Will Oakland always be a pit?

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I'm in Oakland on a daily basis, and there's often less litter there than my own wealthier and more residential neighborhood of Polish Hill.

North of Forbes isn't too bad. South of Forbes is pretty bad, except near UPMC buildings. I guess Atwood and Coltart are usually pretty good. Somebody must pay to keep Atwood clean.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

North of Forbes isn't too bad. South of Forbes is pretty bad, except near UPMC buildings. I guess Atwood and Coltart are usually pretty good. Somebody must pay to keep Atwood clean.

I always see volunteers (employees?) of the Oakland Business Improvement District, with yellow t-shirts, sweeping up litter.

[grep]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Perhaps I'm anomalous, but I happen to think Oakland is surprisingly clean, considering it is the state's third-largest central business district, employment center, and arguably almost as large University City in Philadelphia in terms of student density (I'm sure HeavenWood could clarify that). I'm in Oakland on a daily basis, and there's often less litter there than my own wealthier and more residential neighborhood of Polish Hill.

Are we talking about Forbes, Fifth, and Craig; or Zulema, Semple, and Cable?

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I always see volunteers (employees?) of the Oakland Business Improvement District, with yellow t-shirts, sweeping up litter.

Employees. They don't cover most of the area though.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Perhaps I'm anomalous, but I happen to think Oakland is surprisingly clean, considering it is the state's third-largest central business district, employment center, and arguably almost as large University City in Philadelphia in terms of student density (I'm sure HeavenWood could clarify that). I'm in Oakland on a daily basis, and there's often less litter there than my own wealthier and more residential neighborhood of Polish Hill.

At the same time, Oakland has nothing like Spruce Hill, which is a gorgeous, intact, and very gentrified/expensive neighborhood only blocks away from University City.

To me, that's one of the most head-scratching things about Oakland. I mean, Schenley Farms/Heights is a nice area (and one of the most expensive in the city), but it's maybe 50 houses. There are thousands of people employed by Pitt or one of the local hospitals, many of whom make six-figure salaries. I would just think there would be more gentrification pressure on at least portions of Oakland, like say the remaining grand single-family houses in North Oakland (mostly north of Bayard Street). Yet they're mostly chopped up into rentals like everything south of Forbes.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I would just think there would be more gentrification pressure on at least portions of Oakland, like say the remaining grand single-family houses in North Oakland (mostly north of Bayard Street). Yet they're mostly chopped up into rentals like everything south of Forbes.

Well, from a student slumlord's perspective why sell a home like that for $300,000 to a UPMC physician when you can instead be guaranteed to reap $3,000/month from renting it out to six college kids for the rest of your life? $36,000/year from renting that place out + social security ($15,000/year?) + any other investments = comfortable retirement.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who was quasi-employed by UPMC and PNC at the same time many of the visiting foreign researchers and physicians for UPMC/Pitt lived on/near the Fifth Avenue corridor in Shadyside (probably to be along the bus route). Those who were "higher ups", with rare exception, lived in the suburbs, presumably because they wouldn't have to worry about public school issues in the city for their children. Those higher-earners primarily lived in/near Fox Chapel/O'Hara Township, Pine-Richland, or even (shudder) Cranberry.