When do you all think Pittsburgh will start increasing in population?

[eschaton]

As I've said in the past, I think the following neighborhoods are basically gauranteed for growth in the next census:

Downtown (lots of conversions, plus 350 Oliver and Penn/Eighth)
Strip District (about 800 units of new apartments alone, and condos on top of that)
Allegheny Center (one of the big towers was empty in 2010, and is now occupied)
Lower Lawrenceville (Arsenal 201 plus some small apartment buildings along Butler)
Central Lawrenceville (Foundry @ 41st)
Bloomfield (Morrow Park City Apartments, plus the Penn Mathilda project)
Friendship (Baumhaus)
Shadyside (Eastside Bond + Bakery Square)
North Oakland (Empire/Park Building)
South Oakland (Sky Vue)
Central Oakland (Forbes Avenue Apartments)
South Shore (Glasshouse Apartments should have some residents by next Spring)
South Side Flats (Over 400 new construction apartments over the last decade, plus all the various condo conversions in historic buildings)

East Liberty is on the bubble, but I said, I think it will grow. In terms of new units:

East Liberty Place North/South: 112
Penn at Walnut on Highland: 78
Cornerstone development: 150+ (some in Larimer)
Coda on Centre: 172

I'm not sure how many units were involved in the Highland Building conversion, but I think there's about 100. Penn Plaza resulted in the loss of about 200 units. On the whole that means a net growth of around 400 units in East Liberty, which is enough I believe to counter shrinking household size (few units are truly being abandoned these days).

Uptown and West Oakland may grow. It's hard to say because so much of those neighborhoods population is in group quarters (dorms, or the Allegheny County Jail).

Somerset at Frick added 172 apartments in 2013, and additional homes continued to be built out this decade as well.

Upper Lawrenceville may grow. It hasn't had any major new apartment buildings, but there was the condo project up in the old school, the new townhouse project right on Butler now being built out, and lots of infill homes.

I don't anticipate much if any growth anywhere else in the city.

As for overall growth of the city, I can't really predict now. But a lot more city neighborhoods are going to post a population gain this decade than last decade. This means that unless the decline in the rest of the city was worse in numeric terms, any decline must be significantly smaller (not just in percentages, but also in thousands) and could very well not exist.

The loss of the SCI prison on the North Side is going to ding us though. There were around 1,800 inmates there in 2010, and there are zero today. So long as the decline is less than the prison population, I'd argue that we only lost on a technicality.

[Independentthinking83]

I think the city and region was on a positive trajectory for the first 3 years of the decade. The job market was never strong here, but it was better than the rest of the country at that time. I think after 2012 we flatlined a year and went back into decline mode. I agree with Rich Fitzgerald that the growth was due to the initial setup of the Petrochemical industry. So you had an influx into the metro and county the first 2-3 years of the decade. Then it leveled off. Black folks are leaving this city in droves. I don’t think the job growth and wage growth has been anywhere where it needs to be for this city to post positive growth. Census estimates are just that. Usually they are off a good bit on decline and growth.

Hard data that is going to give insight as to where the population may be going is construction and renovation of single family housing, coupled with job growth and wages. Those numbers haven’t been good the last 6-7 years.

A good census for this city is anything above 290,000. I still think the city loses between 15-20K residents and we end up in the mid to high 280s. Allegheny County drops below 1.2 million and the metro stays above 2.3 million by a hair.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

I think the city and region was on a positive trajectory for the first 3 years of the decade. The job market was never strong here, but it was better than the rest of the country at that time. I think after 2012 we flatlined a year and went back into decline mode. I agree with Rich Fitzgerald that the growth was due to the initial setup of the Petrochemical industry. So you had an influx into the metro and county the first 2-3 years of the decade. Then it leveled off. Black folks are leaving this city in droves. I don’t think the job growth and wage growth has been anywhere where it needs to be for this city to post positive growth. Census estimates are just that. Usually they are off a good bit on decline and growth.

Hard data that is going to give insight as to where the population may be going is construction and renovation of single family housing, coupled with job growth and wages. Those numbers haven’t been good the last 6-7 years.

A good census for this city is anything above 290,000. I still think the city loses between 15-20K residents and we end up in the mid to high 280s. Allegheny County drops below 1.2 million and the metro stays above 2.3 million by a hair.

Where are you getting the idea that wage growth is not good in Pittsburgh? Pittsburgh always seems to rank high in those.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these...105250957.html

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/201905280085

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Where are you getting the idea that wage growth is not good in Pittsburgh? Pittsburgh always seems to rank high in those.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these...105250957.html

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/201905280085

But wages are still 4 percent below national average, even though they have risen. People aren’t moving to take lower paying jobs. That’s why I believe the census stats will show a decline. Wages are just a part of it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

But wages are still 4 percent below national average, even though they have risen. People aren’t moving to take lower paying jobs. That’s why I believe the census stats will show a decline. Wages are just a part of it.

Nationally speaking, states which have higher wage levels are seeing an outflow of domestic migrants, while states which have lower wage levels are seeing an influx.

Now, this is a historic anomaly. Normally people move to where the higher wages are. That's the main reason people went west in the late 19th century. There was a labor shortage compared to the East Coast, which meant wages were higher, which was a big migration draw. The reasons that people now tend to move to lower-wage areas aren't 100% clear, but appear to be related to lower housing costs, along with retiree-fueled migration.

Certainly we don't have any retiree-fueled migration. Like basically all major Northeast and Midwest cities, we lose retirees to the Sun Belt. However, our lower housing costs are absolutely attracting people. Most of the places we have positive domestic migration with are higher-cost, higher-wage counties. You can see this yourself by going here and clicking on Allegheny County. The biggest net influx of people over the last five years for the county as a whole was SEPA, with about 1,600 net migrants.

Or hell, look at inbound only - not net. See the attached file. Note how while the outlying counties have the most inbound migrants, we get people in from up and down the entire East Coast. However, we get basically no migrants from lower-cost, lower-wage areas in the Midwest and South.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Nationally speaking, states which have higher wage levels are seeing an outflow of domestic migrants, while states which have lower wage levels are seeing an influx.

Now, this is a historic anomaly. Normally people move to where the higher wages are. That's the main reason people went west in the late 19th century. There was a labor shortage compared to the East Coast, which meant wages were higher, which was a big migration draw. The reasons that people now tend to move to lower-wage areas aren't 100% clear, but appear to be related to lower housing costs, along with retiree-fueled migration.

Thanks for the census migration map. In regards to your statement above can you provide documentation that this is actually happening?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

Thanks for the census migration map. In regards to your statement above can you provide documentation that this is actually happening?

Here's one citation:

Migration rates in the United States have fallen in recent decades for most demographic and socioeconomic groups, across regions, and for most distances. They are now at their lowest in 30 years (Molloy et al., 2011). Additionally, people who do move are now more likely to move to places with fewer job opportunities and lower average pay, not more. Demographers, economists, policymakers, and the news media have focused a good deal of attention recently on these trends, concerned about what they might mean for the economy (Kaplan and Schulhofer-Wohl, 2012a).

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Here's one citation:

I am having difficulty finding anything more on your side of the argument. That citation is from 2011 nearly 9 years old.

This is an article from 2016, which is dated, but doesn’t cite people are moving here for lower wages.

Report: Pittsburgh facing population decline • The Duquesne Duke

“Briem said that for seven years, between 2007 and 2014, Pittsburgh had “more people moving in, than moving out.” But in the past two years, it’s returned to net migration.

One of the reasons for the increased number moving out, could be because of the natural gas boom tuning down.

“Shale [drilling] has dropped. The mobile workforce has left,” Briem said.”