Attempt to catagorize official Pittsburgh neighborhoods (Map) (Castle Shannon, Liberty: rentals, home)

[eschaton]

Hey all.

Just cooked this up in Inkscape. What do you think?

Color Key:

Purple: "Attainment" neighborhoods which have reached their logical conclusion. While there may be further infill, the existing structure is about as improved as it's going to get.

Blue shades: Gentrifying neighborhoods. There are four shades of blue, which signify how deeply gentrification has occurred the darkest blue have property values almost equal to the purple, but still have little pockets of rentals, or perhaps blight, to work through, while the lightest are low-income nieghborhoods which have just begun to show signs of life.

Teal: Special shade for three neighborhoods at the edge of the city. They show similar signs to gentrifying neighborhoods (rising market housing values, rising average household income), but since they're far out from the city core, it's unlikely traditional gentrification is playing a role here. I know in Fairywood it was destroying the projects and building new market-rate rentals. Don't know with the other two.

Green: Solid, essentially stable neighborhoods. Oakland probably doesn't belong here in general, given the huge amount of redevelopment taking place, but I have a hard time defining it.

Yellow: Low-income neighborhoods showing some signs of hope (rising property values, new development, etc).

Pink: Neighborhoods in slight decline. Falling population, falling per-capita income, and flat property values.

Red: Neighborhoods in steep decline. All of the above, plus major declines in safety.

Orange: Poor neighborhoods with no signs of revitalization.

Gray: Non-residential areas.

Consider this map just a opening to start a conversation. I'm completely up for categorizing them in different ways as the community suggests. I feel like I know the East End pretty well, but my knowledge of the outer North Side, the South, and the West End especially is pretty spotty.

[PreservationPioneer]

Elliott and Esplen should be pink or orange, not red. Elliott and Esplen have not suffered a decline in safety. Brookline, Brighton Heights, and Lincoln Place should be green.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Elliott and Esplen should be pink or orange, not red. Elliott and Esplen have not suffered a decline in safety. Brookline, Brighton Heights, and Lincoln Place should be green.

So noted. I'll upload an altered map with anyone else's proposed changes in the AM.

I do have to say my only quibble is I've definitely heard people say (at least on the forum) that some parts of Brighton Heights are headed downhill. Admittedly other portions are stable, however.

[I_Like_Spam]

Oakwood, Lincoln Place and Summer Hill should all be green as well.

I don't think Spring Hill, Spring Garden and Marshall Shadeland belong at the bottom of the barrel either. They are sinking but not particularly dangerous at all.

[steindle]

This seems to be an unpopular opinion on this board, but I don't think Arlington is in "steep decline" anymore, though it may have been 10 years ago. I see a lot of positive signs in the parts bordering on the Slopes, which I think is spreading. I'm very confident that you're going to see growing home values in that neighborhood in the next five years, if you don't already.

As has been mentioned, I also think that Brookline has stabilized and is headed in a good direction -- it will probably not be "gentrified" in the same sense as Lawrenceville, but I think it's well on its way to being stable middle class.

I also don't think that Carrick is in "steep" decline, but that's debatable.

Summer Hill strikes me as the definition of a stable neighborhood, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. I think a similar case could be made for Bon Air. And I also feel that Beechview is stabilizing/will probably be on an upward trajectory in the next decade, though that's debatable as well.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't think Spring Hill, Spring Garden and Marshall Shadeland belong at the bottom of the barrel either. They are sinking but not particularly dangerous at all.

Understandable, and agreed.

I can understand in general why people are quibbling with many of my "light pink" choices. But many of these neighborhoods, even though they are thought of as stable, not only had declining populations, but also became notably poorer (adjusted for inflation) when compared to last decade).

That said, even I stretched the rules of using this call, as the average family in Greenfield got poorer even during the last decade. While I think the "gentrification" of Greenfield has been overblown (it really has little appeal except for small pockets/people who really want good local schools but don't want to leave the city), there's no way I could call it a neighborhood in decline. Perhaps it's just that more college students have been moving in however.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by steindle

This seems to be an unpopular opinion on this board, but I don't think Arlington is in "steep decline" anymore, though it may have been 10 years ago. I see a lot of positive signs in the parts bordering on the Slopes, which I think is spreading. I'm very confident that you're going to see growing home values in that neighborhood in the next five years, if you don't already.

I think I'll wait until some other folks reply before weighing this change, since it would be controversial.

Originally Posted by steindle

I also don't think that Carrick is in "steep" decline, but that's debatable.

Which neighborhoods would you restrict "steep decline" to?

Originally Posted by steindle

I think a similar case could be made for Bon Air.

I know I've seen people on the forum say it's the next domino to fall in the South Hilltop. Honestly, looking at the street grid on the map, it's hard to see how it won't. The only road connection it has with the rest of Pittsburgh is with Knoxville, which by any account, is not a great neighborhood these days. Its next-nearest neighbors are Carrick and Beltzhoover, which are declining and awful respectively. A middle class neighborhood with a lot of character and draw might be able to resist this, but Bon Air is essentially a working-class residential neighborhood which is pretty similar to how the rest of Hilltop South was decades past - making it highly unlikely it will pull through. Indeed, if there's any neighborhood I'd be willing to put money on having a significant decline in this decade in Pittsburgh, Bon Air would be it.

[speagles84]

Funny that the East End is the only area with no red areas.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Funny that the East End is the only area with no red areas.

Homewood, Larimer, and Lincoln-Lemington are probably the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city, and they are all in the East End. Just saying.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Funny that the East End is the only area with no red areas.

Are you implying bias on my part, or bias in terms of the path of the city's redevelopment?

If there was anywhere in the East End I'd say could head into decline, it's Stanton Heights, FWIW. Ugly suburban-style housing you could find in first-ring suburbs like Castle Shannon, coupled with the perception of having bad public school options. The very high levels (80%+) of home ownership have kept it stable, but I tend to think that as East Liberty and eventually Garfield get gentrified, it's the logical place that people who get pushed out will look for housing options, which sadly could kick it over the edge. It's certainly not going to appeal to gentrifiers any time soon.