Why, exactly, should downtown Pittsburgh be a "neighborhood"?

I've asked this question before, but I still don't think I have a good answer. So here goes again: Why, exactly, is it so important for downtown to be a neighborhood? Cities need lots of things. Yes, neighborhoods. But also warehouses, offices, churches, bars, etc. And for whatever reason, most cities also have bad and ugly things. Ghettos. Train yards. Etc. So why are we so sure that downtown should fill this one specific role?

As discussed here and here, even the Brookings Institution report that supports this kind of redevelopment indicates that most downtowns never really were the humming residential districts for which we seem to be pining. That is, we would not be returning the city to some elusive Golden Age condition, but making it up as we go. From the report:

The recent movement of households into downtowns signifies a dramatic change in the land use patterns of these areas. Downtowns traditionally contained offices, large warehouses, and the occasional factory. Downtown living was usually restricted to hotels, clubs with sleeping facilities, flophouses, and jails. By the 1920s, downtowns reached their economic peak and then began to change. Many downtown business functions began migrating to “uptowns” or “midtowns” within cities and, later, to “edge city” and “edgeless” city locations outside of town.

OK. I understand that mayor O'Connor and the rest of the people in charge of redeveloping Pittsburgh want to turn downtown into a "neighborhood" anyway. I have heard O'Connor make the connection that this is America's "City of Neighborhoods." He put it this way while campaigning last year:

"We need to turn Downtown into Pittsburgh's 89th neighborhood," he said referencing his idea to encourage students and young professionals to live, work and play in the heart of the city. O'Connor said Downtown could harness the same vibrancy of the revitalized South Side if there are more apartments.

"We could flood Downtown with about 5,000 to 7,000 young people if we have apartment living for the students down there," he said last week.

Again, I am just not sure why. The answer seems to be, "Because that's what city's do now." And it is. Across America, civic leaders are throwing millions at young people, trying to bait them into moving downtown.

But won't they be moving from somewhere? Even in O'Connor's rosiest scenario, we would "flood downtown with 5,000 to 7,000 young people." Well, doesn't that require a dam bursting somewhere else? Don't we have to drain that exact number of young people from some unfortunate place? I guess this works if that somewhere else is Cleveland or Baltimore or Manhattan or East Podunk. But isn't it more likely that a really high percentage of those young people are going to just transfer in from Shadyside? Squirrel Hill? I don't know... Cranberry?

At least the last of these would bring people in from outside the city. But is that really worth all the trouble? I mean, we are doing a whole lot of hand-wringing (and spending) and it's not clear why.

WHY do we want people to live downtown? It does not appear that they ever really used to--at east in numbers significantly greater than they do today. And as it stands, people don't really want to. They would rather live next to the bars and bookstores in Squirrel Hill and Shadyside. Why build bookstores and bars downtown, just to make them do the same thing somewhere else? I guess my question is, who benefits from this shift?

And last, might it not be possible that Pittsburgh's position as a "City of Neighborhoods" makes this an even worse place for this kind of social engineering? The thing that people seem to like about Pittsburgh is its "authenticity." I know that is an incredibly loaded term, but ask around. People like Bloomfield. It has an identity. Good and bad. Which I think is pretty cool. Can a downtown full of Max and Erma's REALLY recreate that?

Should it?

Comments

[Jonathan Barnes]

Social engineering is a harsh phrase to use, but I'm not sure I disagree.
It'd be interesting if somebody did an analysis of downtown Pittsburgh residential trends from say, 1900-present.
They'd probably learn that the city was the most successful when some of the fewest numbers of people lived there, because space was so expensive that only businesses could afford to locate there.
Was downtown Pittsburgh ever a real residential center, even 250 years ago?

[Jonathan Potts]

I think the problem is that people have confused cause with effect. People look around at their crumbling cities, and the most obvious symbol is their downtowns. So they assume that the deterioration of their central business district is a cause of their other problems, when in reality it is just one more symptom.

I've written a couple of articles about the subject of Downtown housing, one for the now-defunct Pulp and another, an op-ed, for the Trib. The problem with subsidizing Downtown housing is that you'd be competing with other upscale, and often subsidized, projects throughout the city.

It's also worth noting, as Pitt's Chris Briem pointed out to me for my Pulp story, that the closest thing Downtown Pittsburgh ever had to a residential neighborhood was the lower Hill District, which was of course bulldozed in the name of urban redevelopment. The irony would be laughable if it weren't so sad, and if our local leaders didn't seem incapable of learning from their failed past.

[Jim Ferguson]

Part of the explanation for this modern trend to try and pull residents into urban centers is a combination of Urban Planners and Land Use academics believing that they are (1) reinvigorating the cities, (2) reducing the population pressures on surrounding undeveloped land (less sprawl ... and thus explaining where these people are coming from!), and (3) that if we can turn all of us into city-dwelling, non-commuting or at least mass-transit riding employees who live within walking distance of most of our amenities, that we'll be a gentler, kinder, greener bunch of citizens .... and a hell of a lot easier to control and manipulate.

[Jonathan Potts]

Well, there are plenty of good reasons to encourage people to live in higher-density, walkable environments, whether in cities or in small towns. But this is no way to go about it. In fact, instead of more government programs, we need to eliminate those that have contributed to the decline of our cities and that have promoted sprawl. In fact, a range of government policies have encouraged the growth of auto-centric communities.

[Sean McDaniel]

Why shouldn't Downtown living be encouraged? After all, haven't Americans been staking their claims in the most unlikely of spots for, oh, the last 230 years or so?

Sure, historically, Downtown was never a heavily residential area once the industrial age hit full steam here (though there was a blighted little neighborhood near the Point that endured into the 20th century — with families even setting up living quarters in the blockhouse). But does that mean the situation can't change?

Actually, I'd love to see Dowtown become a rather ritzy neighborhood. Despite what many city politicos and urban planners believe, I don't think Downtown should include "affordable" living space. New York, San Francisco, Boston and other towns seem to do well with prices set my the market. Maybe instead of dinner at Max and Erma's, we could enjoy breakfast at Tiffany's.

Trust me, I could barely afford even the most "affordable" of the new housing under construction in the Golden Triangle. But then again, I don't have the cash to change my address to Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, Frick Park and other tony enclaves within the city limits. You live where you can pay the mortgage or rent. (I know I got off the point there, sorry.)

Truth is, a lot of people do want to live Downtown because they work there or want to be close to the Strip or Cultural District or PNC Park or Heinz Field. Many are Baby Boomer hitting their mid to late 50s, empty nesters settling in downsized abodes. For whatever reasons, they believe in a brighter future.

As for draining people away from other neighborhoods, so what?A return to the city would be nice. A reverse migration of sorts. I have no problem with anyone from Cranberry or Monroeville or Upper St. Clair calling Downtown home. And if they can afford it, then anyone from Bloomfield, Allentown, Brookline and other locations can head towards the Point. When they do, that means more people might be able to find "affordable" housing within the city, in one of those more authentic spots.

And for the record...of course Pittsburgh was a real residential center when it started. The city grew outward from the Point. Over the years, it became a center of commerce, entertainment and business. The industrial age is over. And I'm not sure how an new industrial age will take root unless people are willing to do some very tough manual labor for Wal-Mart wages. Can you brief me on that?

One last thing that we all seem to agree on...keep out any type of government invovlement.

[Sean McDaniel]

Just curious...one of the posters mentioned something about auto-centric communities. How many of you get around town in any other way besides jumping in a car? Is it possible ride a bike to work...or to the corner store (if there is one near you)? How often do you walk to the barber shop or post office? And to be honest, how easy is it to move about in this area without a car, regardless of the neighborhood? It can be done. But the figurative and literal roads are tough to navigate. Despite my feelings about government involvement screwing up things more than it helps...some assistance from the politicians with setting up more and better bike paths would make a huge difference in lessening that reliance on gas guzzlers.

Aside from Bloomfield, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Southside and maybe a handful of the city's other 80-plus neighborhoods offer very few amenities within walking distance of most homes. Maybe that's just one more reason to hope that Downtown becomes a great place to live (other than under the Bridges near the Point).