1855 Map of the city of Pittsburgh with some of the surrounding communities. This map service includes a mosaic of several volumes of plat maps that were originally bound atlases. The mosaic was created using ArcGIS software from the scanned JPEG images, varying from 300-600 dpi. These images were obtained from the Historic Pittsburgh website (http://historicpittsburgh.org/maps-hopkins) The images were georeferenced to WGS84 Web Mercator and the borders were clipped to create a contiguous map.This product is to be used for reference purposes only. The original historical paper maps were sometimes damaged or distorted to varying degrees due to age and use. There are spatial inaccuracies and some places where the footprints do not lineup perfectly or in some cases overlap.

Historic Boundaries for City of Pittsburgh City Council Districts

For more recent and current council district boundaries, see https://data.wprdc.org/dataset/resources/city-council-districts-2012

Pittsburgh City Historic District Individual Properties

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps History and Background of the Maps Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258). http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins McKeesport from the original Sanborn maps from 1889.

Most of the text in this description originally appeared on the Mapping Inequality Website. Robert K. Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers,

"HOLC staff members, using data and evaluations organized by local real estate professionals--lenders, developers, and real estate appraisers--in each city, assigned grades to residential neighborhoods that reflected their "mortgage security" that would then be visualized on color-coded maps. Neighborhoods receiving the highest grade of "A"--colored green on the maps--were deemed minimal risks for banks and other mortgage lenders when they were determining who should received loans and which areas in the city were safe investments. Those receiving the lowest grade of "D," colored red, were considered "hazardous."

Conservative, responsible lenders, in HOLC judgment, would "refuse to make loans in these areas [or] only on a conservative basis." HOLC created area descriptions to help to organize the data they used to assign the grades. Among that information was the neighborhood's quality of housing, the recent history of sale and rent values, and, crucially, the racial and ethnic identity and class of residents that served as the basis of the neighborhood's grade. These maps and their accompanying documentation helped set the rules for nearly a century of real estate practice. "

HOLC agents grading cities through this program largely "adopted a consistently white, elite standpoint or perspective. HOLC assumed and insisted that the residency of African Americans and immigrants, as well as working-class whites, compromised the values of homes and the security of mortgages. In this they followed the guidelines set forth by Frederick Babcock, the central figure in early twentieth-century real estate appraisal standards, in his Underwriting Manual: "The infiltration of inharmonious racial groups ... tend to lower the levels of land values and to lessen the desirability of residential areas."

These grades were a tool for redlining: making it difficult or impossible for people in certain areas to access mortgage financing and thus become homeowners. Redlining directed both public and private capital to native-born white families and away from African American and immigrant families. As homeownership was arguably the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States in the twentieth century, these redlining practices from eight decades ago had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities that we still see today. Mapping Inequality, we hope, will allow and encourage you to grapple with this history of government policies contributing to inequality."

Data was copied from the Mapping Inequality Website for communities in Western Pennsylvania where data was available. These communities include Altoona, Erie, Johnstown, Pittsburgh, and New Castle. Data included original and georectified images, scans of the neighborhood descriptions, and digital map layers. Data here was downloaded on June 9, 2020.

1855 Map of the city of Pittsburgh with some of the surrounding communities. This map service includes a mosaic of several volumes of plat maps that were originally bound atlases. The mosaic was created using ArcGIS software from the scanned JPEG images, varying from 300-600 dpi. These images were obtained from the Historic Pittsburgh website (http://historicpittsburgh.org/maps-hopkins) The images were georeferenced to WGS84 Web Mercator and the borders were clipped to create a contiguous map.This product is to be used for reference purposes only. The original historical paper maps were sometimes damaged or distorted to varying degrees due to age and use. There are spatial inaccuracies and some places where the footprints do not lineup perfectly or in some cases overlap.

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps History and Background of the Maps Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258).

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps History and Background of the Maps Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258).

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins

COVID-19 Cases information is reported through the Pennsylvania State Department’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (PA-NEDSS). As new cases are passed to the Allegheny County Health Department they are investigated by case investigators. During investigation some cases which are initially determined by the State to be in the Allegheny County jurisdiction may change, which can account for differences between publication of the files on the number of cases, deaths and tests. Additionally, information is not always reported to the State in a timely manner, delays can range from days to weeks, which can also account for discrepancies between previous and current files. Test and Case information will be updated daily. This resource contains individuals who received a COVID-19 test and individuals whom are probable cases. Every day, these records are overwritten with updates. Each row in the data reflects a person that is tested, not tests that are conducted. People that are tested more than once will have their testing and case data updated using the following rules:

1. Positive tests overwrite negative tests.
2. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests overwrite antibody or antigen (AG) tests.
3. The first positive PCR test is never overwritten. Data collected from additional tests do not replace the first positive PCR test.

Note: On April 4th 2022 the Pennsylvania Department of Health no longer required labs to report negative AG tests. Therefore aggregated counts that included AG tests have been removed from the Municipality/Neighborhood files going forward. Versions of this data up to this cut-off have been retained as archived files.

Individual Test information is also updated daily. This resource contains the details and results of individual tests along with demographic information of the individual tested. Only PCR and AG tests are included. Every day, these records are overwritten with updates. This resource should be used to determine positivity rates.

The remaining datasets provide statistics on death demographics. Demographic, municipality and neighborhood information for deaths are reported on a weekly schedule and are not included with individual cases or tests. This has been done to protect the privacy and security of individuals and their families in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Municipality or City of Pittsburgh Neighborhood is based off the geocoded home address of the individual tested.

Individuals whose home address is incomplete may not be in Allegheny County but whose temporary residency, work or other mitigating circumstance are determined to be in Allegheny County by the Pennsylvania Department of Health are counted as "Undefined".

Since the start of the pandemic, the ACHD has mapped every day’s COVID tests, cases, and deaths to their Allegheny County municipality and neighborhood. Tests were mapped to patient address, and if this was not available, to the provider location. This has recently resulted in apparent testing rates that exceeded the populations of various municipalities -- mostly those with healthcare providers. As this was brought to our attention, the health department and our data partners began researching and comparing methods to most accurately display the data. This has led us to leave those with missing home addresses off the map. Although these data will still appear in test, case and death counts, there will be over 20,000 fewer tests and almost 1000 fewer cases on the map. In addition to these map changes, we have identified specific health systems and laboratories that had data uploading errors that resulted in missing locations, and are working with them to correct these errors.

Due to minor discrepancies in the Municipal boundary and the City of Pittsburgh Neighborhood files individuals whose City Neighborhood cannot be identified are be counted as “Undefined (Pittsburgh)”.

On May 19, 2023, with the rescinding of the COVID-19 public health emergency, changes in data and reporting mechanisms prompted a change to an annual data sharing schedule for tests, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Dates for annual release are TBD. The weekly municipal counts and individual data produced before this changed are maintained as archive files.

Support for Health Equity datasets and tools provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through their Health Equity Initiative.

This dataset originally housed Department of Permits, Licenses, and Inspections violations (2015-2020), and has now been expanded to include violations logged by other units (including DOMI) from 2020-06-01 until the present. These data are used to manage and track all updates to casefiles by city employees and can be used to understand when citations/investigations/court proceedings are issued, the nature and location of the violation, and the status of the casefile at any point in time. By using addresses or parcel numbers, which are contained in these data, users can also display information on geospatial maps.

Collection/Interpretation

It is important to understand the distinction between violations and casefiles, and how updates to a casefile are represented in the dataset. A casefile refers to one or more violations. When an initial investigation is conducted each of these violations is recorded separately. The investigation will result in a new status for all of violations ("VIOLATIONS FOUND"). The subject of the investigation will be informed of this outcome and must address the problem(s). There will be a follow-up inspection at this point, and depending on the results, further steps will be taken (follow-up investigations, criminal complaints issued, court proceedings, etc.)

Each violation for each casefile is represented as a unique row in the dataset. As explained above, there will be a minimum of two updates for each violation (the initial and follow-up investigation). Though the investigation of all violations in a casefile is conducted simultaneously, each investigation is represented as a unique row. Thus, for a property with three violations there will be a minimum of six rows (both investigations for each violation). It is possible to track the entire case history by observing all rows for each casefile.

Each violation is cited according to the violation_code_section field.

The casefile_number represents the only UUID for each casefile (the entire group of violations). By using the casefile_number and violation_code_section fields in combination, one can track the history each violation for a given casefile. Combining the above fields with investigation_date renders a UUID for each record.

DOMI (the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure), PLI, and Environmental Services (ES) all use this system to log violations. In most cases, the department involved in the casefile can be extracted from the casefile_number field (beginning with the 4th character). For instance, a casefile_number like CF-**PLI**-2021-025422, represents a violation reported by PLI. The remaining casefile IDs start with "O-"; these are PLI violation codes from an old ticketing system.

The records from 2020-06 onward are obtained from the City's Computronix system, one of several independent systems used by the City to track property-level data.

Preprocessing/Formatting

All string text (most fields) were converted to UPPERCASE data. The data are manually entered and often contain non-uniform formatting. While several solutions for cleaning the data exist, including allowing the user to clean the data after accessing it here, text field values were transformed to UPPERCASE to ensure the data were uniformly formatted in this case. Future improvements to this ETL pipeline may approach this problem with a more sophisticated technique.