What are Pittsburgh's peer cities? (Lancaster, Beaver: living, vs., trains)

[JoeP]

Birmingham was called that because it was a unique southern city that was industrial (metals) as opposed to other manufacturing or more cotton etc related industry that dominated the South. U.S. Steel had a presence there back in the day. Other than, it's not more similar to Pittsburgh than any other city that has some older structures etc.

Pittsburgh has nothing in common with Alabama. Neither is truly "Appalachia" either. However based on the tone of the comment, we know why what it was said.

Now back to the actual topic...

[JoeP]

Both cities have trouble moving forward and leaving the past behind

Oh please. Pittsburgh has a massive structural shift that most cities have not encountered. It's complicated.
Pittsburgh has to deal with a natural change deficit thanks to the 80s. While it does have some success in areas that even its peer cities (industrial or otherwise) have not (all cities call themselves tech this or that, but Pittsburgh has some reality to it - The problem is that the region is unique with clusters of older industrial towns. Most cities have the city and burbs. Some town surround it but not like PA.

[gladhands]

That's fine. I hope Columbus enjoys its growth, and maybe someday it can join Pittsburgh's tier.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Arlington, Texas is 383,000 and a suburb in a 7 million metro. Pittsburgh is a core city just barely over 300,000 in a 2 million metro. You can't really compare any suburb with the core city of another metro. DFW is 2 or 3 times larger than Pittsburgh metro, so DFW IS a couple levels above Pittsburgh. Arlington goes with DFW, so Arlington is a couple of levels above Pittsburgh. It would be much more reasonable and fair to compare Pittsburgh to Ft Wayne, Indiana or Lexington, Kentucky than to Arlington, Texas.

By the way, Arlington is no slouch as a suburb either. It's the home of the Dallas Cowboys, The Texas Rangers and 6 Flags Over Texas. Can any Pittsburgh suburbs compete with those kind of stats? No, I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone here is really interested in comparing suburb stats. few people care about how many people happen to live in a certain suburb limit, or even core city limit for that matter. and the comment about Ft Wayne or Lexington - you really think that would be reasonable? I get your point in that they're not suburbs like Arlington, but they are way smaller than the Pittsburgh metro so I don't think its reasonable at all. A lot of the cities suggested by the Allegheny Institute and other commenters here are just absurd as peers: Wichita??? Ft. Wayne??? Anaheim???

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Aside from having stadiums and a theme park, Arlington is just plain old suburbia though. It's not even a suburb like Mesa, Arizona which at least is developing an urban center. The only difference is since it's in a sun belt area, where land starts out unincorporated, one suburb managed to capture a wide swathe of land, where up here it would be split between dozens of townships and boroughs.

You did not mention Pittsburgh in this post! (J/K) Oh, I see you did mention "up here". Maybe that counts?

You are aware, I'm sure, that land "up here" didn't all start out subdivided up into townships and boroughs? All the land there started out unincorporated, too. Pittsburgh is simply part of a different generation of cities.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

You are aware, I'm sure, that land "up here" didn't all start out subdivided up into townships and boroughs? All the land there started out unincorporated, too. Pittsburgh is simply part of a different generation of cities.

That is the case for the boroughs. But the townships in PA always had some level of self-government. By the mid 20th century, those in more built up areas were given home-rule charters, which made them functionally equivalent to cities and boroughs. They were never just "lines on a map" like Midwestern survey townships, meaning there was no serious chance that suburban "mega-municipalities" could form here.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

That is the case for the boroughs. But the townships in PA always had some level of self-government. By the mid 20th century, those in more built up areas were given home-rule charters, which made them functionally equivalent to cities and boroughs. They were never just "lines on a map" like Midwestern survey townships, meaning there was no serious chance that suburban "mega-municipalities" could form here.

Illinois has townships that have self-government, even inside of cities and towns, sort of like some services are provided by a county, even in a city. Actually, I don't think they have an entity called "towns", I believe it's villages. But that's IL. There are many models.

In PA, there are still options for mergers and the like.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

In PA, there are still options for mergers and the like.

And how many mergers and the like have taken place in the past 100 years?

[g500]

Moby Hick - not many. Idk if we can post links on this site - go to google type PA township mergers, click the first one newsworks.org.

Comparable cities to Pgh are: Cleveland, St Louis, and Cincinnati.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by g500

Moby Hick - not many. Idk if we can post links on this site - go to google type PA township mergers, click the first one newsworks.org.

It was a rhetorical question.