Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The below posts are "relocated" from the thread about capping I-579:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj
We need to watch the gentrification in Pittsburgh. This city doesn't have miles upon miles of open underused land. If we're not careful Pittsburgh could quickly become completely unlivable for low income households.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
It's okay. According to the regulars on this sub-forum there is no gentrification occurring in Pittsburgh. It's all good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy
Who said that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
The East Enders who deny gentrification occurs in neighborhoods because white people can't gentrify other white people---only black people can be gentrified by white people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Who said this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Whenever I bring up gentrification in a neighborhood like Polish Hill and compare it to the gentrification in a neighborhood like East Liberty in other threads I'm challenged/countered by people who say it's "different" gentrification.
The only difference that I can see involves race because in both circumstances an increasingly affluent incoming white demographic is causing rental increases that are displacing poorer demographics. There's a palpable sentiment that it is somehow morally- and/or ethically-unacceptable for affluent whites to displace poor black renters from some neighborhoods but that it is somehow "okay" to ask poorer whites to get out of the way of "progress" (making things better for affluent whites) in other neighborhoods.
How many poor white renters have been displaced by incoming affluent whites in Polish Hill, Lawrenceville, and Bloomfield in recent years vs. how many poor black renters have been displaced by incoming affluent whites in East Liberty in recent years? Is there a way to measure this demographic shift for comparison purposes? In my eyes socioeconomic displacement is challenging and tragic regardless of the race of the underclass that is being displaced, but some on this sub-forum seem to feel as if one racial group deserves more concessions/sympathy than other racial groups.
I'd have already been displaced from renting in my neighborhood myself if not for the fortunate timing of my new partner moving in with me to split housing expenses in our 1-BR apartment. Again, though, because I'm white there's an assumption I should just move to Carrick or Sheraden or somehow leverage my white privilege better to make more money to stay put. If mountains are being moved to make sure working-class blacks can stay in their neighborhoods, then what mountains are being moved to make sure working-class white can also stay in our neighborhoods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul2421
how much has your rent increased since you lived there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
63% in nine years.
Let's assume I was making $30,000/year in 2010 and paying $550/month in rent. That's $6,600/year in rent (22% of gross income).
Let's now assume I was making $30,000/year in 2019 and paying $900/month in rent. That's $10,800/year in rent (36% of gross income).
Let's now assume in 2028 I'll be making $30,000/year and paying $1,467/month in rent (63% increase over 2019 rent). That's $17,604/year in rent (59% of gross income).
Naturally nobody's wage/salary SHOULD stay that static/constant over time. Let's assume an average annual salary increase of 3%, which seems typical.
$30,000/year in 2010 and paying $550/month in rent. (22% of gross income).
$39,143/year in 2019 and paying $900/month in rent. (28% of gross income).
$51,073/year in 2028 and paying $1,467/month in rent. (34% of gross income).
If the average working-class person receives a 3% annual wage increase (I mean I do and most people I know receive a comparable annual wage increase), then, yes, my rent increases have been outpacing my wage increases. This is, in essence, gentrification, and since higher-earning people keep moving into my neighborhood and driving pressure upwards, that 63% rent jump from 2010 to 2019 could be a >63% jump from 2019 to 2028, meaning I could even be paying ~40% of my gross income towards rent in 2028. Going from paying ~1/5 of one's gross income on rent to paying ~1/3 of one's gross income on rent means less discretionary income to spend elsewhere.
As I said I'm not personally concerned as long as I'm cohabitating and splitting the bills on this 1-BR unit with someone who earns even less than I do and who couldn't afford to live on his own in a 1-BR, but if I found myself single again and trying to pay ~$900/month in rent plus utilities (plus student loans, plus other life expenses) it would be tough going. I personally know three households who have been pushed out of my neighborhood since I've been here, and I'm sure there are others.
We don't make the news, though, because when it's a trickle out of the neighborhood annually nobody bats an eyelash vs. when it's a big push at one time (Penn Plaza). I find myself jealous of Penn Plaza's tenants because they were given four-figure relocation stipends and relocation assistance to be sited as near to their existing homes as possible in comparable housing. No such assistance will be offered to me if and when I get priced out of my neighborhood.
There's also a double-standard because while people can tell me "just shut up and work a second job or pursue your terminal degree to boost your earnings potential to stay in your neighborhood" nobody ever would have said things like that to the Penn Plaza tenants who wanted to stay in their newly-trendy neighborhood, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
What I remember people saying in the past was the long-time residents in historically white neighborhoods that gentrify in Pittsburgh are mostly homeowners. Homeowners can of course be gentrified too, if the property taxes get too high for them to pay, but for the most part they choose to leave a neighborhood on their own terms, and get a nice windfall they weren't expecting when they do so.
Just considering the rental population only, a fair amount of the working class of these neighborhoods were students or 20somethings who were never going to be renting in the same neighborhood for decades. I'm not saying that these aren't real working class people - we have this bad tendency now as a culture to associate class with educational status, not income, and when you don't make much money, it doesn't matter if you have a degree or not - you struggle. But for a lot of these people, living in these neighborhoods was just a stop along the way before going somewhere else, or buying a home.
Still, IMHO gentrification is gentrification. All it means is a higher economic class of people displacing a lower economic class of people. And nationwide it's actually far more common in white neighborhoods than black ones. I think you see different levels of attention paid in large part because there just isn't the same sort of self-organization in working-class white neighborhoods. Which is - going back to my first paragraph - because a lot of the old-timers can just cash out and move to Shaler or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
The majority of people in Penn Plaza, IIRC, were elderly or disabled, and thus on fixed incomes. They would never have any higher earnings potentials. so of course no one seriously suggested those things. You on the other hand, are a millennial with a college degree. Young people with college educations often (although not universally) have pay increases which go up by more than inflation over the course of their career, because they are getting more experience in their field, which either leads to promotions or quitting and moving on to a higher-paid position. I realize this isn't what happened for you, but it's not that uncommon (and it was much more common 10-20 years ago) so you shouldn't be surprised some people say this.
Personally, I just don't see any point in having sour grapes about changes in neighborhoods. I mean, I was more or less gentrified out of Lawrenceville back in 2014. We could have afforded a three-bedroom house in the neighborhood at that time, but my wife, being from Pittsburgh, was convinced only rich people buy homes which cost more than $300,000, meaning we had to move on. I miss the convenience of living somewhere closer in with a lot more to do, but I don't feel jealous in any way of the people who have found a way to stick it out. Part of it was I never saw our home as anything other than a "starter home" - I'm much more of a rootless kinda person, and honestly it kinda irks me to think we'll be in our current house (as much as I like it) probably until both the kids are out of the home.
From what I understand, you don't even really like Polish Hill any longer. You complain there aren't enough amenities in the neighborhood, and you don't use the ones which are there. Other than being able to walk to your job, why are you staying there? I know you can still find one bedrooms for under $900 per month all over the city (Oakland, Bloomfield, Shadyside, North Side, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy
^^^^^^
Bingo
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
To the person who sent me the rep message, why is the answer "just buy a house"?
Why shouldn't someone be sounding an alarm about rent increases outpacing wage increases NOW before the disparity between rising rents and relatively flat wages results in gentrification actually becoming a larger issue here in future years?
This issue isn't about ME specifically. As an educated dually-employed couple we can afford our rent. Why can't I empathize with and advocate for others who ARE currently priced out or who ARE being priced out as we speak?
Not everyone can or should be a homeowner, and not every renter should be at the mercy of the "free market". Just look at San Francisco for an example of how that doesn't work. Do we want Pittsburgh to be in danger of being that way in 50 years, too? Why not have the difficult conversation(s) regarding housing (un)affordability now vs. waiting until it's too late, like San Francisco did?
in the past three years 14 out of 64 sold houses in polish hill were more than 300k, with two over 400k. median selling price was 213k. honestly that seems pretty affordable for a city neighborhood that close to downtown.
I haven't yet replied to this. I view a median sales prices of $213,000 as expensive when Pittsburgh's median sales price overall is something like $171,000. Our neighborhood does not have a walkable business district for some reason.
$213,000 means the homebuyer should be earning a salary of $71,000 going by the adage one should not buy a home priced more than thrice their annual gross salary. Is the median household income in Polish Hill $71,000?
To me any neighborhood is too expensive/too gentrified if the median sales price of a home in the neighborhood exceeds thrice the median household income of the neighborhood. It's also too expensive/too gentrified if the the typical renter spends 33%+ of their income on rent.
If my partner and I move to, say, Carrick, wouldn't we be displacing/gentrifying someone poorer out of that neighborhood? How does that fix any problem? What neighborhoods in this city can house a lot of "run-off" from the gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods WITHOUT gentrifying out existing residents themselves?
I view a median sales prices of $213,000 as expensive when Pittsburgh's median sales price overall is something like $171,000. Our neighborhood does not have a walkable business district for some reason.
$213,000 means the homebuyer should be earning a salary of $71,000 going by the adage one should not buy a home priced more than thrice their annual gross salary. Is the median household income in Polish Hill $71,000?
Since I am a glutton for punishment, I will bite. First, before addressing the above, I will note that I don't think there is a single non-troll poster on this board straight up denying there is gentrification in the East End, nor is anyone saying gentrification cannot happen in majority white neighborhoods.
That said, you are confusing median home value / median rent with median sales price / median asking rent for properties. $213,000 sale price means nothing to the person who paid $36,000 for their house 14 years ago. $1,200 / month asking rents don't matter to anyone who is currently paying $600, unless the landlord is using the $1,200 as justification to charge more, and the renter who cannot afford it while simultaneously is unable to find a comparable living arrangement for something in a given price range.
Also, Polish Hill doesn't have a business district because it is surrounded by business districts and does not have enough residents to support a full-scale business district. Also, Polish Hill is literally steep-a** hill, which makes it difficult to justify as a destination. Note, I am not talking about it being on top of a hill, or near a hill, it is literally a hillside.
Lastly, most parts of the Hill District are equally as close if not closer to Downtown as Polish Hill, and it is cheaper (at the moment). Therefore, anyone crying foul on gentrification of that specific neighborhood really has a twisted sense of how much someone need be geographically inconvenienced before calling gentrification a plight.
I often complain about gentrification but there are some good aspects, namely:
1. people moving into the city, downtown = less suburban sprawl, hopefully
2. old housing stock is being updated and not demolished, albeit often gutted, flipped and with grey paint
3. increased population diversity
The bad is of course wildly overpriced neighborhoods, Polish Hill being at the top. I love the area, but ..
The cure for high prices is usually high prices spurring development. Another apt complex (280 units) going up in Southside works. I imagine rental prices will begin to stagnate in the duplexes and triplexes around. Let the building continue!
The cure for high prices is usually high prices spurring development. Another apt complex (280 units) going up in Southside works. I imagine rental prices will begin to stagnate in the duplexes and triplexes around. Let the building continue!
My big hope is that gentrification will force some landlords to sell their converted multi-family Victorians (particularly in Friendship) so they can be converted back to single family.
My big hope is that gentrification will force some landlords to sell their converted multi-family Victorians (particularly in Friendship) so they can be converted back to single family.
Just hope they haven’t done too much internal damage chopping them up. It is EXPENSIVE to replace some of those old wood features if they got lopped off to subdivide rooms.
My big hope is that gentrification will force some landlords to sell their converted multi-family Victorians (particularly in Friendship) so they can be converted back to single family.
Hook me up with that cool stone one with the lions on each side of the steps. Love that home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
