Pittsburgh's "popularity" a problem? (York, Oakmont: townhouses, subdivision, to live)

[trackstar13]

What is interesting to me about the article that pman posted is the map that shows where the growth has been above 1% and these are mainly the more rural areas of Allegheny county. It seems that these areas might not be rural much longer and I wonder how that will influence future population growth in the area.

[pman]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Interestingly though, while it's the second year of population growth in a row, the 2012 number is lower than the 2011 number, which suggests they adjusted 2011 downward somewhat.

when philly first returned to growth in 2006 it did so haltingly, in fact, I think one year was up, another down, one grew a lot, then next small, only the last few have been consistent (10k last year, 9k this year). I agree with Gene, after so many decades of loss, just achieving consistent growth is a big change.

none of these are huge numbers really and for pittsburgh to add 300 people in a year (not inconceivable) it would move to first place. as the article notes, rural places don't get better as they fill up, they get less rural. cities are the opposite, they get worse when people leave, better when people move into them

[trackstar13]

pman

Your forgetting that Pittsburgh is much bigger in terms of land area than many of these small municipalities. So comparing raw numbers is probably not the best idea when comparing growth and I believe that is whey they mainly focused on percentage growth in the article.

[pman]

Originally Posted by track2514

pman

Your forgetting that Pittsburgh is much bigger in terms of land area than many of these small municipalities. So comparing raw numbers is probably not the best idea when comparing growth and I believe that is whey they mainly focused on percentage growth in the article.

I'm not forgetting, the focus on percentages is misleading. you need to consider both absolute and percents to get a good understanding. the reality is, an extra 150 is only a drop in the bucket for a city while it's rapid growth for a small place

[LIRefugee]

I'm curious to see how the 2009 official census estimates lined up with the actual 2010 results. I'll look them up later once I have time.

That's the downside to these figures; they are estimates.

[SteelCityRising]

Thanks for posting that map and alerting me to this article, pman! Great stuff!

I'm guessing the growth in Oakmont is largely attributable to the new Edgewater mixed-use project in the southwestern quadrant of the borough. Otherwise Oakmont probably would have seen a slight decline in population.

Glenfield is a shocker to me. I realize when your population is already just a few hundred even a small gain will result in a relatively large percentage increase; however, I can't think of any new development there. Looking at the borough's boundaries from Google Maps I do see a lot of developable land along Hill Road (off of Duff Road) and Deer Run Road, along with the potential for infill in the "village proper" along the river. Perhaps a couple of families just had a baby boom?

The growth in Collier, South Fayette, and Findlay Townships is disappointing, along with the growth in Marhsall, Pine, Harmar, and Ohio Townships, along with Franklin Park. This growth is likely ALL the result of urban sprawl, and continued growth in these areas will only lead to future traffic congestion woes on I-376, I-79, and I-279 in the future. I'm also predicting a spike in growth from 2015-2020 in the northeastern townships (Harmar, Frazer, Harrison, East Deer, etc.) once the Route 28 overhaul is completed. More residential sprawl in that area will just increase the number of cars utilizing Route 28 and will just make it outdated---again---by 2030.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by pman

I'm not forgetting, the focus on percentages is misleading. you need to consider both absolute and percents to get a good understanding. the reality is, an extra 150 is only a drop in the bucket for a city while it's rapid growth for a small place

I agree with the basic premise of your post, but I would add that the focus on either absolute numbers or percentage growth is misleading and both should be analyzed, along with the size of an area. I have personally witnessed some of this growth and I have hunted in South Fayette recently and I can say that things are changing for the worse in that regard. South Fayette definitely seems to be expanding and it is definitely noticeable because older farms and large wooded areas are starting to disappear and be replaced with subdivisions. Overall, the majority of population growth in the Pittsburgh region appears to be in the outlying regions of Allegheny County and surrounding counties.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The growth in Collier, South Fayette, and Findlay Townships is disappointing, along with the growth in Marhsall, Pine, Harmar, and Ohio Townships, along with Franklin Park. This growth is likely ALL the result of urban sprawl.

I dunno how they did this estimate, but it might not all be due to urban sprawl. Those areas have a lot of "breeders" who may simply be having second or third kids. They also have very few retirees, since they were built up so recently. So it could also be due to natural growth.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by track2514

I agree with the basic premise of your post, but I would add that the focus on either absolute numbers or percentage growth is misleading and both should be analyzed, along with the size of an area. I have personally witnessed some of this growth and I have hunted in South Fayette recently and I can say that things are changing for the worse in that regard. South Fayette definitely seems to be expanding and it is definitely noticeable because older farms and large wooded areas are starting to disappear and be replaced with subdivisions. Overall, the majority of population growth in the Pittsburgh region appears to be in the outlying regions of Allegheny County and surrounding counties.

In regards to South Fayette I think "smart growth" is the answer there. There are a lot of people who love new construction, love suburbia, but also would love more of a "walkable community" orientation than your typical cul-de-sac would permit. There is currently very little that caters to that demographic.

The Summerset at Frick Park in Squirrel Hill here in the city proper comes close with its traditional sidewalks, curbs, homes that are spaced near one another and near to the sidewalks, etc., but it is too far to easily walk to a business district. I also ABHOR that the next phase will abut Swisshelm Park's existing street network but will intentionally NOT link into it in order to provide a greater sense of "isolation" between old and new.

Edgewater at Oakmont is probably the BEST example of "smart growth" I can think of in our suburbs. The developers carefully designed the project to extend the existing street grid of the town proper of Oakmont, and there are rear alleys designed into the plan to hide vehicles/garages BEHIND homes, where they belong. New residents can easily and seamlessly walk to the "old" part of Oakmont to patronize the bakery, theater, restaurants, parks, banks, churches, schools, library, etc. while living in new homes with all the modern conveniences they want.

By housing more people on a smaller overall land footprint, as Edgewater at Oakmont has done, you can offer those with a preference for "new suburbia" the amenities they want while also NOT damning the environment in the process the way most of the newer growth in places like South Fayette has been doing. I believe there IS a new "smart growth" development under construction in South Fayette. More should follow.

[Goodjules]

Crafton's population will be up by at least two, my son and myself, in 2013. Of course births, deaths, inward and outward migration will affect that number. But I'm here for the long haul. Not so sure about my son. Depends on where he gets a job when he graduates. He doesn't like to move around so I think he is likely to stay. I'm working on my daughter. She's determined to live in SF no matter how expensive it is. That may get old, but she is very stubborn.