Ross approves 300-home development (Aliquippa, Shippingport: wood floors, townhouse, buy)

[zman63]

Originally Posted by zip95

Lots of people feel that way and have said as much many times. What are you talking about?

You are correct. This is a critcism of other growing cities. The housing is new and they do not have character. The pittsburgh area needs new housing. Now we are singing the praise of new construction.

[PghYinzer]

I hate new housing, wouldn’t live in a new house. Love my old house with all it’s character.

Guess what? (Prepare yourself this may be shocking to some of you)

I think this new housing is also great. Not everyone loves old houses or wants to live in the city, so this in-filling in a developed suburb is great.

I don’t like it (the type/age of housing, not development itself), or appreciate it, but it is a positive for the area, which means I am all for it.

It is possible for someone to not like something, and not want it for themselves, but at the same time appreciate it’s value and its contribution to the area as a whole.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by zip95

Lots of people feel that way and have said as much many times. What are you talking about?

Some new custom construction is very nice, but I'll take an updated Squirrel Hill Victorian over a Murrysville tract McMansion eight days out of seven. Renovations resolve faulty wiring, 'n at.

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

The problem with modern homes is they are usually way too big. The 1000 square foot homes of yesteryear were more sustainable. I'm all for the microhousing movement.

There's plenty of big old houses too. I'd like my future home for my hypothetical family of four to be ~3,500 square feet. Preferably a mid-century modern marvel.

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

I hate new housing, wouldn’t live in a new house. Love my old house with all it’s character.

Guess what? (Prepare yourself this may be shocking to some of you)

I think this new housing is also great. Not everyone loves old houses or wants to live in the city, so this in-filling in a developed suburb is great.

I don’t like it (the type/age of housing, not development itself), or appreciate it, but it is a positive for the area, which means I am all for it.

It is possible for someone to not like something, and not want it for themselves, but at the same time appreciate it’s value and its contribution to the area as a whole.

My thoughts exactly.

Incidentally, does anyone remember Highland CC? They went semi-private in their last few years, and I got to play it a few times. Quirky little layout, but I liked it--short and tight, a bit like Bala GC back home (the two super-long par 3's on the front 9 are a bit jarring though IMO). The L/D I got from the members is that in its heyday, it was the "working man's Catholic club" of the North Hills, whereas neighboring Shannopin was wealthier and Waspy. As I recall, they occasionally offered tee times to the public on GolfNow as well, though I never had the chance to play it. Same architect as Shannopin, I believe--Emil Loeffler, a strictly local boy whose most famous design (famous being a relative term) is probably Latrobe CC, where Arnold Palmer honed his game. He also designed Jim Furyk's home course of Uniontown CC, another short, quirky course that I believe is managing to hang on by a thread.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by zip95

If I remember correctly, not to long ago you where seriously thinking about building.

I forget the specifics, but I remember your wish list was so long that only a new build would fit the bill.

Nope. Everyone else said my only solution was to build. We chose another solution: not moving. We will wait for the perfect place for the right price. I'm surprised you didn't realize I knew my list was unrealistic. We did find a place we both loved (built in the mid-1800s) but the owner wanted too much money. It's still on the market. I stalk it on the internet watching the price decline every year. One day, it might be mine!

//www.city-data.com/forum/pitts...omebuyers.html

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by sealie

It's 100 year old brick/wood rowhomes with period detailing and the souls of the former steelworkers speaking to you through the original hardwood flooring. NOT 1950s ranchers. Criminy!

I seriously hope you're not mocking me in particular for caring and loving the same homes that were built through the blood, sweat, and tears of the city's yinzer great-great-grandfathers. I've said many times that I love just looking out my back patio door into our tiny rear yard and envisioning what the place looked like 100 years ago when it was still "new", when the grassy area housed another large tenement facing the rear alley, and when chickens were raised in the interior courtyard. I envision what this rowhome must have looked like when it housed two families instead of just three young professionals. I imagine the kids walking just feet away to the then-thriving Roman Catholic school in the back alley, and I imagine the sidewalks brimming with gentlemen and ladies dressed in their Sunday best heading out from church and to the corner stores for their essentials.

I don't envision "character" like this in 1990s suburban McMansions that already have vinyl siding and shingles sliding off due to poor mass construction.

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

The problem with modern homes is they are usually way too big. The 1000 square foot homes of yesteryear were more sustainable. I'm all for the microhousing movement.

Agreed. Strongly agreed. Why do people today think they need 900 square feet per each person in their family? I grew up in a family of four in a 3-BR/1-BA 1,400 square-foot rancher, and we felt like we had MORE than enough space to be happy (although an extra toilet would have been nice when we all had to pee at the same time). I guarantee these Heartland Homes will all be 4-BR/2.5 BA 3,000-square-feet and house more DINKs than families with multiple children. There are so few "small" homes on the market in this city that don't require a boatload of work.

[FreightTrainRunning]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

The problem with modern homes is they are usually way too big. The 1000 square foot homes of yesteryear were more sustainable. I'm all for the microhousing movement.

Not only are they too big but a big chunk of the floorspace isn't generally used. Back in my former life as a housepainter, I worked in tons of suburban McMansions and they almost all have a big front door that no one ever opens, a big two-story front stairwell that's seldom used and formal living and dining rooms that are only used on holidays. The family actually comes in the side door from the garage, mostly uses the back steps and hangs out in the great room. So half of the first floor is basically just for show.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Not only are they too big but a big chunk of the floorspace isn't generally used. Back in my former life as a housepainter, I worked in tons of suburban McMansions and they almost all have a big front door that no one ever opens, a big two-story front stairwell that's seldom used and formal living and dining rooms that are only used on holidays. The family actually comes in the side door from the garage, mostly uses the back steps and hangs out in the great room. So half of the first floor is basically just for show.

This is true. In true mansions, I'd say only 1/4 of the first floor is used. You could fit a McMansion into some entry halls.

[bradjl2009]

Finally! I remember a year ago they denied this because the old timers didn't want more traffic. Get over it granny, if you want no traffic, go move to Clarion County.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Agreed. Strongly agreed. Why do people today think they need 900 square feet per each person in their family? I grew up in a family of four in a 3-BR/1-BA 1,400 square-foot rancher, and we felt like we had MORE than enough space to be happy (although an extra toilet would have been nice when we all had to pee at the same time). I guarantee these Heartland Homes will all be 4-BR/2.5 BA 3,000-square-feet and house more DINKs than families with multiple children. There are so few "small" homes on the market in this city that don't require a boatload of work.

It might not be "needed" (just like most things people enjoy doing in life--ie, luxuries, are not "needed") but an efficiently designed home of the size and dimensions you mentioned can easily be well-utilized by a family of four. "Extra" space and "wasteful" space are two very different things.

I grew up in a 4,700 square foot, 4 bed/4.5 bath home, and the only "useless" space we had was the oddly redundant 15 x 15 "living room" we had by the entry of the house in addition to the centrally located family room. As I posted before, I'd probably want something a bit smaller when I raise my family, but that doesn't make people with differing desires "in the wrong."

[Copanut]

It's kinda funny, so many here what new construction under 200K, never gonna happen. Some hate the new construction in the 'burbs, where else does that happen?

Whatever they build in Ross will be drywall, Chinese no doubt, plyscore flooring, fiberglass bathrooms.

I'd rather buy a 1983 contemporary in McCandless with hardwood floors, vaulted ceilings, ceramic tile baths.


Oh, wait, that's what I did.