The Pittsburgh neighborhood is located southwest
of Downtown Atlanta within Neighborhood Planning Unit-V (NPU-V). The neighborhood is defined at the north end by Wells Street,
to the east by Norfolk Southern Railroad and Pryor Road, University Avenue to the south, and Metropolitan Parkway to the west.
Interstate-20 lies just north of the neighborhood and I-75/85 runs along the eastern edge. The BeltLine runs parallel to University
Avenue just to the south.
Pittsburgh is one of Atlanta’s oldest neighborhoods and was established by African
Americans in 1883 on 554 acres in the aftermath of the Civil War in a segregated city. Atlanta’s economy during the
late 1800s was dependent upon three major rail lines which merged near Five Points. The railroad has always played a defining
role in the development of Pittsburgh. The neighborhood got its name because the land south of Pegran rail yards was so polluted
it was nicknamed “Pittsburgh” after the steel mills in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The neighborhood’s earliest
residents were laborers on the railroads and the conditions provided by steady employment and forced by segregation encouraged
the development of African American-owned businesses along McDaniel Street, Pittsburgh’s “Main Street.”
Serviced by four streetcar lines running along Washington Street, Pryor Street, Stewart Avenue (now Metropolitan
Parkway) and Georgia Avenue (now Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard), Pittsburgh experienced considerable growth during the early
decades of the twentieth century. Neighborhood residential development followed typical African American platting patterns
with single family houses and duplexes on small lots. The neighborhood is laid out in a fairly regular grid pattern.
The Atlanta Theological School (Salvation Army College) was constructed on the western side of the neighborhood along Metropolitan
Parkway and is still a major presence in the community. Crogman Elementary School, named for the first African American President
of Atlanta University, William Henry Crogman, opened in 1923 and was the first elementary school for African American children
in the Atlanta Public School System. Crogman elementary in recent years was rehabilitated into housing units. Gideons Elementary
School, named after Charles L. Gideons, a long-time employee of the Atlanta school system, was constructed in the 1950s. The
elementary school, under the able leadership of Principal Armstead Salters, serves as a strong community asset. The neighborhood
is also serviced by Walter L. Parks Middle School, in the southeast portion of the community and Carver High School just southeast
of Pittsburgh in the South Atlanta neighborhood.
Starting in the 1950s, Pittsburgh began to experience several
decades of decline. Many historically African American neighborhoods began to loose their more affluent black families as
they moved to the west side of the City into former white-owned neighborhoods. Civil Rights, integration, and the departure
of residents had a detrimental effect on black-owned businesses in Pittsburgh decreasing their customer base and eventually
causing them to close. Redlining of the neighborhood by financial institutions crippled home sales, causing wide-spread abandonment
of houses which soon fell into visible disrepair. The 1960s dealt the neighborhood another blow when construction of I-75/I-85
cut off the southeastern tip of Pittsburgh. The primarily industrial area is currently a no-man’s land claimed by both
Pittsburgh and Peoplestown. The construction of Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium brought game-day traffic congestion to the neighborhood
which still persists. The Model Cities Program of the 1960s and 1970s started the trend of broken promises to the neighborhood.
In twenty-year’s time, Pittsburgh experienced a fifty percent decline in population from 7,276 in 1970 to 3,624 in 1990.
Historic Resources
Because Pittsburgh is one of the oldest neighborhoods
in Atlanta formed after the Civil War and in times of racial segregation, the community has historic significance. The PCIA
in coordination with the Atlanta Urban Design Commission (AUDC) completed the steps necessary to apply for National Register
Historic status. The Pittsburgh Community received designation in June 2006. Pittsburgh can now decide if it would like to
pursue Local Historic District status. A discussion of the pros and cons of national versus local historic district designation
can be found in the appendix of this report.
Demographics
Pittsburgh has continued
to lose residents over the years and according to the 2000 U.S. Census 3,286 people live in the neighborhood. The community
continues to be predominantly African American and low-income lagging behind the City of Atlanta and NPU-V in many ways that
signal that the neighborhood has not yet been touched significantly by revitalization and the increased interest in in-town
living. In the six years since the last Census, visible signs of change have taken place in the community most visible perhaps
are the new, boarded up houses that dot the neighborhood. Unfortunately, new census data are a few years away and as such
it is difficult to quantify the changes that are taking place in the community. The data presented below are therefore dated
but do present a clear history of Pittsburgh.
Population Loss
Over a twenty-year period, 1980 to 2000, Pittsburgh lost 24 percent of its population
down from 4,324 residents to 3,286. In this time of inner-city flight, Pittsburgh suffered more losses than did the City of
Atlanta and NPU-V. In fact, both showed a recovery of residents in the 1990s while Pittsburgh continued its loss.
At the same time it was losing residents, Pittsburgh was experiencing a significant decline of households, 20 percent from
1990 to 2000, this loss occurred simultaneously with the City’s and NPU-V’s increase in households. Vacancy rates
also were on the rise in Pittsburgh unlike in the City and the rest of NPU-V where the decline in vacancy rates was a sign
of a return to in-town living combined with housing demolition particularly housing projects and a trend toward gentrification.
Pittsburgh’s high vacancy rate in 2000 indicated that the neighborhood was unable to capitalize upon its in-town status.
In 2000, Pittsburgh had higher rents on average than NPU-V but substantially lower home values, yet another
indicator that Pittsburgh has been slower to diversify and gentrify; higher home values are an indicator of gentrification.
However, in 2000 Pittsburgh had a 39 percent homeownership rate, higher than NPU-V as a whole. This is perhaps indicative
of the larger number of elderly residents whose families have owned homes in the neighborhood for generations.
People
Pittsburgh in 2000 was 96 percent black, a higher percentage
African American than either NPU-V or the City of Atlanta. Yet another indication that Pittsburgh has been slow to diversify.
Pittsburgh has a greater percentage of its population under the age of 18 and has more children per family than
does the City of Atlanta. Simultaneously, Pittsburgh has the largest percentage of elderly residents over the age of 65 as
compared to NPU-V and the City. With 36 percent of the families being headed by single-females with multiple children and
the high percentage of elderly residents, one begins to see how stressed the economic condition is in the neighborhood.
Pittsburgh also suffers from low educational achievement. Only 5 percent of the residents have an advanced degree
while 86 percent have some high school and 55 percent have a high school diploma.
Pittsburgh is more impoverished
than the City of Atlanta with 70 percent of Pittsburgh residents making less than $25,000 per year. Forty-one percent of residents
live in poverty, of those 49 percent are children. Twelve percent of families are on welfare which is five times higher than
Fulton County and 88 percent of children at Gideons Elementary School received free or reduced price lunches.
Employment
There are few employment opportunities for residents within
Pittsburgh and those available do not pay well. Approximately a third of Pittsburgh residents worked outside of Fulton County
in 2000, higher than the rate for the City of Atlanta. This is particularly interesting because only 51 percent of Pittsburgh
residents own a car compared to 76 percent in the City; and 34 percent took public transportation to get to work compared
to 15 percent in the City.
In 2000, the unemployment rate in Pittsburgh was nearly double that of Metropolitan
Atlanta. Non-participation, persons who are neither working nor looking for work, among working-aged men in Pittsburgh was
at 41 percent compared to 30 percent in the City. Similar non-participation results were found among women in Pittsburgh.
The above statistics indicate that those individuals who are willing and able to work tend to travel further and
are more reliant on public transportation than are their counterparts in the rest of the City. This becomes particularly compelling
in light of the community’s accounts of MARTA’s unreliability in servicing Pittsburgh.
