PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Private D]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I think it's funny that most of the struggling suburbs are located either east (Penn Hills, Wilkinsburg, Woodland Hills), northeast (Shaler), or southeast (Clairton).

Those just happen to be places mentioned. And Shaler is not a "stuggling suburb". It was cited because Millvale, Etna, and others are part of the Shaler School District.

You could look west, north, east, south, and all points in between and find "struggling suburbs".

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Those just happen to be places mentioned. And Shaler is not a "stuggling suburb". It was cited because Millvale, Etna, and others are part of the Shaler School District.

You could look west, north, east, south, and all points in between and find "struggling suburbs".

Right... My bad. Should have worded that differently. IMO, I'd say Baldwin, Whitehall, and West Mifflin are all struggling...

[Private D]

^ I'd actually say that Whitehall and Baldwin are just fine, wealthy in areas even. West Mifflin is pretty solid working class, with comparatively much lower poverty rates than struggling communities. Methinks you've been in eastern PA for too long

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

^ I'd actually say that Whitehall and Baldwin are just fine, wealthy in areas even. West Mifflin is pretty solid working class, with comparatively much lower poverty rates than struggling communities. Methinks you've been in eastern PA for too long

Yeah, guilty as charged.

Other than the neighborhoods mentioned, what neighborhoods/communities would you say are "struggling?"

Carnegie? Crafton?

I know Jeannette is a struggling community, but I kinda think its relative geography plays a role in its struggles -- it's rather out-of-the-way from any main drag like US 30. PA 130 goes through the northern fringe of the city, but that's not where the city's main street is at...

[BrianTH]

When it is city versus suburb in the political boundary sense (as opposed to the development form sense), I definitely don't think we should be blanket rooting against suburbs. We should instead be rooting for better suburbs, with their own walkable neighborhoods, local and regional transit options, creative reuse, and so on.

Of course I am biased, living in Wilkinsburg, but given that Wilkinsburg was on that list AND we were just discussing historic preservation issues/opportunities in Wilkinsburg, it seems like a great case in point: it doesn't make sense for someone who cares about urban forms of development, historic preservation, transit utilization, or so on to be rooting against Wilkinsburg.

[Steel City Scotty]

I guess it's true that some of Pittsburgh's suburbs are "struggling," but several of the most affluent towns (and best school districts) in the state are also located just outside the city.

I don't see decline coming to places like Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, Sewickley, Ben Avon or Fox Chapel anytime soon...

I agree that it does seem like most of the trouble is east of the city.

[qwho]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I know Jeannette is a struggling community, but I kinda think its relative geography plays a role in its struggles -- it's rather out-of-the-way from any main drag like US 30. PA 130 goes through the northern fringe of the city, but that's not where the city's main street is at...

I would agree with road access possibly being a contributing factor, but I would argue mismanagement and corruption in the local leadership has caused most of the problems lately. Greensburg (downtown) and the route 30 corridor through other areas of Westmoreland County have been improving drastically, the part through Jeannette is awful. The only light at the end of the tunnel is if some of the newer restaurants in Jeannette's main street stay successful, and if the old hospital on 30 were torn down and the land re-purposed for some decent retail.

Another option is to improve the main street to the point that drivers on route 130 consider the direct route through Jeannette as a viable access way to route 30 (to get to De Lallo's of course). Greensburg has this sort of thing going on for drivers on business 66 heading south.

Enough about Jeannette haha.

[AaronPGH]

Transit funding failed. Sometimes it's extremely depressing to live in PA.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/2013/11...tation-funding-vote/stories/201311180154

[Private D]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Other than the neighborhoods mentioned, what neighborhoods/communities would you say are "struggling?"

Carnegie? Crafton?

I think the term "struggling" is very broad. Many communities in the Pittsburgh region (and western PA, in general) are struggling to differing degrees... but struggling in some way to survive, nonetheless. But, by and large, these places are not becoming places of increasing poverty due to more recent national economic trends as written about in this study. Pittsburgh's "suburbs" (like the ones this study is looking at, in general) have been declining and seeing poverty increasing for decades now. The broad brush painted by this study regarding suburbs just doesn't work well in Pittsburgh's case. The region is a very interesting oddball, in many, many ways.

Carnegie and Crafton aren't thriving bastions of progress by any means, but they're in pretty good shape overall in comparison to the region's very troubled communities. Places like Carnegie and Crafton have generally functioned well as bedroom communities for a few decades now, basically as de facto city neighborhoods for decades now.

As for what communities I would classify as struggling... man, it's pretty depressing really, since there are a lot. Not going to list town after town, but the usual suspects as standouts...

Beaver Falls
Aliquippa
McKees Rocks
Washington
Homestead-Rankin-Braddock-Duquesne-McKeesport-Clairton-Charleroi... —, let's just say Mon Valley
Brackenridge-Tarentum-New Ken...

Again though, I don't really consider these places suburbs of Pittsburgh. They were not founded as suburbs of Pittsburgh, and in general, still do not function as suburbs of Pittsburgh.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Transit funding failed. Sometimes it's extremely depressing to live in PA.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/2013/11...tation-funding-vote/stories/201311180154

Sigh. Some days I think that James Carville was right about this state.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Sigh. Some days I think that James Carville was right about this state.

Interestingly, it was an alliance of right-wingers (anti-tax, anti-transit) and union-allied Democrats (there was a minor, rather inconsequential adjustment to prevailing wage law) that killed the transportation package, a package that received unified support from Governors Corbett, Rendell, Schweiker and Ridge.

Republicans: 59 Yes, 51 No
Democrats: 39 Yes, 52 No

Commentary from Jon Geeting of Keystone Politics:

The bill had a $2.3 billion topline number similar to SB1, but with prevailing wage laws triggered at $100,000 instead of $25,000. As reality-based readers know, most projects of interest cost in the millions, so this is basically a worthless debate.

...

I’m going off-message and blaming the Democrats who voted No on Micozzi.

The nutty anti-tax people were never gettable. They’re all scared of getting primaried by Governor Norquist for raising taxes.

Democrats though, actually had to weigh the trade-off between union wages on mythical $25,000-$99,999 transportation projects, against the toll that transit service cuts and deferred road maintenance would take on our economy, and they picked the weaker claim. That’s way worse.

...

[AaronPGH]

Agreed on the prevailing wage thing. $100,000 is still an incredibly low number. $25,000 was an absurdly low number. A lot of democrats deserve some angry phone calls.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I think the term "struggling" is very broad. Many communities in the Pittsburgh region (and western PA, in general) are struggling to differing degrees... but struggling in some way to survive, nonetheless. But, by and large, these places are not becoming places of increasing poverty due to more recent national economic trends as written about in this study. Pittsburgh's "suburbs" (like the ones this study is looking at, in general) have been declining and seeing poverty increasing for decades now. The broad brush painted by this study regarding suburbs just doesn't work well in Pittsburgh's case. The region is a very interesting oddball, in many, many ways.

Carnegie and Crafton aren't thriving bastions of progress by any means, but they're in pretty good shape overall in comparison to the region's very troubled communities. Places like Carnegie and Crafton have generally functioned well as bedroom communities for a few decades now, basically as de facto city neighborhoods for decades now.

As for what communities I would classify as struggling... man, it's pretty depressing really, since there are a lot. Not going to list town after town, but the usual suspects as standouts...

Beaver Falls
Aliquippa
McKees Rocks
Washington
Homestead-Rankin-Braddock-Duquesne-McKeesport-Clairton-Charleroi... —, let's just say Mon Valley
Brackenridge-Tarentum-New Ken...

Again though, I don't really consider these places suburbs of Pittsburgh. They were not founded as suburbs of Pittsburgh, and in general, still do not function as suburbs of Pittsburgh.

I've visited Tarentum a few times recently. Gritty and working-class... but its downtown is surprisingly vibrant with some real destination businesses.

Brackenridge seems pretty squarely middle-of-the-road to me. ATI just spent a billion dollars on its plant there.

[Evergrey]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/bl...1/new-ace-hotel-works-works-through.html

Nov 19, 2013, 1:17pm EST

New Ace hotel works through death of founder

Everything remains status quo, only sadder, with the plans to establish a new boutique Ace Hotel in East Liberty.

Around the same time that the board of the city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority voted in favor of a $75,000 facade grant for the $23 million project, word was circulating that Alexander Calderwood, founder chairman of the hotel chain, had died at 47 in London.

Calderwood and his partners launched a former flophouse in Seattle into the company's first Ace Hotel, using a strategy that used appointed its rooms with vintage furniture, the art of well-known designers as well as record players, and, occasionally, guitars. Ace has become a sought-after boutique brand with hotels in New York, London, Portland and Palm Springs as well as locations expected to come in Panama City and Los Angeles as well as Pittsburgh.

Not long after Calderwood died, Matt Ciccone, a local partner in the East Liberty hotel, sent out a letter to other partners in the project about the news of Calderwood.

In the letter, Ciccone noted the role Calderwood played in bringing Ace to Pittsburgh, while also emphasizing how the company he founded has evolved:

“Alex’s belief and commitment to Pittsburgh, to East Liberty, and to Nate and I was instrumental in bringing Ace to Pittsburgh. While we’re saddened by this loss personally, we’ve had the opportunity over the past three years to watch Ace mature from the entrepreneurial brand that Alex founded into an international operator with a deep and experienced management team and staff. As Ace’s President Brad Wilson wrote to me yesterday, Alex’s greatest gift to the company was an eye for talent to carry forward and expand his vision for the brand. Nate and I have every confidence in Ace’s ability and capacity with respect to Ace Pittsburgh, and the company’s continued upward trajectory."

...

[BrianTH]

I would have voted for the bill, but I don't get the logic of blaming the Democrats exclusively because the Tea Party-types are not "gettable", and the House Republican leadership is afraid to allow a vote on a bill that might get too much of its support from Democrats ("party cartel dynamics").

First, that attitude seems to give the Tea Party-types a free pass for not being "gettable", and the House Republican leadership a free pass for enforcing a "party cartel". But why was it only Democrats who "actually had to weigh the trade-off between union wages on mythical $25,000-$99,999 transportation projects, against the toll that transit service cuts and deferred road maintenance would take on our economy"? Why don't the Republicans who are voting against these bills, or the Republican leaders who are refusing to allow a vote on alternatives, actually have to weigh that issue to?

In other words, that sort of attitude says when it comes to "must-pass" bills Republicans are free to either be irrational extremists or party hacks, because they don't actually have to try to do their jobs. And since Republicans get a free pass on not actually doing their jobs, Democrats always have to supply the necessary votes for whatever bill the Republicans dictate (but refuse to supply enough votes for themselves) in the name of the greater good. And Democrats are never, ever allowed to think about the long-term consequences for their party and its underlying coalition when these issues are being voted on, whereas Republicans get to make that consideration their top priority every single time.

And incidentally, it's not really just this one issue. If Democrats had their way, the bill would undoubtedly be different in lots of respects, but understanding they don't control the legislature they are willing to supply votes for a compromise like the Senate Bill. So what this logic is saying is there is never any point at which Democrats should have to stop compromising if the Republicans come back asking for more concessions, because apparently Democrats shouldn't be allowed to get anything in return for supplying the extra votes the "ungettable" Tea Party-types refuse to give their own leadership.

Again, despite all this I would have voted for the bill. But a big part of why our politics is so broken is that the media cannot bring itself to openly blame the right people for what is going on in cases like. Republicans control both houses of the state legislature and the governorship, but it is the Democrats' fault for not supplying enough votes in the House for a bill that was modified to cater to extremist Republicans who then refuse to vote for it anyway?

Sheesh.

[Private D]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I've visited Tarentum a few times recently. Gritty and working-class... but its downtown is surprisingly vibrant with some real destination businesses.

Brackenridge seems pretty squarely middle-of-the-road to me. ATI just spent a billion dollars on its plant there.

Haven't actually been there in a number of years, so my lens for that area up the Allegheny is very likely out of focus. I do know that poverty levels are still pretty high in the area though, but I certainly wouldn't see them in the same unfortunate light as most Mon Valley towns. And good news on the ATI investment.

[GeneW]

The thing is that the Republicans control the house and senate. They could theoretically pass anything that they want without the Democrats help but they couldn't figure out how to pass a bill that Corbett, who's in desperate need to show any success for this term, begged them to pass. The prevailing wage issue is a red herring; if the Republicans had really wanted to pass a transportation bill, they could have but they didn't.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by GeneW

The thing is that the Republicans control the house and senate. They could theoretically pass anything that they want without the Democrats help but they couldn't figure out how to pass a bill that Corbett, who's in desperate need to show any success for this term, begged them to pass. The prevailing wage issue is a red herring; if the Republicans had really wanted to pass a transportation bill, they could have but they didn't.

Right, the problem is their Tea Party-types don't actually care about passing a bill to address the state's transportation funding crisis. So the State Republican leadership needs some Democratic votes.

This is not supposed to be an unsolvable problem in a two-party system--it happens all the time on issues which divide the majority party and the majority party leadership can't enforce party discipline. In cases like that the majority party leadership is supposed to go to the minority party and offer enough concessions to get the votes they need.

But here, the House Republican leadership wants to make even more concessions to the Tea Party-types, and yet get the votes they need from the Democrats. Crazy as that might be, I still wish the bill would pass, but it really isn't surprising so many Democrats are unwilling to be played like that.

[themaguffin]

I'm going to digress for a moment (not that is rare for me), but upon reading high praise for some time, I watched a movie on cable that I might not have otherwise. The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I had seen the commercials and know it was filmed in Pgh, but didn't know much else, but was surprised by the praise.

I'm assuming some of you might have seen it, but I will say that overall well done and a good film for that genre (coming of age, high school) and it being set in the early 90s was the same time as me, though it's time period only matters to a point. Above average acting and characters, though that said, still some moments that were cliché or cringe worthy and nice to see something actually set in Pittsburgh, not just filmed in the area.

In fact, if you even saw the ads, a key scene involves the Ft Pitt tunnel.

[BrianTH]

Looks like it is going to pass!

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s...ennsylvania_house_re.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Thank goodness.

Edit:

PG:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2013/1...transportation-bill/stories/201311190149

TR:

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5100872-74/transportation-approved-senate#axzz2l3oUljAh