A few weeks back, Forbes named Pittsburgh as the most livable city in the U.S. The description of the city talks about its “art scene, job prospects, safety and affordability,” and presents a picture of Pittsburgh as a city that has rebounded from both its industrial past and the current economic crisis to become a cultural and intellectual hotspot:
Forbes ranked cities based on unemployment, rates of income growth in the past 5 years, crime rates, cost of living, and cultural/artistic opportunities (according to Sperling’s Best Places Arts & Leisure Index). The final score is an average of the different elements, each of which are weighted equally, though I can’t help but think a lot of people might think some of those factors are more important in how they evaluate a location than others. Also, I have some reservations about rankings from Sperling’s Best Places, as they have a “manliest cities” ranking commissioned by Combos snacks that includes “sales of salty snacks/crackers” and deductions for “emasculating” criteria like sushi restaurants.
But I digress. As it turns out, this glowing report is only part of the story of Pittsburgh. The city also tops the charts in terms of African American poverty. African Americans in the region haven’t benefited from the economic turnaround Forbes discussed.
In light of this fact, Jasiri X, a rapper from Pittsburgh, wrote “America’s Most Livable City.” In the song (lyrics here) and video he questions who, exactly, the city is livable for, contrasting the image portrayed in the Forbes article with the region’s neglected and under-developed African American neighborhoods:
There are also three videos featuring Jasiri X interviewing residents of poor neighborhoods. All are worth a watch, but I think the best is the 2nd segment. A local resident discusses how what he sees as exaggerated media reports of the crime and danger in some areas — some created by well-meaning people trying to bring attention to the needs of the community by, he believes, playing up the bad aspects — served to justify abandoning Black neighborhoods in desperate need of economic opportunities:
For another discussion of very different experiences of economic crisis and recovery, see our guest post about Forbes ranking Stockton, CA, as the most miserable city in the U.S.
Thanks to Abby Kinchy for the link.
Comments 78
eeka — June 17, 2011
Glad I'm not the only one who sees the ridiculousness of these rankings. I for one would find Pittsburgh less livable than many places since I wouldn't be legally married.
It's not even limited to the "for whom" factor though; I once got some e-mail newsletter, I think from a real estate company, telling me some 98%-white small city in Ohio with no non-Christian houses of worship and no visible queer community was the best place to raise a family in America. Really? Even if this is your family's demographic, who the hell has decided that the best place to raise children is one where they learn that all people are white and Christian and straight?
Tenorina — June 17, 2011
I lived in the city of Pittsburgh for five years, still live right outside of the city, and I think this is a very interesting perspective. The line in this song "Tear down the projects and put up a Target" refers to a development going up about five minutes from my old home in the East Liberty section of town.
I'm a white young professional, was a Pitt grad student at the time I lived in the city, and within a year of moving into the city I had a guy shot on my front porch. It was certainly a sobering introduction to street crime, and opened my eyes considerably to the 'hidden life' of Pittsburgh, which is simultaneously ignored by the powers that be and showcased on the news every night. And let's not even get into those cops who beat up that kid (google 'Jordan Miles Pittsburgh').
I've often been unsettled by the disconnect between the glossy downtown (as Jasiri X puts it "Glass and steel cathedrals the cost a few million") and the crumbling 19th century homes where I and many others tried to get by. The home I lived in, which had been converted to apartments, was Section 8 housing and full of black mold and ceiling leaks.
Anyways, I know that's just my anecdotal perspective, but I'm really glad I saw this post today and that people are discussing this disconnect. It's a pretty livable city... but yeah, for who? :)
S — June 17, 2011
I'm sorry, I just got stuck on the idea that sales of salty snacks/crackers contributes to a city's "manliness" ranking??? That's... I don't even... wow.
First of all that is completely ridiculous, and second, are salty snacks really gendered masculine? If anything I would say that I associate salty snacks with women because they make me think of PMS cravings...
Allen — June 17, 2011
Pittsburgh has long been, and continues to be a very segregated city. One example of this divide is the ongoing "debate" regarding the future of the civic arena, a project that has long illustrated the divide between the city's urban poor and elites (a sizable portion of the hill district, a large minority neighborhood in the city, was demolished using eminent domain to make way for the entertainment complex in 1961).
The idea of Pittsburgh being "livable" is also a misnomer. The population of the city grows enormously during the work week because of workers who travel from the outlining cities and suburban to the downtown "golden triangle" for their jobs. Most of the best schools, housing, and other amenities can be found in those outlining areas where the tax dollars of the wealth remain heavily concentrated.
m — June 17, 2011
Yeah, there are no words for this. Worst part of it is, the privilieged epople are probably complaining about crime rates anyway. It's just too much for words, that they can boast an economic upturn and do nothing with it.
Andy — June 17, 2011
Pittsburgh is a great city with 6.5% unemployment, decent public transportation and cheap housing that everyone can purchase anywhere in the metro area. I grew up in Chicago's south suburbs so I do know what segregation and racism look like. Even Dr. Sharp's statistical evidence, although well over a year old now, points out that African Americans in Pittsburgh live throughout the region not just in segregated inner city neighborhoods. That isn't strong evidence for segregation Allen.
The Doctor's evidence, if anyone bothered to read the article, also pointed to a conclusion about the poverty; too many single women are having children they cannot afford. Obviously it was easier for you to just take a swipe at the city's image/reputation than to offer an article about personal responsibility.
And EEKA, I'm gay and I have had no problems buying a home, finding friends and being happy. It's funny that so many trolls have to find someone or something to point their finger at to explain their misery. When you really should be pointing that finger at yourself.
Nora — June 17, 2011
I grew up in Pittsburgh and lived in Philadelphia for five years, and the differences between the two is staggering. Pittsburgh has it's problems: public transportation is a mess, poverty is always a problem, and the population is aging and we have historically had a hard time bringing young people into the city. But these are problems all cities have. Through personal experience, not data, I would hazard a guess that these urban-specific problems are less severe than in many, if not most, other American cities. Pittsburgh is unique in that higher education is available and some prestigious colleges are literally a bus ride away for nearly all residents, but that being "uneducated" doesn't hold people back. The blue collar backbone of the city still affords a lot of opportunity for those who didn't or couldn't go to college. Community outreach is absurdly prevalent in all of the neighborhoods.
My time in Philadelphia brought the positives in Pittsburgh into stark contrast. The second video in this post talks about the abandoned houses and stashing bodies and gun fights all over the place and how that is so not the case in the so-called "bad neighborhoods." In Philly, these conditions are really not an exaggeration. But the native Homewood resident explaining that the residents pride in their homes, the sense of community they shared, and the dreams for a better life for their children is something I never saw living in North Philadelphia. My neighbors there felt like powerless victims and they made no effort at all to help themselves. I agree that Pittsburgh may not help minorities in poor neighborhoods enough, but the pride they take in themselves and in Pittsburgh is the reason why it's so livable. Even walking around Wilkinsburg and Homewood and the North Side, I never feel the crushing depression and paranoia that I felt walking around North Philadelphia and West Philly and Kensington. Gentrification and institutional racism is a problem, like in all cities, but Pittsburghers refuse to be victims and these videos I think support my point. These videos show the agency even those without a whole of power still have, that they are willing to use it, and that their passion for making the city better and boldness in using their voices is really what makes Pittsburgh the best place to live.
Alyssa — June 17, 2011
Sushi restaurants make a city less "manly?" That's not only sexist, it's racist too.
Kat — June 17, 2011
Tear down the projects and put up a Target.. the same exact thing happened in Chicago. The CHA tore down the notorious Cabrini Green development, put a mixed-income development across the street, and now just did a land-swap so Target can be located in the development. Target reached out to the CHA to do this, which leads me to believe that they just wanted to reach the market in that part of town (which is very rich for those of you who arent from Chicago). According to CHA, Target will provide jobs to residents (not sure if it is mandatory that they hire them though). My main point is.. most of the original residents who lived in Cabrini have already been relocated to other areas throughout the city, and only 35% live in mixed-income housing, 20% live in other public housing, and 45% are living in the private market with a voucher (not including those who were evicted, lost, or died). You can read more if you go to the CHA's website and take a look at the relocation report which they recently produced themselves... Overall though, a job at Target is not likely to raise you out of poverty and move you towards "self-sufficiency" given the wages they pay, so I wonder who is really benefiting from this deal.
azizi — June 17, 2011
As an African American resident of Pittsburgh since 1969, I believe that whether Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is the most livable city in the USA depends on that person's race and that person's economic class.
As has been mentioned by other commenters, institutional racism and problems with police abuse very much continue to be realities in Pittsburgh as they are in other American cities. And there is a dire need in Pittsburgh for jobs that pay a living wage for persons who don't have any college education.
African Americans are only 12% of Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located). While African Americans are clustered in certain sections of Pittsburgh (such as the communities of Homewood, East Liberty, and The Hill that were mentioned in that video), there are also other African Americans (and other Black people who aren’t African Americans) who live in other neighborhoods scattered throughout Pittsburgh. Some of those communities are far apart from others, and some are more racially integrated than others. it seems to me that the poorer the community, the more racially segregated it is. Unlike many other cities in the USA, Pittsburgh there are very few Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans in Pittsburgh. Consequently, usually issues of personal racism and structural racism are Black and White.
Although I don't believe that Pittsburgh is the USA's most liveable city as I would measure quality of life for all of its residents, I still feel the need to counter the negative image of Pittsburgh that has portrayed in those videos and in some of these comments. Firstly, those videos are giving Homewood a bad rap. I know that area of Homewood, and I emphatically believe that no area like that should ever exist any where. I also emphatically area that the Homewood section of Pittsburgh needs more infrastructure, more grocery stores (at least one grocery store would be nice), and its residents need more jobs. That said, the area of Homewood that is depicted in those videos is not how all of Homewood looks. I believe that in order to make a valid point, the producers of those videos targeted one of the worse areas in a section of that Homewood neighborhood. Other sections of Homewood are much less run down than that section, and not as crime ridden. The Homewood community of Pittsburgh includes some very well kept one family owned or rented homes, many churches, a number of public schools including a newly built school, a branch of the Carnegie library, an African American music institute, and a branch of the city's community college.
I live in the East Liberty section of Pittsburgh that is right near Homewood. The "housing project" that was mentioned in the video which was torn down to make way for a Target store was one high rise building. And that building had a bad reputation as not a safe place to live. Other low income housing for working class families and low income housing for the elderly have recently been built in that same Pittsburgh neighborhood of East Liberty and in the nearby Pittsburgh neighborhood of Garfield, and in The Hill . I can't speak to the quality of the building materials, but those housing units certainly do look better than the housing that was there before.
With regard to the racial segregation that exists in some communities of Pittsburgh and its surrounding communities, I think nowadays this is more because we (Black people) can't afford to own or rent those houses than because of structural racism that directly prohibits us from living in those communities.
I've no doubt that the quality of public education in many of the suburban cities surrounding Pittsburgh is better than the education in Pittsburgh's public schools (which btw are quite segregated in certain neighborhoods like Homewood, East Liberty, The Hill, and Garfield). Yet, as a former substitute teacher whose daughter is a public school teacher, I believe that the quality of education in many Pittsburgh public schools is much better than the quality of public schools in many other US urban schools.
And there are a number of charter schools in Pittsburgh that that aren't all that pricey. Furthermore, Pittsburgh's community college is very well respected. As I previously mentioned, a branch of that college is in Homewood.
Also, Pittsburgh’s transportation system compares very favorably in its routes and times that buses run to that of many urban areas, though I believe that the cost of a one route bus trip with a transfer is high at $3.25. And to further counter the negative rap that Pittsburgh is getting, Pittsburgh's hospital systems are world renown, and those hospitals are very accessible by public transportation. Pittsburgh's library, its museum systems-including the children's museum, and the newly built August Wilson African American museum- its zoo, and its numerous arts venues also contribute to the quality of life in that city.
It concerns me that (it seems to me that) only a small percentage of working class African Americans frequent some of the cultural offerings that make Pittsburgh "liveable". Some of this is because of costs, but not all of it. I think some working class, and poor African Americans still have concerns about being "the only one" or being one of very few Black people in integrated social settings. This is something that we African Americans have to work through, as we continue to address issues of structural racism, job availability, and other social issues such as equality for gays. Successfully addressing all of those issues and others would truly make Pittsburgh one of the USA's most liveable cities.
Aoirthoir — June 17, 2011
IN response to Jenna above:
"But you are ignoring the fact that M’s comment already negates the need for yours."
No I'm not, because M's comment didn't negate the need for mine.
"Since it was CLEARLY directed towards Andy’s example of how he got out of poverty"
EXACTLY. How ANDY said ZE got out of poverty. In NO WAY was Andy saying OTHERS had to take the path ZE did.
Thus it does negate ze's agency, UNLESS the comment is CLARIFIED to mean OTHERS.
"and in response to why M disagreed that would be a valid way for anyone/everyone."
Yes in response to ANDY talking about how ANDY got out of poverty. Since Andy already made it clear that's how ze got out of poverty, saying it's NOT A VALID WAY to get out of poverty NEGATES ANDY'S AGENCY. But saying, "Alright that's good and I'm glad it helped YOU get out of poverty. But of course the military is not a path OTHERS SHOULD HAVE to take to get out of poverty..." acknowledges Andy's own agency, is not dismissive of Andy's life choices, AND STILL expresses that Andy's choices should NOT HAVE to apply to others.
"Really, you are making quite a few comments like that."
Comments like pointing out the facts, demonstrating how we don't get to demean others' life choices, highlighting problematic comments and other comments that you don't like?
"I’m not sure what your game is"
My "game" is exactly what my comments say it is. I don't TYPE ONE THING and yet mean SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY. I type only exactly what I mean, PERIOD. Ive got no HIDDEN meanings, no HIDDEN agenda. Like YOU, I am CRITIQUING what persons say. The funny thing is though that leftists tend to critique OTHERS, to the point of telling those others what they MEANT, THOUGHT or FELT, even when what they said was actually the OPPOSITE of what the leftist claims they meant, and when they've given NO INDICATION that they actually THINK or FEEL what the leftist claims they think or feel. And though leftists regularly critiquing others, they resist when THEY THEMSELVES are critiqued.
So much so that leftists remind me of another group.
Rightists/rightests.
Aoirthoir — June 17, 2011
"No, your game is to put words in other people's mouths."
No actually I quoted you directly. Then, I said plainly that what you said removed his agency. I then added that if you MEANT OTHER PEOPLE, then it didn't remove Andy's agency. But putting words in your mouth? Nope.
"Andy put the blame of poverty on its vitctims, and you know it."
Where did I claim otherwise?
"His response to it as a societal problem was that poor people should use any means necessary to get out, including the military, which has come up earlier as a supposedly good way of getting out of poverty."
No. Now YOU are the ones putting words in peoples mouth. Andy never said OTHER people should use the military to get out of poverty. Andy said ZE used the military to get out of poverty.
"Considering that the poor are exactly the groups that is targeted for recruitment, this is an absolutely abhorrent thing to normalize."
Describing FACTS from one's own life, things you ACTUALLY DID, isn't normalizing it for other people.
"People are basically expected to turn themselves into cannon fodder, or they can't complain about their poverty."
I tend to support our military personell. So much so that I don't agree with the fact that they are indeed "property". Not sure if that's what you meant or not...but it's a fact they sign their lives over to the military. If they are fighting for freedom, then should be allowed to leave any time they want.
This is an issue in which I've had REAL LIFE experience, having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for a number of years. They refuse military service. More than a few that I knew had faced jail time during the draft period. Others had to go to great lengths to get out of the military since they had joined before converting, but once they converted, they could no longer participate as military personell.
So yeah the idea of the military as a WAY OUT for OTHERS, sure I can see you disagreeing with that.
"That you should turn this into a discussion about wether or not I blame Andy for taking that route is vile."
I said nothing about you "blaming" Andy. I said you removed Andy's agency. When Andy talked about ze's experience and choices, there was NO implication that OTHERS HAD to follow in ze's footsteps. Andy gets to make decisions about ze's own life even if you, or I or any other thing those decisions don't apply to others lives. Even though we're RIGHT that those decisions don't apply to others' lives.
"It's a tyrannical system with a disturbing normalcy, and that you're attacking critical voices against it makes it even worse."
You weren't attacked. You were critiqued. Big difference. You weren't critiqued for thinking yea or nay about the military. You were critiqued because your WORDS REMOVED Andy's agency. Your INTENT doesn't matter. Your ACTUAL words do.
"Andy made a choice that I won't take away from him. It's the nonchalance that ze, you and others treat it with that disgusts me."
Nonchalance? You mean because I don't object to a person's life choices FOR THEMSELVES? Alright, well if that disgusts you, that's an issue you have. I have no issue not telling people how to live their own lives.
"Now, I'm not the most eloquent speaker, but if you tell me that "noone should have to..." was directed specifcally to him in a discussion that is about poverty on the structural level, you were either doing a clumsy read or a read in bad faith, which meand you're walking out of this as a troll or someone who made a mistake. "
Well there we go, the mother of all arguments !TROLL!.
In any case my critique of your words, and of Jenna's objection to my critique your words stand factually. Factually you DID say "none should have to..." in RESPONSE to ANDY's statement that ZE took the military as a way out, when ZE made NO STATEMENT or IMPLICATION, that OTHERS should do so. So yeah, like it or not, that DOES require you to take some responsibility to FIRST NOT DISMISS Andy's agency. THEN to respond about whether OR NOT, the military is a way out, or even should be a way out, for OTHER people.
Andy seems just fine with Ze's decision, and I'm not going to tell ze what's what about ze's own life. Neither should you.
"Don't you dare tell me otherwise. I am sick and tired of having people pin a sentiment on me just so they can look infallible. It won't work."
Except, I pinned no sentiment on you. What you INTENDED to mean is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you SAID. WHY you said what you said doesn't matter, and it doesn't change the fact that it strips another of their agency.
AlgebraAB — June 17, 2011
Re: government initiative, I find it interesting that the choice presented is between neglect and building a big-box story or mixed-use development. It reminds me of the macroeconomy, where the present debate is between doing nothing and increased fiscal stimulus that will allow for more debt and thus, presumably, more consumption.
The assumption is being made that the only economic role available to Americans is that of consumers. This is also why the issue of gentrification becomes a problem - big-box stores or mixed-used development are focused on geography rather than population. If the populace in question can't afford the new consumption options then a new populace that can replaces them and, ultimately, poverty just gets moved around geographically and no real solution is attained.
I believe that, as with the macroeconomy, the key to economic development for the impoverished communities in question is the kind of physical-production focused, hopefully export-oriented, industry that is so sorely lacking. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of these neighborhoods started taking a dive and became impoverished as deindustrialization accelerated in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s.
Gilbert Pinfold — June 18, 2011
I get the general point, but do you have a suggestion of what city would be a better choice? assuming we still want to have a concept of 'most livable city', in the here and now.
Sunday Reading « zunguzungu — June 19, 2011
[...] Pittsburgh: the most livable city for white people. [...]
finette — June 20, 2011
Also check the Forbes slideshow to accompany the list: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/29/cities-livable-pittsburgh-lifestyle-real-estate-top-ten-jobs-crime-income_slide.html
Look at all those white people!
With the wildly high murder rates in Chicago and Detroit, will Pittsburgh follow that trend? - Page 6 - City-Data Forum — February 1, 2013
[...] [...]