AntiRust

Number One with a Chainsaw: The Coolest Event In Western Pennsylvania

So maybe you are wondering: Is there any really cool new thing going on in Western Pennsylvania? Something that combines the region's industrial heritage with its creative energy and quirky sensibilities? Something that has instilled pride in local communities and drawn international attention? An event that redefines the notion of the Creative Class?

Well, here's a story that might interest you.

So buy a ticket. Make plans. And invest in a good pair of drinking shoes. You're gonna need 'em.

Want to know more? Here's the official site.

Still not enough? Buy this and skip to Chapter 11.

Or just go. It's that cool. Believe me.

Questioning the Unquestionable: Pittsburgh Redevelopment

For years, Pittsburgh supporters pointed to Gateway Center and a few other projects as evidence that the “Renaissance” constituted one of the great rebirths in the history of cities. That is no longer a comfortable assumption. And that is good news.

There were always detractors. The Trib’s Bill Steigerwald challenged the conventional redevelopment wisdom in Reason magazine, with an article headlined “Death by Wrecking Ball,” in 2000. But things really picked up after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision earlier this year. Local-boy John Tierney used his platform as a New York Times columnist to smash the Pittsburgh Renaissance story to bits. (AntiRust discussed that flare up here and here.)

Now the chorus is rising. Bloggers like Jonathan Potts, Mike Madison and Mark Rauterkus are beginning to slam the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, the entity long responsible for the region’s revitalization. It is interesting to note that these bloggers are not only calling the agency’s future plans into question: Thoughtful people are finally challenging the notion that these schemes were effective in the first place. Mr. Potts says it well:

Pittsburgh has never needed what the conference has had to offer, and I would submit that the conference has accomplished little, if anything, of lasting value to this region.

Oh, sure, the conference may be able to point to Pittsburgh's alleged "Renaissance." It can claim responsibility for the Point and Gateway Center. But this is nothing but a pretty postcard. Look closer, and it is empty. Pittsburgh's population slide has continued unabated for as long as the conference has been around, and nothing it has proposed as of late--Fifth and Forbes, the convention center, the stadiums--will change that.

Ouch.

But this is even more important than people in Pittsburgh waking up from a long slumber. Pittsburgh’s Renaissance has been used as a model for redevelopment across the country for decades. Isn’t it important that, upon further analysis, the project that inspired all the others turns out to have been a miserable failure?

I think so.

Will that change anything?

Not a chance.

Last, and at great risk, perhaps: Is it safe, finally, to question the notion that Gateway Center and Point State Park constitute a "pretty postcard"? I went down there with the wife a few weeks back. It was a lovely day, but she was singularly unimpressed. Sure, the fountain was nice. But a lot of other elements are falling apart. That would be fine (neither of us is an experienced world traveler) if it had not been for the accompanying hassles. Parking was a nightmare. Not because the garage was full. Just because nothing was marked and nothing made sense. There was no attendant, so we had to pay before we went up to the car. One of the kids started crying and caused a delay, so by the time we got to the gate my payment was no good anymore. But the car was in line and a traffic jam had piled up behind me. So they kept honking at my wife and kids while I ran down to pay the machine again. All that so I can see, what, a Max & Erma's? I don't think so.

Sure, it looks great from Mount Washington. And regionally-minded folks love putting such images on calenders and posters. But is Point State Park all that useful for people living in Pittsburgh? I admit, many people love it and there is a lot to do there if you have the time. So I guess it is a real resource. But is it such a great resource, so unmistakably stupendous, that it should have launched a thousand similar development projects around the country that, collectively, have cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars?

At least Mr Steigerwald, Mr. Tierney and a few lonely bloggers are beginning to ask such questions.

Downtown Redevelopment: You Might Be a Redneck...

Urban renewal. It's not just for urban areas anymore.

Ridgway, Pennsylvania, my beloved hometown, is hosting a confab tonight to discuss the results of a study. Seems that an outside consulting firm came to town to look at ways to improve parking, the business environment, traffic flow, etc. Here's the story.

I hope they get a lot done. It's a good town with good people. I like it a lot.

But to be honest, I also kind of hope that the locals tweak the system a bit. You know, come up with some sort of backwoods rejoinder to the Big City notion that the mayor should have a hand in picking which business goes where. We are hillbillies and proud of it. And we like to talk about being independent. At least more independent than the flatlanders.

So is there a way to have a productive meeting, but still do it the "Elk County" way? Hmm. This last sentence of the story has me wondering...

The Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities selected the consulting firm of Hyett Palma to design the downtwon enhancement program, “Blueprints for Pennsylvania's Downtowns.” Ridgway's participation in a Hyett Palma study improves opportunities to be awarded grants.

I still have hope, though. More tomorrow or the next day, after I get details. (If they propose reassessment and casinoes, I am going to cry.)

The New York Times Goes Off-Road

The New York Times runs an interesting editorial today about a proposal to change management of the National Parks. The change would allow more off-road and snowmobile use. The NYT predictably calls the proposal scandalous. Why "predictably"? I am going to risk my credibility--what there is of it--and hypothesize that not a single one of the people on the NYT's editorial board is an avid ATV enthusiast.

Caveats: I don't have an ATV. And ATVs certainly are noisy and, worse, hard to police. While 99 percent of riders might be good, honest folks, that one percent can do a lot of damage. And I have not read the proposed revisions. Still, the NYT piece does contain a few problems. Here's one paragraph:

This entire exercise is unnecessary, driven by politics and ideology. The only reason for revisiting and revising the 2001 management policy was Mr. Hoffman's belief, expressed during a press conference earlier this week, that the 2001 policy is "anti-enjoyment." This will surely come as news to the 96 percent of park visitors who year after year express approval of their experiences. The kind of enjoyment Mr. Hoffman has in mind - as clearly evidenced by his draft and by remarks from Interior Secretary Gale Norton - is opening up the parks to off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles. The ongoing effort to revise the 2001 policy betrays a powerful sense, shared by many top interior officials, that the national parks are resources not to be protected but to be exploited.

Yes. It certainly will come as a surprise to 96 percent of people who visit the parks. But isn't that pretty obviously a self-selected group? People who go to parks now like the way they are being managed on at least some level. That's why they go to the parks. Why not go to an ATV trail on a national forest and ask folks there? That would be just about as legitimate a measure. The proposal, whatever its pros and cons, is about opening the parks to a new group of people who cannot, by law, enjoy those parks right now. One would not expect to find them at the parks. Come on.

And what to make of the last sentence: "The ongoing effort to revise the 2001 policy betrays a powerful sense, shared by many top interior officials, that the national parks are resources not to be protected but to be exploited." The environmental debate would be a lot more honest if everyone would realize how inextricably linked "protection" and "exploitation" really are. The current protection regime allows for a certain kind of exploitation, the kind preferred by urban, urbane people like the folks who write for the New York Times. That's fine, but it is exploitation nonetheless. Honestly, even basic restrictions on use are political tools designed to steer the parks towards a particular end condition. Think about what visitor quotas do: They make sure that the parks are empty enough so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who would use them for solitude rather than family picnics.

Think for a minute what would happen if the goal really were absolute protection: The Parks service would block and replant every road, eliminate all access, work vigilantly to keep any hikers and campers out and post signs declaring that trespassers who find trouble will not be rescued under any circumstances. Imagine the cry that would go up at the NYT: "But the parks are meant for access and use! For preserving nature AND enjoying it!"

But for whose access? Whose use? Hiking has an impact, too. Just like photgraphy and other pursuits. Most of that is less than the impact of ATVs. But even the most tenderfooted hippy has to drive on a road to get to the parks, and park in a lot. And use a trailhead.

The decision to allow those impacts was every bit as political as the drive to extend that access to other users. NYT editors simply object to that effort because ATVs would interfere with their own enjoyment of the park.

For better or worse, sounds political to me. More here. 

Same Old: The Endgame of Downtown Retail Development

When "revitalization" experts get together, whether it's in Erie, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo or anywhere else, they sing the same song. Lyrics always include "unique history" and "singular cultural heritage." Just think about all the times you've heard someone talk about incorporating Pittsburgh's "essence" into dowtown loft and upscale retail developments--all while the furnaces fall to the wrecking ball.

As all three regular readers are well aware, AntiRust does not buy this line of reasoning. Well, at least a few of the revitalizers are beginning to admit that the fix is in. Check out this story in today's Baltimore Sun, detailing what a few experts are saying about that city's future:

Old Navy? Bed Bath & Beyond? Pottery Barn? By bypassing Baltimore, you national retail chains might be missing out.

Downtown Baltimore has the population and the ready cash to make it one of the country's top 10 retail markets, according to a new study.

A retail assessment commissioned by the city and area development organizations shows the wealthy, waterfront parts of town boast demographics that rival established urban markets such as Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.

"I was surprised," Downtown Partnership President Kirby Fowler said of the results. "I go to New York, Philadelphia, Boston and D.C., and I'm always very jealous of the retail they have. ... We finally have a chance."

Doesn't this undercut the entire notion of uniqueness and "cultural heritage"? In what way, if this plan succeeds, will downtown Baltimore be any different than Shadyside, or Old Town Alexandria in Northern Virginia?

Look, I have nothing against Old Navy and Pottery Barn. I own stuff from the former, and would shop at the latter if I could afford it. But I think redevelopment officials are(surprise!) trying to have it both ways. They sell us on our city being a special place worth preserving--but by that they seem only to mean saving the shells of old buildings and neighborhoods. Architecture rather than attitude.

Which, in the end, is probably what people want. People say they want to shop at funky boutiques and eat at eclectic local establishments, but only after scarfing down their fifth Starbuckalicious mocha-something of the day and their third bloomin' onion of the week.

So maybe we should just end the shell game: We should stop saying that we value "unique" in any real way, so the developers can quit telling us that's what we're getting when they bounce the local dive bar in favor of Restoration Hardware, Banana Republic or whoever else can pay more rent into city coffers.

Hope for the Rust Belt: 1,200 Industrial Jobs for Erie?

The Erie Times-News offers an excellent overview (free registration required) of what's happening with the former IP paper mill site in Erie. And there is, if you can believe it, good news. Fans of big, heavy stuff will note that the plan does not call for loft apartments, casino gambling or schemes to attract "creative" twenty-somethings by building an organic grocery story. It calls for industry. Old fashioned, lunch pail industry, in which people take a huge pile of stuff and transform it into stuff that is more useful. Sweet.

AntiRust previously covered this site here, here and here.

The Inner Harbor's Outer Limits: A Cautionary Tale For Pittsburgh Revitalizers

Looks like the world’s most successful urban revitalization project is running into more problems. Baltimore's Inner Harbor was designed to clean up downtown. And to a large extent it did that. But backers promised more: That the gleaming facility would draw more private investment to adjacent neighborhoods and beyond, leading to widespread urban renewal. Well, it looks like the project is having a hard time revitalizing itself. From today’s Baltimore Sun:

Two years after business leaders sternly warned that Baltimore's crown jewel, the Inner Harbor, would tarnish beyond repair if someone didn't take responsibility for it, a new organization is forming for that job.

Realizing that the city has neither the money nor the staff to buff the waterfront to a world-class sheen, the Baltimore Waterfront Partnership, a public-private effort, will take on the task of landscaping, maintenance and all the little things that can turn a good harbor into a great one.

… In 2003, the Greater Baltimore Committee presented Mayor Martin O'Malley with a report bluntly pointing to neglect at the Inner Harbor. It described uncoordinated management, poor maintenance and a lack of standards.

The story goes on to detail how planners hope to create a "tax district" to support clean-up efforts, but for now are dipping into existing city coffers and asking for help from local businesses. Maybe you can spin this as positive: “The businesses involved are investing money to keep the place clean.” But they are still—a quarter of a century later—feeding at the public trough. And that is in the specific area “revitalized” as part of the project. The outlying areas are still a disaster. Unless you consider the seedy strip clubs on The Block, about a 25 second walk from the ESPN Zone, to be a tribute to wholesome city living.

Look, if a project as “successful” as the Inner Harbor cannot even keep itself cleaned up without continually sucking at the public-private teat, what are the odds that other projects around the country are going to be able to fulfill their larger promise of revitalization through increased private investment? Fact is, there are some hard and fast economic realities standing in the way. More from the Sun:

Michael D. Hankin will be chairman of the partnership's board. He is president and chief executive officer of the Brown Advisory investment firm, which has offices on Bond Street

Hankin said splitting the burden is critical because the harbor has suffered as the businesses and institutions that surround it adopted a "free rider" mentality, willing to keep up their own doorsteps but not much more than that.

In other words, predictions that a lovely facility would instill enough civic pride and private investment to make it self-sustaining have not panned out. In the most successful revitalization project ever undertaken.

Ouch.

If Pittsburgh Is So Livable, Where Did Everybody Go?

Many 'Burgh-type bloggers are noting Pittsburgh's position as the number one most-livable city in America, as decreed by this ranking by the Economist Intelligent Unit. And like many of those bloggers (this hard-drinking fellow, for instance), AntiRust is eagerly awaiting more information on the methodology employed.

In the meantime, early reports indicate that one of the contributing factors is "culture and environment." I wonder what that means, especially in terms of a loaded measure like "livability." That is, won't different people measure those things differently? Yes, I know, that's true of all measures, but this one seems especially sticky.

For instance, say you live in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, home of a large paper mill for generations. Pretty smelly. But it also pays about $25 an hour in a place where you can buy a house for $40,000 without looking very hard. Again, it's smelly.

So let's say that mill shuts down. Is Johnsonburg more "livable"? Well, that depends. If you have some money and enjoy smell-free scenery, then the environment has certainly improved. But if you enjoy making $25 an hour and don't give a damn about scenery, things just got a hell of a lot worse.

See how does this apply to Pittsburgh? Is it more livable or less livable than it was in 1930? 1940? 1950? It sure is a heck of a lot cleaner. So, more livable, right? Except a whole lot of people who lived here don't anymore. See, they didn't think it was so livable without a job. 

Yeah, yeah. False choices and all that. And we can have clean air and a healthy economy. And we should demand it. But at some stage does a demand for environmental purity begin to have diminishing returns? Again, I don't know how this survey addresses such issues. But I know someone who did. (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

And culture? What's better to have near a city? A virgin forest protected as wilderness? Or one that is open to some level activity such as hunting? Mountain biking? OK, great. What about ATVs and snowmobiles? Logging? What about one that is open to low-impact camping only? Rustic cabins? Luxury resorts? What counts as more cultured? That is, all other things being equal, which of these amenities makes a city the most livable?

No matter what you think, someone equally passionate about it thinks otherwise.

Erie: $4 Million Poorer

Need proof positive that embarrasing, foolish pandering to professional sports teams is not the exclusive purview of large and mid-level cities? Looks like small cities take the bait, too.

Sigh. Erie is shelling out another $4 million for baseball. And why not? I mean, look at downtown Erie. The vitality that the Seawolves have brought to the area... er... uh...

Hmm.

All this after investing millions in the park a decade ago. And drawing less than a million fans total since then. What are people thinking? Really. What are they thinking?