U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2016, 09:31 AM
 
5,805 posts, read 8,975,232 times
Reputation: 3051

Advertisements

It's biggest Cities are still struggling to keep Population and slipping further down the Census list.

Like I Said in the Pittsburgh forum, State Government really works hard against its own economic engines. The Loons in the "T" have too much power in Harrisburg, and its killing both the Burgh and Philly.

Business / Jobs simply cannot thrive in this State.

Slow-growing metro Philly falls to No. 7 nationally
Quote:
In the last five years, Philadelphia and its neighboring counties have lost tens of thousands of residents, but birthrates and an influx of immigrants have resulted in modest population increases.
Still, the Philadelphia metro area - No. 4 a decade ago - has fallen to No. 7 in the U.S. population rankings, surpassed this year by Washington.

If current rates continue, Philadelphia is set to drop even further within the next five years, overtaken by Miami and Atlanta.


Read more at Slow-growing metro Philly falls to No. 7 nationally

Census shows population decline in Pittsburgh region

Quote:
Here’s a new slogan for local civic boosters to consider: “Pittsburgh: The Greatest Place that Doesn’t Grow.”

It seems apt as ever, based on new U.S. Census Bureau estimates posted today. Among the nation’s 30 largest metropolitan areas, Pittsburgh is the only one deemed to have fewer people on July 1, 2015, than were counted during the official 2010 census. The region is estimated to have lost 5,051 people last year and 3,240 overall since the official count, despite small gains from 2010-12.

That news might be a head-scratcher to some people — it certainly was to Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald — who have a hard time meshing it with what they see of Downtown commercial development, East End residential construction, trendy restaurant proliferation and never-ending rankings of how ideal Pittsburgh is.

Census shows population decline in Pittsburgh region | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2016, 12:12 PM
 
2,838 posts, read 4,973,272 times
Reputation: 2072
The relative ranking against other US cities isn't as important as real growth (population, income, real estate value, real estate # of units...) in Philly and Pittsburgh.

In other words, if PA is growing at say (and these #s are completely made-up) 4%, the US at 3%, but the top 10 cities like Miami... at 5%, PA is actually doing well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,217 posts, read 3,182,430 times
Reputation: 2993
1. Revitalizing only a couple neighborhoods and building expensive condos isn't going to help a city. It pushes up living costs and the bad neighborhoods get worse. The middle class is pushed out of the city. The rent here is comparable to big East Coast cities.
2. Affluent Twentysomethings. The city is only focusing on one demographic which will not lead to long term growth.
3. Our public rail transit expansion plans are dead. Money goes to the highways which has helped boost the burbs.
4. Crime and violence are increasing dramatically.
5. The city thinks that rich twentysomethings are going to buy homes in bad neighborhoods and fix them up. It's not happening.
6. No easy way to the airport. Flights are expensive.
7. PA is a blue state.
8. Horrendous city schools and the teachers union. (but not all the blame, the parents are just as much at fault.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 02:36 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,500 posts, read 19,438,308 times
Reputation: 15463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212 View Post
It's biggest Cities are still struggling to keep Population and slipping further down the Census list.

Like I Said in the Pittsburgh forum, State Government really works hard against its own economic engines. The Loons in the "T" have too much power in Harrisburg, and its killing both the Burgh and Philly.
Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin have all had larger "natural" population increases (births minus deaths) since 2010 than Pennsylvania has. And I'm not talking percentages either; I'm talking absolute quantities here. Pennsylvania is in the lower half of all 50 states in its absolute quantity of natural population growth despite ranking 6th in total population. Every state with at least 8,000,000 population except Pennsylvania has had a natural increase of at least 120,000 since 2010, while Pennsylvania has had a natural increase of just over 75,000. All those old people that Pennsylvania had during the 1990s and 2000s weren't going to keep getting older forever; eventually they were going to die, and a mass die-off is a tremendous ball and chain when it comes to population growth. There's a reason why Pennsylvania is projected to have the slowest-growing elderly population of all 50 states between now and 2030.

And if you want to talk about jobs, Pennsylvania just lost nearly one quarter of all its mining and logging jobs between January 2015 and January 2016, due to a global energy market crash that's way beyond the control of any state politician.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 9,022,895 times
Reputation: 3490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212 View Post
It's biggest Cities are still struggling to keep Population and slipping further down the Census list.

Like I Said in the Pittsburgh forum, State Government really works hard against its own economic engines. The Loons in the "T" have too much power in Harrisburg, and its killing both the Burgh and Philly.

Business / Jobs simply cannot thrive in this State.



You got to get into the 21st Century, bb.


Modern Tele-Commuting means a lot of jobs can be done at home, or anywhere. No reason why working from home from Pittsburgh or Philadelphia is any more practical than working from home in Shinglehouse or Donora. Further, manufacturing facilities need a lot few people than in the past. The ET works in Braddock produce as much product as the did during the days of Carnegie and Frick, but with a workforce 5% of the size, making them easier to locate in less populated counties.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 10:11 AM
 
3,001 posts, read 1,971,953 times
Reputation: 2882
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
1. Revitalizing only a couple neighborhoods and building expensive condos isn't going to help a city. It pushes up living costs and the bad neighborhoods get worse. The middle class is pushed out of the city. The rent here is comparable to big East Coast cities.
2. Affluent Twentysomethings. The city is only focusing on one demographic which will not lead to long term growth.


What do you consider expensive condos. What price range, and how many have been built or are being built.

Second point - it is usually developers and investors who decide what gets built. Not "the city". They build based on what the demand shows. Would you rather have nothing built, like in the 80s, 90's and early 00s?? That makes no sense at all.

Third point - Building new apartments and condos does not necessarily bring up living costs. It depends completely on supply and demand. Building adds new supply, should not have much affect at all on existing stock unless they are tearing down more units than they build (which usually does not happen in Pittsburgh). Costs are more likely increasing due to both the tendency of new housing to be more expensive than old, and lack of supply. Meaning more of what is in demand should be built, not less.

Fourth point - Pittsburgh is STILL one of the most affordable large metros/cities in the US. There are PLENTY of affordable neighborhoods in both the city and surrounding areas. You really shouldn't be surprised if trendy areas are expensive. It should be kind of a given.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Washington County, PA
4,085 posts, read 4,035,787 times
Reputation: 2638
I did a comprehensive analysis of trying to determine why the Pittsburgh MSA is continuing to lag in population gains. It seems to me we should have at a MINIMUM least a small gain instead of a small decrease in population with the most development the region has seen in 35+ years.

Using the numbers/estimates from the census Bureau, I broke each county in the metro down to the municipal level - from there, I split the municipalities into either part of the continuous Pittsburgh Urban Area or Rural/outside urban area. It seems that although at the county level and MSA level we are still slightly losing population, we are GAINING at the urban area level.



PITTSBURGH URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 1,779,969
2010 Population: 1,734,869 (-45,100 or -2.53%) *Less than the MSA level drop percent wise
2014 Population: 1,742,985 (+8,116 or +0.47%)

RURAL PORTIONS OF MSA
2000 Population: 654,427
2010 Population: 621,725 (-32,702 or -5.00%) *MORE than the MSA level drop percent wise
2014 Population: 612,715 (
-9,010 or -1.45%) *MORE than the MSA level drop percent wise





URBAN PORTIONS:
ALLEGHENY URBAN AREA (Entire county, with the exception of Forward Twp, Fawn Twp, and Frazer Twp)
2000 Population: 1,277,400
2010 Population: 1,219,268 (-58,132 or -4.55%)
2014 Population: 1,227,368 (+8,100 or +0.66%) *Over a 5.00% change

WESTMORELAND URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 221,889
2010 Population: 222,249 (+360 or +0.16%)
2014 Population: 218,697 (-3,552 or -1.60%) *Major contributor to the loss right now

WASHINGTON URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 100,222
2010 Population: 110,126 (+9,904 or +9.88%)
2014 Population: 111,852 (+1,726 or +1.57%) *Slowing down a bit, but actual sustainable growth

BUTLER URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 43,666
2010 Population: 53,640 (+9,974 or +22.84%)
2014 Population: 56,223 (+2,583 or +4.82%) *Continued boom in Southern Butler County

BEAVER URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 134,830
2010 Population: 127,773 (-7,057 or -5.23%)
2014 Population: 127,079 (-694 or -0.54%) *Population hemorrhaging seems to be over in Beaver County

FAYETTE URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 0
2010 Population: 0 (0 or 0.00%)
2014 Population: 0 (0 or 0.00%) *Continuous urban development does not reach Fayette County

ARMSTRONG URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 1,962
2010 Population: 1,813 (-149 or -7.59%)
2014 Population: 1,766 (-47 or -2.59%) *Only Freeport Borough is part of the Pittsburgh Urban Area






RURAL PORTIONS:
ALLEGHENY RURAL AREA (Just Forward, Fawn, and Frazer Townships)
2000 Population: 7,561
2010 Population: 6,909 (-652 or -8.62%)
2014 Population: 6,879 (-30 or -0.43%) *Even Rural Allegheny County is stabilizing

WESTMORELAND RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 148,104
2010 Population: 139,807 (-8,297 or -5.60%) *Huge reason we lost so much last decade
2014 Population: 137,272 (-2,535 or -1.81%) *Major contributor to the loss right now

WASHINGTON RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 102,675
2010 Population: 97,694 (-4,981 or -4.85%) *A reason we lost so much last decade
2014 Population: 96,394 (-1,300 or -1.33%) *Still depopulating a fair amount. Includes the Mon Valley

BUTLER RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 130,417
2010 Population: 130,222 (-195 or -0.15%) *Without Slippery Rock, this would be higher
2014 Population: 129,180 (-1,042 or -0.80%) *Seems to be losing at a much higher rate now

BEAVER RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 46,582
2010 Population: 43,359 (-3,223 or -6.92%)
2014 Population: 42,885 (-474 or -1.09%)

FAYETTE RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 148,658
2010 Population: 136,606
(-12,052 or -8.11%) *Entire County, and largest reason for population loss
2014 Population: 134,086
(-2,520 or -1.84%) *Entire County, and a major reason for population loss

*I think they area overestimating Fayette County, which could hurt us more in 2020. Fayette County is a true Appalachian County, with widespread poverty and no development in the entire county.

ARMSTRONG RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 70,430
2010 Population: 67,128 (-3,302 or -7.59%) *Entire county, except Freeport. Very much like Fayette Co.
2014 Population: 66,019 (-1,109 or -2.59%) *Entire county, except Freeport. Seems to be stabilzing a bit.



SOURCE:
Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions Datasets: Subcounty Resident Population Estimates: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 - U.S Census Bureau
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
6,304 posts, read 7,969,443 times
Reputation: 3960
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
What do you consider expensive condos. What price range, and how many have been built or are being built.

Second point - it is usually developers and investors who decide what gets built. Not "the city". They build based on what the demand shows. Would you rather have nothing built, like in the 80s, 90's and early 00s?? That makes no sense at all.

Third point - Building new apartments and condos does not necessarily bring up living costs. It depends completely on supply and demand. Building adds new supply, should not have much affect at all on existing stock unless they are tearing down more units than they build (which usually does not happen in Pittsburgh). Costs are more likely increasing due to both the tendency of new housing to be more expensive than old, and lack of supply. Meaning more of what is in demand should be built, not less.

Fourth point - Pittsburgh is STILL one of the most affordable large metros/cities in the US. There are PLENTY of affordable neighborhoods in both the city and surrounding areas. You really shouldn't be surprised if trendy areas are expensive. It should be kind of a given.
Just add him to your ignore list. You'll feel better when you do. He posts this drivel in every thread about costs in the area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2016, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,217 posts, read 3,182,430 times
Reputation: 2993
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
What do you consider expensive condos. What price range, and how many have been built or are being built.

Second point - it is usually developers and investors who decide what gets built. Not "the city". They build based on what the demand shows. Would you rather have nothing built, like in the 80s, 90's and early 00s?? That makes no sense at all.

Third point - Building new apartments and condos does not necessarily bring up living costs. It depends completely on supply and demand. Building adds new supply, should not have much affect at all on existing stock unless they are tearing down more units than they build (which usually does not happen in Pittsburgh). Costs are more likely increasing due to both the tendency of new housing to be more expensive than old, and lack of supply. Meaning more of what is in demand should be built, not less.

Fourth point - Pittsburgh is STILL one of the most affordable large metros/cities in the US. There are PLENTY of affordable neighborhoods in both the city and surrounding areas. You really shouldn't be surprised if trendy areas are expensive. It should be kind of a given.
I don't consider condos over $300,000, homes starting at $300,000, and 1br apts $1200 a month to be affordable for what the Pittsburgh economy has to offer. There are only so many IT jobs. We now have these really great expensive neighborhoods next to poor, declining, and unsafe neighborhoods. So yes, there are affordable homes in Pittsburgh but not places anyone would want to live. Affluent members of Gen X,Y, and Z aren't buying homes in run down neighborhoods and fixing them up so those areas continue to decline. Gentrification has taken away the middle class neighborhoods. What option does the middle class have? Move out to the country and the census figures of the last two years support that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2016, 05:35 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,500 posts, read 19,438,308 times
Reputation: 15463
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
I don't consider condos over $300,000, homes starting at $300,000, and 1br apts $1200 a month to be affordable for what the Pittsburgh economy has to offer.
Then why do they sell out so fast?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
There are only so many IT jobs.
IT aren't the only high-paying jobs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
We now have these really great expensive neighborhoods next to poor, declining, and unsafe neighborhoods.
Gee, that sounds like virtually every other major American city, so it's more than likely not a Pittsburgh-specific problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
Affluent members of Gen X,Y, and Z aren't buying homes in run down neighborhoods and fixing them up so those areas continue to decline.
At least affluent younger people are buying, which means that Pittsburgh must doing something right, especially considering the mantra as recently as the early 2000s was that educated and upwardly-mobile young people were stumbling over each other trying to leave as fast as they could. And at least you acknowledge that they're buying, which gives me hope that you're not a typical anti-Pittsburgher who still believes they're "fleeing in droves."


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
Gentrification has taken away the middle class neighborhoods. What option does the middle class have? Move out to the country and the census figures of the last two years support that.
No, gentrification begins in the blighted neighborhoods, not the middle-class ones. Since the late 1990s, the neighborhoods with large-scale gentrification include the Hill District, East Liberty, Lawrenceville, Larimer and the Central North Side. Of those neighborhoods, only Lawrenceville wasn't thoroughly blighted. And there are still plenty of middle-class neighborhoods that people aren't getting priced out of: Highland Park, Stanton Heights, Bloomfield, Regent Square, Greenfield, Brookline, Beechview, Brighton Heights, and more than likely a few others as well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top