The neighborhood that used to be next to downtown (Pittsburgh: apartment, foreclosures)

[rr61]

Originally Posted by Copanut

There used to be an African-American that called Lynn Cullen's show and said Urban Renewal really means Negro Removal.

Some have the misconception that there were not a significant number of whites uprooted. There were.

And some have the misconception that the entire neighborhood consisted of dilapidated slum dwellings. ( this has nothing to do with the above quote). Yes, there was housing in poor condition, etc, but there were also well kept homes occupied by working people who chose to stay - until, sadly, they no longer had the right to choose.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by rr61

Some have the misconception that there were not a significant number of whites uprooted. There were.

And some have the misconception that the entire neighborhood consisted of dilapidated slum dwellings. ( this has nothing to do with the above quote). Yes, there was housing in poor condition, etc, but there were also well kept homes occupied by working people who chose to stay - until, sadly, they no longer had the right to choose.

If you had to compare the Lower Hill then to a current city neighborhood, which would it be? (in terms of vibrancy, housing stock, conditions, etc.)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

No, but it's very important to point out the mistakes of the past so they aren't repeated.

There are probably some people who would like to bulldoze certain parts of the city today, and this is why I am so vocal on this topic.

Urban Planning, like other professions, goes through different phases. At the present time, "gentrification" is the mantra. That was not the case in the 50s/60s. Urban Renewal was the mantra then, meaning clearance of substandard housing. In either case, low income people lost/are losing their homes.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Urban Planning, like other professions, goes through different phases. At the present time, "gentrification" is the mantra. That was not the case in the 50s/60s. Urban Renewal was the mantra then, meaning clearance of substandard housing. In either case, low income people lost/are losing their homes.

The difference is, by eminent domain, homes were taken from people who owned them in the 1950s-1960s, whereas nobody is taking away houses from people, regardless of their income level, today (foreclosures aside, which would be the owner's fault for not paying the bills). Apartments and Section 8 and such are temporary residences, anyway. They aren't like owning your house and having it taken away. What is happening in gentrifying neighborhoods today is rents are being raised, as appropriate to the demand to live in the neighborhood. That can happen to anyone and any neighborhood. It's not denying someone the right to their home, it's just being priced out. Personally, I don't see anyone getting priced out of East Liberty, with houses in Larimer selling for pennies...

[Katarina Witt]

^^There's not much difference, in the long run.

In any event, razing whole neighborhoods is not one of the principles of urban planning these days.

[PreservationPioneer]

Not much difference? Eminent doman is completely unethical.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Katiana

In any event, razing whole neighborhoods is not one of the principles of urban planning these days.

No, but it's important to remember the reasons why we moved away from razing whole neighborhoods. Because it is ethically wrong to take peoples' homes, and it destroys urban fabric.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

No, but it's important to remember the reasons why we moved away from razing whole neighborhoods. Because it is ethically wrong to take peoples' homes, and it destroys urban fabric.

Eminent domain is an old, old principle.

Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think stburr91 made some good points in post #40.

The redevelopment brought a hospital, an arena, hotels and more. Those were all jobs that remained after the steel bust. These jobs, and the taxes were sorely needed in the 80's and 90's. None of those jobs, or the taxes would have been there if the Lower Hill District was a ghetto or a ghost town.

Only looking at the lower Hill District the last 10-15 years, you will never understand what it was, and what it did at a difficult time in Pittsburgh's history. The redevelopment was far from perfect, but it has/is serving it's purpose.

I don't favor taking people's homes away frivolously, but I think a lot of nostalgists have no idea what the situation was like back then. I was just a kid myself. A lot of people posting on here weren't even born when this was all happening. That's not to say they can't have an opinion, but it is to say that they don't know what the situation was at the time.

[I_Like_Spam]

A lot of the lower Hill District was more or less a ghetto, and the parts that weren't, would have become either a ghetto, or a ghost town after the steel bust

I think it would have declined even before the steel bust.

Had the project not gone through, I think you would have seen white flight and decay continue in the area, with the coup de grace after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968 when much of the Hill burned and lots of it still hasn't been rebuilt.

I don't think that the status quo of the 1950s was sustainable, particularly in the 60s, an era of rapid suburbanization, racial conflict and societal upheaval.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I think it would have declined even before the steel bust.

Had the project not gone through, I think you would have seen white flight and decay continue in the area, with the coup de grace after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968 when much of the Hill burned and lots of it still hasn't been rebuilt.

I don't think that the status quo of the 1950s was sustainable, particularly in the 60s, an era of rapid suburbanization, racial conflict and societal upheaval.

Interesting you should mention the assassination of MLK. We were out with a couple the other night, and I was recalling how I was a Pitt student at the time. The National Guard was camped out in Pitt Stadium, and they were driving tanks around the upper campus. I remember thinking that my father told me that's what it was like in the Soviet Union, tanks on the streets. It was not a pleasant time.