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.
When the Southside was the place to be Lawrenceville was a dump and ignored. Now SS has more competition for eating out, night life... plus demographics changed.
I don't think enough credit is given to Jay's Soaps/Design in Lawrenceville who was largely responsible for starting the annual cookie tour 20 or so years ago and bringing outsiders to that part of town.
I don’t think Lawrenceville had much, if anything to do with the decline of the south side.
My opinion as to what caused the decline of the south side was the clubs closing in the Strip District and in Station Square. The element that frequented both of those areas was not the best. Station square had a lot of problems with drugs and crime in their warehouse and the clubs right in the main station at the Smithfield street bridge. That’s why they tore down the warehouse and built apartments. The strip was known for shady clubs as well, with a lot of drug dealing and crime going on.
I believe all of that bad element shifted to the south side. The strip was not a place to hang out especially by yourself.
Hence the rise in crime and riffraff in the south side. Nobody is going to pay high prices with a shady element around. The city needs to clean it up.
It has been a long while since I have been there so not sure what condition it is in today, but my nod goes to Vandergrift. My great great Aunt Emma lived there and I can remember (although thru a haze of nostalgia) visiting at Christmas time and the streets covered in snow. For such a small town it has such interesting history, as it was laid out by Frederick Law Olmstead and has a historic district that encompasses over 600 buildings.
The city proper's population is likely stagnant at the moment.
Allegheny County's population is likely increasing very slowly at the moment.
The MSA's overall population is likely stagnant or decreasing very slowly at the moment.
Can the same population over time support progressively more and more revitalized business districts replete with retailers and restaurants AS LONG AS that stagnant population has become wealthier over time, or will the revitalization of the business districts in the neighborhoods/communities we are rooting for just serve to CANNIBALIZE the success of currently stable/healthy business districts?
A lot of what I was picturing didn't necessarily involve a wealth infusion. I was thinking more along the lines of people taking more pride in their property, cleaning up trash and debris, fixing up eyesores. Most of it doesn't take a lot of money. But it makes everything look and seem nicer and more welcoming. People want to live and hang out in nice areas. Like, "revitalized" as in people are happy living there, it's a pleasant place with some amenities, it looks well-cared for, etc. Not that it becomes upscale and trendy, but that it's just solid.
Quote:
It's no secret the city overall has become much more affluent over the past decade in particular. Nevertheless it seems as if the more Downtown, the Strip, and Lawrenceville start to fill in and revitalize the South Side Flats is starting to wane. On a bigger scale I worry that revitalizing let's say Brownsville will mean that more people with means in the Mon Valley will start patronizing Brownsville's business district and spend less of their dollars in the business district in Monongahela, causing stress to merchants and restaurants there.
I appreciate that Escahton started this as more of a "pipe dream" thread, but could revitalizing all of these deserving communities and neighborhoods legitimately happen with progressively fewer (yet more educated and affluent) residents as the years go by? I just think there are TOO MANY business districts in this region to save them all, especially with the rise of online retail (brick-and-mortar shops struggling) and the rise of meal kit delivery services (restaurants becoming more competitive).
I don't see a problem with improving things on a per capita basis. Fewer people, with less (but nice) property, isn't a bad outcome.
Quote:
If Kittanning, New Kensington, Freeport, and Tarentum all commit to eliminating blight, reducing commercial vacancies in their business districts, etc. can all four of those communities be successful, or are the dollars up there so limited that one's boom will cause the other(s) to falter? There's obviously not enough money up your way to support Pittsburgh Mills, which is on its last legs.
I really think if our regional population is going to continue to decline (and with the demographics of lots of aging Baby Boomers + lots of educated childless Millennials + limited immigration + difficulty attracting in-migration that's VERY likely) then we need to look at our region's business districts as "survival of the fittest". Which ones should thrive? Which ones should die? We can't save them all unless someone can convince me that housing fewer (but wealthier) people over time can result in MORE businesses flourishing.
If incremental progress could be made everywhere, that's cool with me. If one place started to pull ahead of everyone else, as opposed to each place remaining downtrodden, I'd count that as a win. And if, in improving itself, it attracted people to it from the other areas, I'd say that would be justly deserved.
I think I see what you're getting at; that you don't want to see an area get left behind as all of the energy and money is poured into "the chosen one." But I try to see the positives in the little game we're playing.
Regarding Polish Hill, prices have inflated over the last few years here but not sure why ... Given the streets, hills, lack of businesses ... Though these homes are interesting. Does anyone know the their history? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4578...7i16384!8i8192
Regarding Polish Hill, prices have inflated over the last few years here but not sure why ... Given the streets, hills, lack of businesses ... Though these homes are interesting. Does anyone know the their history? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4578...7i16384!8i8192
I think the problem with the city and the Pittsburgh metro area in general is the lack of quality move in ready housing. This region has very old housing and the lack of new construction doesn’t help either. If you are in a decent neighborhood or suburb with intact housing you are gonna pay out the ear for it.
The city and metro really needs a huge influx of new construction priced 250-450K. I’m talking hundreds and maybe a thousand units each year metro wide. It would then free up existing construction and relieve pressure on the price of existing homes.
People are forced to buy old houses because there aren’t many new ones. It’s driven up prices. And it has nothing to do with a huge population boom either.
Start building more homes in the burbs and on vacant city lots and you will see prices drop on existing construction
The region has been at record lows for new single family construction throughout the 2010s
Thanks for the replies so far guys. My thoughts on your own suggestions:
I know a lot of people have brought up Elliott, but honestly, other than location (and the views from the West End Overlook) I don't really see the appeal. The housing is mostly frame and somewhat remuddled, and the business district is tiny and has only a few intact commercial buildings left. There absolutely are still some nice, mostly intact streets though, and if there's anywhere which is coming back in the "Greater West End" within city limits, it would probably be Elliott. I think I'd prefer a miraculous turnaround of Sheraden though - better housing stock, more commercial buildings left, and access to the West Busway.
I feel like Homewood is really too far gone to bring back absent a time machine or something. So many of the buildings still standing are condemned or soon to be condemned. And the North Homewood Avenue business. There are still lots of nice old brick homes which could be brought back in Homewood North on the 7100-7400 blocks of Idlewild, Race, Montecello, and Hermitage, but I really think this is the only part that's left that could really be saved.
I have the same issue with the Hill District. I know this was a hypothetical, but I wasn't thinking about waving a magic wand to restore neighborhoods back to what they looked like in 1950, which is what we would need to recapture the magic of what the neighborhood was. There's not really a single even semi-intact block of the Hill left, outside of Sugar Top.
I agree that there's nothing really wrong with Freeport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer
I have to add that I find it kind of funny how people will say a perfectly pleasant town far outside of the city is "hopeless," but then go on to cite the advantages of an extremely depressed, crime-ridden area with no architectural or historical value closer to the city. Just my two cents.
Dude, you have spell out explicitly what you mean here. Braddock?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer
No. Gentrification and revitalization are different things. For instance, you can revive the Elizabeth business district, and restore housing, without making the area an exclusive enclave of the rich (gentrification). Neighborhoods in the urban core seem more at risk for gentrification than small towns or smaller industrial cities. Certainly, the concepts are related. By revitalizing a town or neighborhood, there is risk of gentrification.
In my mind, the difference is gentrification is about people. It's a lower-income demographic being replaced by a somewhat or significantly wealthier one. Neighborhoods can gentrify for a long period of time without many substantive changes in built form.
Revitalization, in contrast, is about fixing up buildings and bringing more "life" into the area. By definition a historic downtown (or a mostly resident-free neighborhood like the Strip District) can't really gentrify, because there were no more than a handful of people to be displaced. I think "job gentrification" is a real thing we should be concerned about, but I really don't shed a tear when small retailers have to close/move, because it still has less impact than hundreds of lower-income residents relocating.
I think the problem with the city and the Pittsburgh metro area in general is the lack of quality move in ready housing. This region has very old housing and the lack of new construction doesn’t help either. If you are in a decent neighborhood or suburb with intact housing you are gonna pay out the ear for it.
The city and metro really needs a huge influx of new construction priced 250-450K. I’m talking hundreds and maybe a thousand units each year metro wide. It would then free up existing construction and relieve pressure on the price of existing homes.
People are forced to buy old houses because there aren’t many new ones. It’s driven up prices. And it has nothing to do with a huge population boom either.
Start building more homes in the burbs and on vacant city lots and you will see prices drop on existing construction
The region has been at record lows for new single family construction throughout the 2010s
I think schools are the issue. The cheapest land is in lousy established school districts. Guessing in other parts of the country cheap land is located in districts that are likely better performing.
I think schools are the issue. The cheapest land is in lousy established school districts. Guessing in other parts of the country cheap land is located in districts that are likely better performing.
I think schools became an issue because of the population decline and loss of tax base. Up to the 2010 census the county and city has lost a significant amount of population. One could argue there was more school districts that were desirable in the 1990s. Places like gateway, Woodland Hills, penn hills, Sto rox have plunged, while places like keystone Oaks, Carlynton, Northgate, East Allegheny and others have shut schools, lost enrollment and declined a decent bit from being a desirable place to send your kids with taxes being paid.
That said Pittsburgh isn’t in the top 20 hardest places to find a good home. Nor is it in the top 20 easiest to find a home.
Surprisingly Harrisburg is the only metro in the state in the top 20 hardest. Others nearby of note that is hard to find a home are Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Rochester and Buffalo.
I'd love to see Turtle Creek revived; it is pretty seedy at the moment, but the downtown is fairly intact and could be revived and filled with useful businesses. There are a bunch of not very good pizza joints, and hardware store, and a CVS. They need a decent breakfast and lunch diner, maybe a nice restaurant. There are plenty of people in the area to support these businesses. Wilmerding has fabulous architecture, and I wonder what happened with the Westinghouse Castle plans. Drugs are unfortunately a big problem in these towns. I don't see gentrification as the end goal - just decent people who take care of their property and don't harm each other.
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.
