So, what’s the hot new partisan divide to fight about? It’s NIMBY vs. YIMBY! That’s “Not In My Back Yard” versus “Yes, In My Back Yard,” for those of you with actual lives/hobbies/interests. Do I have to take a stance on this? Yes (because I can’t think of anything better to write about at this second).
Despite extolling the peculiar, elusive virtues of Pittsburgh’s weird and old housing stock in this very space week after week — which would seem to put me in the Never Change Anything Ever/NIMBY camp — I’m actually a tad more temperamentally YIMBY. I guess after witnessing decades of disinvestment and passing the same abandoned houses falling deeper into disrepair year after year, I’m OK with people wanting to build new housing here. And that requires developers, who expect to make a profit.
Ugh, developers. There’s a reason “greedy real estate developers” is an evergreen trope in fiction (we’re even being governed by one right now). There are plenty of reasons to suspect developers’ motives are less than altruistic. However, there’s no one else lining up to build housing here. Who’s going to do it — the city? The state? I would prefer they figure out how to save public transit, or even just fill the potholes first.
So that brings us to Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) — requiring developers to set aside units affordable housing in each development of a certain size — which the mayoral candidates are already using as a sharp object to poke each other with. YIMBYs hate IZ. NIMBYs are all over the place, from opposing all change for any reason, to those who think restricting the supply drives down prices (I have my doubts). But does it work? Does IZ create more affordable housing?
Uh, well, we don’t really know. Any extra hurdles you throw up in front of developers (impacting their profits) are likely going to result in less development. But the YIMBY types haven’t exactly been making the case for deleting the practice, pushing suspect studies of the subject.
So, there it is, in all its dull, equivocating glory. Personally, I’m ready to go back to debating the Buccos’ batting order and other things that don’t really matter in the slightest.
For rent: 900 Penn Apartments, Downtown, $1,399/month.
Somehow the Instagram algorithm spit a podcast into my feed from guys who live in my neighborhood talking about how terrified they are of Downtown Pittsburgh, and how they refuse to go there without a gun. Wow, we used to have these things called “internal monologues” where we could let all our most embarrassing thoughts run wild without other people knowing. Now, people just say that sort of thing out loud and put it on the internet where nothing ever dies. Downtown’s fine. Sorry you saw a homeless person that one time, tough guy.
For sale: 964 Stanford Rd., Woods Run, $220,000.
The most Western Pa. name possible is probably “Cowher Way” in Crafton. But “Woods Run” is probably in the next tier down, because every place in Pittsburgh is “the woods,” except maybe Downtown, and/or a “Run,” which suggests a steep wooded ravine descending to a river basin. (Or, well, trying to run the ball on first and second down because that worked in 1979 and we don’t need to change, you do.) While I’m at it, the flat parts of the North Side stopped being affordable about 15 years ago, but if you look deeper into the hills and valleys, there are plenty of gems like this three-bedroom with a porch so generous and comfortable that it could be a fourth bedroom, if necessary.
For rent: Walnut Towers at Frick Park, Squirrel Hill, $,1,421/month.
Hey, here’s an idea. What if we took all of the great things about life in Squirrel Hill — the attractive housing, the walkability, the restaurants — and just replaced all of that with amazing views of the Parkway East!?! Are you sold? (OK, to be honest, I think this place is actually fine, and the location isn’t even that bad. But as soon as I leave the Parkway East, the last thing I ever want to see again is the Parkway East).
For rent: 6412 Aylesboro Ave., Apt. B, Squirrel Hill, $1,595/month.
Since I usually play the “let’s find something nice to say about this marginal Pittsburgh neighborhood which really isn’t all that bad,” let’s do the opposite. Let’s find something bad to say about this lovely house in a lovely part of Squirrel Hill. Uh … so, that carpet sort of sucks. Eh, I’ve got nothing. But white carpet always seems like a gamble — that you will never decide to have kids or pets (ever)!
For sale: 1400 Smokey Wood Dr., Apt. 607, Swissvale, $145,000.
OK, I don’t just want a condo built in the ‘80s in Pittsburgh, I want the most ‘80s condo ever built in Pittsburgh. I’m talking gray brick, gray carpet, gray skies, gray everything. Pittsburgh in the ‘80s was Gloomtown U.S.A., making today’s city seem like the Florida Keys by comparison. Even the sugar high of four Super Bowl victories in the previous decade had worn off by ’82. But, yeah, sure, everything was cheaper. Swissvale is pretty nice when the hills are covered with green, and the sun decides to make an appearance. Plus, it also has a gigantic all-vinyl record store and a nice Indian restaurant; my needs aren’t complicated.
For sale: 116 Santron Ave., Carrick, $165,000.
I get why the rustic look is popular, I just question its application in places like Carrick. This place takes it pretty far, with actual sliding barn doors in the living room. That’s a very significant amount of porch space, and a pretty eccentric bathroom layout, which is likely a response to a little leftover space in a house built into a steep hill. We can just call it “personality” instead of “weird” and it’s basically fine.
This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2025.
