Growth Without Growth - Pittsburgh as a "wealth builder" (York: cul-de-sac, rent)

[jtpgh]

did anyone see this story using pittsburgh as an example of a place where there is growth without traditional population growth

Growth Without Growth | Planetizen

"The "wealth builders" are of particular interest – places where population has slowed down or stagnated, yet are still adding income and wealth. Pittsburgh, for example, has been losing population for decades. Yet nobody thinks of Pittsburgh these days as an economic failure. It’s reinvented itself, adjusted to a smaller population, and today thrives on a “new economy” that emerged from the old. St. Louis is the same way."

interesting concept...

[Hopes]

Thanks for sharing! Love the article. If you read my posts here over the past few years, you'd see that I've always suspected this about Pittsburgh. I'm buying the book.

[MathmanMathman]

What I find so amusing is that outsiders appreciate and laud Pittsburgh more than its residents.

[Johnland]

That was very interesting. It goes somewhat with my thinking about the fact that slow population growth is actually one of things I desire in Pittsburgh. Currently here in Tampa, I can tell you that of all the growth that has occurred in say the past twenty years, only a small percentage is actually substantial. Vast amounts of the retail and housing is put up quickly to meet demand, and is mostly of lesser quality. So, you end up with a sea of cheap. It is growth? Yes. Has the metro area exploded in all directions? Yes. Is it an interesting city? Well, not really.

I know Pittsburgh and Lord knows it has it's share of tawdry, run-down areas that desperately need a revival. But somehow, it seems more real knowing that Pittsburgh didn't start out as a warm, comfy, sunny locale to hang out in. It started as a gritty, enormously hard-working industrial powerhouse that produced steel for rail, skyscrapers, battleships, etc for the world. I appreciate that.

[BrianTH]

Quality over quantity. In other words, slow growth does seem to be more conducive to an improving quality of life than rapid growth, and at least for now, Pittsburgh appears to be on that path. I do think a little growth is a good idea because it helps attract capital funding for maintaining and improving infrastructure, key institutions, the housing stock, and so on. Similarly, it also helps keep legacy costs from overwhelming local governments (the biggest single problem Pittsburgh has today, in my opinion). But studies like this suggest the growth rate can be quite low.

By the way, I somewhat disagree with one of the claims in the article. Various government policies are in fact limiting growth in places like New York or Boston, basically by making it hard to develop a lot of new housing units. I don't necessarily think you should be deliberately doing that, but I think a fair conclusion would be that you can have fairly tight land-use policies and still achieve improving prosperity.

[Caladium]

The way I see it, a little bit of growth is good but rapid growth isn't. There is a lot to be said for the advantages of living in a city that has the facilities of a large city but has become a medium sized city.

I'm always puzzled when I see comments from people who want to attract thousands and thousands of people to drop everything and move to their city. No matter what city it is, why would anyone want to do that? I live in an area where a lot of people are moving right now, and I'll be glad when we're no longer the flavor of the day and the crowds move somewhere else. What you get with rapid growth is traffic jams and rent increases.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Johnland

That was very interesting. It goes somewhat with my thinking about the fact that slow population growth is actually one of things I desire in Pittsburgh. Currently here in Tampa, I can tell you that of all the growth that has occurred in say the past twenty years, only a small percentage is actually substantial. Vast amounts of the retail and housing is put up quickly to meet demand, and is mostly of lesser quality. So, you end up with a sea of cheap. It is growth? Yes. Has the metro area exploded in all directions? Yes. Is it an interesting city? Well, not really.

This is exactly how I felt about Northern Virginia (outside the Beltway). That region grew exponentially over the past 30 years or so, but was it "good" growth? No. Infrastructure (i.e. commuter rail and alternative roadways) didn't keep pace with growth, leading to us having the nation's worst gridlock. Most of the housing is typical for newer suburbia---uninspiring, overpriced, and cheap-looking (i.e. "McMansions" if you will) because they had to be produced in a hurry. Big-box stores and strip malls are dominant for retail, as are chains on the dining front. It would have taken billions of dollars derived from skyrocketing tax rates and working to change the mindsets of millions of suburb-lovers for me to ever improve NoVA's standard of living to what I sought, so I instead relocated to a city that DID offer everything I wanted instead of being a thorn in the side. My native Reston actually had NIMBYS who championed both strict height restrictions on new construction for "aesthetic purposes" AND "preservation of open space" simultaneously. Call me crazy, but can't you achieve the best preservation of land by building fewer TALLER buildings housing more people each rather than more mid-rise buildings housing fewer people each? I just couldn't withstand living in an area any longer in which I felt so diametrically opposed towards, so here I am now in Pittsburgh, and I couldn't be happier!

There's responsible growth, and then there's irresponsible growth.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

This is exactly how I felt about Northern Virginia (outside the Beltway). That region grew exponentially over the past 30 years or so, but was it "good" growth? No. Infrastructure (i.e. commuter rail and alternative roadways) didn't keep pace with growth, leading to us having the nation's worst gridlock. Most of the housing is typical for newer suburbia---uninspiring, overpriced, and cheap-looking (i.e. "McMansions" if you will) because they had to be produced in a hurry. Big-box stores and strip malls are dominant for retail, as are chains on the dining front. It would have taken billions of dollars derived from skyrocketing tax rates and working to change the mindsets of millions of suburb-lovers for me to ever improve NoVA's standard of living to what I sought, so I instead relocated to a city that DID offer everything I wanted instead of being a thorn in the side. My native Reston actually had NIMBYS who championed both strict height restrictions on new construction for "aesthetic purposes" AND "preservation of open space" simultaneously. Call me crazy, but can't you achieve the best preservation of land by building fewer TALLER buildings housing more people each rather than more mid-rise buildings housing fewer people each? I just couldn't withstand living in an area any longer in which I felt so diametrically opposed towards, so here I am now in Pittsburgh, and I couldn't be happier!

There's responsible growth, and then there's irresponsible growth.

It came as a surprise, RR, to learn that you are actually a native Restoner. All this time I'd thought you were a Pennsylvanian who spent a little over a year in NoVa, and was mischaracterizing the region because he was homesick and didn't know the area nearly as well as he professed. I guess we were wrong. It's great to hear you're enjoying your time in Pittsburgh, but don't forget that there's no place like home.

I do agree that slow growth in high-end industries is a good strategy for Pittsburgh right now, but a city that lost over 50% of its population over a 60-year period really does not provide an obvious planning model for regions of the country that have experienced sustained economic growth in more recent times.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by JEB77

It came as a surprise, RR, to learn that you are actually a native Restoner. All this time I'd thought you were a Pennsylvanian who spent a little over a year in NoVa, and was mischaracterizing the region because he was homesick and didn't know the area nearly as well as he professed. I guess we were wrong. It's great to hear you're enjoying your time in Pittsburgh, but don't forget that there's no place like home.

I do agree that slow growth in high-end industries is a good strategy for Pittsburgh right now, but a city that lost over 50% of its population over a 60-year period really does not provide an obvious planning model for regions of the country that have experienced sustained economic growth in more recent times.

How was I "mischaracterizing" NoVA outside the Beltway? Care to elaborate on how I am incorrect in my assertion that there was unchecked growth that outpaced infrastructural capacity (leading to the nation's worst congestion), uninspired mass-produced residential architecture to cater to that growth, an unhealthy number of chains as compared to indepedenent retailers and restaurateurs, NIMBYs who couldn't see the hypocrisy in demanding height restrictions while also wanting to preserve open space (i.e. neither building "up" NOR "out"), people who were more obsessive about education, career, wealth, and status than many other U.S. metro areas, etc.?

At some point NoVA (outside the Beltway) is going to reach a "critical mass"---a time when so many people are living/moving there that people start to avoid moving there or move away to escape the rising rents/housing prices that they can't afford, their 6-mile commutes that take 45 minutes, the incessant construction of dueling cul-de-sacs for "backyard privacy" instead of more efficient grid-shaped street networks that can accommodate more traffic, etc. Whenever I tried to suggest ways to "fix" all that was wrong with NoVA outside the Beltway in terms of planning gaffes (i.e. Tysons Corner or Reston) people stuck their fingers in their ears while their heads were in the sand. Someday when this "critical mass" happens and the region begins to suffer as a result of this unchecked growth people might not think I was so "crazy" after all. There's already a major push from Republicans to slash the Federal workforce, reduce salaries for Federal employees to early-2000s levels (which would KILL any possibility for entry-level Federal employees to live comfortably in increasingly expensive Metro DC), to utilize fewer private-sector contractors/consultants, etc. If that "bubble" collapses, just what do you think will happen to NoVA outside the Beltway, which is nearly fully dependent (directly or indirectly) upon government spending?

[Geeo]

Pittsburgh at its peak in the 1950s had about 670,000 people. It was overcrowded for its physical size at that time. Families were larger and lived in small rowhouses in many areas. Some neighborhoods were in deep valleys or in dirty industrial areas (now gone). Some neighborhoods were wiped off the map due to urban renewal in the 50s and 60s, which accounted for some of the loss. While I think the city could stand more people, I see a population in the 400 - 450,000 range as comfortable.