The neighborhood that used to be next to downtown (Pittsburgh: middle-class, how much)

[Mr. Humble]

Why do some people think the Lower Hill wouldn't have been renovated bit by bit like most inner city neighborhoods are? That, or because of its adjacency to downtown, sprouted another skyscraper?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

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.

That perception is not entirely accurate, however, because good chunks of the Hill don't actually have extraordinarily high crime rates. In that sense I think the Hill's reputation is to at least some extent undeserved.

Where is the revitalization in The Hill happening? Nowhere . . . .

That is also not fair to the Hill. Of course there was Crawford Square, and there have also been other smaller residential infill projects scattered around (we were just discussing one the other day, in fact).

Edit: This URA list contains several projects in the Hill:

http://www.ura.org/working_with_us/projects.php

There is really a lot more going on there than a lot of people in Pittsburgh assume.

[pman]

How did redevelopment affect the Lower Hill?
"In September 1955, the federal government approved the Lower Hill Redevelopment plan, making available $17.4 million in loans and grants. Ninety-five acres were slated for clearing, with the demolition of the first of 1,300 structures to be razed set for June 1956. Redevelopment displaced over 8,000 residents; 1,239 black families, 312 white. Of these, 35% went to public housing communities, 31% to private rentals, 8% bought homes. About 90 families refused to move and ended up in substandard housing. Relocatees received little relocation compensation, with minimal benefits coming from the federal government...Even were one to overlook the devastating social impact of the Lower Hill redevelopment, its success could only be judged as minor.""

The Hill District: HistoryPittsburgh: Then and Now / The Lower Hill District

[Katarina Witt]

So it wasn't the best done project ever. I submit that the housing that was razed was not a bunch of Victorian mansions, either. Look at this line:

About 90 families refused to move and ended up in substandard housing.

Most of the people writing these articles weren't even alive in 1955, let alone adults.

From pman's first link:

Now under way is preliminary work destined to result in the elimination of the old "Hill" with its grim alleys and tortured buildings. . . . Thus for the first time we are faced with a job of slum clearance . . .

It's easy to look back and say, by today's standards, that this project shouldn't have been undertaken. I do think, however, that some of the descriptions of this area before it was razed are a little rosy. Some of my friends did their public health nursing clinical rotation in "The Hill" in the early spring of 1970, and the housing conditions they described were not the greatest.

[TimGyves]

Originally Posted by pman

The Lower Hill before the arena: A rambunctious, crowded, loud place with 'everything you needed'

Thanks for this - it's hard for people who haven't lived in a place long enough to remember before and after to understand what neighborhoods have been like, and the consequences - intended AND unintended - of breaking up city grids (not that triangular Pittsburgh has anything close to a grid!) A man named Robert Moses lead the development and urban planning efforts in New York City many decades ago and his legacy has been profound -- for better and for worse. He gave New Yorkers parks and highways, but bulldozed entire neighborhoods - or worse, cut them in half, dividing people and setting communities apart.

The debate that's going on now about saving or tearing down the Igloo is an important one, but it also brings up a whole host of issues I hope my new city is better equipped to deal with than it seems like it was able or willing to then.

[BrianTH]

Robert Moses was also involved in the planning for Pittsburgh, as were a lot of other people involved in the New York plans of the same period.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Katiana

It's easy to look back and say, by today's standards, that this project shouldn't have been undertaken. I do think, however, that some of the descriptions of this area before it was razed are a little rosy. Some of my friends did their public health nursing clinical rotation in "The Hill" in the early spring of 1970, and the housing conditions they described were not the greatest.

and what are the housing conditions in projects and the hill today? I think it's somewhat shortsighted to say, housing conditions were substandard, so those people should have been removed. as has been noted repeatedly in this thread and mirrored all across the country, neighborhoods that were not razed, more often than not, actually ended up better off. would it have been good for baltimore if they'd razed fell's point? remember, it was robert moses attempt to raze a neighborhood very much like the lower hill that really gave birth to the opposition movement against these awful ideas....the neighborhood was a "slum with substandard housing" called greenwich village whose fight was aided by a woman named Jane Jacobs. the fact is, the long term consequences of this massive redevelopment scheme were much worse than if the neighborhood would have been left alone, allowing the market to determine which buildings could be saved and which should be replaced (this happened in old city in philadelphia, fell's point in baltimore, the north end in boston, etc). do you think the housing conditions in the hill are the greatest today? are poor urban neighborhoods not associated with health problems today? fail.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by Katiana

So it wasn't the best done project ever. I submit that the housing that was razed was not a bunch of Victorian mansions, either. Look at this line:



Most of the people writing these articles weren't even alive in 1955, let alone adults.

From pman's first link:

Now under way is preliminary work destined to result in the elimination of the old "Hill" with its grim alleys and tortured buildings. . . . Thus for the first time we are faced with a job of slum clearance . . .

It's easy to look back and say, by today's standards, that this project shouldn't have been undertaken. I do think, however, that some of the descriptions of this area before it was razed are a little rosy. Some of my friends did their public health nursing clinical rotation in "The Hill" in the early spring of 1970, and the housing conditions they described were not the greatest.

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.

No matter what was built in the redevelopment, it never would have much success, as Pittsburgh had just entered into a period of decline that lasted 60 years.

[BrianTH]

Here is a picture of the Lower Hill in the 1930s:



I don't know exactly what condition it was in during the 1950s, but I am very, very confident it could have been a cool neighborhood by now.

[BrianTH]

Another: