible via a somewhat hidden road near the 28th Street Bridge. I would love to buy a lot in that sub-neighborhood from the URA and build a micro-house upon it if I ever hit the lottery. You can literally walk Downtown in a half-hour, yet you regularly will encounter deer and wild turkeys in your yard, which is nearly overgrown by lush vegetation.

Sadly, that sub-neighborhood is another area which has been zoned hillside. If the Polish Hill community group can't get it fixed, you'll need to buy several of the empty city lots (2-3, depending on size) in order to build one house, which would be sort of overkill for a microhouse. And most of the empty lots are owned by the City as well. Ain't nothing getting built unless the city wants it to, as I said.

The only future for the "fashionable" hillside areas are a few scattered backwoods "estates" - both due to lot size rules and the expense of building new construction on an isolated hillside plot. Areas where there are already neighborhood-like streets (like Pius Street in the Slopes) will maintain their density, but many areas will never fill in - by design. Check out this doc (one of many) which goes into Pittsburgh's hillsides. It was decided that the value of hillsides as natural unspoilt vistas, and ecological resources was key. Read through it and see that outside a few areas they really do suggest turning steep grade areas back into wilds.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

The money certainly becomes significant is the street is on a hillside that is unstable. The biggest recent issue of potential street closing I ever heard of was Ivondale Street in Greenfield. I can't find anything saying if it was resolved or not, but it looks like the city is expected to buy out a house before closing a road.

The city bought out all the properties on Ansonia Place back in 1998, not that distant in the past, because the handful of properties down there were subjected to repeated flooding.


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Google News Archive Search

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The city bought out all the properties on Ansonia Place back in 1998, not that distant in the past, because the handful of properties down there were subjected to repeated flooding.


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Google News Archive Search

There still appear to be people there, although only a trailer park.

I had no idea there were any trailer parks within city limits. I know East Carnegie has a few trailers on city lots, but I didn't know this.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not taking a supportive or opposing viewpoint, I'm simply exploring the trade-offs here. Keep in mind though, in places like Detroit, the local government is effectively abandoning isolated houses, insofar as they've said they're going to stop providing services like trash collection and road maintenance in areas too few houses are left standing.

That won't happen here. Pittsburgh doesn't have the same problems as Detroit.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There still appear to be people there, although only a trailer park.

I had no idea there were any trailer parks within city limits. I know East Carnegie has a few trailers on city lots, but I didn't know this/.

That's the part of Ansonia on the other side of the LRT tracks which is higher and you access it from Whited Street. The part that was demolished was accessed directly from 51 across from the old Bottoms Up Club and was very close to the creek.

Those trailers, off of Whited and Edgebrook have been there for many years. There was also a trailer park that closed about a dozen years ago on Mifflin Road in Lincoln Place on the site of an old amusement park just north of Mifflin School.

[Buckeye Burgher]

A good example is Ansonia Place, a former nook along Route 51 near Overbrook School. It was along the bank of Saw Mill Creek, and would flood at least every other year. Eventually the city figured it was cheaper in the long run to just buy everyone out and let them move into housing that is not in a flood plain. The homes were leveled and the area is basically just a field today.

Some hillside locations may be unstable to the point where a similar policy makes sense.