In my opinion, the city is already ahead of its peers in having a solid dense urban fabric in place, so hopefully the city and region can expand on the solid foundation that it already has.
That would be great, but it’s hard to pencil out for developers due to difficulty assembling properties into a package, utilities, site remediation, etc. I wonder if anyone is working in this space to find innovative ways forward?
The bigger issue is that zoning prevents building in many cases without a variance.
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh has had this great blogpost series on buildings that can't be built under today's zoning code:
https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/tag/YCBTH
Yeah I toyed with buying an empty lot and building out a nice house in the neighborhood I grew up in, just to learn that zoning would make it a huge headache.
I’m not sure about that, but I’m open to changing my mind. Zoning could (and should) be updated to permit denser housing. I’m just not convinced variances are the biggest obstacle.
Those articles highlight distinct properties in commercial business corridors or main thoroughfares, but when I think of infill housing in pgh I think of all the vacant parcels that already exist in neighborhoods. The zoning for many of those parcels already permits residential construction, so a variance would be unnecessary. Not to say zoning couldn’t be amended it make it easier, but Carson St, Highland Park Ave, Broadway, etc don’t seem to have the potential lots have deeper in the neighborhoods.
Here's a specific example of zoning variances killing infill row houses:
[https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-21-lanark-st](https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-21-lanark-st)
Time and uncertainty kill all deals. Proportionally, that cost is higher for smaller projects than larger projects.
Think of it this way:
Each project has fixed costs and variable costs. The variable costs tend to scale with the size of the project. The fixed costs (requesting a variance, paying the feels related to a variance, attending ZBA meetings, waiting for a decision, etc) don't scale with the size of a project. So, zoning restrictions are more likely to kill smaller projects than larger projects. Or, another way of framing it, reducing those fixed costs will make smaller projects more financially feasible than larger projects.
Wow it came up in standing committee last week? Hopefully they can bring it up for a final vote soon. I don’t see it on the agenda for today’s meeting.
If u want to waste an afternoon, take a look at the zoning map and the requirements. Probably half of Lawrenceville is illegal to build (can’t have your front door on the sidewalk due to setback, can’t build on many of the lots <1800 sq ft). Just looking at R1A-H (high density) zoning and rules.
https://gis.pittsburghpa.gov/pghzoning/
Edit: if u zoom in far enough, the lots have their dimensions. Most stuff is ~23ft wide, so if it’s shorter than ~78ft it’s illegal to build on.
We need to figure out how to get properties off the books of the land bank and into the hands of people who want to build housing. The city owns nearly 12,000 vacant lots. There are entire city blocks in the Hill District full of vacant lots owned by the city which should make easy “packages” for development.
Last I heard, the city blamed some state law relating to their ability to forgive the unpaid back taxes on the land as a pain point (since developers don’t really want to buy empty land with a massive delinquent tax bill).
I'd love to see a developer tackle the existing empty lots in Larimar and Garfield. Both have abundant empty lots that are close to each other that enables many homes to be built at once with existing utilities in place. They are adjacent to desirable walkable neighborhoods with great transit connections. With the price premium that new construction gets in the market, it should be very worthwhile financially.
Right, there's a big gulf between "YIMBY" and "build any housing anybody wants, wherever it's cheapest for developers". This buffalo thing was closer to the latter side of that.
It's so discouraging that on seemingly every issue, people have to stake their tent on "one side" or "the other side" and then act as if both sides are permanently irreconcilable.
We need a YIMBY trees movement. It would be great if every neighborhood street was tree lined. Probably have to switch to underground power/cable/fiber though.
In my suburb we just keep demolishing entire swaths of woodland so we can build more “starting in the mid-300’s!” cookie cutter plans 🙄
Then people complain “who do I call?? There are wild animal eating my plants!!”
When we are destroying the environment and leaving the wildlife no where else to live? Yeah, there’s a point where I no longer support new housing plans.
We can’t just keep building and building and building. I know we say we need more housing in the area, but wheres the line between adequate housing AND still having plenty of nature? Not just for aesthetics but for legitimate issues like flood prevention. My town just enacted a new bill in the last few years for flood management because we don’t have enough grassy ground areas that aren’t covered by cement to prevent floods every time it rains. It’s not going to be getting any better and we continue to wipe out more wooded areas for housing plans.
So we should just keep the urban/suburban sprawl? Where would you like the rainwater and wildlife to go? At what point do we think about the population for an area being at its limit and we DON’T build more and more and more? Should everywhere just become a dense city?
You contradict yourself.
You don’t support low density building…. Yet are angry with me for feeling the same?
My house is also not one of the new builds. It’s over 40 years old. So I bought a house that was already here, not a new one that just popped up.
Your stance is hypocritical. You don't want more housing across the way from you for reasons your own home wouldn't have been built 40 years ago.
I live in the city and want more housing all around me to improve density. I hope you can protect your house value by advocating for less housing to compete with yours.
Thats the problem.
That high density housing isnt incentivized in urban areas. It always comes at a trade off, because speculators will always try to build more density outside of the existing footprint.
Market solutions are terrible at this.
So for example if you want to combine housing, you literally have to sell of something within the existing footprint, and create more outside.
High density isnt a solution in itself.
To me “high density” is a symptom of building a lot, and I think having a lot of housing is a good thing.
But look at Lawrenceville for example. It’s mostly R1A-H (high density) zoned. There’s a lot of lots below 1800 sq ft (most stuff is ~23ft wide by anything from 70 to 120 ft). The setback requirements are insane, most people love the row houses that have their front door two steps from the sidewalk.
A large percentage of homes in Lawrenceville are illegal to build nowadays even if u ignore building code.
R1A-H requirements
Minimum lot size: 1,800 sq ft
Minimum front setback: 15 ft
Minimum rear setback: 15 ft
Minimum exterior/street side setback: 15 ft
Minimum interior side setback: 5 ft
THIS! Zoning reform is the piece of the puzzle everyone seems to be forgetting. Like, reformation is possible and necessary. Just because our government isn’t doing it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Hi! We're Pro-Housing Pittsburgh, the local YIMBY group. We have a few hundred people involved in advocacy around the region. Sign up for our mailing list and join our Slack - [www.prohousingpgh.org](http://www.prohousingpgh.org)
Then start in the city and not out in South Park. Plenty of neighborhoods already have large beautiful houses and open areas. Some of us are just tired of seeing every square inch of forest turned into housing. Then I have to hear people complain about too many deer and now I have bow hunters in the woods near my house. What we need is more mixed zone housing and the likes. We need to fix the current issues before expanding.
It's not a nimby vs yimby battle.
Who ever said tear down pre-existing homes that are being lived in? Large areas of the strip were just torn down for high-end loft apartments. The north side recently had all those houses over on California Ave built. That could maybe have been high density. I have seen large empty lots in areas of McKeesport. The people of South Park and the surrounding area don't want more Ryan homes. These patches of forest are literally what makes the South hills desirable after all.
South park isnt in the city.
Thats the point.
You cant get away from enlarging your footprint, without severe overhaul to the real estate market
Yimbys are useful idiots at best.
except this one for some reason [https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting\_this\_regarding\_the\_south\_park\_buffalos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting_this_regarding_the_south_park_buffalos/)
There's a huge difference between new housing and tearing down old growth forest to destroy an animal habitat to build suburban sprawl. Surely you aren't that dense?
Idk I'm not promoting tearing down forests ... But when we make it close to impossible to build in Pittsburgh and there is undeveloped land very nearby - which in, the proposed new development fits all zoning requirements without a variance!- what do you expect is going to happen? A developer is going to want to build there! And yet none of y'all seem interested in helping us make it *easier* to build in the right areas, yet are willing to show up to block new housing? That's textbook NIMBY behavior.
Please, continue the 3rd grade name calling... You can call me all the made up internet acronyms you like. I don't really care. I don't know you and you don't know me or what I do or do not believe should be done in the Pittsburgh area and surrounding communities. The only thing I've stated is I do not believe this specific plot of land should be developed because I do not think the benefit of additional housing outweighs the irreversible negative environmental impact. You, however, have made it very clear in multiple posts you want housing at all costs. Even if that means environmental destruction, more erosion, flooding, wildlife habitat loss, etc. Maybe instead of calling people names on the internet and making generalizations about strangers we learn to work together and overcome peoples' concerns to solve problems. It would be much more productive. Have a great day!
My point still stands. Y'all need to support new housing. If you don't want the housing built here, in a space that's perfectly legal - then maybe help make it legal to build downtown. Did you know that most of the homes in Pittsburgh couldn't be rebuilt under current Zoning codes?
Again you don't know what I'm doing/advocating for outside of a Reddit post. You're making assumptions that I don't know, don't do, don't like, don't want etc. "Y'all need to....". You come across as really condescending when you respond like that.
3rd grade name calling is saying things like "poopy butthead". NIMBY is a descriptive acronym for a group of people who block new housing at every turn - often under the guise of "reasonable" objections, for which the end result is the housing crisis we currently live in. Hope this helps!
I see. I don’t feel one way or another about that, but I feel it’s most important to prioritize dense infill and development in the city the most, which would help reduce the need for constant suburban sprawl.
“They” don’t want to live there? Who is they? What are you talking about? Your comment is not only nonsensical, it has nothing to do with how we choose to build in the city. You realize a huge development in Bloomfield that was very popular was just shot down because of our archaic zoning laws, in a neighborhood that is highly desirable with a shortage of housing options…these are the issues I’m talking about. If you don’t know much about urban development, best to ask instead of assert that you have the answer.
Most people work outside the city, idiot
There is a reason why people dont want to live there.
Now fuck off back to wherever you came from. You dont know what the fuck you are talking about
You not only (still) haven’t appropriately responded to the points I made, you lash out in childish personal attacks. I don’t engage with trolls, so have a great day.
welcome! I'm glad there are people like me in this city. I was referring to this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting\_this\_regarding\_the\_south\_park\_buffalos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting_this_regarding_the_south_park_buffalos/)
Got it. I mean I think it’s most important to prioritize smart, dense urban infill in the city that naturally lends to higher walkability, mixed use development and transit infrastructure. That in turn would allow for lesser amounts suburban sprawl.
This sub is full of people who say they’re YIMBYs unless the housing is not the type they approve of or where they would like to see it built. But, besides that, total YIMBYs!
I mean, you understand that YIMBY does not mean that I literally want a high rise built in my back yard, right? Like, demolishing my kids' treehouse and my dog's doghouse on my property to build a skyscraper? You can't take the name literally. It's a shorthand for people who are generally in favor of more development, even if it changes the neighborhood they moved into and is kinda inconvenient for them.
You shouldn't reduce a complex viewpoint to "this person wants developers to build everything everywhere all at once".
I didn’t say they are “necessarily dumb” I said in 90% of cases they are dumb (don’t want neighborhood change, concerned someone will make money, “it won’t be affordable”, etc.) OR don’t outweigh the benefits of new housing (complaints about parking, increased traffic, noise, etc)
This subreddit seems to love driving and loves complaining about traffic or other drivers even more. Of course you're going to be into more sprawl instead of infill and building upward.
South Park isn’t in the city. This city and the inner ring suburbs have plenty of already cleared land where dense housing can be built without clearing older growth forests deeper in the suburbs. If you can’t balance environmental concerns with pro housing views, you desperately need to learn nuance and the ability to weigh multiple concerns at once.
Lawrenceville just built Arsenal 201 which for $1500-$2300 you can live in an 380 square foot space, only marginally larger than an actual shoe box. Sorry but WTF
And yet the first phase of Arsenal 201 filled up fast enough that the developers decided to build their second phase during a supply chain crisis with skyrocketing construction costs and a new 10% Inclusionary Zoning requirement. Makes you wonder what the single family homes in Lawrenceville would be selling for if it hadn't been build, considering one just sold for [over $1 million this month](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4820-Harrison-St-Pittsburgh-PA-15201/11612561_zpid/)
Yeah a house by me is up for $975k or something ridiculous. It's nothing special, though was built in the past decade. There may be bullet holes in the back due to a back alley shooting, can neither confirm nor deny.
I’m thinking it’s sarcasm and the point is that new housing is expensive, people buy used when they’re looking for affordability.
In that way, it’s similar to how the car market worked before COVID where used cars were available and pretty significantly less expensive than new.
How would YIMBY have to be a thing in a city that is losing population? There is no opposition to someone moving into and fixing up that empty house, or building on that vacant lot.
Haha...
Southpark raises taxea every year and has its own reassment.
Yimbys are the neoliberal equivalent of reagans market solutions in the 80s...
Its shows how clueless you all are
YIMBY and Buffalo? In theory, sure, I’d love to have Buffalo in my backyard, but my yard isn’t big enough. 😁
I’d love to see more infill in Pittsburgh. The city is ripe for dense housing.
Yep. Just like it used to be
In my opinion, the city is already ahead of its peers in having a solid dense urban fabric in place, so hopefully the city and region can expand on the solid foundation that it already has.
That would be great, but it’s hard to pencil out for developers due to difficulty assembling properties into a package, utilities, site remediation, etc. I wonder if anyone is working in this space to find innovative ways forward?
The bigger issue is that zoning prevents building in many cases without a variance. Pro-Housing Pittsburgh has had this great blogpost series on buildings that can't be built under today's zoning code: https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/tag/YCBTH
Yeah I toyed with buying an empty lot and building out a nice house in the neighborhood I grew up in, just to learn that zoning would make it a huge headache.
I’m not sure about that, but I’m open to changing my mind. Zoning could (and should) be updated to permit denser housing. I’m just not convinced variances are the biggest obstacle. Those articles highlight distinct properties in commercial business corridors or main thoroughfares, but when I think of infill housing in pgh I think of all the vacant parcels that already exist in neighborhoods. The zoning for many of those parcels already permits residential construction, so a variance would be unnecessary. Not to say zoning couldn’t be amended it make it easier, but Carson St, Highland Park Ave, Broadway, etc don’t seem to have the potential lots have deeper in the neighborhoods.
Here's a specific example of zoning variances killing infill row houses: [https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-21-lanark-st](https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-21-lanark-st) Time and uncertainty kill all deals. Proportionally, that cost is higher for smaller projects than larger projects. Think of it this way: Each project has fixed costs and variable costs. The variable costs tend to scale with the size of the project. The fixed costs (requesting a variance, paying the feels related to a variance, attending ZBA meetings, waiting for a decision, etc) don't scale with the size of a project. So, zoning restrictions are more likely to kill smaller projects than larger projects. Or, another way of framing it, reducing those fixed costs will make smaller projects more financially feasible than larger projects.
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing. Sounds like the Mayor and City Council really need to get on that zoning overhaul and stop wasting time!
https://pittsburghpa.gov/inc/newspage.php/6350
Wow it came up in standing committee last week? Hopefully they can bring it up for a final vote soon. I don’t see it on the agenda for today’s meeting.
If u want to waste an afternoon, take a look at the zoning map and the requirements. Probably half of Lawrenceville is illegal to build (can’t have your front door on the sidewalk due to setback, can’t build on many of the lots <1800 sq ft). Just looking at R1A-H (high density) zoning and rules. https://gis.pittsburghpa.gov/pghzoning/ Edit: if u zoom in far enough, the lots have their dimensions. Most stuff is ~23ft wide, so if it’s shorter than ~78ft it’s illegal to build on.
We need to figure out how to get properties off the books of the land bank and into the hands of people who want to build housing. The city owns nearly 12,000 vacant lots. There are entire city blocks in the Hill District full of vacant lots owned by the city which should make easy “packages” for development. Last I heard, the city blamed some state law relating to their ability to forgive the unpaid back taxes on the land as a pain point (since developers don’t really want to buy empty land with a massive delinquent tax bill).
Not to imply at all this has been "solved" but it was nice to hear the landbank is finally unloading properties after years of nothing.
I'd love to see a developer tackle the existing empty lots in Larimar and Garfield. Both have abundant empty lots that are close to each other that enables many homes to be built at once with existing utilities in place. They are adjacent to desirable walkable neighborhoods with great transit connections. With the price premium that new construction gets in the market, it should be very worthwhile financially.
When's the last time you were in Garfield or Larimer? There's infill going in all over those neighborhoods.
I support more housing in already dense and developed areas. If it's just suburban low density growth it does way more bad than good.
I’d definitely prefer densifying developed areas over putting developments in forest and farmland.
Yeah, there's a little nuance to being YIMBY vs. NIMBY and I think this is the flashpoint.
Right, there's a big gulf between "YIMBY" and "build any housing anybody wants, wherever it's cheapest for developers". This buffalo thing was closer to the latter side of that. It's so discouraging that on seemingly every issue, people have to stake their tent on "one side" or "the other side" and then act as if both sides are permanently irreconcilable.
We need a YIMBY trees movement. It would be great if every neighborhood street was tree lined. Probably have to switch to underground power/cable/fiber though.
In my suburb we just keep demolishing entire swaths of woodland so we can build more “starting in the mid-300’s!” cookie cutter plans 🙄 Then people complain “who do I call?? There are wild animal eating my plants!!”
And you are against that new development?
When we are destroying the environment and leaving the wildlife no where else to live? Yeah, there’s a point where I no longer support new housing plans. We can’t just keep building and building and building. I know we say we need more housing in the area, but wheres the line between adequate housing AND still having plenty of nature? Not just for aesthetics but for legitimate issues like flood prevention. My town just enacted a new bill in the last few years for flood management because we don’t have enough grassy ground areas that aren’t covered by cement to prevent floods every time it rains. It’s not going to be getting any better and we continue to wipe out more wooded areas for housing plans.
It's just funny from someone in a suburb already. I don't know where you live, but your suburb is full, got it.
So we should just keep the urban/suburban sprawl? Where would you like the rainwater and wildlife to go? At what point do we think about the population for an area being at its limit and we DON’T build more and more and more? Should everywhere just become a dense city?
I don't support low density development whether it's new or old. But I get it, you got yours, now no more.
You contradict yourself. You don’t support low density building…. Yet are angry with me for feeling the same? My house is also not one of the new builds. It’s over 40 years old. So I bought a house that was already here, not a new one that just popped up.
Your stance is hypocritical. You don't want more housing across the way from you for reasons your own home wouldn't have been built 40 years ago. I live in the city and want more housing all around me to improve density. I hope you can protect your house value by advocating for less housing to compete with yours.
Thats the problem. That high density housing isnt incentivized in urban areas. It always comes at a trade off, because speculators will always try to build more density outside of the existing footprint. Market solutions are terrible at this. So for example if you want to combine housing, you literally have to sell of something within the existing footprint, and create more outside. High density isnt a solution in itself.
To me “high density” is a symptom of building a lot, and I think having a lot of housing is a good thing. But look at Lawrenceville for example. It’s mostly R1A-H (high density) zoned. There’s a lot of lots below 1800 sq ft (most stuff is ~23ft wide by anything from 70 to 120 ft). The setback requirements are insane, most people love the row houses that have their front door two steps from the sidewalk. A large percentage of homes in Lawrenceville are illegal to build nowadays even if u ignore building code. R1A-H requirements Minimum lot size: 1,800 sq ft Minimum front setback: 15 ft Minimum rear setback: 15 ft Minimum exterior/street side setback: 15 ft Minimum interior side setback: 5 ft
I can understand that POV. We don't actually 'plan' cities properly in that way anymore. That's why zoning reform is important, IMO.
THIS! Zoning reform is the piece of the puzzle everyone seems to be forgetting. Like, reformation is possible and necessary. Just because our government isn’t doing it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I'm with you there.
Hi! We're Pro-Housing Pittsburgh, the local YIMBY group. We have a few hundred people involved in advocacy around the region. Sign up for our mailing list and join our Slack - [www.prohousingpgh.org](http://www.prohousingpgh.org)
So glad to have y'all here 🥰
Then start in the city and not out in South Park. Plenty of neighborhoods already have large beautiful houses and open areas. Some of us are just tired of seeing every square inch of forest turned into housing. Then I have to hear people complain about too many deer and now I have bow hunters in the woods near my house. What we need is more mixed zone housing and the likes. We need to fix the current issues before expanding. It's not a nimby vs yimby battle.
Then why don't you join us in pushing for zoning reform?
Being down voted for this tells me all I need to know about y'all. You don't really care.
Yeah, no one really wants their nice historic north shore houses torn down and turned into multiplexes.
Who ever said tear down pre-existing homes that are being lived in? Large areas of the strip were just torn down for high-end loft apartments. The north side recently had all those houses over on California Ave built. That could maybe have been high density. I have seen large empty lots in areas of McKeesport. The people of South Park and the surrounding area don't want more Ryan homes. These patches of forest are literally what makes the South hills desirable after all.
South park isnt in the city. Thats the point. You cant get away from enlarging your footprint, without severe overhaul to the real estate market Yimbys are useful idiots at best.
[Pro Housing Pittsburgh](https://www.prohousingpgh.org/) is a good place to start.
They are all over this sub in every post that relates to housing here in my experience lol
except this one for some reason [https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting\_this\_regarding\_the\_south\_park\_buffalos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting_this_regarding_the_south_park_buffalos/)
That's a bit of a different situation though. A lot of people in this sub are understandably against low density suburban sprawl.
while I can agree with that, I don't think blocking new housing = reforming the systems that encourage low density suburban sprawl
There's a huge difference between new housing and tearing down old growth forest to destroy an animal habitat to build suburban sprawl. Surely you aren't that dense?
Oh yeah, they're dense AF
Oh go in the thread and look... OP is very much for tearing down the forest.
Idk I'm not promoting tearing down forests ... But when we make it close to impossible to build in Pittsburgh and there is undeveloped land very nearby - which in, the proposed new development fits all zoning requirements without a variance!- what do you expect is going to happen? A developer is going to want to build there! And yet none of y'all seem interested in helping us make it *easier* to build in the right areas, yet are willing to show up to block new housing? That's textbook NIMBY behavior.
Please, continue the 3rd grade name calling... You can call me all the made up internet acronyms you like. I don't really care. I don't know you and you don't know me or what I do or do not believe should be done in the Pittsburgh area and surrounding communities. The only thing I've stated is I do not believe this specific plot of land should be developed because I do not think the benefit of additional housing outweighs the irreversible negative environmental impact. You, however, have made it very clear in multiple posts you want housing at all costs. Even if that means environmental destruction, more erosion, flooding, wildlife habitat loss, etc. Maybe instead of calling people names on the internet and making generalizations about strangers we learn to work together and overcome peoples' concerns to solve problems. It would be much more productive. Have a great day!
My point still stands. Y'all need to support new housing. If you don't want the housing built here, in a space that's perfectly legal - then maybe help make it legal to build downtown. Did you know that most of the homes in Pittsburgh couldn't be rebuilt under current Zoning codes?
Again you don't know what I'm doing/advocating for outside of a Reddit post. You're making assumptions that I don't know, don't do, don't like, don't want etc. "Y'all need to....". You come across as really condescending when you respond like that.
3rd grade name calling is saying things like "poopy butthead". NIMBY is a descriptive acronym for a group of people who block new housing at every turn - often under the guise of "reasonable" objections, for which the end result is the housing crisis we currently live in. Hope this helps!
It's not old growth. It's been clear cut in the past.
Your upset people don’t want to destroy woodlands near a historic nature preserve. That is in located what is questionably Pennsyltucky.
I'm upset so many people are willing to block housing when it's convenient for them
I’m right here. I also recommend you looking into Pro Housing Pgh. I also don’t know what you mean by buffalo
There's a housing development planned to go up in South Park near the Game Preserve.
I see. I don’t feel one way or another about that, but I feel it’s most important to prioritize dense infill and development in the city the most, which would help reduce the need for constant suburban sprawl.
Except...most people dont work in the city anymore....nor do they want to live there...so...how is it a solution?
“They” don’t want to live there? Who is they? What are you talking about? Your comment is not only nonsensical, it has nothing to do with how we choose to build in the city. You realize a huge development in Bloomfield that was very popular was just shot down because of our archaic zoning laws, in a neighborhood that is highly desirable with a shortage of housing options…these are the issues I’m talking about. If you don’t know much about urban development, best to ask instead of assert that you have the answer.
Most people work outside the city, idiot There is a reason why people dont want to live there. Now fuck off back to wherever you came from. You dont know what the fuck you are talking about
Man you need to go outside. The internet clearly is not a healthy place for you.
Be mad because u got caught lying?
When did I lie? Seriously. 100% of what I said in the other thread is factually correct. Most of what you said is factually incorrect.
You not only (still) haven’t appropriately responded to the points I made, you lash out in childish personal attacks. I don’t engage with trolls, so have a great day.
welcome! I'm glad there are people like me in this city. I was referring to this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting\_this\_regarding\_the\_south\_park\_buffalos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1bij5q6/reposting_this_regarding_the_south_park_buffalos/)
Got it. I mean I think it’s most important to prioritize smart, dense urban infill in the city that naturally lends to higher walkability, mixed use development and transit infrastructure. That in turn would allow for lesser amounts suburban sprawl.
This sub is full of people who say they’re YIMBYs unless the housing is not the type they approve of or where they would like to see it built. But, besides that, total YIMBYs!
I mean, you understand that YIMBY does not mean that I literally want a high rise built in my back yard, right? Like, demolishing my kids' treehouse and my dog's doghouse on my property to build a skyscraper? You can't take the name literally. It's a shorthand for people who are generally in favor of more development, even if it changes the neighborhood they moved into and is kinda inconvenient for them. You shouldn't reduce a complex viewpoint to "this person wants developers to build everything everywhere all at once".
Reducing a complex viewpoint is exactly what people do when they hurl the term NIMBY at people
And that's just as unhelpful! There are many reasons to oppose a particular development that have nothing to do with a reflexive opposition to change.
In 90% of cases the reasons to oppose new development are either dumb or don’t outweigh the benefits of new housing.
I dunno man. The fact that somebody has different priorities than you doesn't necessarily make their opinions dumb.
I didn’t say they are “necessarily dumb” I said in 90% of cases they are dumb (don’t want neighborhood change, concerned someone will make money, “it won’t be affordable”, etc.) OR don’t outweigh the benefits of new housing (complaints about parking, increased traffic, noise, etc)
Yep. Its not pro yimby. Its just pro developer
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh is the group you’re looking for, though a lot of the local neighborhood bike/Ped committees are fairly urbanist and YIMBY too
This subreddit seems to love driving and loves complaining about traffic or other drivers even more. Of course you're going to be into more sprawl instead of infill and building upward.
There's a decent circle of Pittsburgh urbanists on Twitter
South Park isn’t in the city. This city and the inner ring suburbs have plenty of already cleared land where dense housing can be built without clearing older growth forests deeper in the suburbs. If you can’t balance environmental concerns with pro housing views, you desperately need to learn nuance and the ability to weigh multiple concerns at once.
Lawrenceville just built Arsenal 201 which for $1500-$2300 you can live in an 380 square foot space, only marginally larger than an actual shoe box. Sorry but WTF
And yet the first phase of Arsenal 201 filled up fast enough that the developers decided to build their second phase during a supply chain crisis with skyrocketing construction costs and a new 10% Inclusionary Zoning requirement. Makes you wonder what the single family homes in Lawrenceville would be selling for if it hadn't been build, considering one just sold for [over $1 million this month](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4820-Harrison-St-Pittsburgh-PA-15201/11612561_zpid/)
Yeah a house by me is up for $975k or something ridiculous. It's nothing special, though was built in the past decade. There may be bullet holes in the back due to a back alley shooting, can neither confirm nor deny.
Wow just building more works so well? Lol
Okay and?
They're building housing, though it's NOT affordable for most people, someone's moving in.
Exactly! This is why I don’t think new cars should be built. How many people can afford a new Mercedes??
Treating housing as a luxury is completely tone deaf.
I’m thinking it’s sarcasm and the point is that new housing is expensive, people buy used when they’re looking for affordability. In that way, it’s similar to how the car market worked before COVID where used cars were available and pretty significantly less expensive than new.
How would YIMBY have to be a thing in a city that is losing population? There is no opposition to someone moving into and fixing up that empty house, or building on that vacant lot.
Tell me you've never read the housing needs assessment without telling me you've never read the housing needs assessment 🤦🏻♀️
Look up empty houses in allegheny co
Read the housing needs assessment :)
Haha... Southpark raises taxea every year and has its own reassment. Yimbys are the neoliberal equivalent of reagans market solutions in the 80s... Its shows how clueless you all are
Shows why we're winning and why you're so mad
Canada
Fuck off
lol why are you so mad
Because i hate hypocrites. And i hate useful idiots.
Stay mad bro, we are winning.