ChefGuru t1_j8a0tf9 wrote
On the other hand, if the city allows people to redevelop them so they're no longer dilapidated, most of this sub will scream about gentrification.
I_read_that_as_xxxx t1_j8a8t1o wrote
Fucking right. Preach the truth my man. My brother was in the bullshit about Wilkinsburg when they were fixing East Lib. Well congrats mother fucker, Wilkinsburg still sucks a bag of dicks 15 years later. You got your wish.
BoopSquiggShorterly t1_j8xptsg wrote
Yep. See Dean Bog's Wilkinsburg episode and his "flippers stay the fuck out of Wilkinsburg" comments lmao.
Paranoidexboyfriend t1_j8b7joh wrote
Those people want someone to pour thousands upon thousands of dollars into updating the houses to make them safe and livable, but then to rent or sell those houses out at or below cost so the people that already live there can afford it. Which of course no one would do that.
da_london_09 t1_j8eka1t wrote
Its the same ones that scream that the city should build more homeless shelters, without thinking about where any of that money would come from.
Also the same ones that scream that schools are underfunded while they also bitch about their property tax assessments.
You know, the kind that want everything, but don't want to be the ones to actually pay for it.
hydrospanner t1_j8e62z3 wrote
Yeah, I've yet to hear of any easy, economical, sustainable, way to simultaneously revitalize an area, attract new business, improve quality and quantity of housing, and reduce crime while also not displacing any current residents, not tearing down any older buildings other than dilapidated ones, not increasing average rent, and not "flooding the area with traffic and outsiders".
That's just not how it works. You get both the good and the bad or you get neither.
PseudoAccountant t1_j8de0xh wrote
Very true. The reality is that you can’t ask people to rehab or rebuild for less than it costs. Asking a carpenter to work for free or half off so that someone can have housing isn’t sustainable and businesses can’t (not won’t) participate in it.
The good news is that there are a lot of ways to ensure that the new homes prevent displacement and fight gentrification; however, this outcome would involve subsidization and public private partnerships. The end result could be low income households (50-80% AMI) being able to own high quality homes in improving neighborhoods with good access to jobs, services, and amenities. This is within reach without levying new tax revenues. But this is unlikely to occur in the near future.
But hey, keep Pittsburgh shitty!
Alt_North t1_j8evx4r wrote
This is a real political problem. It might indeed be preferable were the city able to transform these lots for some highest and best public use the marketplace cannot provide. But they got no nuttin' money to do that with, and letting them dilapidate forever out of stubbornness just doesn't seem good
theciaskaelie t1_j8alkht wrote
half the city needs bulldozed down and rebuilt. i had a friend from long island come to visit once and all he said was "this city looks old"
drift__687 t1_j8ao3vl wrote
I was back home over the weekend. First time I’ve been back in a while. Spent 30 years here. I appreciate the old of Pittsburgh, Americans go to Europe to see old all the time. My thought was just everything was ran down. A coat of paint would be nice. Clean up the trash and rocks from the roadway. Paint over all the graffiti everywhere. Fix the roadways. Everything feels like it did when I left. Just some upkeep would go a long way.
rh1980pgh t1_j8c5xrc wrote
yes it does... and we like it that way.
theciaskaelie t1_j8d4x1q wrote
not old as in like rome or something, old as in dilapidated and should be condemned. so many of the houses are so poorly maintained im amazed anyone lives in them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments