Washington County's own apartment boom (Pittsburgh, Erie: new house, neighborhoods, subdivisions)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Greenfield development and urban sprawl increase our fossil fuel dependency, which, in turn, emits greater numbers of greenhouse gases that pollute our environment. Keep on pretending global climate change is a myth, though.

Until you park your vehicle, I'm thinking your contribution to that effect is well beyond the average dependency.

Curious to the stats of your assumptions on the gases and supposed pollution your suggesting from these new areas?

[PIT2MAD]

I would recommend everyone interested in this never ending city/burbs debate have a look at this article and debate its merits before rehashing the same points discussed in other threads. (Not worth starting a new topic for, but it really is a solid read)

Suburbs Are Urban Places, Too - CityLab

"When it was first built in the 19th century, the Sir Richard Steele pub, situated on Haverstock Hill, Hampstead, would have served wayfarers traveling from afar into London. That pub continues to serve passersby to this day, despite the transformation of Hampstead from a suburb outside of the urban conurbation to being an integral part of it."

[erieguy]

The suburb/urban debate is really mostly a concern from those that moved to the city from other cities and feel that the city is the best place to live because it's better than where they came from. Most haven't experienced the burbs they have issue with other than passing through on occasion. They also don't understand that some have interests that require some property, a garage, storage area, out building, etc...

Not everyone wants to be confined to an urban area. Not everyone wants to buy a home, much less an old home that needs to be maintained, restored, etc..., especially in a less desirable area. New, convenient, luxury, etc..., suits many peoples wants and needs and why these places like the ones in Washington are being built. I expect it to continue.

[tallydude02]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

Is the city of Washington seeing any revitalization or increase in desirability since the apartment boom started?

Not at all. In fact the city looks a little worse but the surrounding townships are booming. But rents in the city are on the upswing.

[erieguy]

Rarely get down that way but Osso's Pizza right of the oven is a nice reason to visit. Shorty's is a neat place...along with Angelo's.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Likewise the new homes are assuredly much more energy efficient then the old homes in town cutting down on energy waste. Both of these measures cut fossil fuel use.

You're so wrong about that. The energy that is expended on new construction and the materials made / used in construction will not be made up for by energy savings for many, many years. Also factor in the energy used to demolish the vacant house in Washington that a homeowner might have otherwise lived in, and the fact that the new housing is generally way, way larger than the old housing, to the point that is is completely excessive and wasteful, and that the new housing is not on public transit (requiring that the homeowner drive a car). I could go on.. The greenest building is the one that is already there.

I didn't intend to make this a suburban vs. urban debate. My question was about whether the good economy of the area has transferred to improvement and revitalization in the city of Washington. The theory is that the reason so many of these cities declined is because of poor economies. However, when the economies improve, and the city stagnates or declines, I think that theory should be called into question.

My theory is that, perhaps even more than other factors, suburban sprawl (and the culture that created it) has influenced the decline of many boroughs and small cities in this state.

A good question would be why are there no efforts to create the kind of vibrant urban atmosphere in Washington that can be found in Greensburg, or Franklin, or other flourishing older towns. But perhaps there are such efforts, and there is no one on the board who is aware of it.

[erieguy]

And possibly the most dilapidated ones in an undesirable area that isn't/aren't worth fixing or nobody wants to or can afford to fix.

Those that want these places bought, restored, etc..., should buy them or find buyers for them. Somebody's gotta take the hit for those properties when they sit or have to be torn down and there's a cost involved that for some reason some feel others should incur.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

You're so wrong about that. The energy that is expended on new construction and the materials made / used in construction will not be made up for by energy savings for many, many years. Also factor in the energy used to demolish the vacant house in Washington that a homeowner might have otherwise lived in, and the fact that the new housing is generally way, way larger than the old housing, to the point that is is completely excessive and wasteful, and that the new housing is not on public transit (requiring that the homeowner drive a car). I could go on.. The greenest building is the one that is already there.

I didn't intend to make this a suburban vs. urban debate. My question was about whether the good economy of the area has transferred to improvement and revitalization in the city of Washington. The theory is that the reason so many of these cities declined is because of poor economies. However, when the economies improve, and the city stagnates or declines, I think that theory should be called into question.

My theory is that, perhaps even more than other factors, suburban sprawl (and the culture that created it) has influenced the decline of many boroughs and small cities in this state.

A good question would be why are there no efforts to create the kind of vibrant urban atmosphere in Washington that can be found in Greensburg, or Franklin, or other flourishing older towns. But perhaps there are such efforts, and there is no one on the board who is aware of it.

Yes. Very much so. I grew up on the periphery of a small city, Pittston, which has a present-day population of around 7,500---down from a peak of ~21,000 in its heyday generations ago. While the town's main drag is enjoying some level of revitalization success in recent years, it still looks awful due to the presence of so many "gap-teeth" in the urban fabric where so many historic edifices were felled over the years due to neglect and abandonment brought on by urban sprawl. The surrounding townships are home to dozens of upper-middle-class residential subdivisions with huge homes that house former Pittston residents. This has shifted the "haves" to the periphery while the "have-nots" are concentrated in the city proper.

Seeing the historic Borr & Casey Building on Pittston's Main Street torn down in the '90's as a child cemented my aversion towards urban sprawl. I couldn't understand why a dwindling population to begin with thought it was "better" to abandon existing structures to tear down trees and build new homes and businesses outside the city limits. It just seemed incredibly wasteful to me. Today unchecked suburban sprawl has led Pittston Township to endure terrible rush-hour traffic congestion (for a township of ~3,500 souls) along PA State Highway 315. On a larger scale I-81 is often stop-and-go between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre during the evening rush while the population of this metro area has imploded over the past several generations. Why? A dwindling population (not unlike what we have in Allegheny County) was just spread around further and further like butter on a piece of toast until enough people were living far enough removed from existing infrastructure that their cars clogged the roadways leading back to urban centers beyond capacity.

I'm seeing this on a local level, too. Everyone on here always talks about how I-279 into town from the North Hills is a "smooth-sailing commute", yet whenever I head up to go running at Presque Isle in Erie on a weekday and take I-279 outbound I see traffic backed up INTO town for miles. More and more people are moving to Marshall, Pine, Richland, Adams, Cranberry, and, eventually, Jackson Townships. While some of those people may work at Westinghouse or the Thornhill Business Park, MANY more commute southbound into Pittsburgh. As more and more people move out to these suburban areas, traffic congestion on I-279 will rival (or exceed) traffic congestion on I-376, and people in the North Hills will complain that they "need" a wider highway. As an urban-dweller I resent that money will be spent to widen I-279 and/or I-79 to facilitate shorter commutes for suburban North Hills residents while we in the heavily-populated East End corridor are stuck in terrible surface street congestion because we still don't have a "T" line.

I don't see the "boom" in Washington County as anything worthy of celebration unless the CITY of Washington and BOROUGH of Canonsburg are included in this "boom". As of present they are being excluded, so any and all of this "boom" is a colossal waste of open space being destroyed adjacent to historic yet decaying urban centers.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I don't see the "boom" in Washington County as anything worthy of celebration unless the CITY of Washington and BOROUGH of Canonsburg are included in this "boom". As of present they are being excluded, so any and all of this "boom" is a colossal waste of open space being destroyed adjacent to historic yet decaying urban centers.

Different strokes for different folks.


Some people just prefer to live in a more wide open space instead of a densely populated town.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Different strokes for different folks.


Some people just prefer to live in a more wide open space instead of a densely populated town.

It's not about selfish Americans suiting their own selfish present interests. It's about us both being the entrusted caretakers for the legacy boroughs and cities left for us by our predecessors AND being ecological stewards so future generations can enjoy roaming the same open spaces and pristine woodlands WE enjoyed. Right now we in Pennsylvania are miserably failing at both. We are letting fabulous old 1890's-era wood-framed homes in our cities be torn down while we tear down trees for new subdivisions not far away.

"Different strokes for different folks" is fine and dandy when the MAJORITY of folks aren't hellbent on destroying our state.

As for me whenever I see an older home bulldozed and left as a vacant weed-strewn lot I think about how we're just even further erasing and desecrating the legacy of the hard-working immigrant who built that home 120 years ago. The United States is a very YOUNG country, yet we still don't care about preserving a home that's even just 120 years old while Europe is replete with PRESERVED edifices built 200, 300, or even 400+ years ago.

I can't for the life of me figure out why this city doesn't have programs available to help incentivize the redevelopment of decrepit-yet-historically-significant properties to help keep MORE people IN the city. We are a city of ~300,000 in a county of 1,200,000+ due to suburban sprawl. That's just pathetic.