Pittsburgh the Next "Oasis" for BosWash Refugees? (Washington: 2014, apartment)

[BrianTH]

Note that with the decline in average persons per housing unit, Pittsburgh would reach the same number of occupied housing units it had at peak long before it reached the same peak population.

Generally, I am definitely in favor of some net in-migration. But if it is too fast, it distorts things in unsustainable ways. Too much of the economy gets wrapped up in speculative (and often substandard) real estate development. Infrastructure and other capital-intensive public amenities don't keep pace with needs. Quality control in public services goes down, and corruption goes up (yes, it can get worse). And so on. Basically, quality is sacrificed for quantity.

Something like 1% annual net population growth would be more than sufficient to be transformative of the dynamic in the City. Much more than that, and it will start causing problems.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by Jimrob1

Pittsburgh is listed on this and that best places to live list. It has even been lised in retirement publications, and Best places to retire for the past few years. Much of that has to do with affordability and no tax on retirement income. I am not that familiar with the area, other than changing planes in past years or driving thru PA. I always felt Pittsburgh was an up and coming city, once it started changing its image from its Steel days. It would appear it most definitely is up and coming, even with the loss of its hub status with US Air. Im not sure but I would imagine that hub status was a huge economic engine for Pittsburgh.

Hopefully the secret will not get out that Pittsburgh is a great place to live. The secret not getting out enough for droves of people to decide to move there. When that happens places change and many times it is not for the best. The friendly affordable cities become unfriendly, impersonal, rude and many can become pretentious snobbish places. Worst of all the once affordable city becomes expensive, and only a place for those that can afford a high cost of living. Hopefully that will never happen to Pittsburgh, because it does appear to be one of the few genuine cities we have left in America.

Yea just look at all of the cities that boomed before. I don't want a boom to happen in Pittsburgh. I like Pittsburgh for what it has today and I don't want anything you are concerned about to happen here or I may be turned off from this area.

[Craziaskowboi]

When debating the problems associated with population loss vis-a-vis explosive population growth, it's worth remembering that cancer is deadlier than atrophy.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Yea just look at all of the cities that boomed before. I don't want a boom to happen in Pittsburgh. I like Pittsburgh for what it has today and I don't want anything you are concerned about to happen here or I may be turned off from this area.

One of the beautiful things about Pittsburgh is the beautiful older houses it has, among other things. As long as people move to Pittsburgh with the intention of living in THOSE housing, then it would be great!

If people move to Pittsburgh and complain about the 'old' housing, and demand new condos replacing them, or ever-expanding suburbs forever outward...then it would be bad.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

One of the beautiful things about Pittsburgh is the beautiful older houses it has, among other things. As long as people move to Pittsburgh with the intention of living in THOSE housing, then it would be great!

If people move to Pittsburgh and complain about the 'old' housing, and demand new condos replacing them, or ever-expanding suburbs forever outward...then it would be bad.

I am fairly optimistic on that score--this is one of the places where the availability of other inland cities comes into play, because for people who want sprawl, Pittsburgh has no particular advantage.

Of course what we have to avoid is deliberately subsidizing sprawl, then filling it up with people who can't afford anything else.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

When debating the problems associated with population loss vis-a-vis explosive population growth, it's worth remembering that cancer is deadlier than atrophy.

I'm not sure that's a valid analogy. I think Pittsburgh would benefit from some population growth. Heck, if it had just kept up with the general US populaton growth over the past 50 years, it would about twice as large now as it was then. Not saying that would be good, just sayin'. I think Pgh is long overdue for a growth spurt.

[sheena12]

My take is that Pittburgh has already transended it's rust belt image.
Pittsburgh is a cool place.
I would call it "The poster Child of the Rust Belt Rebound"
And when Long Islanders are thinking about moving to Ceavland, Cincy and Syracuse - Pittsburgh seems like a very attractive option!

[Renaldo5000]

I think that Pittsburgh is a few hours outside of the Eastern seaboard metropolis (D.C., Philly, NYC, Boston, etc..) to gain massive amounts of people. But, the affordable housing situation will undoubtedly (once properly advertised) attract some.

[chielgirl]

Please say no.
I like the small town feel and slower pace of the Pitts.
Slow and steady population growth would be fine, but sprawl is unsustainable.
Do our resources really need to be stretched far and wide with sprawl?
Look what happens to other areas that were once nice, but were sprawled to hell and back.

The reason I live there (when stateside) is because it's not like Philly, DC, or NYC.
Tell your DC friends to check out to Harrisburg or Lancaster.

No need to screw up Pittsburgh by making it another boomtown.

From the Greg Brown album, The Poet's Game

The guy from California moves in and relaxes.
The natives have to move - they cannot pay the taxes.
Santa Fe has had it. Sedona has, too.
Maybe you'll be lucky - maybe your town will be the new...

I see it all over the world, we like something because of what it is.
Then we move/visit there and want to change it and destroy it.
Once destroyed, we move on...

[ditchdigger]

Generally, I am definitely in favor of some net in-migration. But if it is too fast, it distorts things in unsustainable ways. Too much of the economy gets wrapped up in speculative (and often substandard) real estate development. Infrastructure and other capital-intensive public amenities don't keep pace with needs. Quality control in public services goes down, and corruption goes up (yes, it can get worse). And so on. Basically, quality is sacrificed for quantity.

Plus, if they're comin from there, they're probly all jagoffs an at...