The neighborhood that used to be next to downtown (Pittsburgh: college, living in)

[Copanut]

One things those photos prove, the litter problem has always been here.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't think that Polish Hill, Troy Hill and Spring Hill are really row-house neighborhoods.

I guess there may be a few rows in each of those areas, but they are mostly unattached houses in those communities.

And Manchester is recovering a bit, but was really hit hard by urban redevelopment with the PA65 highway project ripping out their business district.


Sheraden and Elliott are in steep decline too, and they really haven't been the victims of urban redevelopment. In fact, Sheraden has benefited from the new busway in recent years, yet is still pretty crappy.

Sheraden and Elliott are not row-house neighborhoods, though, so I'm not sure what your point is. I could list declined neighborhoods in Pittsburgh with detached housing all day..

[rr61]

Originally Posted by squarian

Can anyone help me orient myself in the first two pictures Brian posted above -

Obviously that's Penn Sta on the left edge of the 2nd.

What was the baseball diamond center-left?

What's main avenue running past the baseball field? And the one just left of it, running parallel?

And how come the Hill looks flatter in those photos than it does now - it doesn't look like there's much of a slope either running toward downtown or toward the Mon, but there sure is now.

I answer your ball field questions in post #111. This thread is getting so long , it's hard to keep up. About the hills. Among them were level streets - then and now.

[Impala26]

Renewal or no, I'd wonder how at least part of the neighborhood would have turned out if the Strip-Hill incline was kept intact.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Great pictures, Brian!

To counter the argument that the housing in the Lower Hill (which looks essentially the same as what you find in Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, or South Side Flats) was "substandard" and would have "declined further," and would "not have attracted a tax base," how can you explain all of the urban row-house neighborhoods in Pittsburgh and other cities that have become thriving, "hot" neighborhoods? How would you explain the rebirth of Center City Philadelphia? Fells Point in Baltimore? Greenwich Village in Manhattan? There is a demand for central, dense, row-house style neighborhoods!

I don't know about Baltimore, but there is NO WAY you can compare the architecture in Greenwich Village and most of what I've seen in Center City with the rowhouses of Lawrenceville. You do your cause a disservice when you draw such absurd parallels.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by jay5835

I don't know about Baltimore, but there is NO WAY you can compare the architecture in Greenwich Village and most of what I've seen in Center City with the rowhouses of Lawrenceville. You do your cause a disservice when you draw such absurd parallels.

Well, unfortunately, Pittsburgh doesn't have much (surviving) mid-19th century row-house architecture that can compare in grandeur to what can be found in Mount Vernon (Baltimore) or Rittenhouse Square (Philly). The row-houses of Lawrenceville and South Side are working class style houses. But, regardless of the level of architectural grandeur, all of the neighborhoods I mentioned are dense, row-house style neighborhoods. My point was there is a desire to live in these kinds of neighborhoods. Fells Point in Baltimore is actually very similar architecturally to Lawrenceville, however the homes there are generally older.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by stburr91

This is one of the reasons I believe Pittsburgh gained more than it lost in the redevelopment.

Much of the Hill District was substandard housing built for immigrant workers, and blacks moving north after the Civil War. Right or wrong, these people were of little worth to society at the time, and the neighborhoods built for them were below the standards of the day. It never was what you see in the South Side, or Mexican War street area. I just can't see how substandard housing would have been of any real value to the city.

Actually, that's false. The Hill was built as a middle class area. The housing on the Hill, at the time of it's development, was much superior to that of the South Side. If you drive around, you can see, that even in their decayed state, many of the houses on the Hill were of very good construction. This is especially true of the Middle Hill. The South Side is full of cheap frame housing, with only 17th St, and parts of Sarah having much higher end housing. The Strip District was the main slum in Pittsburgh prior to the 20th Century. Of course, once the Hill hill became a poor area, many of the properties declined because of a lack of reinvestment. While some declined physically, others were structurally sound, but due to a lack of investment, had not been updated in many years, and were basically operating at an 1870's level, which would made them substandard in the 1950's (no plumbing, etc.). I think the lower Hill would be a wreck today, because the huge rise in crime fueled by the explosion of the drug trade in the 1960's would have run many families out of the area. The huge housing projects would have prevented any gentrification from taking hold on the Hill as well. My guess is that the Middle Hill would be in better shape though. As the Lower Hill declined, many of it's residents probably would have slowly moved into the Middle Hill, keeping it's population up, which would have prevented the demolition of so many of it's buildings as they became vacant. Also keep in mind how the large scale dispersion of the poorest elements of the Hill destabilized Homewood, Beltzhoover, East Liberty, and parts of the North Side. Homewood and Beltzhoover in particular, were predominantly white neighborhoods, that had long had modest enclaves of middle class blacks. Homewood was 80% white in 1950. By 1960, it was 80% black. This is what set into motion, the chain of events that led to the decline of Wilkinsburg, and is now playing out in parts of Penn Hills. As Homewood declined, the long time black residents ran. Many moved to Wilkinsburg, but the poorer elements soon followed them there. The middle class blacks then ran to Penn Hills. As could have been predicted, the underclass is following them there as well. The process in Beltzhoover was somewhat slower (there are still whites in Beltzhoover), but the area still became much poorer after the influx.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

By 1960, it was 80% black. This is what set into motion, the chain of events that led to the decline of Wilkinsburg, and is now playing out in parts of Penn Hills. As Homewood declined, the long time black residents ran. Many moved to Wilkinsburg, but the poorer elements soon followed them there. The middle class blacks then ran to Penn Hills. As could have been predicted, the underclass is following them there as well. The process in Beltzhoover was somewhat slower (there are still whites in Beltzhoover), but the area still became much poorer after the influx.

Lets take a look a this part of your post.

Why is it that if a population goes "black", it declines? Does Black = Decline?

I don't understand why they need to equate to each other? They shouldn't! Please Wilkinsburg show everyone what can be done. I think Pittsburgh is one of the few places that so many equate "black" to decline. IT SHOULDN'T!!! Is it a white perception? Do black people look at it the same way? I don't know that and am asking the question.

Is there a way to make this perception go away??? YES! Wilkinsburg can be the place to show all. I thought Obama was showing all, but it seems to have no effect in our area.

My post is about perception and isn't MY personal view as you can see from this whole thread. I would like "black" not to equate to "decline". Can it?

[pman]

Originally Posted by jay5835

I don't know about Baltimore, but there is NO WAY you can compare the architecture in Greenwich Village and most of what I've seen in Center City with the rowhouses of Lawrenceville. You do your cause a disservice when you draw such absurd parallels.

I think you missed the point. Greenwich village was a a run down immigrant area with substandard housing that robert moses wanted to demolish like he'd done so many times before. in this case he had proposed a crosstown expressway. the difference between this immigrant community and the many he'd already mowed down in favor of public housing projects and highways is they fought hard and found a friend in jane jacobs who lent eloquence and upper class attention to the problem. understanding this is not absurd, the situation was quite similar. the very fact that you find the comparison so absurd is testament to just how wrong the idea that this was substandard, deplorable, and irreparable housing was in the long run. the very same thigns being said about the lower hill here
allegheny city (north side) has plenty of grand homes and probably had plenty more.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by pman

I think you missed the point. Greenwich village was a a run down immigrant area with substandard housing that robert moses wanted to demolish like he'd done so many times before. in this case he had proposed a crosstown expressway. the difference between this immigrant community and the many he'd already mowed down in favor of public housing projects and highways is they fought hard and found a friend in jane jacobs who lent eloquence and upper class attention to the problem. understanding this is not absurd, the situation was quite similar. the very fact that you find the comparison so absurd is testament to just how wrong the idea that this was substandard, deplorable, and irreparable housing was in the long run. the very same thigns being said about the lower hill here
allegheny city (north side) has plenty of grand homes and probably had plenty more.

I thought Moses' crosstown expressway was supposed to supplant Canal Street, about a mile south of Greenwich Village, not the Village itself. This might have meant razing Little Italy, Soho, the Lower East Side, and/or what is now called NOLIta (North of Little Italy), but not Greenwich Village.

FWIW, there were nice parts of Greenwich Village and not so nice parts. There are few neighborhoods finer to live in than the one between Broadway and the Hudson River, east to west, and from about Houston Street to 14th, north to south, and this has been true generally since the original construction of large sections of the Village. The part south of Washington Square may have been mostly walkups, but the rest of the Village was rather upscale.

I didn't live in that era, I am given to understand that very little in Greenwich Village, i.e., not the East Village or the Lower East Side, was built as tenement housing.