Pittsburgh's Hilly Terrain - Future Problem? (Troy, Spring Hill: to buy, live in, costs)

[theta_sigma]

Nah, it's all adopted pit bulls all the time in the EE. A few weeks ago I saw a dude walking his pit bull while riding a unicycle through East Liberty. If that isn't the most East End thing to have ever happened, I don't know what is.

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by theta_sigma

Nah, it's all adopted pit bulls all the time in the EE. A few weeks ago I saw a dude walking his pit bull while riding a unicycle through East Liberty. If that isn't the most East End thing to have ever happened, I don't know what is.

was he eating a fro-yo, and drinking a latte with his pinkie extended? Was he listening to Enya, or that just the yoga pants soccer mom demographic? One would think they would have purse pups.

[theta_sigma]

I feel like all the East End stereotypes are thought up by people who only ever go to Walnut Street (which has been like that for yonks, way way longer than the rest of the area has been "happening.") The area around Bakery Square wouldn't be caught dead in yoga pants. That's more like skinny jeans from Free People (does Free People sell jeans, or do they only sell ill-conceived quasi-appropriated cultural "artifacts"?), drinking single-source organic shade grown black coffee roasted in the gentle fire of a Luck Dragon, while riding their upcycled velocipede.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by gottaq

70% of the country will live in cities by 2050. People are leaving the suburbs for urban environments, due to shorter commutes, walkability and communities. All major US cities, including PBurgh, will have big time growth.

There are still plenty of houses in the suburbs, the vast majority of which will still be standing in 2050.

I don't see tastes changing that much, there will always be a lot of people seeking the 4 br, 2 1/2 bath home surrounded by a quarter acre of Kentucky blue grass and a pool in the back.

But even if they did, plenty of people will still be living in the suburbs- even if they don't care too- because that's where the homes will be.


Further, a lot of businesses have moved and will be moving to the outskirts. Pitt-Ohio Express has moved most of their operations out to Harmar, the idea of industrial facilities being in areas like the Strip and Lawrenceville seems to be an unpopular idea and those who work in those fields are going to want to be close by (not in the city).

[gottaq]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

There are still plenty of houses in the suburbs, the vast majority of which will still be standing in 2050.

I don't see tastes changing that much, there will always be a lot of people seeking the 4 br, 2 1/2 bath home surrounded by a quarter acre of Kentucky blue grass and a pool in the back.

But even if they did, plenty of people will still be living in the suburbs- even if they don't care too- because that's where the homes will be.


Further, a lot of businesses have moved and will be moving to the outskirts. Pitt-Ohio Express has moved most of their operations out to Harmar, the idea of industrial facilities being in areas like the Strip and Lawrenceville seems to be an unpopular idea and those who work in those fields are going to want to be close by (not in the city).

married couples are on pace to become a minority. the nuclear family will not be as popular as it has been. yes people will still have children, but at as many people. less people will desire suburban life, because they wont be raising a family. they would rather be close to the center center for easy commutes to their jobs, and other ameneties. also, if gas prices fluctuate significantly in the future, this could lead to more people not wanting to commute to work. no US city has been outgrown by it's suburbs this decade. shows where things are going.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Do we ever think there may be some sort of East End backlash in Pgh? If your life and career have nothing to do with the universities, or tech, and you aren't interested in whatever is going on in Lawrenceville, and East Liberty there is no need to be near it. However, the East End has become the baseline for what everyone now assumes is the new Pgh, worthwhile, and what works in terms of redevelopment. I understand why, and I personally don't have issues with it, but I tend to think at some point, people are going to finally be annoyed by the E-E-E (Everything East End) attitude and focus that various areas will begin to grow because they are NOT the East End. I know the mayor wants to push redevelopment to all areas of the city, but the a lot of people still have that EE or bust mentality.

The problem is, you can market as such..."Tired of the overpriced, and cramped East End? Sick of all the poodle therapy and Fro-Yo? Come to this lovely, safe, and charming neighborhood full of all amenities, and everything you have been asking for..." and then people cry out it's great, it's everything I want and need!! But alas it's not the East End so I will suffer indefinitely in my overpriced rental...

If by backlash you mean "will property values fall?" then no. Even if the trendy people (tm) decide to up and move on, there will be an even larger cohort of rich poseurs (or just rich people who don't give an eff) who take their place. Neighborhoods are not fads.

Development will, however, almost certainly begin to spill out of the East End. However, again due to the constraints of topography, I expect it will go north first, then south, and only hit the West End once everything else is gentrified.

Originally Posted by Evergrey

And why is the East End so awesome? Because it's the largest expanse of relatively gentle topography in the city. Without the constant segmentation of ravines found elsewhere, the East End was able to develop a continuous urban fabric that has fostered the type of population density and economic activity not seen elsewhere in the city.

And 'psychological barriers' like highways and rail tracks were placed where they were due to topography. Most of our highways meander through narrow ravines and river flats while railroads seek the flattest corridor possible.

If the Lower North Side was as intact as it was in the 1920s, I'd argue that it would be a major contender alongside the East End. You'd have 2+ square miles of very flat (excluding Monument Hill), intensely developed mixed-use land within spitting distance of Downtown, with housing stock ranging from grand mansions to humble working-class abodes. While nowhere near as big as the East End in total, the much denser level of development could have kept it a contender.

Alas, we don't live in such a world. The North Side still has much greatness, but despite the flat topography the division of it into multiple chunks by highways really results in an isolated feeling. I think this is being overcome in fits and starts, but it will never be what it was as long as so many tangles of concrete divide it from downtown, and even from parts of itself.

[Joel_Rosenbaum]

Originally Posted by eschaton

More broadly, the hilly terrain will cause issues in the future in terms of future neighborhood redevelopment. Views aside, hilltop urban neighborhoods simply aren't as desirable in the modern era. They aren't as walkable and urban, seldom have great transit access, and lack full-service business districts. Not to mention they tend to have relatively low connectivity to a wider urban fabric. You can see this in that most flat areas of the city are in some stage of gentrification, whereas most neighborhoods still in decline are "hilltop" neighborhoods with topographical issues. Provided the recovery of the core within the Pittsburgh MSA continues to be strong I think the topographical issues can be overcome to some degree, but hilltop areas will always lag in desirability compared to areas on "the flats."

This argument makes a lot of intuitive sense to me, but it may not be true in all places. Coming from my perspective as a recent Seattle transplant, some of the densest and most desirable neighborhoods in my old city were hill neighborhoods (Queen Anne, Magnolia, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, View Ridge, Phinney Ridge). Even the downtown area is situated on a slight hillside, although the main streets are relatively flat. Seattle is arguably even hillier than Pittsburgh is, so this pattern of development might not have been by choice.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Joel_Rosenbaum

This argument makes a lot of intuitive sense to me, but it may not be true in all places. Coming from my perspective as a recent Seattle transplant, some of the densest and most desirable neighborhoods in my old city were hill neighborhoods (Queen Anne, Magnolia, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, View Ridge, Phinney Ridge). Even the downtown area is situated on a slight hillside, although the main streets are relatively flat. Seattle is arguably even hillier than Pittsburgh is, so this pattern of development might not have been by choice.

As I said, it's not just about the hills, but the hills and the connectivity. Looking at a map of Seattle, all of those areas are gridded neighborhoods within the greater urban (okay, urban-ish in a lot of cases) agglomeration. Fairly similar to what I noted about San Francisco - there might have been hills, but they just ran the grid right over them.

In contrast, Pittsburgh's hill neighborhoods not only mostly lack a grid, but tend to have winding streets along the sides of slopes up and down, making access with nearby neighborhoods often indirect. In some cases only a handful of roads which connect them with the outside work. For example, the only ways into Troy Hill from elsewhere in the city are Troy Hill Road, Rialto Street, and Wicklines Lane. Or Stanton Heights, which only has access via Stanton Avenue, McCandless Avenue (barely, the two roads merge), Christopher Street, Greenwood Street, and Azure Street.

Neighborhoods which have only a handful of ways in and out of them make for nice secluded suburban locales. It's why the subdivision model became so popular. But it doesn't make for a very dynamic urban neighborhood, because few people from outside the neighborhood will ever pass through it, be it on foot, on mass transit, or in a car. In contrast, you can't help but stumble through large portions of the East End when getting around, and even hopping areas outside of the East End (like Lawrenceville and South Side Flats) are strung along major streets which are used for non-neighborhood traffic.

It's interesting to note that the two places where there's slopes which were pretty continually integrated into the urban grid - Portions of Lawrenceville and to a lesser degree the South Side Slopes - are both examples of areas with a high level of topographic relief which have seen gentrification nonetheless. I can't help but think the reason has been because the roads (although sometimes steep) are less windy and more plentiful, meaning getting down to the commercial areas in the flats is comparatively simple.

[norcider]

The North Side is already seeing the next boom in terms of younger people buying first homes. Will it best the east end? No because we don't have the business'. The east end has become too congested. Stop signs, traffic and high rent. It's plateaued. So many people I am meeting over here are former east Enders priced out on the housing market.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

Yuck. Skyscrapers? One of the major draws of Pittsburgh was supposed to be walkable neighborhoods. Move to NYC if you want skyscrapers.

Skyscrapers support density, which supports walkability.

Originally Posted by norcider

The North Side is already seeing the next boom in terms of younger people buying first homes. Will it best the east end? No because we don't have the business'. The east end has become too congested. Stop signs, traffic and high rent. It's plateaued. So many people I am meeting over here are former east Enders priced out on the housing market.

You mean the Great East End Housing Crisis might be a good thing for the city as a whole?!