Is Pittsburgh one of the most underrated cities? (Philadelphia, York: how much, houses)

[Tex?Il?]

I've never been, but I'd like to;

But I wonder if Pittsburgh is underrated due to the simple fact that the American (and possibly international) public have yet to completely shed their stereotype of Pittsburgh as being a run-down dirty rustbelt town, and have no idea of how much Pittsburgh has reinvented and revitalized itself.

I'm from the Chicago suburbs, and I think in many ways, (except topography!)Pittsburgh is most like a smaller version of Chicago, because both Pittsburgh and Chicago are industrial cities that have made an amazing transformation.

If you include Pittsburgh as part of the midwest (which many don't consider it to be) it has the second densest and tallest skyline (it does have the architectural diversity of Chicagos loop, with many fortune 500 companies that have made Pittsburgh a more economically diverse area.

Its neighborhoods from what I've seen on Google earth have urban density that is lacking in midwestern cities outside Chicago. From pictures I've seen it is indeed be the second most "truly urban" city between the coasts.

But yet, despite this, the area is still losing people. Do you think thats just a legacy, that keeps people from relocating? Do you expect to see population increases in the future. Hopefully Pittsburgh can be a good example for other industrial era cities to follow.

[nuwaver88]

Pittsburgh most definetely is underrated. Although that is changing. That does not necessarily mean that we are going from being underrated to overrated as much as it does to Pittsburgh being discovered.
In the past, Pittsburgh was considered nationally as a blue collar, industrial city. It was hard to argue with that since it was true. However, when a city is an industrial giant, there is a lot of money floating around. So when industrialists from Pittsburgh like Carnegie, Frick, Westinghouse, Oliver etc. would travel to New York and were wined and dined saw the cultural amenities, they would use their riches to create that for Pittsburgh. Other families from Pittsburgh like the Heinz's and the Mellons also have a great history of philanthropy. Outsiders who have visited Pittsburgh and have traveled quite a bit can see that Pittsburgh has what one has called "heft." This was meant that be seeing our architecture and cultural landscape that it was obvious that Pittsburgh was big time. We had all that they had in NYC or Chicago, just on a smaller scale. This is particulary obvious in buildings Downtown and in Oakland and the North Side. The blue-collar/mill workers lived in riverfront neighborhoods like South Side and Lawrenceville. These neighborhoods were highly developed during the Industrial Revolution which is obvious in the great collection of Victorian era homes and buildings. These types of neighborhoods are being rediscovered and a younger demogrpahic is moving in and restoring them. In a nutshell, Pittsburgh is underrated because people think of it as industrial. The fail to put two and two together and realize that where there is industry, there is prosperity/money. When someone visits Pittsburgh for the first time, they will see some of the grit form the industrial past. They will also see the "heft" that the Pittsburgh has that simply cannot be duplicated in the Sun Belt.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I've never been, but I'd like to;

But I wonder if Pittsburgh is underrated due to the simple fact that the American (and possibly international) public have yet to completely shed their stereotype of Pittsburgh as being a run-down dirty rustbelt town, and have no idea of how much Pittsburgh has reinvented and revitalized itself.

I'm from the Chicago suburbs, and I think in many ways, (except topography!)Pittsburgh is most like a smaller version of Chicago, because both Pittsburgh and Chicago are industrial cities that have made an amazing transformation.

If you include Pittsburgh as part of the midwest (which many don't consider it to be) it has the second densest and tallest skyline (it does have the architectural diversity of Chicagos loop, with many fortune 500 companies that have made Pittsburgh a more economically diverse area.
Its neighborhoods from what I've seen on Google earth have urban density that is lacking in midwestern cities outside Chicago. From pictures I've seen it is indeed be the second most "truly urban" city between the coasts.

But yet, despite this, the area is still losing people. Do you think thats just a legacy, that keeps people from relocating? Do you expect to see population increases in the future. Hopefully Pittsburgh can be a good example for other industrial era cities to follow.

Moreso than Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis? Just askin'.

[nuwaver88]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Moreso than Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis? Just askin'.

With the exception of Cleveland, I do not think the other cities were looked upon as negatively as Pittsburgh. I am not suggesting that they are not underrated and may have some charms that people do not realize. I mean it would be harder to get any lower than to be described as "Hell with the lid off"

[Katarina Witt]

^^True, that, but it wasn't really my question. Of midwestern cities (which Pittsburgh isn't anway, but that's beside the point here), do the cities I named have less "dense and tall skylines" than Pgh? I truly don't know. Minneapolis is one of my fave cities, BTW.

[PreservationPioneer]

Cities that are not underrated:

Los Angelos
San Diego
San Francisco
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tampa
Atlanta
New York City
Charlotte
Austin
Seattle
Portland, OR
Denver
Chicago

Underrated cities:

All the rest. Well, not Detroit-- it deserves it's bad reputation.

Is Pittsburgh the most underrated city? Possibly. But Buffalo is pretty cool, too.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Moreso than Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis? Just askin'.

Yes,

Pittsburghs skyline size and corporate presence does edge out Cleveland, Milwaukee, and St. Louis.

Cleveland has two supertall buildings, and a lot of lower ones.

Minneapolis on the other had is probably on par with Pittsburgh as far as its skyline and business goes, although Minneapolis's big growth kind of happened after the industrial age, so therefore, does not have as many old-style skyscrapers that cities around the Great Lakes do.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by nuwaver88

Pittsburgh most definetely is underrated. Although that is changing. That does not necessarily mean that we are going from being underrated to overrated as much as it does to Pittsburgh being discovered.
In the past, Pittsburgh was considered nationally as a blue collar, industrial city. It was hard to argue with that since it was true. However, when a city is an industrial giant, there is a lot of money floating around. So when industrialists from Pittsburgh like Carnegie, Frick, Westinghouse, Oliver etc. would travel to New York and were wined and dined saw the cultural amenities, they would use their riches to create that for Pittsburgh. Other families from Pittsburgh like the Heinz's and the Mellons also have a great history of philanthropy. Outsiders who have visited Pittsburgh and have traveled quite a bit can see that Pittsburgh has what one has called "heft." This was meant that be seeing our architecture and cultural landscape that it was obvious that Pittsburgh was big time. We had all that they had in NYC or Chicago, just on a smaller scale. This is particulary obvious in buildings Downtown and in Oakland and the North Side. The blue-collar/mill workers lived in riverfront neighborhoods like South Side and Lawrenceville. These neighborhoods were highly developed during the Industrial Revolution which is obvious in the great collection of Victorian era homes and buildings. These types of neighborhoods are being rediscovered and a younger demogrpahic is moving in and restoring them. In a nutshell, Pittsburgh is underrated because people think of it as industrial. The fail to put two and two together and realize that where there is industry, there is prosperity/money. When someone visits Pittsburgh for the first time, they will see some of the grit form the industrial past. They will also see the "heft" that the Pittsburgh has that simply cannot be duplicated in the Sun Belt.

Thanks. This was insightful.

I think the same way that Chicago claims that is has a lot of what New York has to offer, but is just smaller, less hectic, lower cost of living, etc. Both Minneapolis and Pittsburgh can easily make that claim in comparison to Chicago.

Plus Chicago was more blue collared and industrial for a good chunk of its history as well. At least compared to New York.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by Katiana

^^True, that, but it wasn't really my question. Of midwestern cities (which Pittsburgh isn't anway, but that's beside the point here), do the cities I named have less "dense and tall skylines" than Pgh? I truly don't know. Minneapolis is one of my fave cities, BTW.

I lived in Minneapolis...and there is a downtown...tall buildings, etc.

But most of the houses are just different...houses with big yards...kind of typical midwest. So, you might have your urban core which is tall buildings...but you also get a lot of parking lots all over the place...so if you are downtown, you aren't getting the 'energy'. MInneapolis' downtown also had a skyway system of interconnected malls within the buildings and walking off of the street. Which meant street life was fairly dead, but being downtown kind of meant walking among something like one giant mall above ground.

In short, when I lived in Minneapolis, I lived in two different locations that were within proximity of downtown, but the housing areas itself felt very residential. I'm a person that really wants to walk around the neighborhood...but those neighborhoods really had nothing to walk around and see. It was standard 'get into the car and drive' kind of thing. For Minneapolis, that meant driving to 'uptown' which had a small collection of shopping and restaurants that covered a relatively very small area. There was another area called Dinkytown by the university. These areas though were the exception, not the norm, so you always drove to them, looking for parking, and then walked around - watching the parking meters the entire time.

I can't speak for Milwaukee, Cleveland or St. Louis though - as they all are known to be a bit more denser than generic Midwest, and certainly more denser than the mass majority of U.S. cities in the south and southwest.

But, when I google map Pittsburgh there is something completely different going on there....something so unlike those other Midwest cities. I think one of the big ones is plot land sizes don't really exist in Pittsburgh in the same way. In a typical Midwestern city, you have a grid system of big streets, big yards, sidewalks going through, etc. If you are walking, it'll take a lot of time to walk by 20 houses as they'll each have sizeable plot lands to them. Whereas observing Pittsburgh they seem to cut it down considerably and even lots of the row structures which eliminate it. Plus there are the mountains which seem to densify things...and buildings that have that 'built right on top of each other' look - something I personally really like.

I think it has a lot less to do with skyscraper sizes, but more to do with how the residential communities are setup. Pittsburgh with rows and density is much more like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, etc. Whereas everywhere east of Pittsburgh has the 'I want a half acre in the city' look - making them very car-dependent.

[BrianTH]

I'd certainly agree there is a HUGE gap between the typical conceptions of Pittsburgh and the reality. And this even among people who have heard good things about Pittsburgh: for most people, it isn't until they have at least visited that they get a real sense of the city today. And I'd also agree that is in part because for around a century or so, Pittsburgh was in fact the sooty industrial city of people's imagination.

Incidentally, I lived in Chicago for a few years, and I would agree there are some interesting parallels. On the other hand, I grew up in the Detroit area, and to me Chicago was much more familiar-feeling than Pittsburgh.

Finally, I don't know about the skyline in quantifiable terms, but I think the Pittsburgh skyline certainly comes across very well in aesthetic terms, in part because the rivers and surrounding hills shape and frame it in a really interesting and beautiful way.