FINANCING YOUR PURCHASE OR RENOVATION: For those interested in obtaining financing for purchase of a home or remodeling, I have recently come across two interesting funding sources.

The first is http://www.prosper.com which allows you to borrow money from other people rather than banks. When you enter your information into the web site, it gives you a credit rating and a debt-income ratio. You can post the amount you'd like to borrow and the interest rate you'd like to pay and lenders (regular people who want to lend money, not banks) can bid for your loan. these loans cxan be used for purchase or repairs or pretty much anything.

The second is a HUD loan I was not aware of that allows you to borrow small amounts for renovation. You have to live in the home you are remodeling. This is called the Streamlined 203(k) Limited Repair Program. A link is available from the resources page of http://www.dunnrealtor.com

For more links and financial programs, visit http://www.dunnrealtor.com and click on RESOURCES.

(p.s. no warranties are made or implied by Eric Miller or Dunn Real Estate Services)

Existing-home sales in most states were down from year-ago levels in the fourth quarter. In the fourth-quarter, metro area single-family home prices, examining changes in 149 metropolitan statistical areas, (2) show 71 areas had price gains from a year earlier, including 14 metros with double-digit annual increases, and 73 areas had price declines; five were unchanged.

The national median existing single-family home price was $219,300 in the fourth quarter, down 2.7 percent from a year earlier when the median price was $225,300. The median is a typical market price where half of the homes sold for more and half sold for less. For all of 2006, the median price rose 1.4 percent to $222,000.

A new comparison of annual single-family home prices in metropolitan areas shows that typical sellers experienced healthy gains on the value of their home over the last five years in almost all 131 available areas, even in areas with recent price declines.

The biggest total sales increase was in Indiana, where existing-home sales rose 13.7 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005. In Arkansas the fourth-quarter resale pace rose 11.1 percent from a year earlier, while Texas experienced the third strongest gain, up 6.2 percent.

Over the last five years, metro areas with the largest single-family price gains include the California areas of Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, up 155.3 percent, and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, up 142.3 percent, followed by the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach area of Florida, up 135.4 percent.

In the fourth quarter, the largest single-family home price increase was in the Atlantic City, N.J., area, where the median price of $339,800 was 25.9 percent higher than a year ago. Next was the Salt Lake City area, at $223,600, up 22.7 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005. The Trenton-Ewing area of New Jersey, with a fourth quarter median price of $289,000, increased 18.9 percent in the last year.

Median fourth-quarter metro area single-family prices ranged from a very affordable $78,400 in Elmira, N.Y., to nearly 10 times that amount in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara area of California where the median price was $760,000. The second most expensive area was San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, at $733,400, followed by the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine area (Orange Co., Calif.), at $690,700.

In addition to Elmira, N.Y., other affordable markets include the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman area of Ohio and Pennsylvania, with a fourth-quarter median price of $80,000, and Decatur, Ill., at $89,200.

In the condo sector, metro area condominium and cooperative prices – covering changes in 58 markets – show the national median existing condo price was $220,900 in the fourth quarter, down 2.1 percent from the same period in 2005. Thirty-one metros showed annual increases in the median condo price, including seven areas with double-digit gains; 27 metros had price declines.

The strongest condo price gains were in the Austin-Round Rock area of Texas, where the fourth quarter price of $160,000 rose 16.5 percent from a year ago, followed by the Newark-Union area of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where the median condo price of $352,600 rose 16.4 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005, and Springfield, Mass., at $160,400, an increase of 14.6 percent.

Metro area median existing condo prices in the fourth quarter ranged from $102,600 in Wichita, Kan., to $580,300 in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont area. The second most expensive reported condo market was Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, at $402,000, followed by the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos area of California at $358,200.

Other affordable condo markets include Bismarck, N.D., at $103,500, and Greensboro-High Point, N.C., at $119,100.

Regionally, the Northeast saw an existing-home sales pace of 1.04 million units in the fourth quarter, which was 6.6 percent below a year ago. The median Northeastern resale single-family home price was $274,600 in the fourth quarter, which is 2.5 percent below the same period in 2005.

After the Atlantic City and Trenton-Ewing areas, the strongest price increase in the Northeast was in Pittsfield, Mass., with a median price of $220,600, up 4.7 percent from the fourth quarter of last year, followed by the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area of New York with a median price of $198,700, up 4.1 percent.

Total existing-home sales in the South were at an annual rate of 2.49 million units in the fourth quarter, down 8.5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005. After the gains in Arkansas and Texas, the next strongest increase in the South was in Kentucky, up 5.6 percent from a year ago, while Mississippi rose 2.0 percent.

The median existing single-family home price in the South was $181,700 in the fourth quarter, which is 3.7 percent below a year earlier. The strongest increase in the South was in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area of Texas, where the median price of $120,000 was 15.1 percent above the fourth quarter of 2005. Next was Raleigh-Cary, N.C., at $226,300, up 14.5 percent from a year ago, followed by the Cumberland area of Maryland and West Virginia, with a 14.4 percent gain to $98,000.

In the Midwest, total existing-home sales declined 8.6 percent to a 1.43 million-unit annual level in the fourth quarter compared with a year earlier. The median existing single-family home price in the Midwest was $161,800, down 4.2 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005.

The strongest metro price increase in the Midwest was in the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area of Iowa and Illinois, where the median price of $116,400 was 6.6 percent higher than a year ago. Next was Dayton, Ohio, at $119,500, up 5.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005, and Rockford, Ill., at $121,500, up 5.7 percent in the last year.

In the West, the existing-home sales pace of 1.28 million units was 17.8 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2005. The best performance in the region was in Alaska where existing-home sales rose 0.4 percent from a year earlier.

The median existing single-family home price in the West slipped 0.4 percent to $355,100 during the fourth quarter. After Salt Lake City, the strongest increase in the West was in the Salem, Ore., area, at $223,100, up 14.9 percent from fourth quarter of 2005, followed by Farmington, N.M., at $183,000, up 14.0 percent, and Spokane, Wash., at $189,200, up 12.2 percent from a year ago.

Source: NAR

An article from Bankrate.com has some advice quite a few folks moving to Pittsburgh have taken. If you live in a high-priced market, especially one with dropping prices, get out! Take your equity and run.

"Extra equity is an added benefit to the American dream. You can manage this equity in one of several ways. You can sit on it and hope that the real estate market in your area doesn't tank. You can tap your equity and use it -- generally not a good strategy since you have to pay it back. Or you can cash it out and move to an area where the housing dollar buys more for the buck."

Many who have cashed out ended up with enough equity to pay cash for their new home. A mortgage-free lifestyle is great for those who wanted to have more travel time, create artwork or even start a business.

"A low or nonexistent mortgage also provides lifestyle benefits such as the ability to pursue a hobby, travel or simply the luxury of working less and playing more. Two-income families with children may consider having one parent stay at home."

Pittsburgh isn't the only place where you can buy a home for less, but when my friend asked me the other day what would be my favorite city to live in the U.S., I hesitated responding with New York. "What if you factor in cost?" Then I'd have to answer that what Pittsburgh offers is pretty close to the top. I suppose factoring in cost, that's why I am here.

It’s a curious name, the Shrinking Cities Institute. Kent State University near Akron recently founded this initiative which is expected to address the problems of the minority number of big cities which continue to shrink rather than grow.

As you might have heard, Pittsburgh falls into this category.

A commentary by the Rand Institute’s Barry Balmat and Peter A. Morrison that appeared in the Post-Gazette in 2004 observed that Pittsburgh's population declined nearly 10 percent during the 1990s, in sharp contrast to the 13 percent nationwide population increase. Since 2000, the city's population loss has continued unabated.

That’s just the facts, not the commentary, however. The juice of the story is that it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

We’ll get to the why of that in a bit, but first a little on the thought about what to do with shrinking cities.

Pittsburgh has its problems, and those problems are exemplified in our neighbor, Youngstown, Ohio. Like Pittsburgh over the past half-century Youngstown has been presented with dramatic population loss. Unlike Pittsburgh which had somewhat of a diversified economy, when the steel industry left, the economy left with it. When officials released the Youngstown 2010 Plan (the last plan updated a 1951 plan in 1974) it didn’t cover the usual growth management, rather covering “managing decline.”

Finally, someone says it. The emperor has no clothes. It’s time to “begin drawing the map of a smaller city.”

The movement now barely known as “Shrinking Cities,” started in Germany. It wasn’t the slow decline of the steel industry there, rather the removal of a certain long-standing wall that left many East German cities virtually vacant. It gave Youngstown an idea American cities never had on their own. Why not shrink?

What does that mean exactly? A web page on a “Shrinking Cities” conference at Cleveland State University offered some insight. Shrinking a city could include the demolition or dismantling of under-utilized housing and other building stock, the removal of redundant streets, and downsizing of municipal infrastructure to correspond to declining population.” In Detroit, Saint Louis and other shrinking cities that may mean cutting off services to underutilized areas and giving people there incentives to move out then returning them to nature. In Youngstown that means considering relaxing zoning rules to allow small horse farms or apple orchards and offering incentives for people to move out of abandoned areas.

Is Shrinking something for Pittsburgh to think about? I don’t know the complete answer to that, but I could point out many streets where there are houses you can’t give away. I’ve spent several afternoons on the phone looking for someone to take a free house and have not yet been successful at finding a taker. Do we need so much space for so few people? Can we encourage “clusters” of nice urban areas and leave unused space for wildlife or even farms and orchards?

In Pittsburgh the downtown population is increasing even while the city and region continues to shrink (we’re apparently the only shrinking region these days—in other places only the cities shrink). That means people are moving around inside the region and the underutilized areas are continuing to depopulate. It would be an attractive option in my view to start returning some of these areas to nature.

What Shrinking Cities should not mean, however is a “suburbanization” of the city by tearing down every other house. That’s no more sustainable than a suburb or under-populated city. Cleveland had the right idea when it started to concentrate development in nodes like the Euclid Avenue district. Youngstown has gone a step further with a comprehensive plan for the nodes and the spaces in between with the goal of improving the sustainability and quality of life.

Back to the Rand Institute commentary mentioned at the beginning. Pittsburgh shrinking leads optimists to project a shortage of as many as 125,000 workers in metropolitan Pittsburgh as early as 2008. “What's noteworthy is that Pittsburgh's unfolding demographic future does contain opportunities.” Could that mean we will need the empty houses?

If we start eliminating homes there will be fewer and any economist will tell you smaller supply means more demand and higher prices. On the other hand, The Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania estimates there are approximately 18,000 vacant properties and land in the City of Pittsburgh, about 11.5% of the total housing units. If we start now to reclaim some of the land by “shrinking,” it would take quite some time to get to a small portion of the 18,000 houses.

Shrinking isn’t necessarily a solution, but could prove to be a practical and attractive component in preparing Pittsburgh for a new era as a smaller city.

Changing demographics and preferences may come to favor North City housing in the coming years. Smaller household size, rising gas prices and highway congestion may all add up to an increased popularity of urban housing that’s in close proximity to what the city has to offer. Along with these trends is another emerging factor, more and more workers can go where they want independent of employment.

A recent survey by a group called CEOs for Cities found that two-thirds of highly mobile 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees say that they will decide where they live first then look for a job.

Two-thirds of them choose place before job, and this preference was true across all life stages and genders (male, female, single, married, with children, without children). Women place greater emphasis on the location decision than do men, although a majority of men also say they choose place before job.

That’s not only important in terms of attracting people, but also in attracting companies who often base location decisions on where employees want to live. More, technology advances allow workers to stay connected from almost anywhere and employees are less loyal to companies, allowing them to move.

It’s critically important now that we build and work to meet these trends. A city’s best chance to attract these workers, the report said, is to focus on the most mobile of the group, those 25 to 34 years old.

Are our neighborhoods prepared to meet this demand? In some ways the answer is clearly yes. In others, there’s work to do.

For one segment of the population, we won’t have to do anything. It’s not hard to find people out there in other cities who want to live in Pittsburgh, if only they had a job. As employment becomes more mobile, it’s logical a portion will gravitate to Pittsburgh. The survey indicated young adults have a strong inclination to live downtown or close to downtown. That in itself would seem to favor our neighborhoods, especially Deutschtown, the Mexican War Streets and Allegheny West.

More, these young, mobile workers want a place that feels welcoming, offers professional opportunities, has reasonable commute times, access to excellent schools, is a great place to raise children, is a place people are proud to say they live in were among attributes young people looked for in a city.

On most of these counts I think we do fairly well. However, I was discussing the topic of “Pittsburgh Pride” with my marketing guru of a sister. She mentioned research that suggests the image of the city fluctuates significantly with the performance of sports teams. This is of course good when the Steelers are winning, however I’m not alone in recounting the times a Pittsburgh visitor has been asked “why?” as the first question from a local. I’ve lived in a number of cities and I’m here to say a large segment of Pittsburgh has no idea what it has: a beautiful, affordable metropolitan city with world-class architecture, art and culture art and as icing, great sports teams. If we don’t know why, we should have left a long time ago!

Self-image not the only area I see as needing improvement, however.
Te study also found that basic quality of life issues safe, clean streets and neighborhoods, can afford to buy a home, lots of parks and green space) ranked highest among attributes that young people looked for in a city. We don’t do bad on crime or green space, but general maintenance and cleaning could probably be improved. I recently created and posted a video on YouTube.com (search for newcolonist) of a walk up some of our city steps and walkways. The weeds were enough to scare off any visitor or potential resident. If we don’t care, why would anyone else? If a neighborhood looks nice, it is nice in a visitors mind.

Lifestyle attributes are also important to this demographic. “They prefer places where they can connect with others and have meaningful social interactions; that are interesting and diverse; and are environmentally responsible,” the survey found.

The most diverse parts of our city are the college areas of Shadyside and Oakland.

We may have an instinctual reaction that tells us college students are not interested in the Northside. We fail to realize the potential of significant transportation links to not only Oakland, but South Side, the Strip and Bloomfield.

The 500 and the 54c buses provide direct links to the Pitt Campus and a short walk
downtown can allow access many more routes.

Finally, and perhaps the most critical factor, “knowledge of city attributes is limited.” Young adults rely most heavily on personal stories from friends and family to form their perceptions about a place. They also use the Internet and personal visits to shape their opinions.

The internet presence of our neighborhoods is limited at best, leaving out perhaps the most important tool we have to attract the attention of this demographic segment. We can build all we want, but unless we tell them what’s here and why it’s great, they’ll never know.

Who lives in the exurbs? Apparently no one according to researchers at Florida-based Metrostudy. In an article published by Reuters the authors noted the prices of homes in the far-flung suburbs have fallen the fastest. Not only does no one want to live there now, but it turns out few wanted to live there when the market was hot--and primarily fueled by speculators.

READ THE ARTICLE

New urbanist principles would have it that you can get everything you need within a five-minute walk. Most of Pittsburgh's city neighborhoods would not currently fall into this category. The exceptions of course are the city's most popular neighborhoods including Squirrel Hill and to a lesser extent Shadyside. Downtown seems to be quickly progressing to this level as well, however.


The developments on the North Shore, at least West of Federal Street are not shaping up this way. Many times housing has been mentioned as part of the mix, and all the proposed developments are certainly exciting, but housing hasn't played into the mix since the Heinz Lofts and Lincoln at the North Shore. That's unless you count Hotels as housing, which you really can't because the vacancy rates fluxuate with events limiting the extent to which we can achieve 24-hour neighborhoods.


Post-Gazette article on North Shore developments.

An engaging conversation can be found in the archives on the East Allegheny Yahoo group about zoning (and libertarianism). I'd like add at this point that that in some cities (San Francisco comes to mind) zoning is used (intently or indirectly) to make landowners rich by controlling and restricting development. This keeps prices high and favors those who got in early. It seriously restricts the market and hinders its functioning. The larger issue I have with zoning however is that it encourages a car-oriented society just as the construction of highways does.

James Howard Kunstler is a good resource on this and I'll summarize his points here (all quoted from article linked below):

• For the previous 300-odd years of American history we didn't have zoning laws.


• If you want to make your community better, begin at once by throwing out your zoning laws. Don't revise them -- get rid of them.


• Replace these things with a traditional town-planning ordinance that prescribes a more desirable everyday environment.


• After the Second World War zoning began to overshadow all the historic elements of civic art and civic life.


• Shopping was declared an obnoxious industrial activity around which people shouldn't be allowed to live. This tended to destroy age-old physical relationships between shopping and living, as embodied, say, in Main Street.


• What zoning produces is suburban sprawl.


• The model of the human habitat dictated by zoning is a formless, soul-less, centerless, demoralizing mess.
  
  Here's Kunstler's article

I recently wrote an article for the Northside Chronicle about pre-industrial Pittsburgh. In it I imagined that if our existing population lived in the physical pre-industrial Pittsburgh we might fit better. This was perhaps the second or third time I had thought about shrinking cities physically when the population shrinks.

Today I was alerted to a USA Today article from another web site. The article, published last December is titled (link) As older cities shrink, some reinvent themselves. Among the cities mentioned are Cleveland, Detroit and Richmond.

I have mixed feelings about the idea, which may be the subconscious reason why I hadn't more fully explored the idea when it sparked before. In the pre-industrial Pittsburgh article the notion was mostly romantic as I was imagining Neo-classical farm houses fronting green fields where decaying Victorian-era houses now stand.

To some degree these decaying, or at least in less than ideal condition homes, are a burden. To some degree they are an opportunity. Pittsburgh's population is older if not still aging. The youthful energy needed to rehabilitate these homes is just not there. The population to fill these homes might not be there anytime soon either. For sure it would seem there is a trend toward urban living, but the new urbanites populating our cities seem to want condos more than single-family homes.

Still, if one thing is certain it is change. When the condos are full, some of the condo owners will certainly yearn for a bit more space and these hillside homes, some with views, may call out. I've recently watched several neighborhoods be flushed of these ultra-cheap homes as they are repaired and lived in.

Higher gas prices and other factors may also serve to create new demand for these homes in the future. Plus, too many houses helps keep prices low, and opportunities such as these, perhaps coupled with incentives, are just what's needed to attract more youth and immigrant energy to our city. Bulldozing houses and replacing them with green space will raise the prices, lower density, decrease efficiency and create a "suburbanization" of urban America. Do we really want that? Is it good for our cities or their populations?

Of course, this may be a dumb way as opposed to a smart way. I'd like to hear details about a smart way that can preserve density, efficiency and affordability, but my guess is that's not easy if at all possible.

It's nice to think of the romantic side of a pre-industrial, smaller, simpler city, but then that wouldn't be as much of a city, would it?

Pittsburgh transit riders are upset. PAT, the agency that runs the bus and light-rail system, is out of money and proposes to cut almost half the routes. Some of these routes connect two of the three biggest trip generators in the state, downtown Pittsburgh and Oakland.

It was less than two years ago that Mayoral hopeful Bob O’Connor, unveiling his first major economic proposal, suggested building a new streetcar line connecting downtown and Oakland.

Today it’s a different world-view. The cuts proposed by PAT threaten to confuse if not strand riders who have few options to get to their destination, must add considerable time to their trips or face parking in places with limited parking and less than affordable parking rates.

Changing bus routes also impacts development and the viability of neighborhoods. The 500 for example provides direct access from North neighborhoods like Bellevue and Brighton Heights to Oakland and downtown. Those neighborhoods are not as attractive without that route.

This gets back to the basics of transit. Once the spine of American cities, our web of streetcar systems has been replaced over the past fifty years with a system of buses. These buses can easily be rerouted or cut entirely. They don’t require any capital investment other than the bus itself. Streetcar systems on the other hand require significant capital investment, but once in place they provide cost-savings, but more importantly transit that can not only be relied on by riders, but by developers, businesses and homeowners who can with much reassurance know that the transit line is likely to be there and running indefinitely into the future.

Mayor O’Connor was right. It’s time to look downtown again and time to look at streetcars again. It’s time to find dedicated funding for transit and time to make transit systems a permanent part of our cities, so cities can be built around them.
It’s also time for Pittsburghers to begin asking “Who can rely on the bus?”

The first time I saw a Katrina Cottage I thought "wow, that would look great on Spring Hill." Spring Hill is a neighborhood in Pittsburgh that has many "shotgun shack" type houses on the sides of the hill where mill workers and others once lived. These were built in the Victorian era and often had ornamentation not unlike the painted ladies in San Francisco.

I also can't help but think that the same folks who want small condos and apartments might be persuaded to have an apartment with a little lawn otherwise known as a Katrina Cottage.



An article from a Congress for a New Urbanism explains: "Quality small-scale housing represented by Katrina Cottages is a much-needed alternative in communities determined to address affordability issues without downgrading the architectural character of neighborhoods. Together, these cottages can work as clusters and bungalow courts that can enrich old and new neighborhoods and provide safe, affordable housing for people who might not qualify for quality architecture in larger scale. Yet conventional zoning often precludes this alternative because of setback, lot size, and other restrictions that force only larger homes on larger lots."

I still have images of little Victorians lining Pittsburgh stairways with landscaped edging that would make for a great place to live and walk and really help redefine Pittsburgh as a walking city. Its hard for a city with Pittsburgh's geography to be a walking city, but hey, how many people walk all over Telegraph Hill? Is Fineview or Spring Hill so different? Not at all. A few flowers and some Katrina Cottages and our stairways would be a better, even great place to walk.

Jerry Brown wanted to liven up the streets of Oakland and had to find a way to measure success. Brown, the former governor of California, was elected to the job of Mayor of Oakland (the city across the bay from San Francisco, not the place where you go on the 500 just in case there's confusion), came up with the "Starbucks Scale." At that point Oakland already had a Starbucks, a milepost in itself. The "Starbucks Scale" would use the number of hours that the coffee shop stayed open as a measure of the city's vitality. The longer Starbucks brewed, the better things would have gotten.

A few years back when Seattle's Best opened in PNC Park, I thought I would start to keep track. There wasn't much to track. If Seattle's Best was to be used as a measure of the North Shore's vitality, it soon added ice cream to become a confusing mix of hot and cold then joined the ranks of what used to be. Since then the North Shore has come along, and there may be a day on the horizon where there's brew available there to measure vitality, but for now, no java.

If coffee is a good measure, the area North of the expressway is actually ahead of the game. There's still no Starbucks (I just heard two locations were opening in Altoona soon and I never thought they'd have one first), but there are several coffee shops. The Vault (Brighton Heights) was first, followed by Charles Street Cafe, Beleza (War Streets) and most recently by Amani (East Allegheny). There are other places here to get coffee including the Priory Pastries, Cool Beans in Allegheny Center, the coffee cart in Allegheny General and in fairness to the North Shore, the Andy Warhol Museum Cafe. If hours are also a measure, Beleza has added more since opening this summer.

But what's so important about a coffee shop that it can be used as a measure of vitality anyway?

Coffee shops are something academics like to call "third places." The number three is attached as they follow the first place of home and the second place of work. Like cities, they are places where people go to interact and where ideas are likely to come together.

Sometimes those ideas focus on art, sometimes politics and sometimes business but in all cases they become a center for these areas. Writer Jack London lived in Oakland, CA and apparently liked coffee shops, but may not be so happy about Brown's use of the corporate green to measure his city's energy.

A socialist at the age of twenty, if London were alive today he might not be hanging out in his square. In fact, London ran unsuccessfully as the high-profile Socialist nominee for mayor of Oakland in 1901 (receiving 245 votes) and 1905 (improving to 981 votes), toured the country lecturing on socialism in 1906, and published collections of essays on socialism ( The War of the Classes, 1905; Revolution, and other Essays, 1910).

The first record of a public place serving coffee dates back to 1475 Constantinople. Apparently at that time it was legal in Turkey for a woman to divorce her husband if he could not supply her with enough coffee. Misbehaving in coffee shops was also punishable by death.

Chalk one up to Starbucks, politics aside, sometimes coffee is all about business. The Turks, filled with ideas, imported theirs to a few European countries including England where a small coffee shop run by Edward Lloyd in 1668 was such a business hub, it eventually became the still-operating Lloyd's of London insurance company.

In the American colonies the coffee house was also a hub for the business (and revolution). While we may have thrown the tea back to England, the coffee was here to stay. Business and coffee are so intertwined that the original location of the New York Stock exchange was the Tonine Coffee House. The earliest coffeehouses, in New Orleans were known as 'exchanges' where bankers and importers would meet to share information and ideas to further economic development. All this before anyone heard of Seattle of Starbucks.

Yet, the original "coffee houses" were similar to those today - a gathering place for conversation, entertainment and the exchange of ideas. Coffee houses may now prove of equal importance and purpose in North City neighborhoods, becoming gathering places for artists, business people and those with political ideas and ambitions. Since the opening of Amani I have met several neighbors I knew of only as names in email groups and met others to talk about business or ideas.

Many trace the start of change on the South Side to the opening of the Beehive Coffee House, which still retains its title as the city's best and most important social center. Once opened 24-hours any vitality meter would have gone off the scale. I can't help but think with the rise of North City coffee culture there's more brewing than beans. Here as elsewhere, coffee is bringing people and ideas together and that more often than not that results in art, politics and business.

To that point, Jerry brown is right, the longer the coffee brews, the better off we'll be.

this article previously appeared in the Northside Chronicle

The market in Pittsburgh is expected to increase 3.3 percent in 2007. This is assuring and predictible as Pittsburgh has long been known as a stable market more immune to dramatic shifts in price seen in Boston, San Jose and other markets. Fortune Maganize has some details on what cities are expected to gain and lose in 2007.

I've been keeping an eye on "Cleveland's equivalent of Allegheny City" for some time now. I was in the Ohio City neighborhood just yesterday and on each trip it seems to improve significantly. Ohio City is like Allegheny City in terms of having been a seperate city, in that both areas have a collection of historic homes and both have, or in the case of Ohio City had a struggling commercial district.

Today I found I could buy a Cuban Sandwich, artifacts from Thailand, furniture (at real prices, not the kind you rent) and the widest possible array of meats and vegetables. The meats and vegetables category was available before, as Ohio City is home to Cleveland's market house. (It also appears a Target store is opening as an employment center has set up in a storefront on the main street).

The housing stock in Ohio City has nothing on Allegheny City, however. What they do have has been nicely restored and a variety of infill housing that actually seems to represent a higher-density building model than the existing housing is cropping up. There's even a variety of stores mixed in with the housing on the back streets, including a Sushi restaurant.

Ohio City, like Allegheny City is in close proximity to downtown and residents of both locals can walk there. Unlike Allegheny City, Ohio City has a rapid transit station that allows convenient access when its not nice enough to walk, or if you can't walk. Allegheny City will have this in a few years as well, but it won't come close to residential parts of the area, unfortunately.

Ohio City also has a large, modern grocery store called Dave's if one was needed in addition to the wonderful market house.

If you've never been to Ohio City, make a point to visit. Here's a short slide show of some Ohio City and Cleveland photos...

In response to reader comments on the Pittsburgh art scene, the scene here is alive and well. The affordability factor of Pittsburgh enables creative types to be able to live as working artists here, sometimes starving, but just as often thriving. Pittsburgh is home to many well-respected and internationally-known working artists. Pittsburgh is home to the Warhol Museum, but perhaps more importantly the Mattress Factory, a world famous destination for installation art. Andy Warhol left Pittsburgh for New York, but if he were alive today he may not be so quick to split. Pittsburgh is also a city of asylum for artists unable to work in their home countries. There's no shortage of things happening for artists and art afficianados either. From the Garfield Glass Works to galleries on the South Side and on Penn Avenue--its just amazing what you can find and the calibur of art you find. On many Fridays I walk downtown to the symphony and take in the art walk activities in the Cultural District. I also understand space for shows and work space are both very affordable, especially the former. Need I mention Pittsburgh is also home to the Carnegie Museum of Art and a short drive from most of the great Art Museums in the U.S. including the National Gallery, Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Met and more. The Cleveland Museum of Art is very close and comes close to surpassing anything available on the West Coast.

It looks like condo sales to boomers in New Jersey have been slower than expected? Why? Because they can't sell their single-family homes. In what looks more and more like the reverse of the suburban movement in the 1950s, the urban lifestyle continues to increase in its popularity. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal even has McMansion builder Toll Brothers following the affluent from suburbia to city. You might also recall the recent Brookings Institution report that finds just as many poor live in the suburbs as in the city at this point in time.

That's great for cities of course, but what's to become of all the suburban houses? Robert Toll is quoted in the WSJ article as saying he doesn't foresee the shift amounting to more than ten or fifteen percent. That's predictably less than the urban to suburban movement of earlier years, enough to lessen or eliminate the onslaught of articles about suburban sprawl.

More Toll didn't think the trend would spread from Manhattan to downtown Detroit anytime soon and he didn't think it was happening because folks were tiring of long commutes. Perhaps a busier lifestyle, an increase in single or two person households and a sense of being disconnected are driving the trend. City life is more attainable where there is the vibrant city to be in. Building vibrancy from scratch is much more difficult than adding some condos to the mix.

More, increasing numbers of immigrants who don't fancy suburban life is helping. Here in Pittsburgh sales of downtown condos have been robust and more developments including a number of rental units are planned or underway.

So, I still didn't answer the question, what's to become of the suburban houses even if we're only talking about ten or fifteen percent? The answer is unclear. One possible answer is "the same thing that happened to the urban houses when the more affluent moved to the suburbs--the price will drop and they will become more affordable to those displaced by the move of the more affluent to the city." This of course reverses the transportation problem for lower-wage workers who might now live in the city and travel to a mall or airport for employment. Still at the same time it could increase the quality of housing available to lower-wage workers.

That's not likely to be the entire picture we see however. The population today is rising at a faster rate than in the 1950s, creating more demand for housing in general. Theoretically, a fifteen percent increase in population could offset a fifteen percent population loss in the suburbs (unless the increase in urban residents exceed that). Also working against the suburbs, the city is a mixed-use environment by its nature. Unlike the suburbs, its easy to build rental units near for-sale condos in the city, rental units that are more affordable and attractive to lower-wage workers. If the city boom continues, there will be more of a push to develop a wider circle around downtowns, creating and improving other urban housing. It may also bring about the conversion of other city housing from multi-units to single-family units as those who enjoy the single-family home lifestyle look for it closer to the city.

This may to some degree bring about the conversion of suburban homes into multi-family units, but that is likely restricted by municipal ordinances. Failure of suburban homes to sell could result in pressure to change these ordinances to allow owners to receive rental income if they can't sell their homes. This could result in a more dramatic suburban value loss. Trends are in no way clear enough to make any such prediction, however. Today even while we see an urban boom, suburbs remain extremely popular with certain population segments. How far the branch grows from the tree remains to be seen.

A lively discussion emerged on a local email group this week on whether the Northside, particularly the Central Northside, was becoming gentrified. After-all, we do have a handful of coffee houses now and in some places houses are selling for a pretty good clip. Still, as I follow my flash light through yet another $5,000 house, I remained with my doubts. Besides, there's still no Starbucks.

There are a good many that live around here who don’t want what they think of as “gentrification.” It may result in lessened diversity certainly in economic if not racial terms. People who like cities in general often like them because there are lots of different people around and when you walk around, which a city is generally well suited for, you can meet them. To accomplish this you need a variety of housing stock.

I went onto dictionary.com to try and find out just what gentrification might mean, although I suspect its connotations carry much more weight than any definition. “Gentrification,” in a literal sense means “Very or excessively refined or elegant,” or “improved.” Well, you can call the Northside a lot of things, but Allegheny West house tours not withstanding, as a whole excessively elegant may not always be one of them. From the discussion I imagine depending on the listener, “improved” could just as easily be termed “destroyed.”

The discussion started when I posted a response to a recent City Paper article on the pending Federal Street Townhomes project scheduled for groundbreaking just before the publication of December’s Chronicle.

The article had a nice graphic showing a home on Jacksonia Street labeled the “Jacksonia” for $60,000 and a rendering of a new home labeled the “Jacksonian” for $120,000. I responded to the writer with several additional points and a correction.

First, I pointed out that houses that sell for $60K or less in the War Streets are not always in livable condition (at least there’s some work to be done). I also pointed out that these low-priced homes to represent great opportunities for those willing to put sweat equity into them to benefit. Not a fair comparison really.

The article contended that many of the neighborhoods residents may not be able to afford the new homes. I pointed out that there aren’t many new houses out there to be had for $130,000 especially ones being that close to downtown. Rebecca Davidson-Wagner, Community Development Specialist for the Central Northside Neighborhood Council wrote in saying she had spoken to the author about the article. Davidson-Wagner said the article failed to mention the project also has 39-42 low income rental units, along with single story "affordable flats" that will be priced lower than the most affordable unit. More, with the URA deferred mortgage of up to $50,000 the new houses will be around $80,000 for a 3 bedroom 1 and 1/2 bath with off street parking. That’s a new house for a few thousand more than one that could need lots of work.

In fact there are a wide range of prices in the Central Northside with or without the planned construction. Looking at sales between January 1, 2005 and October 31, 2006, sales ranged from $7,000 to $301,000. By my calculation the average home price in the year from Jan 1, 2005 to Oct 31, 2006 was about $127,000 making the lowest price new homes more affordable than the average. The median is actually higher, around $170,000.

That may sound like big money to some long-term Northsiders, but remember that is the area popularly known as the Mexican War Streets, which while being “discovered” now, has been in the eye of preservationists since the 1970s. Many of the comments to the board seemed to lament that after all these years of waiting (the Federal Street project has been on the board for more than a decade) to make progress an article comes along and takes a big swipe with the nasty word “gentrification.” One resident replied with “we should be so lucky.”

To those who do worry about the affordability of houses, feel fortunate you live in Pittsburgh where a population decline has left far more houses than people to fill them. More, a recent ranking in Smart Money magazine said Pittsburgh remained “undervalued.” Housing here, the magazine figures, is almost twenty percent less than it should be. While getting a house exactly where you want it for the price we want to pay (hey, we’d all buy that $20,000 house in Shadyside if it existed), there is no shortage of affordable houses in nearby neighborhoods and our houses have a lower median price than other comparably sized cities including Cleveland, Cincinnati and Chattanooga.

Plus, for those with lots of energy and time, yes there is even an occasional $5,000 house.

If you’d like to participate in these online email group discussions, I’d recommend the East Allegheny Group where recently the topic has been does Pittsburgh have enough culture (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eastallegheny ) and also the Chat Northside group where the discussion on gentrification took place at ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chatnorthside ). It’s a great way to meet neighbors and know more about what’s going on.

Before I moved back to Pittsburgh from San Fran, I traveled back and forth. There were two solid houses with panoramic views on Dunloe Street that were somehwhat deteriorated. The council was looking for someone to rehab them. I told some friends in CA about them and one or more came in to see them. No one bought them in the end and they were demolished. One friend tried to buy a house from the city but was told he was not eligible because he never paid taxes to the city. Go figure. I am telling this because more houses are demolished from neglect than are saved by young people with energy. A $120,000 house that one can move into will spend less time on the market than a $5K house that needs everything. I'd venture the same is true for a $50,000 house that needs some things.

Luckily we have a market and many people have spent a good portion of their lives fixing up houses in the War Streets and elsewhere. It has been a labor of love--love of old houses, love of community, and well many just can't stand to see the city they grew up in (or moved to) deteriorating. Today we're pretty far along and what some would call "gentrification" is part of a national trend in American cities to see the core come alive again. Gentrification or not this is a good trend in the sense that every urban house represents one less being built on a former Cranberry farm. City living is good for the environment and good for humanity because people of diverse backgrounds --and incomes--actually meet each other on the street. Many are out there working hard to imporve access to quality affordable housing as this trend progresses.

Of course the more people who want to live in great city neighborhoods like Central Northside, the more expensive houses there will become. The $5K house market is especially limited--there is absolutely no way to increase the supply!!! As I mentioned before, few people with jobs want to rehab a house. Some do it for a living and they make money from it--good. Otherwise some of these homes would end up being razed--and guess what, every house that's razed reduces the supply and pushes prices further upward.

Luckily we live in Pittsburgh where people have been leaving for 50 years. While the supply of homes for rehab, or just inexpensive homes may be dwindling on the flats, there are plenty on the Hills, as well as Sharpsburg, Wilkinsburg, Millvale, etc (and even Marshall-Shadeland which is still relatively flat and close).

There's an old house, actually a pair of them, that sit along Rt 28 near the Heinz Factory. They are likely some of the oldest homes in Pittsburgh. I currently have some friends and community stakeholders engaged in discussions about saving them. If you'd like to be kept up to date or know anything about these homes, please join the discussion group on yahoo groups. Just go to this link and click on JOIN.

I also recently wrote an article about pre-industrial buildings in Pittsburgh. It's posted at legnth at The New Colonist. Check it out.

The topic of this post is gentrification. A reader had sent an email to the TNC (The New Colonist) Pittsburgh email group asserting that I was a proponent of gentrification. That's been a hot button topic in urban situations for some time. It's also a hard one to get a handle on.

First, you can't stop a neighborhood from changing. It either gets better or falls apart.

We'd all like neighborhoods to be cheap and cool forever, but that's not reality anywhere. (Name one that has been cheap and cool for more than a decade or so!) Urban neighborhoods stay cheap and cool for a while until the houses start falling down or the crime rises beyond the tolerable level for most people. Or in the other direction, it becomes unaffordable, or at least living in a big space becomes unaffordable so we'd have to change our lifestyle to live there. Sometimes people move into an urban area in the second half of a "gentrification" process and then scream that they don't want gentrification, which really means "more gentrification," ie "post me" gentrification.

Originally the focus of preservation, the Mexican War Streets neighborhood for instance has been in a slow general upswing since the 1970s. Like other North City neighborhoods it would seem now (and now is not the first time) the neighborhood could become really popular really fast.

This is not only the result of people coming in and gentrifying the place. It's a result of changing demographics, high gas prices, longer working hours and other factors that are making urban neighborhoods more attractive. Since the movement started with preservation, preservation is also to "blame" for gentrification. Preservation costs money and so naturally, barring subsidies, leads to some degree of gentrification. If that process had not begun in the 1970s, it's likely much of the War Streets would have been demolished as the buildings would have deteriorated to a point of being unsafe.

This process is not exclusive to urban neighborhoods either. Many suburbs today are faced with "monster houses" being built where small post-war homes used to stand.

Urban areas are unique in their potential to preserve diversity and bring together people from a variety of backgrounds, economic levels and interests. In fact, many urban neighborhoods consist of primarily wealthy minorities and working class whites. Even if an area reaches the highest level of "gentrification" (think Shadyside), there are still a mix of races and incomes because there are apartments of all sizes, condos and small houses (sometimes alley houses) mixed in with the larger townhomes. (so if you've recently moved into an urban area and want gentrification to stop, make sure you work to save the small alley houses rather than make parking places. Developing apartments and condos in addition to single-family homes can also help.

This issue came up back in the late '90s when I started "the New Colonist" with Rick Risemberg. "New Colonist" represents a return to urbanism from suburban-style
living. City living is good because:

1. It's healthier (walking)
2. Economic integration is good
3. It's easier on the planet
4. It has a unique ability to foster diverse, virbrant neighborhoods.