What neighborhoods have lost the most population? (Pittsburgh, Lebanon: apartments, condominiums)

[gameguy56]

I would Imagine places like Sq Hill, Shadyside, Point Breeze, and Oakland are still at or near their midcentury peak, but the city is over 300k smaller than it was at it's maximum population, so what places are almost deserted nowadays?

[boardmanite]

I'm guessing a chunk of the population loss would come from the Hill District. I'm not sure about other areas. It will be interesting to see the responses...

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by gameguy56

I would Imagine places like Sq Hill, Shadyside, Point Breeze, and Oakland are still at or near their midcentury peak, but the city is over 300k smaller than it was at it's maximum population, so what places are almost deserted nowadays?

This is an interesting question, and I look forward to seeing the answers people provide. However, your supposition that Sq Hill, Shadyside, and Point Breeze, etc, are at their midcentury peaks may not hold. It's entirely possible that 30 - 40 years ago, the homes in those areas were filled with a lot of married couples, raising 4 or 5 children. Now, decades later, the children have all left, and they homes are occupied by an elderly couple or an elderly single. Also, a generation of no job opportunities have not prompted any younger growing families to move into the area to pick up the slack. Not to mention that families of 5 kids which may have been common in 1960, nowadays will only see 1 or 2 children. So, it could be that most neighborhoods have declined in population evenly. But this is just theorizing on my part, I don't actually know.

[guylocke]

I don't really think anyone could answer this. I'm not aware of any population analysis breakdown that was so specific.

One would assume that places like Shadyside, Fox Chapel, Mt. Lebanon, and large parts of the North Hills were left unscathed. It would have been the very blue working and average middle class to lower middle class that was hit the hardest when the steel plants closed.

A lot of the wealthy individuals were wealthy for non-blue collar reasons and that's why there is still a lot of wealth in this area today. Those people never went anywhere, or least, not in droves.

[Geeo]

The link below has neighborhood population for the last seven decades, and it's from the city's planning page on their website. Interesting, if you want to pour through it all. Some neighborhoods have held steady, many have decreased, and a few interesting ones, like Chateau, went from over 8,000 people in 1940 to 39 in 2000, but that was because the entire neighborhood was leveled to build a 1960s-style office park and the expressway section of Ohio River Blvd in the late 60s/early 70s. Same with the Hill District - several thousand people were told to move out to build the Civic Arena. I also believe that family sizes are much smaller today, which accounts for some, and Pittsburgh in 1940 was a very overcrowded city - big families often living in small houses.

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/..._pgh_jan06.pdf

[guylocke]

I also believe that family sizes are much smaller today, which accounts for some, and Pittsburgh in 1940 was a very overcrowded city - big families often living in small houses.

Lots of people have died, too, don't forget. LOL. That's STILL what accounts for half of our population loss.

[vwscottie]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

This is an interesting question, and I look forward to seeing the answers people provide. However, your supposition that Sq Hill, Shadyside, and Point Breeze, etc, are at their midcentury peaks may not hold. It's entirely possible that 30 - 40 years ago, the homes in those areas were filled with a lot of married couples, raising 4 or 5 children. Now, decades later, the children have all left, and they homes are occupied by an elderly couple or an elderly single. Also, a generation of no job opportunities have not prompted any younger growing families to move into the area to pick up the slack. Not to mention that families of 5 kids which may have been common in 1960, nowadays will only see 1 or 2 children. So, it could be that most neighborhoods have declined in population evenly. But this is just theorizing on my part, I don't actually know.

Alot of the large mansions around us in Point Breeze that used to be one family homes are now apartments or condominiums. The Joseph Horne mansion is in our back yard, and it's all condo's now.

[suzeeq521]

I think that population density is an interesting thing to look at on this topic, too.

For example, Braddock (I know, not in the city) once had a population density that was higher than the Bronx ever had. It is a neat thing to look at, because it shows not only how the population declined, but how living styles changed. In the example of Braddock, there were large families (more average children than now, multiple generations in one home, etc.) and the large number of boarding situations (immigrants boarding with family, single male workers boarding near mills, etc.)

It is neat to think about how it isn't just that everyone left, but that lifestyles changed. Today, most of us don't have multiple (3 or more) generations living in one home, nor do most of us feel the need to take on boarders (or could even find boarders if we wanted.)

[Geeo]

Population density has a lot to do with it, and there are other factors like the urban renewal of the 60s that forced people out, white flight because they didn't want their kids to go to school with black kids, federal funds that built highways that made it easier to get to the suburbs, a change in lifestyle after WWII, federal programs that subsidized returning servicemen to buy houses in the suburbs, the decline of heavy industry after World War II, and smaller families and the rise of people living alone.

As I said in an earlier post, Pittsburgh was very overcrowded in the 1940s. Especially in the mill districts like South Side, Lawrenceville, Hazelwood and the Stip, where whole clans lived in those little rowhouses where today one or two people live. Added to that is that Pittsburgh's physical size is small when compared to sun belt cities that annex their suburbs as soon as they are developed, which is how Charlotte, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston have gotten so gargantuan. Most northeastern and midwestern cities are landlocked by their suburbs, although some, like Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Columbus and Lexington have merged their city and county governments for a more streamlined approach. Interesting that they're all growing areas now, while Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnatti, Boston, Buffalo and Detroit are all very slow-growth areas that still have government structures from the 19th century.

[Katiana]

Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Columbus and Lexington have merged their city and county governments for a more streamlined approach.

Could you explain that in the case of Minneapolis? Minneapolis, pop 372,833, is in Hennepin Co, pop 1,120,000 (approx) and contains the following suburban cities: Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymoouth, Richfield and St. Louis Park. These are all independent cities.