Census reports small drop in Pittsburgh's population (best neighborhoods, neighborhood)

[gladhands]

I agree that the parents' educational background and socioeconomic status are more important than the school itself, but there are some genuinely TERRIBLE schools. I went to a school for the gifted in New York City. We were separated, by a field, from a low-income, assigned neighborhood school. A couple of kids from that school would come over to ours to take Sequential II (10th grade math) because it wasn't offered at their school. it is incredibly difficult for students to flourish in an environment like that. It's also difficult for kids to learn in environments with a lot of disciplinary issues and other disruptions.

I'm not sending my children to the Pittsburgh public schools for reasons unique to my children, but I do feel that a middle to upper middle-class how we get a great education at Colfax and Allderdice.

[Goinback2011]

The elderly myth dies hard:

One of the oft-repeated explanations for the City’s inability to grow rests on the claim that the City’s population is very old and has a high ratio of deaths to births because of the elderly population. But that argument does not hold any more. In fact in 2013, the latest data for age distribution shown on the Census website, the City has a lower median age (33.4 years) than the nation as a whole (37.6 years). How can this be? It is true that the over 75 age group in Pittsburgh represents a slightly higher percentage of the population than in the nation, 7.3 to 6.2 percent. However, from 65 to 75 years, the national percentage was 8.0 compared to the City’s 6.7 percent.

The real, substantial gaps between the national age distribution and the City’s distribution occur in the younger age groups. From birth to 14 years of age, the share of population in the City was 13.6 percent and the national was 19.3. The Pittsburgh share of population was 20 to 30 percent lower in every five-year age group in the fifteen year span from 0 to 14. This suggests a much lower birth rate or a preferential out migration of young children from the City as compared to the national behavior.

But a dramatic shift happens when the 20 to 34 year age category shares are compared. This group accounts for 30.5 percent of the City’s population while the national percentage is only 20.9. That is an astounding gap and reflects, in all likelihood, the college and graduate school students as well as a substantial number of other in-migrants to the City in this age group—certainly well above the national norms.

Then something very interesting happens. The age group from 35 to 65 accounts for a substantially higher portion of the national population than it does in Pittsburgh, 39.0 to 33.8 percent. This is the age group that by and large represents the highest income earners (those at the top end of this age range) and accounts for the lion’s share of those with middle and high school age students (in the middle portion of the range)...

Pittsburgh

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The elderly myth dies hard:

It's true in the metropolitan area. In the city proper, it's more than likely a function of a declining birth rate -- college-educated people tend not to breed too prolifically -- combined with families moving to the suburbs for "better schools."

The good news is, unlike most other "Rust Belt" city school districts, Pittsburgh still has a few good public schools, so at least there's still some hope for improving the school district at large.

[TechCom]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

What was once "leaving in droves" during the 1980s and 1990s has now become "dying in droves" during the 2000s and 2010s. It's part two of a two-part fundamental demographic reset.

So what is Part Three?

[TechCom]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The elderly myth dies hard:
Pittsburgh

How does it die hard when it says we have more people over 70 than average? Sure we have young people not having much children also, but the population loss due to deaths makes total sense.

[bradjl2009]

It's not 2000 anymore, Allegheny County is not the "grayest county" in the US now and trends say it will not be like that again.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

It's not 2000 anymore, Allegheny County is not the "grayest county" in the US anymore and trends say it will not be like that again.

Where does it rank now?

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

It's true in the metropolitan area. In the city proper, it's more than likely a function of a declining birth rate -- college-educated people tend not to breed too prolifically -- combined with families moving to the suburbs for "better schools."

The good news is, unlike most other "Rust Belt" city school districts, Pittsburgh still has a few good public schools, so at least there's still some hope for improving the school district at large.

The problem is the city is unsble to attract or retain those in their prime earning years, 35-60.

[pwduvall]

Quote:
"U.S. Census Bureau estimates being released publicly today suggest a small population decline took place in Pittsburgh between July 2014 and July 2015, just as occurred the prior year. The city’s population is pegged at 304,391 as of last July, an annual decline of 1,313.

The city also has fewer residents now than the 305,704 who were counted in the official 2010 decennial census. It was estimated to have had several years of growth following the formal head count, but that trend has fizzled.

The report of city decline is not surprising in that the Census Bureau recently reported Allegheny County had lost 2,437 people between 2014 and 2015, and the county’s hub would be expected to be part of any downturn. It does run counter, however, to perceptions of city growth and vitality based on numerous development projects completed or underway around the Golden Triangle, North Shore, South Side, Strip District and neighborhoods to the east.
Census reports small drop in Pittsburgh's population | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "


I have been looking into similar (but slightly smaller) drop in Baltimore. Pittsburgh and Baltimore also show a lack of housing unit growth since 2010 (Baltimore up slightly, Pittsburgh declined.) Do you think that the demolition of existing housing units in Pittsburgh exceeded new housing production over the past five years? In Baltimore, I have every reason to believe that housing production exceeded demolition by at least 6,000 over the past five years. Why doesn't this show up in the Census unit estimates? And if the number housing units is wrong, might the population estimates also be wrong. After all, people live in housing units.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

I think I've mentioned it before somewhere, but in this particular case I'd value quality over quantity.

Seriously? "Quality" people? I'm appalled at the attitude.