The neighborhood that used to be next to downtown (Pittsburgh: rentals, crime rates)

[simetime]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oh lord, not this again. I understand exactly what was motivating urban redevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s, and no, it wasn't something that just happened in Pittsburgh. I also know about the neighborhoods that have improved in recent decades not only in Pittsburgh but other cities, and having some perspective on what has happened elsewhere is quite useful in understanding what has happened, and what has not happened, in Pittsburgh.

So, no, I am not going to agree that only people who grew up in Pittsburgh understand these issues, and I frankly think the people who insist as much are being self-aggrandizing to the point of silliness.



I think you are very wrong about that. The steel bust was a big blow to the region, but again, parts of the City didn't collapse into ghetto, and one of the common denominators is an inverse relationship with the extent of urban redevelopment efforts. What you are failing to account for is just how much of much of a negative effect the mostly-empty Lower Hill site had on its surroundings.



Again, I think you are just wrong in what you are imagining. Imagine instead if instead of a bunch of surface parking surrounding an arena that is empty most of the time, the Lower Hill looked like Bloomfield or the South Side. Imagine how much better that would be for jobs, the tax base, Downtown, and on and on.

The great irony is that the razing of the Lower Hill caused blight, and now you are using that blight it caused to justify the razing of the Lower Hill. But it really didn't have to happen that way.



Not being able to imagine how things could have been different--perhaps because you lack the necessary experience to have any sort of perspective or awareness of alternatives--means you will never understand how razing the Lower Hill was a huge mistake that is continuing to impede progress in the City. And the sooner that mistake is undone the better.

Thank you for correcting the people that think that the Hill could not have been another Squirel Hill or some other properous neighborhood. Many of the people writing about the how the hill could have/should have been do not understand about the racism that accompanied the reason why the city did what it did. My parents and grandparents would tell me that downtown Pittsburgh would discouraged blacks from shopping there and so the blacks/jewish population that occupied the lower hill were totally self sufficient. When they decided to put the Arena there it also served as a "buffer between downtown and the blacks on the hill.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

The Hill District today is the most dangerous and blighted area of the city. It could hardly have declined more by leaving it alone. Chances are, if left alone, it would be in better shape than today.

No it is not, I'm not sure where you get your information from but it is NOT the most dangerous or blighted area in the city. How about parts of Homewood? Braddock? Southside? Northside? Perhaps if you would venture out of the safe(?) areas of the "burbs" would might have a better understanding of the urban life

[simetime]

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.

Nothings changed they are still doing to this day. Have you tried to buy property on the lower hill recently?

[simetime]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

That's part of urban renewal.

The lower hill project of the 1950s was larger than most, and came down all at one time- that makes it a bit remarkable.

But lots of folks were displaced with the razing of St. Clair Village, most of Broadhead and Arlington Heights, the "new jack city" hi-rises in the middle of East Liberty, the gentrification on the South Side which caused plenty of landlords to take properties off the Section 8 rolls, etc.

Nothing stays the same, the only constant is change.

The Lower Hill would have certainly changed, and probably not immediately for the good, had the Arena not been built. Had Allegheny Center not been built, the department stores and other commerce wouldn't have stayed the same over there, people still would have gone to the suburban malls instead of shopping at Boggs and Buhl or the other stores that came down.

There is a lot to be said for nostalgia and remembering how things used to be, but they were going to change even if they hadn't changed the way they did.

I kind of understand the FIRST time they took people's houses but I lived through the second time when they built Crawford Square and promised that "low income" people would be able to live there. Everyone assumed that it would be the blacks that lost their homes in the area, But nooo guess who else is considered low income? Students! The ones that can afford to go to Duquesne University. Do you people know that Crawford Square resident's rent increases every year regardless of income? Yeah thats progess for ya!

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oh lord, not this again. I understand exactly what was motivating urban redevelopment in the 1950s and 1960s, and no, it wasn't something that just happened in Pittsburgh. I also know about the neighborhoods that have improved in recent decades not only in Pittsburgh but other cities, and having some perspective on what has happened elsewhere is quite useful in understanding what has happened, and what has not happened, in Pittsburgh.

So, no, I am not going to agree that only people who grew up in Pittsburgh understand these issues, and I frankly think the people who insist as much are being self-aggrandizing to the point of silliness.

I think you are very wrong about that. The steel bust was a big blow to the region, but again, parts of the City didn't collapse into ghetto, and one of the common denominators is an inverse relationship with the extent of urban redevelopment efforts. What you are failing to account for is just how much of much of a negative effect the mostly-empty Lower Hill site had on its surroundings.

Again, I think you are just wrong in what you are imagining. Imagine instead if instead of a bunch of surface parking surrounding an arena that is empty most of the time, the Lower Hill looked like Bloomfield or the South Side. Imagine how much better that would be for jobs, the tax base, Downtown, and on and on.

The great irony is that the razing of the Lower Hill caused blight, and now you are using that blight it caused to justify the razing of the Lower Hill. But it really didn't have to happen that way.


Not being able to imagine how things could have been different--perhaps because you lack the necessary experience to have any sort of perspective or awareness of alternatives--means you will never understand how razing the Lower Hill was a huge mistake that is continuing to impede progress in the City. And the sooner that mistake is undone the better.

Brian,

I don't mean to say that can't contribute to this thread because you're a transplant here. The fact that you have lived in other cities gives you a great prospective, and is why I make it a point to read your posts. Maybe I got a little carried away in my post, as I think you did with your "self-aggrandizing" comment in yours. I apologize if you feel I unfairly dismissed your opinion.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that the lower hill is prime real estate, and is underutilized today. I think in the end, Pittsburgh gained more than it lost, you obviously don't share that opinion, and that's ok.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Considering what most of the Hill is like, I think it is obvious if that area was left alone, it would look really bad.

Again, the "logic" here is astounding. A neighborhood is leveled and turned into a massive, low-value gap in the City, and the surrounding neighborhoods get worse. This is proof that leveling the neighborhood was a good idea?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stburr91

Brian,

I don't mean to say that can't contribute to this thread because you're a transplant here. The fact that you have lived in other cities gives you a great prospective, and is why I make it a point to read your posts. Maybe I got a little carried away in my post, as I think you did with your "self-aggrandizing" comment in yours. I apologize if you feel I unfairly dismissed your opinion.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that the lower hill is prime real estate, and is underutilized today. I think in the end, Pittsburgh gained more than it lost, you obviously don't share that opinion, and that's ok.

Thank you for your gracious comment, and I agree I also got carried away in my response.

In any event, regardless of how we evaluate the past, we cannot change history. So with respect to the Lower Hill, all we can do is set out to build a new neighborhood that is capable of thriving and contributing to the City. If we can agree on that goal going forward, I think that is enough common ground to work with.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Thank you for your gracious comment, and I agree I also got carried away in my response.

In any event, regardless of how we evaluate the past, we cannot change history. So with respect to the Lower Hill, all we can do is set out to build a new neighborhood that is capable of thriving and contributing to the City. If we can agree on that goal going forward, I think that is enough common ground to work with.

I just think that it is interesting that so many people can comment on area that they never lived in, and in some cases feared to go into. I have lived there from over 24 years and have seen the gradual decline in the area but now it is getting much better. Unfortunately the people that were there before are slowly disappearing and a new group of folks are moving in that have no clue of the Hill's rich history. I would suggest that some of you watch "The Wylie Avenue Days" and you will see what I mean

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by simetime

No it is not, I'm not sure where you get your information from but it is NOT the most dangerous or blighted area in the city. How about parts of Homewood? Braddock? Southside? Northside? Perhaps if you would venture out of the safe(?) areas of the "burbs" would might have a better understanding of the urban life

Excuse me? I could probably create a poll of the Pittsburgh population, and I have no doubt that The Hill and Homewood would be listed as the two most blighted and dangerous hoods in the city.

It's funny you think I don't venture into the city's grittier areas. Have you seen my blog?

Also, I live in McKees Rocks, a "safe area of the burbs."

The South Side has been revitalized, and so has probably 75% of the North Side. Where is the revitalization in The Hill happening? Nowhere, because it has a notorious reputation for crime and blight.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by simetime

I just think that it is interesting that so many people can comment on area that they never lived in, and in some cases feared to go into. I have lived there from over 24 years and have seen the gradual decline in the area but now it is getting much better. Unfortunately the people that were there before are slowly disappearing and a new group of folks are moving in that have no clue of the Hill's rich history. I would suggest that some of you watch "The Wylie Avenue Days" and you will see what I mean

I agree it is very unfortunate that we didn't preserve more continuity with the former residents of the neighborhoods. I know they are trying to make sure today's Hill residents get an opportunity to apply for jobs as they become available in the Lower Hill (including training and workshops), with some considerable success so far. But such programs can't exclude newcomers (nor do I think they should).

You never know, though. Fifty years is a long time, but not so long that there aren't people out there who could come back.