PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[themaguffin]

It's easy (especially those without kids) to say live in the city, but there are many reasons to live outside the city and for as much as cities offer, they can be restricitive in options for a lot of middle class families.

It's very easy to say otherwise on a forum where we talk about residential, the vast majority is not designed for young families in mind.

I'm obviously for far more city development than we see and we know the faults of the burbs, but people also need to look at suburbs as the logical growth due to land. Yes land is wasted. Yes suburban developments are not efficient, but once again I remind everyone here about limited options in the city, especially this city, which is small in land area and the vast majority of homes are pre-war which isn't everyone's preference, and additionally a lot of homes require fixing up of course.

Let'e be realistic here.

[photoLith]

^
That mentality of oh I can't live in the city because I have kids is why large parts of pittsburgh are still shit holes when it should be the other way around. I'd love to live in a world where the suburbs turn into the ghettos.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

It's easy (especially those without kids) to say live in the city, but there are many reasons to live outside the city and for as much as cities offer, they can be restricitive in options for a lot of middle class families.

It's very easy to say otherwise on a forum where we talk about residential, the vast majority is not designed for young families in mind.

I'm obviously for far more city development than we see and we know the faults of the burbs, but people also need to look at suburbs as the logical growth due to land. Yes land is wasted. Yes suburban developments are not efficient, but once again I remind everyone here about limited options in the city, especially this city, which is small in land area and the vast majority of homes are pre-war which isn't everyone's preference, and additionally a lot of homes require fixing up of course.

Let'e be realistic here.

As a starter for close-in housing stock that is in generally good condition with some decent amount of flat land for yards, how about Crafton? There are obviously other areas as well, perhaps Forest Hills? How about Highland Park? Even places like Aspinwall? Perhaps somewhere like Bellevue, albeit it's a bit hillier there and that could be problematic if you're looking for a yard for the kids to play in. Fact of the matter is that there are many options nowhere near as far out as Wexford/Cranberry.

But again, I don't fault someone for locating in Wexford. I just don't like to hear complaining about the commute when that person works downtown.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Austinlee]

As a realtor, I can assure you guys that it is pointless to try to convince people to live in a city if they don't want to. Many people will just prefer the suburban lifestyle. It's really a lifestyle choice. I personally prefer a city environment rather than suburban and have spent plenty of time in both environments. Some people just want a slower pace.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Brian, I don't view this as commuter rail but more of a metro rail system for an overall less-dense metro area. I think Cranberry might be the furthest extension we'll see of the T system.

Regardless of what you want to call it, Cranberry is around 20 miles from Downtown Pittsburgh. The sustainable frequency for a service like that will be limited, and the T is going to be too slow over that distance.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I think when it comes to the North Hills, if T extension by way of interstate path is the easiest way (and let's face it MUCH less costly in terms of right or way for an extended period) then that's the way to go.

There is a lightly used but still active freight rail line that starts off heading up along Route 8 and eventually goes through Gibsonia, Valencia, Mars, Evans City, and Zelienople. If we were going to do commuter rail (or whatever you want to call it) into the North Hills, I think that path would make a lot more sense--you could probably use faster trains, there would be real potential for TOD and revitalizing existing communities, and if anything the ROW and infrastructure costs could be significantly less.

Edit: To flesh this out a bit more, I'll assume the AVRR commuter rail plan has gotten service into Downtown (preferably into Steel Plaza). This line would share those tracks until the split at 33rd Street. Stations after that split could be at Millvale, Etna, Allison Park, Gibsonia, Mars, Evans City, and Zelienople. At least every station but Allison Park and Gibsonia would have real TOD/revitalization potential (Allison Park and Gibsonia would likely be mostly park-and-ride stations, although maybe you could do a little something right at the stations).

[Steel City Scotty]

My wife and I are planning to relocate to the Pittsburgh area within the next few years. We don't have any children yet, but I will say that schooling is one of the main reasons we will likely settle in the suburbs.

My wife grew up in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Swisshelm Park, which is more like a small town than part of a big city. She was fortunate to attend good schools at the elementary (now a charter school), junior high (now demolished) and high school level, but it's no secret that the city's school district is having some problems.

I love everything that the city has to offer and am hoping to get a job within the city limits that I can commute to every day, but with school districts such as Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair and Fox Chapel consistently ranked among the best in the state, it's hard to argue with providing our children with that education.

Oh, and my wife is a public school teacher. So, living in the city but sending our children to a private/charter school is out of the question, just based on principle.

[haimon]

Originally Posted by Steel City Scotty

My wife and I are planning to relocate to the Pittsburgh area within the next few years. We don't have any children yet, but I will say that schooling is one of the main reasons we will likely settle in the suburbs.

My wife grew up in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Swisshelm Park, which is more like a small town than part of a big city. She was fortunate to attend good schools at the elementary (now a charter school), junior high (now demolished) and high school level, but it's no secret that the city's school district is having some problems.

I love everything that the city has to offer and am hoping to get a job within the city limits that I can commute to every day, but with school districts such as Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair and Fox Chapel consistently ranked among the best in the state, it's hard to argue with providing our children with that education.

Oh, and my wife is a public school teacher. So, living in the city but sending our children to a private/charter school is out of the question, just based on principle.

We live in Swisshelm Park, and I grew up in nearby Squirrel Hill. The fact of the matter is, the feeder public schools are acceptable, and tend to change on a semi-yearly basis based on the parents. In other words, if caring, concerned families were sending their kids to the schools, they would be stronger. The idea of family flight to the suburbs hurts the city as a whole. We are mostly young families here in Swisshelm, and many choose to send their kids to private schools. There are many affordable options that offer generous scholarships as necessary. Not really looking to convince, only express how I feel. We need more families in the city to ensure a better environment.

[markson33]

I think part of the issue is that sending your kids to private school, along with generally higher taxes in the city, really increase the cost to live there. If it costs you an extra $10-$15,000 per year to live in the city, the decision becomes pretty easy.

[Steel City Scotty]

Originally Posted by haimon

We live in Swisshelm Park, and I grew up in nearby Squirrel Hill. The fact of the matter is, the feeder public schools are acceptable, and tend to change on a semi-yearly basis based on the parents. In other words, if caring, concerned families were sending their kids to the schools, they would be stronger. The idea of family flight to the suburbs hurts the city as a whole. We are mostly young families here in Swisshelm, and many choose to send their kids to private schools. There are many affordable options that offer generous scholarships as necessary. Not really looking to convince, only express how I feel. We need more families in the city to ensure a better environment.

I will say that I've already researched where our children would attend school if my wife and I settled in Swisshelm Park, on the street where she grew up.

They would go to Minadeo Elementary School, Sterrett Middle School and Taylor Allderice High School (my wife's alma mater). All of these actually seem like decent options.

[Found5dollar]

The Tower at PNC Place has this nifty new completion thermometer on their website. It is apparently at 6% finished. They are almost done all of the excavation and shoring. Should go much faster once steel starts going up. Also there is a rendering i haven't seen before of the towers impact on the skyline.

Link:
http://www.thetoweratpncplaza.com/#the_tower_at_pnc_plaza

Render:

[themaguffin]

That mentality of oh I can't live in the city because I have kids is why large parts of pittsburgh are still shit holes when it should be the other way around.

That's simplistic bullshit.

I think part of the issue is that sending your kids to private school, along with generally higher taxes in the city, really increase the cost to live there. If it costs you an extra $10-$15,000 per year to live in the city, the decision becomes pretty easy.

Not to mention housing issues as I mentioned before. There is a limited array of housing stock in the city, unless you are at an income level where those options open up.

[themaguffin]

As a starter for close-in housing stock that is in generally good condition with some decent amount of flat land for yards, how about Crafton? There are obviously other areas as well, perhaps Forest Hills? How about Highland Park? Even places like Aspinwall? Perhaps somewhere like Bellevue, albeit it's a bit hillier there and that could be problematic if you're looking for a yard for the kids to play in. Fact of the matter is that there are many options nowhere near as far out as Wexford/Cranberry.

I agree there are good options not far out, but the city is tiny in area, limiting options that's all.

There is a lightly used but still active freight rail line that starts off heading up along Route 8 and eventually goes through Gibsonia, Valencia, Mars, Evans City, and Zelienople. If we were going to do commuter rail (or whatever you want to call it) into the North Hills, I think that path would make a lot more sense--you could probably use faster trains, there would be real potential for TOD and revitalizing existing communities, and if anything the ROW and infrastructure costs could be significantly less.

If an existing rail line like that could work, I would think there would be a lot of potential.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by markson33

I think part of the issue is that sending your kids to private school, along with generally higher taxes in the city, really increase the cost to live there. If it costs you an extra $10-$15,000 per year to live in the city, the decision becomes pretty easy.

Taxes in Pittsburgh are NOT substantially higher than the suburbs, though. Yes there's a 3% wage tax (really 1.5% school tax, 1.5% city wage tax), but there's at least a 1-1.5% school tax in nearly every other municipality as well. In addition, property taxes are generally lower in Pittsburgh than the nearby suburbs, especially places like Mt. Lebanon, Dormont, etc... So I don't buy that argument at all with regard to taxes.

As for schools, you get out of them what you put into them. There's no reason to automatically assume paying for private schools, none at all. Plenty of Pittsburgh schools are just fine, and besides, parental involvement is the absolute KEY to a student's performance, not necessarily anything the school itself is doing.

Besides, the notion of failing schools is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People think the schools are failing, therefore people who CAN afford private schools pull their kids out, leaving the poorer kids with less involved parents there. Of course the lack of kids with involved parents causes the schools to continue to deteriorate. If parents decide to start sending their kids to neighborhood schools, the schools will inevitably get better with time, again especially if the parents are actively involved.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[themaguffin]

If it were only that simple.

It's just not. I know it's easy to make broad statements from our urban fantasy forum, but reality is different and much more complicated, more so with kids.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

If it were only that simple.

It's just not. I know it's easy to make broad statements from our urban fantasy forum, but reality is different and much more complicated, more so with kids.

What did I say that was so simple? I discussed taxes and schools, and explained my reasoning and logic behind both of those statements. Reality is that of course there are different strokes for different folks, but I simply think it's folly to automatically assume that kids = suburbs. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Regardless of what you want to call it, Cranberry is around 20 miles from Downtown Pittsburgh. The sustainable frequency for a service like that will be limited, and the T is going to be too slow over that distance.

You do have a point with the slow T service. And according to Google Earth, Cranberry is 17 miles from Downtown. Compared to places like Dallas and Suburban Philly (the speed line running from Norristown to Upper Darby), that's roughly 3-5 miles further than, say any of those termini (DART and SEPTA).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There is a lightly used but still active freight rail line that starts off heading up along Route 8 and eventually goes through Gibsonia, Valencia, Mars, Evans City, and Zelienople. If we were going to do commuter rail (or whatever you want to call it) into the North Hills, I think that path would make a lot more sense--you could probably use faster trains, there would be real potential for TOD and revitalizing existing communities, and if anything the ROW and infrastructure costs could be significantly less.

Edit: To flesh this out a bit more, I'll assume the AVRR commuter rail plan has gotten service into Downtown (preferably into Steel Plaza). This line would share those tracks until the split at 33rd Street. Stations after that split could be at Millvale, Etna, Allison Park, Gibsonia, Mars, Evans City, and Zelienople. At least every station but Allison Park and Gibsonia would have real TOD/revitalization potential (Allison Park and Gibsonia would likely be mostly park-and-ride stations, although maybe you could do a little something right at the stations).

I am familiar with that line, and I believe at one point a while back Pittsburgh Railways ran a trolley line along this line. There's a split near Zelienople, with one branch going to New Castle and the other toward Butler. I, too, would like to see commuter rail serve these lines at some point. Two questions that come to mind is would this require double-tracking, and is double tracking possible? I know that you mentioned infrastructure upgrades...

The LRT extension I envision would actually end at Mars, providing a connection opportunity for those residing in Cranberry to the faster commuter system.

I guess we could do both at some point. For those who would live/work along the McKnight Rd corridor, there's LRT. For those wishing to get to/from Cranberry and Downtown without any hassle, there's the commuter rail option...

It's a thought. Obviously doing both simultaneously would likely cost upwards of $2-3 billion, considering we're talking about $1.3 billion for the LRT option.

Man, we're just at a year of operational North Shore service and we're talking about yet another pricey extension!

[BrianTH]

Off hand I don't see why a commuter service would need double tracks (not counting a few sidings). This is assuming freight would be time-segregated.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

The Tower at PNC Place has this nifty new completion thermometer on their website. It is apparently at 6% finished.

I designed that little thermometer!

[PITairport]

UPMC is to take 8 additional floors in the USX Tower

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/3727100-74/steel-tower-upmc#axzz2ObhE84xr