U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2019, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
572 posts, read 323,111 times
Reputation: 849

Advertisements

"It's nothing short of amazing how much faster cities grew before the 1960s."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_P View Post
Not really. There were a lot of factors including the baby boom.
I disagree, it is amazing. What is particularly amazing is the amount of immigration/migration that filled the industrial cities in America's burgeoning industrial belt. This at a time when American society and the greater world was much less mobile. In 1950, Pittsburgh had 676,806 and Cleveland had 914,808. The baby boom had just started in 1950 and by 1960, most of the core cities of the rustbelt had started the emptying process. The baby boom had little to do with the build up of the core cities of the industrial belt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2019, 03:21 PM
 
1,501 posts, read 1,360,890 times
Reputation: 1203
Default When hell freezes over

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryno25 View Post
A lot of people talk about the revitalization of Pittsburgh and itís definitely happening, but when will Pittsburgh start to see an increase in population again? I know the declines keep getting smaller and smaller and I have heard some claim that itís the death rate right now thatís keeping the population from increasing. Iím asking this out of curiosity.



From a pittsburgher:
When hell freezes over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Weirton, W. Va.
367 posts, read 134,497 times
Reputation: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj View Post
I think if the city is unfathomably lucky, the population will be 310,000 in 2025. If there's an unlikely migration to the city for its low cost of living and it's tech and medical fields, maybe we could see 325,000 by the 2030 census. It's nothing short of amazing how much faster cities grew before the 1960s. They say there's a migration back to the cities, a reverse white flight if you will. Yeah I don't think so.

I live in Weirton West Virginia. If my area was able to add 5,000 residents it would be huge. Maybe someday. I think there is hope for the first time ever in the 2020s. If not then it will probably never happen.

Pittsburgh has a lot of old residents. The population isnít going to grow with the current population having kids. That said I think your response is a lot like many others I see. People donít understand how much growth would have to happen to gain that many residents just in the city. It is much easier said than done.

Pittsburghís growth is going to have to come from in migration into the area. Basically outsiders moving here for work and staying here. Is the job growth and wages enough to attract people?

Allegheny County is huge. The Pittsburgh metro area is huge. Not every new person will choose to live in the city if they migrate here. So that is the first thing. The second is being able to flip the more deaths than births towards the positive. What percentage of new migrants choose to live in the city limits as opposed to another municipality in Allegheny county or a suburban county like butler, Washington or Westmoreland? More than 2 million of the 2.318 million residents do not live in the city limits.

You are looking at a metro growth rate probably equal to Columbus, Ohio, year after year for five years to up the population to 325,000. Thatís saying thousands of folks choose the city limits instead of somewhere else in the metro. Oh and that would totally offset the more deaths than births thing.

If that was able to happen it would be a miracle and front page national news.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 216facts View Post
"It's nothing short of amazing how much faster cities grew before the 1960s."




I disagree, it is amazing. What is particularly amazing is the amount of immigration/migration that filled the industrial cities in America's burgeoning industrial belt. This at a time when American society and the greater world was much less mobile. In 1950, Pittsburgh had 676,806 and Cleveland had 914,808. The baby boom had just started in 1950 and by 1960, most of the core cities of the rustbelt had started the emptying process. The baby boom had little to do with the build up of the core cities of the industrial belt.
Jobs attracted people. Nothing else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2019, 08:16 PM
 
78 posts, read 41,732 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsburghaccuweather View Post
I live in Weirton West Virginia. If my area was able to add 5,000 residents it would be huge. Maybe someday. I think there is hope for the first time ever in the 2020s. If not then it will probably never happen.

Pittsburgh has a lot of old residents. The population isnít going to grow with the current population having kids. That said I think your response is a lot like many others I see. People donít understand how much growth would have to happen to gain that many residents just in the city. It is much easier said than done.

Pittsburghís growth is going to have to come from in migration into the area. Basically outsiders moving here for work and staying here. Is the job growth and wages enough to attract people?

Allegheny County is huge. The Pittsburgh metro area is huge. Not every new person will choose to live in the city if they migrate here. So that is the first thing. The second is being able to flip the more deaths than births towards the positive. What percentage of new migrants choose to live in the city limits as opposed to another municipality in Allegheny county or a suburban county like butler, Washington or Westmoreland? More than 2 million of the 2.318 million residents do not live in the city limits.

You are looking at a metro growth rate probably equal to Columbus, Ohio, year after year for five years to up the population to 325,000. Thatís saying thousands of folks choose the city limits instead of somewhere else in the metro. Oh and that would totally offset the more deaths than births thing.

If that was able to happen it would be a miracle and front page national news.




Jobs attracted people. Nothing else.
Yeah a lot depends on where exactly in the metro area they get jobs. the city has been a hot spot but a lot in other Allegheny County areas, Butler, and Washington. I wonder if for Westmoreland, if that is why it is losing more population this decade, not as many jobs. Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland I wonder though will they ever become totally suburban counties, Butler gets very rural north of Butler city, then on the west side, north of Zelienople, and on the east side, north of Buffalo Township. Washington is still pretty rural in the southern and northwest portions of the county. Westmoreland is really weird, like it is by far the most populated after Allegheny, but the eastern third, east of Latrobe/Derry/Mt. Pleasant is virtually empty as is the northern 3/4, east of Vandergrift area, and some of the southwest corner (Yough area) is as well, it just has such a large population ranging from the western into central portions, I don't know just some other food for thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2019, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
8,789 posts, read 5,465,512 times
Reputation: 2046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
From a pittsburgher:
When hell freezes over.
Bingo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2019, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Weirton, W. Va.
367 posts, read 134,497 times
Reputation: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandritz6 View Post
Yeah a lot depends on where exactly in the metro area they get jobs. the city has been a hot spot but a lot in other Allegheny County areas, Butler, and Washington. I wonder if for Westmoreland, if that is why it is losing more population this decade, not as many jobs. Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland I wonder though will they ever become totally suburban counties, Butler gets very rural north of Butler city, then on the west side, north of Zelienople, and on the east side, north of Buffalo Township. Washington is still pretty rural in the southern and northwest portions of the county. Westmoreland is really weird, like it is by far the most populated after Allegheny, but the eastern third, east of Latrobe/Derry/Mt. Pleasant is virtually empty as is the northern 3/4, east of Vandergrift area, and some of the southwest corner (Yough area) is as well, it just has such a large population ranging from the western into central portions, I don't know just some other food for thought.
I canít remember if it was you or somebody else I talked with on here regarding metro growth concentrated around the I-79 corridor. I had some time this weekend so I drove around the western burbs. In Coraopolis it looks like a rejuvenation May be taking place there. Places in the Main Street area got a facelift and new bars restaurants opened.

I know Kennedy Twp is growing but honestly it looks pretty raggaged to me and in need of maintenance on the commercial buildings and sidewalks. It looks like a good number of people are struggling with exterior upkeep.

Robinson Twp has new housing developments going in and they are expensive. It looks like a township of two extremes. People that have money and ones that bought there are living paycheck to paycheck. It shows on the exterior maintenance of some of the existing housing. Cedar wood homes from the late 80s and 90s needing stained badly.

North Fayette is growing. Iíd put moon in the same category as Robinson.

Collier township is probably the nicest area over there and may be the nicest in Allegheny county as far as mixed housing with the suburb and rural feel. It is top notch and no surprise it is growing at a fast clip. Charters Valley is also a good school district. If Iím a newbie and want to live in the Pittsburgh suburbs, Collier township would be my first choice for western Allegheny county.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2019, 05:38 AM
 
78 posts, read 41,732 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsburghaccuweather View Post
I canít remember if it was you or somebody else I talked with on here regarding metro growth concentrated around the I-79 corridor. I had some time this weekend so I drove around the western burbs. In Coraopolis it looks like a rejuvenation May be taking place there. Places in the Main Street area got a facelift and new bars restaurants opened.

I know Kennedy Twp is growing but honestly it looks pretty raggaged to me and in need of maintenance on the commercial buildings and sidewalks. It looks like a good number of people are struggling with exterior upkeep.

Robinson Twp has new housing developments going in and they are expensive. It looks like a township of two extremes. People that have money and ones that bought there are living paycheck to paycheck. It shows on the exterior maintenance of some of the existing housing. Cedar wood homes from the late 80s and 90s needing stained badly.

North Fayette is growing. Iíd put moon in the same category as Robinson.

Collier township is probably the nicest area over there and may be the nicest in Allegheny county as far as mixed housing with the suburb and rural feel. It is top notch and no surprise it is growing at a fast clip. Charters Valley is also a good school district. If Iím a newbie and want to live in the Pittsburgh suburbs, Collier township would be my first choice for western Allegheny county.
Yeah we did talk about how much of the growth in the Pittsburgh metro is alone the 79 corridor due mostly to economic growth and proximity to other highways, for Allegheny, in both the southwest and northwest portions, I think in addition to Collier, South Fayette, Ohio, Franklin Park. Marshall, and Pine will all have big increases as well as those municipalities in Butler and Washington counties. Basically the whole way from Washington to Zelienople, is growing pretty steadily. I have heard Collier Township is a nice area to live in that's not too congested and has a nice balance of urban and rural lifestyles. It seems like most municipalities on the east side of the metro area will lose population. The main exception I hear though is Jefferson Hills, which is kind of similar to Collier Township, and maybe to a lesser extent Buffalo and North Huntingdon townships, to name a few. Anyone think of any others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:27 AM
 
54 posts, read 12,907 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
he baby boom had just started in 1950 and by 1960, most of the core cities of the rustbelt had started the emptying process.

The boom started in the 40s and while cities were starting to see white flight rapidly increase in the post war years, the metro areas gained a lot of people from the baby boom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,494 posts, read 12,002,935 times
Reputation: 10581
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony_c55 View Post
The boom started in the 40s and while cities were starting to see white flight rapidly increase in the post war years, the metro areas gained a lot of people from the baby boom.
To be precise, the baby boom started in 1946...basically nine months after the GIs returned from World War II. Mass suburbanization didn't really start until a few years later though, as it took some time for U.S. industrial capacity to convert from a wartime footing to domestic production once again.

In general, I don't think it's fair to characterize the first wave of suburbanization in the 1950s as truly white flight. Basically there was tremendous pent-up housing demand, because very little housing was built between 1929 and 1946 due to the U.S. having the Great Depression and World War II back to back. So you had a situation where young couples with babies were cramped into tiny city apartments, or living with their parents, because there simply weren't enough houses to go around. Then, the floodgates opened with the mass building of the suburbs (along with the opening of mortgages to the working class - which started in the 30s, but had limited utilization due to high unemployment and low housing stock). This ended up benefiting solely white people because blacks were excluded through various forms of housing discrimination. But the actual "urban riots" era didn't start in earnest till around 1963. People weren't so much fleeing the city as they were running towards the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2019, 09:39 AM
 
2,174 posts, read 1,476,414 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by 216facts View Post
"It's nothing short of amazing how much faster cities grew before the 1960s."




I disagree, it is amazing. What is particularly amazing is the amount of immigration/migration that filled the industrial cities in America's burgeoning industrial belt. This at a time when American society and the greater world was much less mobile. In 1950, Pittsburgh had 676,806 and Cleveland had 914,808. The baby boom had just started in 1950 and by 1960, most of the core cities of the rustbelt had started the emptying process. The baby boom had little to do with the build up of the core cities of the industrial belt.



The baby boom did have an effect on the population in 1950 and thus the census, because it started right after WW2. And before mass migration to suburbs was in full force. At that time Pittsburgh was pretty overcrowded. Since its only 55 sq miles in city limits , the on-paper pop. density was about 12,300 per sq. mile, but the realistic local population densities were much higher, because much of the land in Pittsburgh city limits was not residential-- but office, commercial, industrial, government, cultural, educational, public land, and very steep hillsides that were not developable. People didn't want to live in the overcrowded conditions of the residential sections, and there just wasn't enough housing available anyway.


Cleveland would have had a similar, but slightly lower pop. density (due to larger land area of city limits), about 11,100 per sq mile on average. It probably seemed a bit less crowded in the residential sections than Pittsburgh did, since it had more developable land to work with, but the same general conditions were causing people to want to spread out into suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top