Pittsburgh One of Nation’s Most Gentrified Cities (Washington, Butler: apartment, rent)

[gg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's some idiosyncratic stuff going on in certain tracts too. For example

Downtown is listed as having gentrified and lost black population. But this appears to have largely been due to a census error in 2000. At the time, the county jail was improperly recorded as being in Downtown, when it's actually in Uptown. As a result, between 2000 and 2010 downtown officially lost a large population of low (no) income, low education, mostly black residents.

St. Clair "gentrified" and lost black residents because the housing project closed. Thus the tiny rump population is much whiter, a bit less poor, and a bit more educated. It's not gentrification though.

A similar thing seems to have happened with upper Garfield, where a 50% reduction in population with the shift of the old housing projects to a smaller population mixed-income development. Again, not gentrification.

The real gentrification measured by this study is limited to Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill, slivers of the North Side, and a bit of Mt. Washington. And as the story mentions, in some of those cases - like Deutschtown and Bloomfield - what seems to be happening isn't classic gentrification, but educated young people who don't make much more than the old-time residents moving into poor neighborhoods.

The lines about Upper Lawrenceville - which it portrays as experiencing both gentrification and a surging black population - are mere speculation, along with laughable. There was a period after the towers came down in East Liberty that a lot of black people moved to Upper Lawrenceville. They were almost all renters, and while the 2010 census captured this migration, almost all of them have been gentrified out now.

Again City Paper isn't really something to discuss as it would be an agenda article and not facts. Shame you didn't write it since you corrected...... well the entire article and I suspect did it off the top of your head. Kind of sad that people will read the City Paper and if it supports some agenda they would show everyone and say look, see I told you! It is what it is these days. News is more about entertainment really.

[gg]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

How am I part of the problem if I'm educated but still earn the same as the person I replaced?

You aren't part of any problem. You are a hard working member of the city of Pittsburgh and that should never be considered "a problem" in any logical society. Problem? How silly.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Did anyone actually read the study and not the article?

First off, I doubt any of this has to do with “rich, white tech workers” as the study is from 2000-2010, well before the bulk of our tech growth occurred.

Secondly, out of 711 census tracts in the city, 69 are eligible to be gentrified in the time from 2000-2010. Of that 69, 14 experienced one of the three following forms of gentrification. One city neighborhood had white displacement (Upper Lawrenceville) and three had black displacement (MWS, Downtown, and St. Clair). Keep in mind St. Clair suffered from all out displacement because there is really no St. Clair anymore. Another 10 had "gentrification" occur, which is described as an increase in home values, college graduates, and incomes. So while Polish Hill experienced the later between 2000-2010, SCR is actually part of the problem. He moved to Polish Hill and has a college education, thus playing a role in the exact gentrification to which he is posting about.

A closer examination of the situation Downtown, raises a lot of questions about the validity of the study.

As per the article: The neighborhood is home to thousands of high-paying jobs, but also plenty of service jobs at restaurants, retail stores, and bars. But Downtown is one of Pittsburgh’s most gentrified neighborhoods, with its average home prices tripling from $80,000 to $240,000 and its college attainment and average incomes doubling.

The average home price tripled in a ten year period, with no mention of the number of new units coming on line during that time. A quick look lets you know that during that time Three PNC Plaza opened with 28 high priced condos. Some of those condos are over a million dollars each. That is definitely skewing the numbers. 151 First Side opened in 2007 with 82 condos. Again skewing the numbers. Piatt Place opened in 2009 with 60 condos. Again skewing the numbers. So while black displacement may have occurred during this time as the boundaries of the neighborhood reach farther into the Lower Hill than most would describe as Downtown, the gentrification of rising home prices, education, and incomes were most likely moving directly into the 200+ new condos that came online during that time, rather than the kicking of poor grannies out of their homes.

I am not saying that there is not gentrification occurring in this city, but the devil is in the details.

this is why pittsburgh makes all the best housing and best places to flip lists. housing appreciation is calculated without taking into account any renovation costs.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

How am I part of the problem if I'm educated but still earn the same as the person I replaced?

According to the study you are and I was pointing out the issues with the study. They consider having higher levels of education, without an increase of income as a type of gentrification.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

this is why pittsburgh makes all the best housing and best places to flip lists. housing appreciation is calculated without taking into account any renovation costs.

Yep, which of course is more fake news. Not many cities were as dilapidated as Pittsburgh. Heck in East Liberty and Lawrenceville there were homes with no plumbing and in some cases just a shell and needed completely rebuilt. The fake news machine will just see oh someone bought that for $15K and sold it for $250K.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by gg

Again City Paper isn't really something to discuss as it would be an agenda article and not facts. Shame you didn't write it since you corrected...... well the entire article and I suspect did it off the top of your head. Kind of sad that people will read the City Paper and if it supports some agenda they would show everyone and say look, see I told you! It is what it is these days. News is more about entertainment really.

The CP article is poorly written in some aspects, but the study itself has very strange metrics which make the whole thing questionable.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by prnlvsxy

That sounds suspiciously like a certain orange-coiffed Florida loving septuagenarian....

How is any of it wrong though?

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

According to the study you are and I was pointing out the issues with the study. They consider having higher levels of education, without an increase of income as a type of gentrification.

Thanks for the clarification. I mean I have many white friends who have Bachelor's Degrees and are now living in historically working-class white neighborhoods in this city while earning roughly the same or just slightly more than their working-class white predecessors. I think something like ~40% of Pittsburgh's adults at least 25 years of age possess at least a Bachelor's Degree now (I can check on that later). That doesn't mean all ~40% of those people are earning high salaries.

I mean in my office alone I have a B.S. in Accounting; a colleague has a M.S. in Criminal Justice; another colleague has an MFA; another colleague has an Associate's Degree in Accounting; and another colleague has a Bachelor's Degree in what I believe is Technical Writing. We all earn ~$30,000 base salaries, buoyed up to $40,000-$45,000 with overtime. My current partner has a Bachelor's Degree and makes ~$26,000/year working for a local bank. It's not like we're these evil white yuppies pushing out the poor blacks just because we're educated. We all just happen to live in a literate city where there are more degreed people than jobs available to absorb them.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

How is any of it wrong though?

The inclusionary zoning overlay for Lawrenceville was proposed by Deb Gross. While I am not sure what the Mayor's stance is on the zoning overlay, this proposal directly contradicts your statement that council does not care about displacement.

More info here: housing for all – Lawrenceville United

That said, I am not sure if the zoning overlay is really going to help housing affordability, or if it is a gift to the developers that currently have large multi-unit developments in place. It may actually just keep more development from happening. Overall, this should be an interesting case study in whether you can legislate your way out of gentrification. I don't really think it is possible.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

The inclusionary zoning overlay for Lawrenceville was proposed by Deb Gross. While I am not sure what the Mayor's stance is on the zoning overlay, this proposal directly contradicts your statement that council does not care about displacement.

More info here: housing for all – Lawrenceville United

That said, I am not sure if the zoning overlay is really going to help housing affordability, or if it is a gift to the developers that currently have large multi-unit developments in place. It may actually just keep more development from happening. Overall, this should be an interesting case study in whether you can legislate your way out of gentrification. I don't really think it is possible.

Councilor Gross was officially sworn in 01/04/2016 and was an interim councilor if I'm not mistaken since 2013 when former Councilor Dowd resigned to pursue a non-profit opportunity. Why has it taken her from 2013 to 2019 to start taking a look at gentrification in her district? Too little, too late, in my opinion, which is why I'm voting for Deirdre Kane. Gross only seems to care about Highland Park, where she lives, whereas Kane will be more attuned to the needs of those in Lawrenceville, Polish Hill, and Bloomfield.

I don't understand why developers can't build taller/denser in order to include affordable housing. I mean let's take the Penn Plaza debacle as a prime example. Why couldn't a few more floors have been added to increase the number of units so that some of the units could have been more affordably-priced? I'm already seeing stiff opposition from East Shadyside homeowners on NextDoor regarding a proposed mixed-income residential mid-rise proposed for the Shady Hill Shopping Center. One homeowner in particular (who is also a landlord) said there are "already too many apartments". If that's the case, then why aren't rents declining? Can someone back her up on her assertion that Pittsburgh has "too many apartments", or is that just typical East End snobbery from privileged homeowners?