How much is Pittsburgh a victim of its own beauty?
First, it is located in the Alleghany Plateau, so its hinterland, though very attractive, is not the best suited for urban growth and development.
Then, there is the city itself: a relatively small city, it divided by three rivers wide enough to be divisive to transportation, no matter how dramatic the golden triangle is. Meanwhile the hills of Pittsburgh further divide. The bluffs to south of the Monongahala from downtown are steep and the south part of Pittsburgh is thus not that easily connected to downtown across the river, other than by tunnel. The hilly landscape continues in the portions of the city east of downtown and also across the Alleghany. The hills are large enough to create barriers, unlike what you find in San Francisco, where so many of the hills have been easily grided. In Pittsburgh, the streets curve in so many different directions that n, s, e, and w lose all meaning.
How much does this beautiful setting of rivers and hills (and a most attractive citylandscape to go with them) has actually hurt Pittsburgh's ability to function when a flater landscape, less divided by rivers, would have increased the functionality of transportation and the ability to develop land effectively?
The one city that, to me, most shares Pittsburgh's hilly type setting (also beautifully, but not nearly as dramatically as Pittsburgh) is Cincinnati. And, in both cases, very attractive cities have shared an inability to promote healthy growth. Hills seem to work in coastal areas where the climate is milder and winter driving is not an issue (i.e. the cities in Calif, as well as Seattle, etc.)
I hope none of this comes across in a negative way. It should be clear that I think Pittsburgh is a most beautiful and unique city, a real gem, but, am I right on this one? Is Pittsburgh a victim of its incredibly beautiful river-and-hill topography?
First, it is located in the Alleghany Plateau, so its hinterland, though very attractive, is not the best suited for urban growth and development.
Then, there is the city itself: a relatively small city, it divided by three rivers wide enough to be divisive to transportation, no matter how dramatic the golden triangle is. Meanwhile the hills of Pittsburgh further divide. The bluffs to south of the Monongahala from downtown are steep and the south part of Pittsburgh is thus not that easily connected to downtown across the river, other than by tunnel. The hilly landscape continues in the portions of the city east of downtown and also across the Alleghany. The hills are large enough to create barriers, unlike what you find in San Francisco, where so many of the hills have been easily grided. In Pittsburgh, the streets curve in so many different directions that n, s, e, and w lose all meaning.
How much does this beautiful setting of rivers and hills (and a most attractive citylandscape to go with them) has actually hurt Pittsburgh's ability to function when a flater landscape, less divided by rivers, would have increased the functionality of transportation and the ability to develop land effectively?
The one city that, to me, most shares Pittsburgh's hilly type setting (also beautifully, but not nearly as dramatically as Pittsburgh) is Cincinnati. And, in both cases, very attractive cities have shared an inability to promote healthy growth. Hills seem to work in coastal areas where the climate is milder and winter driving is not an issue (i.e. the cities in Calif, as well as Seattle, etc.)
I hope none of this comes across in a negative way. It should be clear that I think Pittsburgh is a most beautiful and unique city, a real gem, but, am I right on this one? Is Pittsburgh a victim of its incredibly beautiful river-and-hill topography?
