2015 Pittsburgh MSA Population Estimates (Philadelphia, Reading: employment, wages, live in)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The problem with a stagnant population in our region is that we were built out to house so many more people back in our heyday. If all we've basically been doing as we "revitalize" is pick up people from one part of the area and plop them down elsewhere, is that really progress?

We can't simultaneously save everywhere worthy of salvation if the population isn't growing. I project that neither Esplen nor California-Kirkbride will still exist at some point during my lifetime. What about the small boroughs like Haysville? How can they justify NOT merging with other adjacent municipalities? Instead of building Bakery Square 2.0 on fresh land it would have been nicer to house a few hundred high-earning professionals in revitalized homes scattered across numerous neighborhoods instead of clustering wealth (and poverty). This city is so socioeconomically segregated it's laughable, and I don't foresee this improving anytime soon without the political testicular fortitude to embark upon an economic revolution.

This region is bound to become replete with "nodes"---clusters of affluence (urban core neighborhoods of the city proper and select suburbs); pockets of deep poverty (largely African-American, unfortunately); and then a variety of suburban areas that will be pulled progressively downward with each passing decade.

Honestly, if we are going to be a stagnant to slightly shrinking metropolitan area, it makes a ton of sense to densify the inner core regions, since that's the most efficient layout in terms of energy consumption.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

You didn't even want to consider moving out of the East End until recently yet you wish the residents of Bakery Square 2.0 had the desire to scatter themselves across neighborhoods?

As long as it isn't him living in squalor.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

From what I remember from the 2010 census, virtually every suburban municipality which wasn't in the North hills or by the airport shunk at least a little. Even desirable areas like Mount Lebanon barely grew. This is actually pretty typical of upscale suburbs in the Northeast and Midwest these days. Zoning precludes denser infill, which means over time the population tends to shrink as real estate values rise and less parents of school age children can afford the area. Over time they become relatively full of empty nesters and retirees.

I finally finished my 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 least a small gain versus a small decrease in population.

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%)

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









PITTSBURGH RURAL AREA
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

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.

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

[erieguy]

Numbers can ultimately be twisted anyway one likes...and I'm not sure why it matters so much to some that more people come to da 'burgh, but until more quality jobs become available, or until most all areas become desireable, I don't see anyone waking up and having a big desire to move into the city. It's just not a town that many dream to move to.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Numbers can ultimately be twisted anyway one likes...and I'm not sure why it matters so much to some that more people come to da 'burgh, but until more quality jobs become available, or until most all areas become desireable, I don't see anyone waking up and having a big desire to move into the city. It's just not a town that many dream to move to.

Its not twisted, Urban Area is the most accurate way of determining the actual size of a city. If Uniontown's or Dayton, Armstrong County population went to zero overnight, it has no bearing on how Pittsburgh is doing. And if they are losing people at such a high clip, it hides the fact that most of the region is beginning to rebound.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Its not twisted, Urban Area is the most accurate way of determining the actual size of a city. If Uniontown's or Dayton, Armstrong County population went to zero overnight, it has no bearing on how Pittsburgh is doing. And if they are losing people at such a high clip, it hides the fact that most of the region is beginning to rebound.

Slice it any way you like it, you're still in the red.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Slice it any way you like it, you're still in the red.

In the MSA, yes. I'm simply stating the census definition of our MSA is not an accurate portrayal of Pittsburgh and its built up suburbs. Since Cranberry is part of the Pittsburgh MSA its in the red too, and not gaining population. That is clearly not true, but because the CB paints a wide brush its part of that red.

Make sense?

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by speagles84

In the MSA, yes. I'm simply stating the census definition of our MSA is not an accurate portrayal of Pittsburgh and its built up suburbs. Since Cranberry is part of the Pittsburgh MSA its in the red too, and not gaining population. That is clearly not true, but because the CB paints a wide brush its part of that red.

Make sense?

I understand how you're making/taking your numbers...and all one has to do is see it still comes up red. Nobody's saying the city isn't getting better. It's just that people aren't moving there. I expect it will change, but again, not until quality jobs and more desirable areas are available.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

As long as it isn't him living in squalor.

What is that supposed to mean? I'm not affluent. I made under $30,000 in 2015. I was saying if the affluent were spread more evenly throughout the city---instead of in dense clusters---it would be better for the city overall as a greater number of neighborhoods would be stabilized by their presence.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Numbers can ultimately be twisted anyway one likes...and I'm not sure why it matters so much to some that more people come to da 'burgh, but until more quality jobs become available, or until most all areas become desireable, I don't see anyone waking up and having a big desire to move into the city. It's just not a town that many dream to move to.

The working-age population increased in the Pittsburgh MSA between 2000 and 2010 even as its total population decreased by 3.1%, so apparently there's a degree of pull regardless. And the fact that the population of the Pittsburgh MSA will not decrease 3.1% by 2020 illustrates that the pull has to have gotten stronger since 2010, because there are still more deaths than births. That hasn't changed, but now the population curve is flat in spite of it. It's impossible to declare a metropolitan economy moribund when the entire decrease in population last decade was driven by children and elderly, which are the two least economically viable age cohorts of all. The fact that Pittsburgh is literally the only MSA (out of 381) in the United States with an increase in jobs but a decrease in population since 2000 illustrates just how much of a statistical outlier it really is. Like it or not, the rules that apply to other shrinking MSAs do not apply to Pittsburgh, because they're driven entirely by outlying demographics, and in spite of improving economics.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

What is that supposed to mean? I'm not affluent. I made under $30,000 in 2015. I was saying if the affluent were spread more evenly throughout the city---instead of in dense clusters---it would be better for the city overall as a greater number of neighborhoods would be stabilized by their presence.

Before a tree spreads its branches and roots, it starts as a mere seed.