Please check out my photo essay on Rust Wire

 

http://rustwire.com/2009/06/18/photo-essay-pittsburgh-steel/

 

Good stuff.

 

I don't know if you can answer this but I've wondered why Pittsburgh has been able to rebound from its loose of steel better than Cleveland has.

 

The best theory I have heard is that Pittsburgh's steel industry hit rock bottom earlier than Cleveland's and that when Cleveland's steel industry went under there was still a lot of smaller industries which stopped Cleveland from completely retooling its workforce and focus.

 

Any Thoughts..

The steel industry was very significant to the Pittsburgh area.  Yes it was significant to Cleveland, but Cleveland also seemed to have more industrial diversity and just was not as dominated by steel as Pittsburgh.  Pittsburgh had (and has) large corporations not related to steel and that helped, but when the city hit bottom in the early/mid 80s it was depression level economic loss.

 

Pittsburgh had to move and fortunately its institutions including Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Pittsburgh and others' investments  helped the transition.

 

The region is still suffering from the 70s and 80s epic population loss as it suffers from a higher death rate than birth rate which most other cities do not encounter.  Net loss from migration is much lower now and there would like be an overall population gain if not for this unique natural loss situation. 

"Yes it was significant to Cleveland, but Cleveland also seemed to have more industrial diversity and just was not as dominated by steel as Pittsburgh."

 

Exactly. In Pittsburgh's case, the steel industry was vaporized in a short period of time - so Pittsburgh HAD to transition its economic base quickly. In Cleveland's case, heavy industry has been dying a prolonged death over several decades, and subsequently the transition to a more diverse economy is happening at a slower pace.

Another thing which I find amazing about Pittsburgh is how intact their neighborhoods are.  Its seems that the isolation the neighborhoods have from each because of Pittsburgh hilly topography has helped keep neighborhoods in tact.  And this includes gritty neighborhoods too.  But why are Cleveland neighborhoods is such worst shape that Pittsburgh neighborhoods considering that Cleveland also lost about 50% of its population (I'm almost positive this will happend by the next census)

Another thing which I find amazing about Pittsburgh is how intact their neighborhoods are.  Its seems that the isolation the neighborhoods have from each because of Pittsburgh hilly topography has helped keep neighborhoods in tact.  And this includes gritty neighborhoods too.  But why are Cleveland neighborhoods is such worst shape that Pittsburgh neighborhoods considering that Cleveland also lost about 50% of its population (I'm almost positive this will happend by the next census)

 

This came up in the Sprawl of it All thread a couple weeks ago.  Short verson from my perspective:  Cleveland and Pittsburgh made different choices about their historic building stock, particularly of the mixed-use and neighborhood retail variety.  At the time Cleveland seemed more "progressive" by tearing it all down, but hindsight has favored Pittsburgh's approach.  I think Pittsburgh's hills get more credit than they deserve in this equation.  Plenty of flatter industrial cities also retain more intact neighborhoods than Cleveland.

 

P.S. Excellent photo essay.

I would say that topography did impact growth patterns.  Pittsburgh has its fair share of sprawl, but the older areas are simply dense hilly neighborhoods.  Even some of the inner burbs are relatively dense.  One could not just throw a sprawling neighborhood just anywhere and it’s certainly was harder to find long flat pieces of land for big box development.  That said, all of that does exist.  I think from looking at numbers that Pittsburgh really slowed down by the end of the 60s and hit its population peak around ’70 or 71 – ironically just as the U.S. Steel tower was completed and dominated the skyline.

 

Of course the city population, like most others was already declining.  Another ironic thing is that the city now has seen increases in younger demographics as opposed than many burbs.  I would guess because young professionals want to live in the city and the burbs have many older workers and empty nesters etc.

 

I really feel for Detroit because I know it will take a long time to recover.  Pittsburgh is not out of the woods – again the legacy of the downfall lives on in the demographic oddity of natural decline and the inherent slow growth from slow growth.

 

It is very frustrating as all of industrial Northeastern and Midwestern cities have some great institutions, neighborhoods and character and continue to struggle.

 

I wouldn't leave out the legacy of massive disinvestment by industry and the accompanying effect of deindustrialization. The flight of industry and capital to the sunbelt (and out of the country) has had a disproportionate impact on the midwest and northeast. Even for cities like Pittsburgh, which handled the decline of the steel industry as well as could be expected, total recovery has been elusive.

Another thing which I find amazing about Pittsburgh is how intact their neighborhoods are. Its seems that the isolation the neighborhoods have from each because of Pittsburgh hilly topography has helped keep neighborhoods in tact. And this includes gritty neighborhoods too. But why are Cleveland neighborhoods is such worst shape that Pittsburgh neighborhoods considering that Cleveland also lost about 50% of its population (I'm almost positive this will happend by the next census)

 

This came up in the Sprawl of it All thread a couple weeks ago. Short verson from my perspective: Cleveland and Pittsburgh made different choices about their historic building stock, particularly of the mixed-use and neighborhood retail variety. At the time Cleveland seemed more "progressive" by tearing it all down, but hindsight has favored Pittsburgh's approach. I think Pittsburgh's hills get more credit than they deserve in this equation. Plenty of flatter industrial cities also retain more intact neighborhoods than Cleveland.

 

I definitevly agree which Cleveland's tearing down much of its historic building stock.  The east side in particular took a huge shot.  It just boogles my mind when I think of how many brownstone building existed in places like Hough, Kinsman, Glenville, Euclid and Prospect; not to mention Millionaires row being destroyed.  But I still see the topography theory as being important.  For instance it has played a big role in Cincinnati where many more urban neighborhoods are still in tact.

 

P.S. Excellent photo essay.

You can check out allot of my other work here:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanposey/

Nice pics. I've been by the Carrie Furnace numerous times on the train, including back before it was closed in 1986. I rode past it again in 1987 and was surprised to see it and the rest of the massive Homestead Works dark -- I hadn't heard it closed. I wished I was more aware of what was going on then, but I was still in college.

 

There's a tremendous sampling of steel mill photos taken in the 1980s and into the early 90s in the Mon Valley here....

 

http://www.flickr.com/groups/72711416@N00/pool/

 

Some other pictures I've found on the web.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the historic photos and the Mon valley group from Flickr!

I would wager that Pittsburgh's neighborhoods were also able to stay intact because the city doesn't have the same ethnic diversity of places like Cleveland and Detroit.

I would wager that Pittsburgh's neighborhoods were also able to stay intact because the city doesn't have the same ethnic diversity of places like Cleveland and Detroit.

While Pittsburgh is not racially diverse, the place was as ethnically diverse as they come. In fact, many attribute the existence of so many ethnic enclaves for the reason widespread decay was fairly slow to happen.

Here is my take on the differences between what happened in Cleveland, vs what happened in Pittsburgh.

1. Downtown. Pittsburgh's Downtown is hemmed in by the rivers, and surrounding hills. In many ways, the forces that shaped Pittsburgh's skyline, are the same as in Manhattan, but of course on a smaller level. A lack of cheap, buildable land, forced builders to build upwards, while Cleveland had plenty of room to spread out.

2. Neighborhoods. Cleveland is overwhelmingly a city of frame houses. Frame houses tend not to withstand neglect, thus an area of frame houses will quickly go to seed if care and investment are lacking. Pittsburgh's most vulnerable areas tended to be filled with brick buildings, including many rowhouses. Not needing to be painted, these can withstand much more neglect. Those of you in Cincy need only look at how intact OTR is, despite how long it's been "the hood".

 

3. Industry. An earlier poster was right. Pittsburgh lacked diversity in it's manufacturing. Steel was overwhelmingly dominant, and when it crashed, Pittsburgh ceased to be an industrial city. Cleveland has held on to much more manufacturing, but has been enduring a slow bleed.

 

4. Higher Education. While Case Western can be compared to Carnegie-Mellon, Cleveland State is in no way comparable to Pitt, with it's huge medical complex, and AAU status. Pittsburgh also has a major, 10,000 student Catholic university (Duquesne), something Cleveland lacks. Along with Point Park University, and 2 women's universities (Carlow and Chatham), these employ a ton of workers in Pittsburgh, and are in many ways, the backbone of the economy here, and that's not even counting Robert Morris University, which has a campus downtown, but is mainly out by the airport.

Ytown, excellent essay and I hope to see more.  I'm really intrigued by old abandoned industrial facilities.