In the era of deindustrialization, the city of Pittsburgh has initiated a clear effort to rebrand itself from toxic smokestack to healthcare and tech hub. In many respects, this effort has been rewarded. Pittsburgh’s recognition among The Economists’“Most Livable Cities”[1]nearly every year since 2005 has done much to improve the city’s nationwide reputation, increase tourism, and attract new business and commercial interests to the area. But there is a vast underbelly to this economic and aesthetic restoration that demands scrutiny. First, Pittsburgh has adopted its toxic past as part of an industrial-chic image, twisting heritage in a way that does not allow for meaningful discussion of the city’s very real historic problems. Next, economic disparities are inherently tied into environmental inequalities, which in large part are unaddressed by public, private, and non-profit interests. And last, despite Pittsburgh’s attempt at image repair, there continues to be a low level of environmental culture among city residents that belies the city’s projected identity and bodes ill for future change. Pittsburgh’s “green” image is more than a façade, but the city can and must do more to confront and change its legacy.
Industrial Heritage
The economic success from which Pittsburgh emerged a fully formed city is due in large part to the abundance of natural resources hidden in the hills and valleys of the Allegheny region. Without coal, it is unlikely that Pittsburgh would have grown to be more than a small commercial city.[2] Instead, Pittsburgh developed on the cornerstones of acid mine drainage and slag heaps. As the population boomed due to increasing industrial wealth and abundance of jobs, hundreds of thousands of acres of Pennsylvania land were razed, the environmental consequences being “disrupted water supplies, streams filled with mining debris, and land subsistence” that affected the physical health of area residents with no legal recourse.[3]Moreover, the shattered landscape was considered in both the corporate and public view to be representative of the city’s prosperity: “To a society bent on economic growth, energy demands took precedence over aesthetics and, at times, public health and property rights…Business and government considered negative environmental impacts an unfortunate by-product, but considered it to be the price of affluence.”[4]
While the 1970s have been popularized as the early era of mainstream environmentalism, in fact community-based conservation movements began early in the 20thcentury. Nearly always led by women who considered neighborhood upkeep an extension of their domestic duties, early twentieth century environmentalism centered on the beautification of urban spaces to combat the initial stages of urban sprawl. They were far less influenced by considerations of natural, climate, or human health, and more so tied to moral contemplations of beauty. This “City Beautiful” ideal – which influenced the direction of development in many major US cities – was constructed by middle and upper class white Americans who imagined the revitalization of city aesthetics while still preserving the “architectural significance” of the city’s industrial heritage.[5]This approach has resulted in the preservation of many buildings significant to “Old Pittsburgh,” including notable landmarks like Station Square. Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Committee and City Planning Commission have gone to great lengths to preserve the architectural grandeur of industrial-era Pittsburgh. But what of the grandeur of the region’s terrain, which was unblemished prior to the nineteenth century?
The Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers that converge at Point State Park are perhaps the city’s most prized geographic commodity. In the early settlement era, leisure and recreation activities took place along the city’s riverbanks, and the rivers provided convenient and cheap transportation for an emerging trade hub. This changed during the industrial era. As the city’s commerce gave way to the development of heavy industry, “the rivers became more industrial, more utilitarian, more engineered, and less accessible to residents.”[6]The use of the city’s hallmark rivers as convenient waste buckets for sewage and industrial waste rapidly changed the environmental health of the region, with a startling loss of aquatic life in and around the rivers as well as a prolific spread of disease among citizens, including an outbreak of Typhoid fever resulting in more deaths than in any other city at the turn of the twentieth century.[7]Although various legislative initiatives were put in place later on to resurrect the rivers, improve the quality of drinking water, and prevent the use of the rivers as sewage dumps, “when the city’s rivers were ‘rediscovered’ by the media, they were thought of largely as places where new development would replace the old, and rarely were thought of as a striking opportunity for natural amenity open space.”[8]The rivers are today perhaps the most iconic element of Pittsburgh’s visual image, framed by countless steel bridges, and attracting visitors which contributed to tourism revenue of $5.98 billion and supported over 40,000 jobs in 2015.[9]The placement of the Steelers and Pirates stadiums along the riverfront are indicative of the river’s commercial-cultural value. Rather than confronting the errors and consequences of exploiting the rivers, Pittsburgh has merely transformed them from industrial revenue streams into commercial revenue streams. Pittsburgh revels in its post-industrial identity by continuing to capitalize on old historic landmarks, but does little to publicly examine the consequences of its industrial past.
Environmental Inequality
In addition to the staggering loss of biodiversity that has unfolded as a result of industrialization, the human population of the Pittsburgh region has suffered immensely. Although visible smoke was mostly purged from the city due to a mid-twentieth century movement by public-private interests and civic groups,[10]air pollution remains a menace to citizens of Pittsburgh, with Allegheny county consistently receiving grades of “F” for high ozone days and particle pollution.[11]The city of Pittsburgh is ranked as having the 8thworst particle pollution of any US city, according to the American Lung Association’s latest report. High rates of asthma plague Pittsburgh children, a statistic that stands in stark contrast to the city’s new image. An essential element of Pittsburgh’s rebranding is its healthcare – another element of livability, according to The Economist. The organization Visit Pittsburgh, in its bid to attract new residents,boasts that its award-winning healthcare systems are “what make us known,” and that “ground-breaking technology and medical discoveries put Pittsburgh at the top of the list for health care.”[12] Of course, there is no mention of the significant health risks of relocating.
Toxic air quality cannot solely be blamed on past industrial transgressions - there are still major industrial companies that are refusing to clean up operations and are actively contribution to particle pollution. Mon Valley Works, which operates three plants in the Pittsburgh area, is one. Their Clairton plant puts out more pollution than any other manufacturer in the county, and Clairton residents consequently suffer from the third highest risk of cancer from air pollutants in the nation.[13]It is no coincidence that this at-risk population of Clairton also suffers from one of the highest poverty rates in the county.[14]Low income populations bear a disproportionate burden of industrial consequence, considering they are not the driving force behind increasing energy demands, nor do they benefit from the economic success of corporate and industrial expansion.
Environmental inequality often is overlooked in low-income communities, as evidenced by the continuing saga of the Flint, Michigan Water Crisis. Low-income communities tend to lack the disposable income or recreational time to devote to environmental advocacy, with the result that entire communities are left to suffer the effects of unregulated business neglected by public policy or the mainstream environmental movement. Environmental culture not only needs to address private interests and profits, but basic environmental services to every population in the region. Although the environmental movement is often driven by middle-class interests, and invariably focuses on their own community needs, the city must acknowledge its failings in lower-income areas and redress its failure to regulate industry and pollution among Pittsburgh’s marginalized populations. The city cannot expect a cross-sectional environmental culture to take root if basic environmental services are not provided. As long as the city neglects its poorer regions, low environmental consciousness will remain a cultural problem that is evident not only along the streets, rivers, and skies, but reflected in the health demographics – and rising medical costs – of Pittsburgh’s citizens.
A Green Facade
There is a growing sense among private interests and public policy makers that long-term environmental sustainability cannot be sacrificed for short-term profits. Still, a significant segment of the country – including many in positions of power – holds the belief that industrial capitalism will solve the problems it created,[15]and that legal restrictions do more harm than good. A 2016 Pew Research Survey documented that 34% of Americans (including a majority of Republicans) believe that “stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.”[16] In cities that were built on the success of industry, rather than agriculture or commerce, this belief has deep roots as residents have felt the very real consequences of job loss due to deindustrialization. It is this view – the prioritization of short-term job and economic renewal by returning to antique energy sources – that has driven our current administration’s promise to reverse clean power initiatives and bring back coal and steel. Those who believe in the resiliency of the environment and industry’s ability to clean up its own mess are blind to the lessons of the past, which clearly document big industry’s abdication of responsibility for industrial cleanup. Indeed, taxpayers have borne the brunt of the cost for sealing acid mines, cleaning oil spills, and clearing smoky skies when industry giants pass the buck.[17]
Twenty-first century Pittsburgh finds itself in the difficult position of rebranding itself from a city of industry to a green energy tech hub. It has meticulously preserved the industrial façade as a vintage staple which particularly benefits area tourism. And yet, how has the culture changed? Numerous academic disciplines have noted a disconnect between proclaimed and lived values. Sociologists have noted that “the moral dimension of pro-environmental behaviour has been operationalized by determining the level of personal obligation towards behaviour…This personal norm is understood as the degree to which a person assumes responsibility for environmental problems and considers that it is essential to take action (or assume the costs), independently of what others do.”[18]Environmental consciousness among area residents can be measured by rates of recycling, household energy use, civic environmental participation, clean-up initiatives, and the like. Unfortunately, Pittsburgh’s recycling rate – 17%, compared with the (still low) national average of 34%[19]- represents an ingrained flippancy when it comes to waste disposal that can be traced back to its industrial roots. Pittsburgh’s household waste problem is so extensive that the city is now considering a “pay-as-you-throw” system that would charge residents based on the amount of trash they produce, to encourage recycling and emphasize that the real cost of waste production is – now or later – borne by the consumer. Mayor Bill Peduto’s aim to reach “Zero Waste” by 2030 is only achievable with civic participation – a change in cultural values, and a growing emphasis on individual responsibility in addition to public policy change. Historians have noted a persistent sluggishness of Pittsburgh’s public policy to address environmental problems, which over time has resulted in staggering economic costs as well as a significant loss of life.[20]University of Pittsburgh historian Samuel Hays notes that in addition to a low level of individual environmental culture, opponents to environmental regulation have sought to redefine “environmental objectives away from public issues that were controversial and toward often superficial ‘green’ activities, mostly quite trivial and devoted more to image building rather than to concrete results.”[21]Pittsburgh’s attempt to transform the recreational atmosphere in recent years as the city has transitioned into technology and sought to recruit and retain young tech talent has resulted in the emergence of a “green” veneer that masks deeper environmental problems and focuses disproportionately on the aesthetic presentation of middle-class communities. It must do better to confront the holistic culture that sees waste as a disposable commodity which can be deferred onto Pittsburgh’s marginalized communities, with little regard for the health of people or spaces beyond maintained public parks and tree-lined Lawrenceville streets.
Conclusion
I make no implication that Pittsburgh would be better off unsettled, undeveloped, or unchanged. Landscape is complex and nuanced, and in the age of human dominion involves constant and evolving interaction between natural and constructed environments. Taming the wilderness has been, and remains to this day, a pursuit that is interwoven with American identity. Industrial development, which propelled the United States to global economic and political dominance, is a contentious topic which continues to bear out in executive and legislative decision-making today. The disconnect between champions of economic/technological superiority and those who seek to balance economic success and environmental sustainability is wider today than perhaps ever before. I make no claim to bridge this divide. Rather, I advocate for a clear redressing of wrongs done to both the landscape and communities that have suffered at the hands of industry exploitation. The Pittsburgh Renaissance has made great strides in scrubbing from the face of the city any negative remnants of industrialization while retaining more neutral elements as vintage tokens of its industrial past. What is missing from this narrative is an acknowledgement of how industry greed has impacted the diverse human and natural life of the region. An apology for the wrongs of the past – including municipal complicity – will shape the cultural and environmental values of Pittsburgh’s future, and steer the focus away from image repair onto more meaningful change.
[1]The Global Liveability Report 2017. Report. 2017. Accessed March 29, 2018. http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Liveability-Ranking-Free-Summary-Report-August-2017.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=Liveability17.
[2] Joel Tarr and Karen Clay, “Pittsburgh as an Energy Capital: Perspectives on Coal and Natural Gas Transitions and the Environment,” in Energy Capitals: Local Impact, Global Influence, ed. Joseph Pratt, Martin Melosi, and Kathleen Brosnan (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014), 5
[3]Joel Tarr and Karen Clay, “Pittsburgh as an Energy Capital: Perspectives on Coal and Natural Gas Transitions and the Environment,” in Energy Capitals: Local Impact, Global Influence, ed. Joseph Pratt, Martin Melosi, and Kathleen Brosnan (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014), 512
[4]Nicholas Casner, “Acid Mine Drainage and Pittsburgh’s Water Quality,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005),92
[5]Roy Lubove, Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh, Vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 217
[6]Edward K. Muller, “River City,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), 51
[7]Ibid, 55
[8]Samuel P. Hays, “Beyond Celebration: Pittsburgh and Its Region in the Environmental Era – Notes by a Participation Observer,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), 206
[9]"Video & Facts on Economic Impact of Tourism on Pittsburgh." Visit Pittsburgh. 2015. Accessed March 29, 2018. https://www.visitpittsburgh.com/about-us/tourism-impact/.
[10]Sherie Mershon and Joel Tarr, “Strategies for Clean Air: The Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Smoke Control Movements, 1940-1960,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), 145
[11]“How Healthy is the air you breathe?” American Lung Association. 2017. Accessed February 10, 2018. http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/pennsylvania/.
[12]"Pittsburgh Hospitals & Healthcare | Moving to Pittsburgh PA." Visit Pittsburgh. Accessed March 29, 2018. https://www.visitpittsburgh.com/relocation/healthcare/.
[13]Cleanair.org. Accessed March 29, 2018. http://cleanair.org/public-health/pittsburgh-air-pollution/.
[14]"Data Brief: Suburban Poverty: Assessing Community Need Outside the Central City." Allegheny County Analytics. 2014. Accessed February 9, 2018. https://www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Suburban-Poverty-Assessing-Community-Need-Outside-the-Central-City-4.pdf.
[15]Patrick Allitt, A Climate of Crisis: America in the Age of Environmentalism(New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2015), 335
[16]Kristen Bialik. "Most Americans Favor Stricter Environmental Laws and Regulations." Pew Research Center. December 14, 2016. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/14/most-americans-favor-stricter-environmental-laws-and-regulations/.
[17]Nicholas Casner, “Acid Mine Drainage and Pittsburgh’s Water Quality,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005),105
[18]Manuel Sanchez and Regina Lafuenta, “Defining and Measurnig Environmental Consciousness,” Revista Internacional de Sociologia 68, no.3 (2010): 736
[19]Ashley Murray. "The Journey of a Blue Bag." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Interactive. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/recycling/.
[20]Joel Tarr and Terrie Yosie, “Critical Decisions in Water and Wastewater Treatment,” Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005),73
[21]Samuel P. Hays, “Beyond Celebration: Pittsburgh and Its Region in the Environmental Era – Notes by a Participation Observer,” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), 211
Comments