AntiRust

The Allegheny Conference and Pittsburgh's Birthday: A History of... What? Success? How so?

While I don't think it's what the Post-Gazette intends, the paper offers a devastating history of the Allegheny Conference's failure to "rebuild," "reimagine" or other wise "revitalize" Pittsburgh. Come on: $14 million for a movie about the French and Indian War? Does anyone think that Microsoft, Toyota and Intel will banging on the mayor's door begging for office space? Why does anyone think that would be more effective than a $14 million check to the owners of one of those companies? I would be against that, too, but at least it would offer some chance of success.

Read the rest. It's extremely ugly, especially for a quasi-governmental agency casting about for millions to celebrate the city's 250th birthday in 2008:

The sustained effort to change the image of Pittsburgh started, really, with the creation of the conference in 1944.

In the early 1950s, while rebuilding Pittsburgh after World War II in partnership with Pittsburgh Mayor David L. Lawrence, the conference paid $45,000 a year -- about $330,000 in today's dollars -- to house a team of nationally known photographers at the University of Pittsburgh that documented the many changes. Many of the photographs ran in national magazines, presenting the story of the city's transformation with artistic flair.

The conference tried again in the early 1980s to reposition the region's image, with 18 of the biggest companies in Pittsburgh pledging $800,000 for 16 full-page ads in The Wall Street Journal touting Pittsburgh's many strengths other than manufacturing under the title, "Dynamic Pittsburgh."

In the mid-1980s, a series of new ads touted Pittsburgh's designation in 1985 as "America's Most Livable City" in Rand McNally's inaugural and highly publicized ranking of the nation's major cities. Billboards even ran in the Atlanta area reading "Greetings from Pittsburgh -- The Nation's Most Livable City. Y'all Come."

But those efforts failed to move the needle much.

Studies in the 1990s confirmed that nothing has yet replaced manufacturing as the region's engine of growth and prosperity and that the image of Pittsburgh in much of the country and world was still of a blue-collar, smoky industrial city with lots of steel mills -- never mind that most factories had been closed and tens of thousands of workers abandoned the region for job prospects elsewhere.

I really do think society would be better served, first, with a $14 million movie about the failed promise of absurd urban redevelopment schemes. Add up the money squandered in Pittsburgh alone. God, it's depressing.

Next, I think it's time for someone to stand up and say, "Look, let's forget about the city's damn image. The area built an image as an industrial place by making steel, not producing movies about making steel. And it will build an image as a vital place by becoming a vital place, not by making movies about Indians and French guys in the 1760s." Seems obvious, maybe, but it looks like it still needs said.

The Allegheny Conference has been trying to build the city's image since 1944. Got that? 1944. Sixty years. Polishing the city's image doesn't work. It just doesn't. 

Is the North Side a Better Palce Because of the Stadiums? Let us Consult the Trib PM...

I don't get a chance to leaf through the Trib P.M. all that much, but I did today and encountered a pretty good quick-hitter about redevelopment efforts on the North Side. Remember how the stadiums were supposed to revitalize the whole area? Well:

First came the stadiums. Restaurants and a hotel followed. Then, office buildings and expanded parking lots. Three proposed sites for Pittsburgh's casinos are along the North Shore. Not to mention plans for the T-connector.

But success for the North Shore has not translated into commerce for the North Side. Storefronts along East Ohio Street, a 10-minute walk from the stadiums, have instead become vacant. Carlisle's Bridal Shop, a key presence on the street, relocated to the Strip District in 2001. The building remains vacant to this day.

... The number of reported firearm assaults in the North Side has grown 440 percent in seven years -- from 22 in 1997 to 119 last year.

In 1997, there was only one firearm assault in East Allegheny. This year, there have been 14 in that quarter-square-mile area alone.

The place is riddled with crime, Liptak said.

"It's infected with crackheads, prostitutes," he said. "You can go the next street over and engage a prostitute any time of the day."

There do appear to be some positive developments, but these stats look pretty grim. And what are the odds they will change? Remember, the infamous area in Baltimore known as The Block is still in business, still peddling sex and drugs just a few blocks from the Inner Harbor decades after that urban redevelopment project--widely considered one of the most successful in history--opened. I don't even think the dancers have gotten better looking. Seems like a lose-lose sort of deal.

So what do you get when you spend a couple hundred million on a stadium? Redevelopment? Revitalization? Fantastic economic multipliers that help build a burgeoning downtown? So far, it looks like we got... a stadium. Or two.

They promised more than that. They just did. And it's not working. Again.

And it won't work next time.

Update: Too harsh? Could be. A reader takes AntiRust to task in the comments. Still, the crime numbers are pretty bad.

Western Pennsylvania: Soak the Rich! In Cheap High-End Vodka!

Boy. This seemed like such a cool story in today's Tribune-Review:

A Pittsburgh businessman is exploring the potential of distilling Western Pennsylvania potatoes into premium vodka. If successful, he would be the third to do so in the United States.

Look, I like a good stiff drink as much as the next guy. More, actually. And the notion of using good ole' Western Pennsylvania knowhow in pursuit of a buzz seems like a really good idea. And maybe it is. Sobriety settles in with the second paragraph, though:

Armed with a $165,000 grant from the state, C. Prentiss Orr Jr., a marketing consultant in Millvale, is hoping to join the $95 billion distilled spirits industry and possibly give potato farmers in the region a new market.

I don't know Mr. Orr. But I do know that if he thinks he can make a run at the high-end vodka market, he ought to be able to do it without my $165,000. He's a marketing consultant, after all. Shouldn't he be able to sell this idea to people with money to invest?

And think about the people who buy high-end vodka. Isn't this grant basically reducing the amount that they will have to pay for a bottle of this hooch? I'm no prude, but is that really what government is supposed to do? Subsidize drunkenness among people who can't countenance a low-end vodka martini?

So Who Lives Downtown? Er, Maybe Not as Many People As You Think...

So that Brookings Institution report mentioned in the previous post, the one exploring the growth (or degradation) of downtown population in major American cities, is finally out.

It's pretty fascinating, actually. No, really. It is. Take a look. Pittsburgh is on the list.

Some of the cities known to everyone as "cool" places to live score as you might expect. From 1970 to 2000, for instance, San Francisco's total population grew by 9.4 percent, but the number of people living downtown exploded by almost 25 percent. As we all, know, living downtown is oh so au courant, especially when compared to the oafish practice of living in the suburbs. San Francisco is therefore that much cooler today than it was in 1970.

Other hip,young places have seen similar trends. Seattle, largely seen as a symbol of the Internet boom mentality, has actually only grown by 6.9 percent over the 30 years studied. But the downtown population grew by an astounding 85.6 percent. That, despite all the Grunge-related heroin overdoses.

So where does that leave our beloved Pittsburgh?

Well, the city's population contracted by 35.2 percent since 1970. But the downtown population dipped by just 13.2 percent. By my math, that means a higher percentage of 'Burgh dwellers live downtown than did in the 1970s. So does that mean it's cooler? Hmm. Maybe so. At least cooler than in 1990. The number of people living downtown increased by more 26 percent since then.

It's hard to say what any of this means. But what the hell, I'll try. Take a look at Austin, another favorite of the creative class cutesy brigade. The city has grown by an astonishing 160 percent over the past three decades, while the number of people living downtown dropped by 23 percent. Does that mean it's less cool?

I haven't read the report yet. So maybe some of this gets explained away. Maybe not. I'll take a look.

In the meantime, even without having read the report, I bet you an infinite number of dollars that I know what this will mean to the people in charge of interpreting it for Pittsburgh's redevelopment officials. I predict they will use it to say something like: "This report supports our current efforts to create a cooperative atmosphere among people dedicated to breathing life back into downtown Pittsburgh. It calls for all of us--local government, state government and the private sector--to come together in creative ways to create an atmosphere conducive to business and cultural amenities, and to build on Pittsburgh's historic success in reinventing its downtown." The final report will not spend an inordinate amount of time discussing that historic success in light of the fact that the city's population has fallen by one-third in 30 years.

And after they spend another $200,000 on studies, the experts will recommend subsidies for loft apartments, mixed in with retail development. Plus complaints about transit.

Any takers?

Last, does it strike anyone else as odd that SO FEW people live downtown? Pittsburgh's numbers for 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000, respectively, were 9468, 6904, 6517 and 8216. So there has been an upswing recently. But does it matter?

I can check for the complete numbers, but for now, doesn't Pittsburgh have something like 300,000 residents? So the people living downtown represent something like two percent of the total? Remember, getting more people to live downtown has been a virtual obsession among planners. But let's say they REALLY succeed and get it to, say, double, by 2010. That won't do much for the city's total population.

So maybe it's time to think about why the OTHER people left the city since 1970? You know, the other 95,000, other than "downtown residents," that have bolted? And how to draw them back to the area?

Just a thought.

Update: Uh oh. I was wondering how to explain the fact that Pittsburgh has seen such strong growth in downtown population since 1990. The number had increased by something like 26 percent by 2000. For a minute I thought some kudos might be in order for the people in charge of development. Take a look at page six of the report. Seems that the growth falls to 5 percent if you exclude a certain group: People who are incarcerated.

Maybe 5 percent is pretty good. But the whole incarcerated thing seems kind of icky. Jails are drawing far more people than our developers are. Sheesh.

Smart People Do A Study: Who Lives Downtown?

Who lives downtown?

I don't know, to be honest. But the good folks at the Brooking Institution might. The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the think tank will release a new report today, one entitled, you guessed it, "Who Lives Downtown." The Sun is suprisingly sanguine about the whole thing, given Baltimore's struggles over the past few decades:

Baltimore is not a Chicago, a Philadelphia or a Boston -- certainly not a New York. But a study has found that the city built on Formstone and nurtured on Natty Boh might just be closing in on those great metropolises.

In the latest affirmation for Baltimore's urban resurgence, a report by the Washington-based Brookings Institution declares Charm City's downtown "emerging," or teeter-tottering on the brink of becoming a full-fledged urban powerhouse.

The report, "Who Lives Downtown," which is being released today, analyzes downtowns in 45 U.S. cities, marking population growth and household ownership trends from 1970 to 2000.

Not sure if Pittsburgh is one of those cities, but it might be worth a look later in the day.

Good News About Pennsylvania Industry. No, really.

The Post-Gazette has an encouraging story about small to mid-size manufacturers in the state. Cool.

It's worth noting that the story says that this optimism derives not from the state's development climate, but comes in spite of it.

Maybe it's time to get out of the way and let these people do business.

The Tourism Economy: And What If It Works?

Using tourism as an engine of economic growth is pretty straight forward: It brings outside people into communities to spend money that otherwise would not be in those communities. Then all sorts of multipliers take over and, presto: Prosperity.

Critics of this strategy usually argue that it simply doesn't work: There are just too few jobs associated with this kind of economy, and those jobs that do develop do not pay well enough to support families. Think what a unionized coal miner makes and hour compared with what that same coal miner would earn behind the counter at a ski shop. And culturally speaking, think whether that coal miner--or logger or factory worker etc.--is the kind of person who would want to work in a ski shop even if he could make a living at it.

Here's another concern you don't hear all that often in the press, but it might well be the one that concerns "traditional" industrial communities more than any other when they think about turning to tourism for an economic boost: What happens if it actually works?

Take a look at this article in today's Bradford Era. Looks like the folks who run the Allegheny National Forest are considering a resort on the Allegheny Reservoir. (Known to the Seneca as "Lake Perfidy.") This idea was on the table 20 years ago but slowly whithered away. But as factories close across Pennsylvania's northern tier and the nation's environmental outlook changes, the idea is back.

This terrifies a lot people not only because they fear the loss of their traditional economy, but because they fear what an influx of people would do. Everyone seems committed to using resources like the Allegheny National Forest as an engine of growth, but no one really knows what it means. How many people do you have to draw in? How do you support those people? Will life really be better if well off city-slickers roll through town every few months and distribute their disposable cash to the people who do the right song-and-dance routine? Moreover, the slickers like big, open spaces. That means setting aside large portions of land that in most cases were dedicated, at least once in a while, to something else, such as logging. What happens if the plans call for obliterating roads to provide a more "natural" environment? Those are roads local people use. So who decides which ones go and which ones stay? The locals or the tourists? What about the locals who serve the tourists? Oy.

A very good example can be seen in tiny Benezette, where the Pennsylvania elk herd has become a huge tourist draw--and a real concern for locals who resent the pressures that outsiders put on roads and other quality of life issues. More on the current tension here.

So will a resort on the ANF be good for the economy of Northwestern Pennsylvania? That's a tough call. Made tougher by the fact that some people might not want it even if it is good for the economy. Keep in mind that this is not a pristine wilderness. The closest town to the proposed site is Warren. Which has an oil refinery. Next comes Bradford. Which also has a refinery. And the Zippo plant. And a huge sawmill.

That's why these things are always tougher than they appear at first glance. Anyone who has proposed anything other than a steel mill in Pittsburgh knows how thick the tension can be. It will be interwting to see how this plays out.

In the meantime, here's a question: Any reason the resort has to be on federal land? If it's a viable project, why not leave it up to someone in the private sector?

Just a thought.

Post-Gazette to the Allegheny Conference: "Boo Hoo"

The Post-Gazette runs an astounding editorial this morning about the Allegheny Conference's annual meeting. The paper is soggy with tears over the AC's notion that local media outlets have not sufficiently reported the flood of redevelopment schemes the Conference has dumped on Pittsburgh. In a way, the Post-Gazette is right: Unfortunately, the paper has been in virtual lockstep with those schemes. But here's the really shocking part from the editorial: In setting up its complaint about the meeting, the Post-Gazette complains:

There was one part of this year's meeting, however, to which the Post-Gazette took great exception.

Seriously? ONE PART of the meeting? An organization that has been in charge of Pittsburgh's development since World War II--a time period that has seen the city's population drop by half--and the regions paper of record finds ONE THING to which it takes great exception? And that ONE THING just so happens to call the paper's commitment to the Conference's goals into question? If that is true, perhaps the publisher ought to think about hiring someone who is a little more skeptical, or at least more curious, to cover such meetings.

And my own person bugaboo: The paper also wrote that:

It goes without saying, however, that no news organization worthy of its name can be the house organ for any news maker.

Unless of course that news maker is SmokeFree Pennsylvania, which is working to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. I think that proposal stinks, but reasonable people can disagree. What I object to is the fact that the region's paper of record still has not responded to my challenge: To do a bit of reporting on the organization's claim that 50,000 people die every year from second-hand smoke. If that's the case, and a substantial portion of these people got sick from working in bars, it ought to be pretty easy to compile a list of vicitms, do a bit of statistical work and see if the numbers really add up to 50,000. Where are all the dead Pittsburgh bartenders? There ought to be a lot.

This is a major public policy issue. And major public policy issues call on news organizations with substantial resources to question the numbers being used to impact that issue. The Post-Gazette has instead turned into a cheering section for the anti-fun health nannies.

For the record, I don't smoke. But that's neither here nor there. Because the Post-Gazette is not going to do the reporting that allows people to make an informed decision.

As for the Allegheny Conference, they can rest easy. The paper might publish a dissenting idea every now and then. But on the whole, it supports just about everything the redevelopment gurus suggest.

Silver Screens Versus Blacktop: The Lowdown on a New Downtown Shakedown

So this guy is thinking about building a movie theater in downtown State College. Or, more precisely, he is thinking about having you build it for him: He wants $6 million of the $13 million project to come out of public coffers. The story is in today's Centre Daily Times. It's interesting because the guy's reasoning is pretty clever--or at least it's new to me. Here goes:

"The key is getting a level playing field," borough Councilman Jeff Kern said. "I think we should get more money. ... We have to compete with development, on suburban land, that's subsidized by incredibly expensive transportation."

That transportation, including new roads and public buses, is "funded by the state and federal governments," Kern said. ...

But that's not how it worked, right? It's not like everyone was living in the city until someone built a grand theater out in the empty suburbs. Then chagrined at the lack of customers, that theater owner lobbied for a few billion in road projects.

No, the road projects and suburbanization (Which is the cart and which is the horse? Take your pick...) happened independent of and prior to the suburban theater, the owner of which was just smart enough to put his business where the people were.

Some people might disagree. This next guy, for instance. But of course he would:

"Downtowns across this country have suffered because of the outward migration of people to suburban locations, most of which were brought about by the highway infrastructure," said downtown developer Tim Fulton.

He's the vice president of Susquehanna Real Estate, the York-based firm hired by the improvement district to develop the cinema and neighboring condominiums.

Building the 1,550-seat cinema will be more expensive than a typical cineplex, Fulton said, because of its urban location. It'll need to rise two stories instead of one, which means it will need elevators, escalators and other pricey accouterments, he said.

Yes. Lots of things cost more in the city. Like, oh, I don't know... RENT. Yeah, clown. Rent. Space. Buildings. Deal with it. How? By passing the cost on to your customers. The same way every urban businessman does. Because if you don't, that means someone else is picking up the tab. Which translates into ME subsidizing someone else's cineplex ticket. Look, you hip urban dweller, go see every romantic comedy that comes down the pike. I don't care. Just don't expect me to pitch in for your popcorn. 

Of course, some people have even bigger complaints:

Mike Ross, president of the company that owns Premiere Theatres in College Township, has objected to the use of tax dollars in the downtown project.

He couldn't be reached for comment Thursday. But in an August interview, he said: "I put up a facility without grants. I think the public should question if (a downtown cinema) is something that's needed.

Yes. Please. Question it. And disagree. By all means. And in the end, I wish those who think such a theater is needed take a shot and build one--with their own money.

Thanks, Charm City! Pittsburgh Is Not Alone In Its Image Obsession

The post previous to this one laments the fact that the revitalization geniuses who claim to be shaping Pittsburgh's future seem obsessed with the city's "image."

Well, at least Pittsburgh is not singularly afflicted. Looks like the people in charge of Baltimore have become dissatisfied with "Charm City" and "The City that Reads" as slogans. Or perhaps they are miffed that Maryland's largest city has made a reputation of its own as the syphilis and gonorrhea capital of the world. So they are looking for a new slogan.

And spending $500,000 of public money to do it.

Yep. A cool half million. Not to stop the spread of syphilis. Or to buy school books.

For a new slogan.