Did Pitt and CMU "Save" Pittsburgh?

I am sure that this is good PR for both universities. And the award seems to laud the schools for some real achievements. But the language is kind of strong, no? From a Pitt press release (emphasis mine):

The University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University are among the nation’s 25 “best-neighbor” urban colleges and universities in a list released this week by Evan Dobelle, president of the New England Board of Higher Education. Dobelle chose for his list institutions of higher education that “because of their strong positive contributions of careful strategic planning and thoughtful use of resources, have dramatically strengthened the economy and quality of life of their neighboring communities and have become ‘Saviors of Our Cities.’”

"Saviors"? From whom or what did they save Pittsburgh? And more importantly, FOR whom or what did they save it? Is the salvation complete?

All messy questions. I am surprised that anyone would present it that way.

To be clear, Pitt and CMU didn't make the list or choose the language. But for the sake of discussion, do any institutions, apart from development agencies, actually have any desire to be seen as "saviors"? That language seems to come with a lot of baggage. Sure, everyone loves to talk about jobs and development, etc. But this could rub some people the wrong way.

Like maybe these people.

I find it interesting that the award has not gotten more play locally. It's the kind of thing both schools would love to put out there, my quibbles with the wording aside. Or maybe I haven't been paying attention. It has been known to happen.

UPDATE: The press release conveys other strong language connected to the award, which I thought might be of interest (emphasis mine):

Dobelle’s criteria, according to the article, included long-term commitment, the amount of real dollars invested from endowments, relationships with city officials, continuing student and faculty involvement, and sustainability of projects. “These are engines of renewal and revitalization in cities and towns that would be spiraling downward” in every quality of life index “without their [the universities’] direct and indirect involvement in neighborhoods and communities,” Dobelle was quoted as saying in the article.

Hmmm.

Comments

[sean mcdaniel]

maybe pitt and cmu have indeed been saviors to a degree (and that probably is up for debate) but oakland have suffered mightily. then again, maybe oakland really is a great place brimming with genuine pittsburgh authenticity

and don't forget that the salvation all started with that messiah named salk. if not for him, pitt would have just been another false prophet.

sam, your question is the point i've been making all along. pitt has placed an artificial heart in oakland. sure, it's beating strong, but oakland may as well be a giant post office box for students and pitt, cmu and the carnegie.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

I never cease to be amazed to level of ego, narcissism, and navel gazing proudly generatED in this city, and for no good reason. Gee, with success like this, losing 300K+ people in 30 years, or this, still losing people, net change 245th out of 254, I wonder what they would concider failure, and would they claim that too?

[sean mcdaniel]

okay, we're losing people, which leads to a shrinking tax base. but what is wrong in pittsburgh that isn't wrong in those cities that are gaining population? (and let's ask the other question too. what is right with Pittsburgh that is right with cities gaining population) Streets and bridges and buildings are in terrible shape in NYC (just read the times to see how often a buidling collapses there) or SF or Boston? And do you think that the increased traffic in Charlotte or Atlanta is a plus, along with all that evil suburban subdivision sprawl? and city public schools are a mess just about everywhere, whatever the size of the city.

maybe the problem is that pittsburgh tries to act like a city that still has a population of more then 600,000 instead of 300,000. it's more than time to regroup.

and as much as i harp on sam about pitt being a well-subsidized 800-pound gorilla on the loose in oakland, the university and medical center have been a boon to the region. same with cmu.

[Sam M]

Dammit! I tried to post a response earlier this morning but it disappeared. I think it was due to that infernal verification system, which occasionally pops up--despite the fact that I never activate it.

Balls.

At any rate, a quick summary: I am not arguing that Pitt hasn't changed the neighborhood. Or CMU. They both have, in positive and negative ways. (For instance, the whole Oak Hill thing makes me queasy.) But growing institutions always change neighborhoods. The only way to avoid it would be to have them grow on land not home to a neighborhood. Perhaps somewhere outside of Cranberry. Which would of course pose its own problems.

Rather, I was interested more in the language of the award and the press release. Does anyone, other than perhaps the Allegheny Conference, have any interest in taking on the responsibilities that come with being seen as the entire city's "savior"? Sure, people love to talk about jobs and development. But still. Waxing messianic poses problems, too.

So does the Oak Hill debate justify demonizing Pitt in general terms? Probably not.

At the same time, I think it is probably in the school's interest to avoid deification, too. Both from a PR and a strategic standpoint. To be fair, neither Pitt nor CMU invented the award. And neither school developed the "savior" language. But it's interesting language nonetheless.

[Sam M]

Oh, and I wonder about the language in the second quote:

“These are engines of renewal and revitalization in cities and towns that would be spiraling downward” in every quality of life index “without their [the universities’] direct and indirect involvement in neighborhoods and communities...”

Wow. EVERY ONE? I mean, let's say 99 percent of these indices would be spiraling downward. In that case, wouldn't the cost of living be moving in a positive direction? Seriously. Is it even POSSIBLE for every single one to move in the same direction? Aren't at least a few of them countercyclical?

But once again we come up with that whole journalism problem. Note that in the press release, "every quality of life index" actually falls outside the quotation marks.

Weird.

[sean mcdaniel]

Sam,

Pitt's supposed influence on the Oak Hill project is an example of what I've said about the University before. It has plenty of muscle to lean on developers, businesses and others to get what it wants. It doesn't have to rely on eminent domain or other legislative tricks. Pitt just keeps pushing until the the walls of resistance crumble...even when another project is receiving government money.

By the way, I know you're not arguing about Pitt's affect on the central Oakland neighborhood (but it is strange how those nicer homes off Bayard never seem to disappear for more student housing or office buildings). That beef is mine.

I agree that Pitt and CMU aren't the sole saviors delivering Pittsburgh from sliding into an urban hell. But those two institutions have helped keep their neighborhoods (well, the more posh ones) vital. Again, Pitt's footprint on Oakland is a mixed blessing. All the cool restaurants on the side streets off Forbes are great...but the loss of a real neighborhood there is not so wonderful.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

I have traveled and worked in NYC, SF (Palo Alto to be sepcific), and BOS. I have driven through, and hung out in ATL, and CLT, and not just the airport terminals. PIT is a dump compared to all those cities.

Yes, I would rather have the increased traffic. Yes, yes, yes, I would rather have the "evil" suburban sprawl. (Gee, I though you did not care about that. See previous protests.) The whole school thing, i.e. they are all bad, is just flat silly nonsense. Clearly there are better schools, and worse schools. Yes, I want those things. I want growth. I want optimism. I want an entrepreneurial business climate, instead of this brain dead union, "I got mine, I want yours" mentality. Yes, a thousand times, yes.

We have none of that here.

In any other city, the local universities would be talking a back seat, being content to work behind the scenes, and doing things like, ah, actually teaching students. Shock. Shock.

Here we have everyone gathered in a circle patting themselves on the back, thinking they are the second coming. When in reality, they have barely been able to keep dinner warm, let alone fire up the local business climate.

Get off your bike, and jump in the car. Drive 200 miles to either CLE, or COL. Nobody there is arm wrestling over the dusty dead bodies of industry, and crowning themselves saviour. They are too busy actually doing something, than to endless tut-tut over it at the Dusquesne Club, or fiddle away like the ACCD.

[John Morris]

I would say that considering the size, reputation and importance of the schools involved; that the interesting question is how small an impact they seem to have on the city. In fact Pittsburgh has amassive overload of world class institutions relative to a city it's size. My general impresion is that the schools spend a lot of time and energy trying to wall themslves off from the city and show that they are too good to be here. The whole "acropolis" design is all about that and it has had it's effect.

If there was a contest in squandering assets, the city could enter.

I want to say that this opinion is confirmed by a lot of the faculty and alumni of the schools in question that I have talked to. CMU, in particular seems to have really walled itself off from the city as much as it could. My favorite school's here are Point Park and The Art Istitute, in that they seem to have been less interested in flipping the city the finger.

[sean mcdaniel]

amos, my point about the sprawl is that it's part of growth these days. no, i don't care for cranberry twp. but i don't think it's evil like some who post here.

and yes, i agree with your union comments (which is true about the corporations that used to be here). i've been to cleveland and columbus and didn't really care for them. cleveland is way overrated and columbus is just a big suburb.

again, i don't think it's fair to compare pittsburgh to NYC, SF, BOS, etc. Columbus and Cleveland or Indianopolis and Cincinnati, sure.

as for getting off my bike, i do. this afternoon I saw a movie and ate dinner in squirrel hill. drove to oakland and had some tea and rode the carousel in schenley plaza. jumped back in the car and headed to whole foods and then went to shadyside for a beer. there's a lot going on in pittsburgh, even within the city limits. but too many people either can't be bothered to drive from squirrel hill to oakland or bloomfield because there aren't directional arrows painted on the roads or they don't get e-mailed updates on available parking. or they just don't want to come in from the burbs. there's stuff going on...and it doesn't really take that much effort to find it.

[sean mcdaniel]

as for the bike comments, you guys really are pathetic in that respect. i bet even john morris would agree that we'd have a more sustainable city/region is more people relied less on cars/SUVs to get around. don't understand what scares you all so much about two wheels (without a motor attached, that is).

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Ah, typical Sean.

In your comment of August 30, 2006 at 05:44 AM, you were the one comparing PIT to NYC, SF, and BOS. "Streets and bridges and buildings are in terrible shape in NYC (just read the times to see how often a buidling collapses there) or SF or Boston? ... " Then in your post of August 30, 2006 at 06:07 PM you "don't think it's fair to compare pittsburgh to NYC, SF, BOS, etc.".

ARG! Focus! That was barely more than 12 hours between commnets.

Sean, the bike comment is about getting out of PIT and seeing the rest of the world. I know people that have not been out side of Allegheny county for decades. They have no clue as to what real progress and growth look like, and it scares them. For all I care, you could do this by taking Greyhound, or Amtrack. Quit hating on SUVs. I mean isn't this exactly you not understanding them and being scared about all things large, and 4x4. (with a V-8 attached, that is.)

Cranberry. Ha! If you think that is sprawl, then you must be always running to a M.D. ever time you find a pimple thinking it is skin cancer.

CLE may be overrated, but it clearly is a city that weathered the 80's, 90's, and 00's better than PIT.

The point is there are a good number of cities within a 200 to 350 mile radius, every much part of the old midwestern industrial rust belt as PIT is. Almost all of them have fared better than PIT. And, yes, I think population loss is the canery in the mine. If you can not generate jobs, and attract people, how can you say your city is prospering? If people are voting with their feet and don't want to live there, what other basic measure of a failed city is there? In fact, you have to really search around to find another large (100K+) city in worse shape. Probably, BUF is close, -10.5% drop in pop over 40 years ('60 to '00), compared to our -12.3% drop. (There is even a blog seems to be mainly devoted to abandoned houses in BUF. Now there is some narrow casting. Hey, you can even take a bicycle Tour dé Neglect) Heck, even Erie grew! (+12.0%)

Well, that was less than 400 words. Man, how do you do it. I'm all spent.

[Eric E]

Amos,
Let's be a little realistic about the Burgh's population loss. Pittsburgh had an industrial base that was far more concentrated around a single industry than other Rust Belt cities. And that industry collapsed with extraordinary speed. How that state of affairs came to be and whether it cold have been avoided is a different animal, but light of that I don't think that Cleveland's 10% pop. loss vs. PGH's 12% is really due to bad strategy.

I happen to have some skin in the university/economy game - I moved here a year and half ago to work for a biotech startup with roots at UPMC. It hasn't exactly been an easy road with UPMC, and we are lucky enough to have strong claim over our IP. So the bits about "savior" and "deeply concerned with the economic well-being of communities" are definitely more fluff than peanut butter. There's also a lot more talk than reality about financing the startups that grow into big companies. On the other hand, I think it's a strategically very sound decision to establish a strong alliance between local government and these universities, because they really are the economic future of the region. We might have once had a shot at the Charlotte story of cheap land + airline hub + college grads/cheap labor = finance hub, but it ain't there now. So the universities are what we've got to make jobs, and it seems better to coddle them than to alienate them. I'd venture a guess that many or most readers of this blog are in the orbit of the universities in one way or another.

The truth is, Pittsburgh committed to clinging to its universities a long time ago, but it (being a naturally conservative town that's been hunkering down for 30 years) has not really committed hard to key pieces of that strategy. Our business climate is poor - some of that can be laid at the feet of the unions, but a lot more of it is due to the fiefdom mentality that seems to characterize Pennsylvania (everything from row offices to right-of-way on roads). The Burgh needs to figure out sensible tax and legal structures that will bring in business (ask the Conference folks for their schtick about getting from the highest corporate income tax rate down into the comfort of the middle). We need to take (sensible) risks providing financial support and incentives for small companies. We need to build adequate transportation from Oakland through to downtown so the talk about Oakland driving the economy has a practical side as well. The university strategy is fundamentally sound - it just needs to be executed with more vigor.

[sean mcdaniel]

amos,

i don't hate SUVs or think that Cranberry is the epitome of suburban sprawl...others who post here feel that way. all the same, i'd rather not live in Cranberry or own an SUV.

and i do get out of pittsbugh, often. in the past 5 years i've visited NYC, SF, Seattle, Montreal, Vancouver, Atlanta, DC, Richmond...and other cities. And I think Pittsburg stacks up well for a city of its size. Yeah, I was in Cleveland, don't care for it (and not from a Steelers/Browns perspective).

As for schools stinking around the country, please comment on this:

"Among the nation's 50 largest districts, the study finds, three graduate fewer than 40%: Detroit (21.7%), Baltimore (38.5%) and New York City (38.9%)." source:
www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-20-dropout-rates_x.htm

That bit of info is from a USA Today article printed June 20 of this year. Cleveland checked in at 43.8 with Los Angeles at 44.2. Hey, did you graduate with the help of an extreme grading curve? Because those all look like "F"s according to most grading scales.

As for Pittsburgh, the Rand Corp. says city schools graduate 64 percent...sure, it's a mid-level D, but it's a passing grade.

and about saying we shouldn't compare pittsburgh to NYC and then doing exactly that, the point was that even though you claim those places are better than pittsburgh, they still have the same problems...failing educational systems and infrastructure. hope you can understand that.

242 words...hope you can handle that.

[sean mcdaniel]

Hey Amos...

Check out this story about Cleveland...in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

www.cleveland.com/poverty/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1157013158172740.xml&coll=2a

it's more than 400 words long, so here are a few excerpts you'll enjoy:

" Cleveland has lost a quarter of the federal money it gets to spend each year on community development over the past decade -- close to $10 million annually -- while consistently claiming the title as one of the nation's poorest cities."

And this:

Poorest big cities percentage in poverty
1. Cleveland 32.4
2. Detroit 31.4
3. Miami 28.3
4. El Paso 27.3
5. Atlanta 26.9
6. Buffalo 26.9
7. St. Louis 25.4
8. Cincinnati 25.0
9. Milwaukee 24.9
10. Newark 24.8

National Average 12.6

More info:

Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Chris Seper
Plain Dealer Reporter

"Cleveland's dubious place in the poverty rankings was matched by a rock-bottom finish in income.

The city had the lowest median household income of any big city in the country, according to new figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. Cleveland's median household income - just above $24,000 - was a little more than half the national average."

Did you notice the date, Amos? August 30,2006...three days ago...when was the last time you actually did more than got drunk at the Flats in Cleveland or pissed against an SUV's back wheels at the Browns' stadium?

Need more convincing? Bite this, then:

Cleveland still losing people
City could drop below 400,000 next July, projections show
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Robert L. Smith
Plain Dealer Reporter

Seemingly just yesterday, former Mayor Jane Campbell announced a crusade to push Cleveland's population back above the 500,000 plateau by attracting jobs, housing and immigrants.

Forget about it. It's even getting late to rally for 400,000.

A U.S. Census Bureau survey released today shows that Cleveland's fortunes continue to slide. The city's population is on track to dip below 400,000 by next July -- a number last seen in the early 1900s.

...Now for something not so completely different...

Ohio loses young, educated in droves
Nearly half of children among the poor
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Dave Davis
Plain Dealer Reporter

Ohio lost more young, single, college-educated people during the 1990s than any other state except Pennsylvania. These up-and-comers struck out for Southern and Western cities, helping spur the rapid growth and booming economies of those cities, Census Bureau officials said yesterday.

More than 18,000 Ohioans who held a college diploma, were single and were from 25 to 39 years old left the state between 1995 and 2000. The Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area was one of three in the nation’s 20 largest that saw a net loss of young, single college graduates. The other two were Philadelphia and Detroit.

Ohio is not creating the same economic opportunity as these other places, Ned Hill, a Cleveland State University economics professor, said.

“People move for jobs, income and opportunity,” Hill said. “And they stay for reasons of family and cost of living.”

Amos, am I seeing a different America than you are? If Cleveland is a success, then Pittsburgh is Nirvana. Then again, those tinted SUV windows do hide a lot of the unpleasant sights when you're just passing through.

Come on, Amos. Can wait to see how you refute the facts. Come on. I dare you.

P.S. one last bit from the Plain Dealer:

"Cincinnati had the worst rate of loss, with 45.4 of every 1,000 young, educated and single residents leaving. That rate was 15.8 for Cleveland and 2.7 for Columbus."

What, Columbus lost population too!? Oh NO!

Sam, help up out here, please. Go get your dictionary and help define success for Amos.

[sean mcdaniel]

Sorry Amos...here's the rest of that previous post

...Now for something not so completely different...

Ohio loses young, educated in droves
Nearly half of children among the poor
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Dave Davis
Plain Dealer Reporter

Ohio lost more young, single, college-educated people during the 1990s than any other state except Pennsylvania. These up-and-comers struck out for Southern and Western cities, helping spur the rapid growth and booming economies of those cities, Census Bureau officials said yesterday.

More than 18,000 Ohioans who held a college diploma, were single and were from 25 to 39 years old left the state between 1995 and 2000. The Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area was one of three in the nation’s 20 largest that saw a net loss of young, single college graduates. The other two were Philadelphia and Detroit.

Ohio is not creating the same economic opportunity as these other places, Ned Hill, a Cleveland State University economics professor, said.

“People move for jobs, income and opportunity,” Hill said. “And they stay for reasons of family and cost of living.”

Amos, am I seeing a different America than you are? If Cleveland is a success, then Pittsburgh is Nirvana. Then again, those tinted SUV windows do hide a lot of the unpleasant sights when you're just passing through.

Come on, Amos. Can wait to see how you refute the facts. Come on. I dare you.

P.S. one last bit from the Plain Dealer:

"Cincinnati had the worst rate of loss, with 45.4 of every 1,000 young, educated and single residents leaving. That rate was 15.8 for Cleveland and 2.7 for Columbus."

What, Columbus lost population too!? Oh NO!

Sam, help up out here, please. Go get your dictionary and help define success for Amos.

[sean mcdaniel]

sorry about the duplication on the previous two posts.

[sean mcdaniel]

sorry about the duplication on the previous two posts.

[sean mcdaniel]

and just how does pittsburgh compare to cleveland?

well, our poverty rate is around 16 percent. certainly nothing to be proud about, except when next to cleveland's rate. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

as for that median income. according to 1999 U.S. Census figures, it was more than $28,000. Keep in mind that the cleveland number was released this week, seven years later and $5,000 less than Pittsburgh's total.

and if you really want to make this all the more interesting, since Cleveland is Amos's closest better place to Pittsburgh, check out the Census figures on the percentage of population with college degrees of all types in Pittsburgh vs. Cleveland. We win in a landslide.

Check it for youself, ATPC, at...

www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Trends/2004/Dec/Poverty/urban_poverty.cfm

[sean mcdaniel]

amos,

as for cleveland's population...

according to the census bureau, it peaked in 1960 at 876,050. By 1980, that total plunged to 573,822. Now, the number people living in Cleveland is expected to drop below 400,000 by next year.

wow...that's exactly the kind of "weathering the storm" fact that should make you think pittsburgh's the cleveland of pennsylvania.

come amos, find a nit to pick here. or just dismiss me with some smart ass catty remark about a bike or anything else. or better yet, just move to cleveland and brighten the northeastern ohio landscape the way you do here.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Sean is getting twice as tedious.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Eric,

My point was not that the difference between CLE and PIT was due to bad strategy. In fact, I drew no conclusion, nor inferred any cause. My point was just it was the worst possible result of any MSA in the surrounding region in terms of population loss. Except for maybe BUF, which also had an overconcentration in steel making. BUF had been making more steel than PIT for several decades, before the collapse in the late 70's, early 80's.

Eric, given your situation, naturally you are taking a positive, forward looking optimistic view. Alot of your success is tied in with the univercities. I wish you nothing but luck.

But that is not the topic of the post.

It was about a backward looking claim of success. In fact, it was more than a simple ebullient over reaching claim of success, this was an egomanical fabrication of messianic proportions. (Remind anyone of Sean?)

As Sam pointed out in the original PR flack:

“These are engines of renewal and revitalization in cities and towns that would be spiraling downward” in every quality of life index “without their [the universities’] direct and indirect involvement in neighborhoods and communities,”

So, the worst performance of any MSA of the region, but for them, we REALLY would be spiraling downward. OH, thank you, thank you. We are unworthy.

This is the sort of statement that is so absurd, that it makes one spray out their multigrain Cheerio's into the paper they are reading in the morning. Or yet another good reason not to eat while reading news on the computer.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Trust me sean. I am more than ready to leave PIT. again. and for good. Stick a fork in it. Feel free to stay here, sean.

Basicly, sean, all your arguments are a huge house of cards built on quicksand. I clearly referenced population numbers for the MSA. You, conviniently, since it suits your agenda, ignore that, and refer to numbers about the CITY. Apples, and oranges. Big time.

From one of the very few links you actually provided, ironically, point this problem out:

Because city boundaries are historically determined, they do not usually encompass all relevant economic activity in a labor market. A more appropriate context for an area’s economic information is the metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which is designed to capture most of an area’s related economic activity and may span several counties.

So, one of the few articles that you actually gave a link for, says what you did was a waste of time. It also proves that sean does not read what he references.

In fact, your amazingly bitterly defensive screed extending over 6 or so comments, depending if you count duplicates, (Use a computer much sean?), was a pathetic mish mash of cut and paste pablum with no thread, logic, or theme. A truely poor attempt at reasoned arguement, and that is really giving it way too much credit. For someone noted for rambling obtuse contradictory rants, you really have outdone yourself.

Occam's Razor, sean. The simplest measure is the best. In a free society, nothing is a better measure of a place that if people will move there, or stay there. The data is in, and indisputable. Rant on, sean. It does not change anything.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Oh, Eric, the corporate income tax is a state issue, not a Burgh issue.

[sean mcdaniel]

yeah, whatever, amos. but seriously, you tell me to check out cleveland, and i did. it sounds horrible on paper. why would i want to see for myself?

everything indicator seems to suck. so now you want to talk about the MSA. talk about quicksand...you're sand is just dust in the wind.

come on, amos. address the numbers...cleveland sucks. and not just from the football perspective. where does it excel? does it have better malls? more malls? more cheesecake factories? what? bad schools. poverty. crime...still sounds like the mistake on the lake.