PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown I - Page 349

pj3000 · #**6961** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimacista

What exactly is 'progressive'? Why is it wrong that Pittsburgh has not gotten 'more progressive'?

Basically, it means "not redneck". It is wrong because the Pittsburgh metro area has become "more redneck".

themaguffin · #**6962** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:34 AM**

People come down. I thought we all knew that Pittsburgh has very unique demographics (namely being very old) and that would skew results.

pj3000 · #**6963** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:50 AM**

^ We've been through this all before, as Evergrey said.

The "very old" demographics didn't fly then and still doesn't. Counties in PA that are older and whiter than the Pittsburgh metro's counties have trended more Democratic/Progressive than the Pittsburgh region.

pj3000 · #**6964** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

... but at least Obama loves us despite our mediocre support

He just loves those chocolate chip banana pancakes

Black-n-Gold · #**6965** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 12:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

Has anyone seen this map:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/progressive_map/index.html

It shows the shift of demographics over the last 5 years in metros concerning the migration of progressive ideas. Obviously, its not the greatest news if you are a progressive minded person living in Pittsburgh. Click on the link going back 20 years for an even more sobering graphic. It seems as though Pittsburgh is trending in the opposite direction of 95% of the country and that trend has not been reversed in the past 4 years, even during the disastrous Bush administration and the newest renaissance.

I think that map is a little deceptive in that it is measuring the relative change in views of the population. I would guess that the Pittsburgh region started as one of the more Democratic (i.e. "progressive") in the country. Just because we may have shifted in the other direction doesn't mean we aren't still a heavily Democratic (or "progressive") part of the country.

Also consider the actual results in local elections over the past 5-10 years. County executive has gone from Republican to Democrat, and one congressional district has flipped; from Hart (R) to Altmire (D). Oh, and the current (Democrat) mayor of Pittsburgh won the Republican primary. Hardly sounds like we're turning into Utah or some other conservative bastion.

Think of it this way: if a "progressive" moves to Utah, then Utah by definition has become "more progressive". Does anything really change, though?

pj3000 · #**6966** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:04 PM**

^ The Ravenstahl example really doesn't apply here, since the issue is the Pittsburgh metro region, not the city itself. And, Altmire can in no way, shape, or form be called a progressive Democrat.

It is an indefensible argument to say that the Pittsburgh region is not trending more Republican, especially given the very telling results of the past presidential election . No matter how you look at it, the result you get is that it is.

Black-n-Gold · #**6967** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ The Ravenstahl example really doesn't apply here, since the issue is the Pittsburgh metro region, not the city itself. And, Altmire can in no way, shape, or form be called a progressive Democrat.

It is an indefensible argument to say that the Pittsburgh region is not trending more Republican, especially given the very telling results of the past presidential election . No matter how you look at it, the result you get is that it is.

I'm not saying the region is not trending more Republican, I'm saying that we started off fairly Democratic and you have to take that into consideration.

Not to be a smartass, but Pittsburgh does fall within the Pittsburgh metro region, so I think a Democrat winning the Republican primary is relevant.

No argument that Altmire isn't a progressive Democrat, but he is certainly more progressive than Melissa Hart.

hyperion1110 · #**6968** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 5:41 PM**

What makes this "progressive" discussion to silly is that the equation Democrat equals progressive. Lest we forget that the Democratic Party has, historically, been the less innovative of the two? Remember that the leaders of the Old South, the Original Rednecks who were all about slavery and segregation, were all Democrats, and it took Lincoln, a Republican, for things to start to change?

It's actually quite sad that progressive policies and social dynamism has been associated with the Democratic Party, and the converse with the Republicans. Then you get idiots out there that vote for a party, and not a person.

Parties are never progressive, only people are. Political organizations, by their very natures, are slaves to groupthink.

pj3000 · #**6969** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 7:26 PM**

^ Let's not take it back 150 years to what party did what. Both parties are far different now, obviously. Lincoln's Republicanism of the 1850s and 1860s is a far, far cry from what today's Republican party has unfortunately come to represent... namely decidedly non-progressive policies towards social issues, nor towards technological innovation. Today's Republican party has been completely hijacked by, and has come to be identified by, conservative viewpoints only... far from progressive.

I do not find it sad at all that "progressive policies and social dynamism" have come to be associated solely with the Democratic party.

I do find it sad that the Republican party has seemingly completely severed ties with any of that same progressive/socially-dynamic ideology.

pj3000 · #**6970** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black-n-Gold

I'm not saying the region is not trending more Republican, I'm saying that we started off fairly Democratic and you have to take that into consideration.

Sure, I see what you're saying, but so have a lot of regions... and they have either remained level or trended even more Democratic. Republican bastions across the nation even trended more Democratic. It was, if I recall, just Pittsburgh, Utah, and assorted areas of the redneck south that went more Republican (or rather what it seems to be in Pittsburgh metro region's case, more anti-Obama). Utah and the redneck South... not really areas that I want to be associated with politically... and areas that are light years away from being considered "progressive".

This is really a complete rehashing of what we've already been through on here earlier this year. There is really no argument against the fact that overall SW Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction of the rest of the country.

Wheelingman04 · #**6971** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 9:12 PM**

I have concluded on my own through research that the metro area is becoming more conservative and Republican as a whole. Even the core counties such as Beaver, Westmoreland, and Washington are trending this way. Beaver and Washington went for Kerry, but switched to McCain in 08. That really disturbed me. Most of the Democrats, especially outside of the core areas of Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh are either moderate or blue dog conservative Democrats anyway. The blue dogs vote mostly Republican on every issue except Unions.

I still think the city of Pittsburgh itself is becoming more liberal/progressive and maybe some of the close in suburbs like Dormont and Mt. Lebanon etc. I don't think Allegheny County is becoming more conservative either. It is either holding steady or becoming slightly more progressive/liberal.

The metro area is already more progressive than many in the country as it is, so we can stand to loose a little bit of ground to the conservatives, but once the population of the city and metro area rises (which is predicted in 10-20yrs.) (I hope it happens), the area will stablize politically and not loose any more ground to the conservatives. Eventually when people get the word that the Pittsburgh area is such a great place to live more(for so many reasons), more will move in.(Actually I think it's happening already a little). It's like a secret right now. People have no clue how great Pittsburgh is. I talk to people from other cities(a lot go to PITT) and they are just amazed and want to stay.

Pittsburgh has so much going for it that the population will rise eventually and will precipitate to a moderate population increase each year for the metro. That- in- turn, is when nearly 90% or more of the time an area gets more liberal, especially an established metro like Pittsburgh. It's just a matter of time before things turn around. I wouldn't worry too much. Just be cautious of the NeoCons.

Rudomon · #**6972** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 9:54 PM**

Can we please leave the political discussions in another area and focus on development?

Evergrey · #**6973** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 10:05 PM**

You posted in this thread once before... and no one replied to you because you did not ask a question... nor provided a really compelling point in support of Delta adding a Pittsburgh-to-Paris flight.

There are few projects to discuss these days due to lack of financing caused by the Great Recession. Pittsburghers on this site want to talk about things relevant to their city and region... there's no reason why discussion here needs to strictly adhere to the nuts and bolts of construction projects. The beauty of this discussion here has been the willingness to go beyond mere buildings... and analyze things such as regional demographics, politics/governance, cultural/educational resources, and the regional economy. All of these issues are related to what gets built... what gets redeveloped... what happens to neighborhoods.. here in Greater Pittsburgh. If anything... the lack of new projects have given the users here an opportunity to analyze and scrutinize ongoing developments and potential developments in the future.

If you think this thread has gone to 🞵🞵🞵🞵... perhaps you could actually contribute something as opposed to posting once... blasting everyone involved for their discussion interests.

Wiz Khalifa · #**6974** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 10:34 PM**

So I was looking at population figures for the past 8 years for the heck of it. Of all of the metros that trended blue, Pittsburgh lost the highest number of people. Pittsburgh lost the second most people in that time period, nearly 80,000. (Katrina devastated New Orleans also trended red).

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa38300.html

Combine that with an already old population (old people tend to stay put and vote more conservatively), and the fact that most of those 80,000 that left were likely higher educated/ younger progressive minded folks, and you have a perfect set up for a metro to trend red against the grain of the overall national trend.

There is good news in the near future, however, concerning population trends in Pittsburgh. If you look closely at the data in the site above, you can see that Pittsburgh has not had that much of a problem with domestic out-migration compared to other cities.

Percentage wise, Pittsburgh is not only losing less of its population to domestic migration than the rest of the rust belt, but to all of the large coastal cities save the northwest. The catch is that they are making up for it with some combination of births and/or international immigration.

This is why the past 3 years of data are making me very optimistic. There is a clear sign that births have bottomed out several years ago and are on an upswing again. Likewise the death-rate has appeared to have topped out and has begun to lower to normal levels as well.

Also, and probably the biggest plus of all, the net domestic migration has begun a noticeable trend towards the positive side. If this trend holds true for this year, then the pop. data for the region could show a net positive increase in domestic migration for the first time since 1971 (unless you count that small aberration in 1992). And this is all before the massive publicity of the city in 2009 began to make its rounds... G20, netroots, 2 sports championships, most livable again...ect ect.

So all I am saying is get excited people, because we could potentially see some amazing changes happen to the city in the next several years. I just hope that the recent trends aren't entirely recession related... but I don't even think that will matter at this point. The momentum has started, and as long as there are enough jobs here the people will come... they aren't all leaving the expensive and crowded coastal cities for no reason of course.

Just my 2 cents.

Grimacista · #**6975** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ I do not find it sad at all that "progressive policies and social dynamism" have come to be associated solely with the Democratic party.

I do find it sad that the Republican party has seemingly completely severed ties with any of that same progressive/socially-dynamic ideology.

Right...because when I think progressive I think Luke Ravenstahl and Dan Onorato.

pj3000 · #**6976** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 12:20 AM**

^ That is a completely worthless response to what I said.

If you don't consider Ravenstahl and Onorato to be "progressive", fine, good for you.

hyperion and I were talking about the two national political parties in general, not about our mayor and county exec.

Grimacista · #**6977** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ That is a completely worthless response to what I said.

If you don't consider Ravenstahl and Onorato to be "progressive", fine, good for you.

hyperion and I were talking about the two national political parties in general, not about our mayor and county exec.

But the problem is still that "progressive" is not being defined, it is just being associated with "Democrat". I agree that many people associate "liberal" with "progressive" with "Democrat". And people associate "conservative" with "suburbia/redneck" with "Republican". But... looking at 2 national political parties does not necessarily look at 'progressive' trends. If you looked at the city of Pittsburgh from about 1930-present it is unquestionably "Democrat" but it is not "progressive". In the last city Democratic primary, Ravenstahl and Dowd were both "Democrat" but only Dowd could have been described as "Progressive".

Perhaps the map shows that people in Pittsburgh who always were socially conservative but voted Democrat because of unions now vote Republican, because of the decline in union/manufacturing influence. And this does not even take into account libertarian views which while "conservative" are entirely different than traditional views of "Republicanism".

pj3000 · #**6978** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:15 AM**

^ Good points. I agree with everything you say.

Why didn't you just say this to begin with, rather than assume that I think Ravenstahl and Onorato are progressives?

Suffice · #**6979** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:32 AM**

The G20 Summit is next week! Where is it being held? How is the progress on Market Square, any chance of having it ready for the summit?

Greg from LA

Wiz Khalifa · #**6980** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suffice

The G20 Summit is next week! Where is it being held? How is the progress on Market Square, any chance of having it ready for the summit?

Greg from LA

It is being held in the convention center downtown, with a couple of special events being held in three other locations around the city.

Market square has been completely closed down for the summit, and will likely stay that way until the construction for the new layout is completed.