New Years Resolutions

As we wrap up 2009, and approach the 11th month of this blog, I've got a couple of goals for the next year on this blog.

• More Posts- At the current pace, I'll probably have 200 posts by the end of my first year blogging, which is nothing to sneeze at. I'd like to at least keep that pace, and make sure that I'm putting out as many posts as I can 200+ miles away.

• More Focus- I started off this blog without a clear idea of what I was trying to answer. And I still don't know for sure, but I realize that the posts that are the most fun to write boil down to three questions: "What can we do to make our neighborhoods more dynamic?" (community and economic development), "How do we make our city a more desirable place to live?" (talent attraction and retention), and "How do we make it easier to get around?" (transportation). While I'm not going to give up on other topics, I am going to place a renewed effort on posts about these subjects. Also, I am going to try to keep geographic focus on Pittsburgh, Western Pennsylvania, and the Midwest.

• More Interviews- I've got a couple of great ones lined up in the early weeks of this year, and I have every intention of doing more this year. Call it the Studs Terkel approach to blogging.

• More Collaboration- The Pittsburgh policy blogging community is pretty small and will have a serious blow dealt to it on the 22nd of January. We should follow the lead of GGW and have more collaborative efforts.

At some point in the year, I'd like to make the switch to my own domain (which may involve changing the name of the blog to something wittier or more appropriate). Suggestions would be welcome.

I'll be out of town for the next week, so happy early 2010 to you all!

Don't Rest on Laurels

The news that Google is expanding in Pittsburgh is certainly noteworthy, and has generated a lot of buzz. The company is moving into the Bakery Square development, which, while not my favorite development project in the city (there's an awful lot of parking in the wrong places, in my opinion), is certainly better than them moving out to Cranberry.

Google is the kind of success story that the URA and the mayor would like to advertise. Google has plenty of brand recognition; it's turned into a verb for Godsakes. Netting a big client like this is a win for the city, no doubt about it. But if all the city is doing is trying to bring these types of companies to the city, it is looking at development the wrong way. There should be a two-pronged approach: bring in the big names, but also incubate the local start-ups. Having Google move here is nice, but having the next Google start here is even nicer.

I love extolling the virtues of Vivisimo, the locally-grown search engine whose president was recently invited to the White House. It's companies like his that are helping and will continue to help fuel the transformation of the city from a population-loser to a place that can effectively attract and retain world-class talent. The city and non-profits need to continue to drive home the fact that Pittsburgh isn't just a great place to expand, it's a great place to begin.

Big Bucks! No Whammies!

The Fair Share tax continues to be in the news. I actually saw the story in the NYT this morning, above the fold. I've already written a handful of posts on the subject, but I think that, a few rounds in, it may be worthwhile to reexamine where the parties are coming from.

There is a lot of talk about the tax "dis-incentivizing higher education". While I appreciate the sentiment, let me say that, as a guy looking a mountain of debt in the eye for this fancy degree, another $1000 or so is a drop in the bucket. College is expensive, and that goes double for a school like CMU. We attend with an understanding that we are paying through the nose. Does anyone really think that the Tuition Tax will be all over College Confidential, scaring potential students away from attending school in Pittsburgh?

That being said, while the tax isn't this monstrous unethical breach of human decency which would force college students to go out on boats and pour their alcohol into the Mon, it may not be the best tax, particularly in it's present form. A commuter tax would be a bit more equitable, if you're not afraid of scaring businesses out of the city. At least you know the college students aren't going anywhere. I actually like Councilman Peduto's proposal. A lot of these are very good solutions, but I feel like many of these are just temporary fixes and don't deal with the long term structural issues.

There are ways that this tax could be made more palatable. I still think some kind of alternative use of the tax would be helpful to a talent retention strategy. You could set the tax at 1% of the tuition less demonstrated need, or freeze the tax at 1% of the tuition you pay upon entering the university (so that while your tuition goes up, your taxes don't).

The tax isn't pleasant. It may even be wrong. But give me something better. And more important, give me something sustainable.

Regionalism: What is it Good For?

Regionalism is often extolled. We talk with pride about the Pittsburgh "region", this area of Western Pennsylvania. We have this "regional visioning project" (which is now evidently titled the "Power of 32"). Regionalism is something that we take seriously. We have the "Regional Enterprise Tower", and all of those "regional initiatives".

But I want you to look at this.



So out of those 32 counties in the regional visioning project, only one other than Allegheny has a population larger than the City of Pittsburgh. 1/3 of them have a population smaller than 50,000 people. I realize that population isn't the only indicator of regional cohesion, but can anyone really say that Allegany county has the same issues as Allegheny?

In a lot of parts of the country, suburban counties have populations similar to their urban neighbors. Montgomery and Prince George's are both larger than DC. Baltimore County is larger than Baltimore City. Montgomery, while not the same size as Philadelphia, is a little than half the size of its urban neighbor. Compare that to Allegheny's next closest neighbor, Westmoreland, who is less than 1/3 the size of it's western neighbor.

Maybe regionalism, as we understand it, isn't the most useful thing for us. I wonder if Alegheny county's desire (at least publicly) to work as a region is hurting us. The city of Pittsburgh is not the strong urban core that it used to be, and it will never be the strong urban core that Philadelphia, Chicago, and Washington are. It's got a fairly weak magnetic pull, relatively speaking. There may be some suburban spillover into the far-flung counties, and even some semi-urban areas (I use that term very loosely to describe Southpointe, Cranberry, etc.) but there will never be edge cities springing up in Bedford county.

Why should we direct focus to these places? I hate to be so obtuse, but what are they doing for me now (other than perhaps inflating our MSA population)? I don't deny that Indiana and Greene counties probably have very similar issues: an aging and declining population, shrinking small towns, loss of primary industries, etc. But while Allegheny faces those issues too, it does so on a scale radically different. The city, county, and a few outlying suburbs are dealing with a much different set of concerns: namely, how to be a globally competitive area. Let's be perfectly frank about this: that's not something a county Commissioner in Fayette needs to think about.

If there is a "region" it's a tiny slice of what every is saying that it is. I would say it looks something like this:


View Pittsburgh Region in a larger map

There are some things that regionalism can be useful for. But maybe "region" isn't the best term for what Cleveburgh is, or what the Power of 32 is trying to find. Perhaps it's more of a confederation. Density is destiny, and there is a particular portion of the "Pittsburgh Region" that shares the asset of density. As for the rest of the counties? I'm not sure what to tell you.

P.S.- Someone remind me to delete this post if I ever make a run for governor.

City Life

Sorry it's been a couple of days since I've said anything, but finals season has been catching up with me.

I would definitely recommend subscribing to the regional business headlines list from the Allegheny Conference. Since I only read the Post Gazette, I would otherwise miss some interesting stories that pop up elsewhere, including this gem in the Trib on downtown residential life.

Downtown living fascinates me. Perhaps I've become spoiled by my current Walk Score, but coming back to the suburbs is always such a drag. You really don't realize how much of an advantage being in the middle of a city is until you live there. And given how much I'm paying in Washington, the $500 to $1,475 that one of the places was advertising seems like a very, very, reasonable proposition. I've got every intention of moving into a center city when I graduate, preferably Pittsburgh.

The natural advantage of downtown Pittsburgh is it's uber-compactness. Most downtowns are, by nature, compact. But because of natural geographic boundaries, downtown is very clearly demarcated. This means that access to transportation is very concentrated. The transportation system, while not great, is therefore at least accessible.

There are a few things that I would like to see pop up in downtown, or within walking distance of downtown, however. It's a good neighborhood, but it could be better.

Another Grocery Store- Rosebud is nice. But Downtown could do with a second location near Point Park.

An Easier Walk between Downtown and the Hill- Mr. Ravenstahl, tear down this interstate! Or at the bare minimum, come up with a better walkway.

A Library with Neighborhood Hours- Downtown has a fabulous library, and I've spent many a lunch break there. However, if it is shutting down at 6:00 every night, it's not particularly conducive to people who are living in the neighborhood.

A Movie Theater- I realize the Harris theater is downtown, and I don't want to take away from what they do. But sometimes you want to go see a blockbuster, and it would be nice to not have to get to the South Side.

Empty Spaces

I don't really like the Newsweek types, but it was actually refreshing to see something other than the stereotypical Pittsburgh boosterism piece in the national press. Chris beat me to the punch, but I'll see if I can't add my own perspective.

The article was a little confusing in its lack of focus. It seems to be more of an introduction to "urban right-sizing" than anything else, without a whole lot of focus on Pittsburgh in particular (except for the rather bizarre use of "Lantern-Jawed" to describe hizzoner).

But thinking about the concept in the context of Western Pennsylvania, the discipline has merit. I would agree with Chris in that the focus on the city itself is rather narrow. Pittsburgh itself has at least some resources to be able to deal with vacant properties and whatnot. But places like McKeesport, Braddock, etc. do not. I wonder, would there be some way of collaborating on this? I feel like it could be a COG issue, but if the pot is too small, it'll just lead to bickering.

At least among the Pittsburgh population, I think there is a perception that this city is far and above better than places like Detroit or Cleveland, or at least is not dealing with the same issues. The Pittsburgh PR machine has been pretty good at perpetuating this idea of Pittsburgh's success story. Some residents of the region are acutely aware of the problem (I suspect those who live in these neighborhoods), but I think most residents, particularly young ones, don't see this as a serious situation. The geographic dispersion of the vacant properties has a lot to with it (out of sight, out of mind). I'd really like to see an investigative piece on the fact that the city is nearly 20% vacant, some of the inner suburbs even more, and how it is affecting services. Maybe I'll get around to it over Christmas break.

The Return of Bus+

I like days that Jon Schmitz is in the Post Gazette, because it gives me something to talk about. Today's story is about the Better Bus plan (I still like my name better). $80.7 million is a lot of money. I highly doubt they're going to get all of the money that they hope to, but you should always reach for the high amounts in this game.

I think Uptown is a prime candidate for development. The model makes sense there, and I think it's a very smart step. The Mon-Valley on the other hand worries me. This is not a route that has a lot of traffic already (at least relative to routes in the city), so the demand isn't necessarily there. Improved service would be helpful, but dividends aren't going to be as evident. Be informed before you buy.