What to make of this muddled editorial from the Post-Gazette this morning? Here's a piece of the last paragraph:
Thanks to believers in Pittsburgh in the public and private sector, the neighborhood is growing and going upscale, and that can only buoy the Golden Triangle's lifeblood and nightlife.
And from the paragraph right before that:
The more people who live Downtown, the greater the demand for businesses like gourmet groceries and entertainment venues. (Now, if only someone could build condominiums in the $80,000 to $120,000 range for the middle-class folks.)
So let me get this straight. The best thing about the project is that it will take the area upscale. The only problem the PG editorial board sees, though, is the fact that it is, well, upscale.
And as someone who is more like to live in an $80,000 residence rather than an "upscale" condo, let me tell you this: I can't afford to shop at the kind of "upscale, European-style gourmet market-delicatessen" that the paper applauds in this editorial. I would need a Giant Eagle. A huge one. maybe 50,000 square feet. How many people do you figure it would take to support such a thing? Just asking. And there are a lot of similar points to be made. People who make $50,000 a year live a different lifestyle than people who live in condominiums that cost ten times that amount. Besides, if it's hard to justify subsidizing upscale downtown living, wouldn't it be even harder to justify subsidizing middle- class living there, too? I mean, the Pittsburgh area already has 90 neighborhoods, or whatever the number is these days. So why add another one?
Then there's this:
Following the collapse six years ago of the city's single-developer, master renovation plan, small entrepreneurs, big business, a private university and city government are carving out manageable chunks of the Golden Triangle to raze, build and transform. In doing so, they're creating a patchwork of commercial and residential projects that, piece by piece, will bring a desperately needed social and economic liveliness to Downtown, maybe even after dark and on weekends.
So what's good is diversity. Smallness. Manageable chunks. A patchwork. And what's the best way to support that? Well:
Last week Mayor Bob O'Connor announced the hiring of Urban Design Associates architect Don Carter to develop a master plan for Downtown's retail corridor in five weeks time that will consider the best use of existing lots, green space, lighting, parking and try to ensure that current and future developments will mesh well.
So the best part about it is that it will be a diverse patchwork. A diverse patchwork that's master-planned so it looks the same.
And then there's this weird shot at local culture:
Soon enough, it won't be the same old Dahntahn.
I'm not as sensitive as some people regarding the accent. But what, exactly, does this mean? Who is it working against? Who is it working for? And why?
Last, and I think most importantly, I still don't understand the reasoning here. Let me replay a short section:
In doing so, they're creating a patchwork of commercial and residential projects that, piece by piece, will bring a desperately needed social and economic liveliness to Downtown, maybe even after dark and on weekends.
Desperately needed by whom? Why is this necessary? I mean, it must be obvious. Right? So could someone please explain it to me? It seems to me that this rises--or I suppose sinks--to the level of a pretty pronounced social bias. The Post-Gazette supports this kind of project to revitalize downtown because... well, the paper's editors like downtown more than they like suburbs. Or even other parts of the city like Shadyside. Other than that, is there a single, rational case to be made for preferring "upscale living" in this zip code instead of another? And is it strong enough to justify the massive subsidies required here?
Please. Someone explain it to me.
Sammyboy,
Have you ever considered how close the "Fifth-Forbes" area is to the Post-Gazette Building? You realize it's a very short walk, right?
Posted by: Jonathan Barnes | April 17, 2006 at 12:23 PM