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.
So, I attached a little map showing the population change by neighborhood according to this study in 10% increments. Note that the grey neighborhoods were not included. In the cases of Chateau and South Shore, this is permissible, because neither one has much in the way of population, and modeling them would be quite difficult with ACS data. But Westwood and Windgap only appear to have been left off because they were forgotten about, as they are the last two Pittsburgh neighborhoods in alphabetical order. They're a bit harder to model with census data than some of the other neighborhoods, because they no longer have their own census tract, but others in a similar situation (Esplen, North Shore, Allegheny West, Bon Air, etc) were broken out, so I'm left at a loss.
But yeah, anyone with even a cursory understanding of the city knows these numbers are implausible. There will of course be a few rando neighborhoods which post growth from 2010-2020 (East Carnegie did last time, for example) but too many of the "blue neighborhoods" are areas still in steep decline.
In general though, I'm not blaming Chris Briem for this. He's done good work in the past. The problem is the ACS data is just garbage on the neighborhood level. Years back I considered doing an analysis of it myself, and I found basically the same things (big projected population increases in the Hill District, and a population decline in Oakland) and decided it was bad data and that we're just out of luck till the 2020 census numbers.
As far as I'm aware, ACS estimates are largely correct on the county level. When it comes to the municipal level, my understanding is how the ACS models population is they modify the overall growth/decline of the county to take in account changes in reported group quarters (college dorms, nursing homes, prisons, military bases, etc) and any additional units of housing reported built by a municipality over that period. This isn't perfect, as it doesn't take into account abandonment of existing units (which can shrink population). It also doesn't really model demographic shifts within existing housing units well, so displacement of families by single people - or vice versa - is not really taken into account except for the general national/state/county trends. I have no idea how they drill things down to the local level. For example, there's been absolutely no new construction (HUD-assisted or otherwise) in the Greater West End to warrant the population increases in places like Fairywood, Chartiers City, Sheraden, Crafton Heights, Elliott, and Ridgemont. I'm just left at a total loss.
Do you think he would use crap data to publish a study and not point out that the data is questionable? Without making that point, he is either a believer of the data or doesn't get that it is crap. Seems like a risk someone as well known as him would not take.
Not doubting that its crap, just seems strange to me. As for population gains without new housing, that is not that hard to believe. Old lady moves out (by choice or feet first) of house in Sheradan, family rents/sells it to a family with 3 kids who just moved out of Knoxville.
Do you find any reason to believe the concept that the data is such crap that it is underestimating the population loss by 10 fold. I tend to "grain of salt" what some posters put out there but I do not see it being 25k short in population loss for the city. Thoughts?
Not doubting that its crap, just seems strange to me. As for population gains without new housing, that is not that hard to believe. Old lady moves out (by choice or feet first) of house in Sheradan, family rents/sells it to a family with 3 kids who just moved out of Knoxville.
I think it's important to keep in mind there is basically no difference between the black and white fertility rate nationwide now. IIRC black families only have about 0.1 additional children on average. So white flight while the number of units are kept constant would not be expected to cause population growth.
I also think it's important to remember that back in 2010, not a single one of the "new white flight" neighborhoods in Pittsburgh posted any sort of gain over 2000. If Sheraden didn't experience growth during the white flight of the 2000s why would it experience growth during the white flight of the 2010s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghYinzer
Do you find any reason to believe the concept that the data is such crap that it is underestimating the population loss by 10 fold. I tend to "grain of salt" what some posters put out there but I do not see it being 25k short in population loss for the city. Thoughts?
I also think the model is underestimating population growth in the growing neighborhoods of the city, but this has more to do with the most recent numbers being a five-year rolling average of the period between 2014 and 2018 than anything. For example, I know that the Strip District will have about 1,000 units between 2010 and 2020, meaning we're looking at approximately 1,500 added for the decade, not 338 as this suggests. I'm also going to be shocked if Central Oakland or North Oakland post losses, as both have had new apartment buildings with hundreds of units added this decade, with no loss of units whatsoever. Similarly, South Side's three biggest apartment projects alone added 437 projects - and there's been a continual trickle of condo conversions and infill townhouses, making it very unlikely that it shrank this decade. Shadyside's gain is too little considering Eastside Bond and the two Bakery Square buildings (700+ units). All of this works to cancel out some of the supposed gains in strange places like the West End and Carrick.
So, I attached a little map showing the population change by neighborhood according to this study in 10% increments. Note that the grey neighborhoods were not included. In the cases of Chateau and South Shore, this is permissible, because neither one has much in the way of population, and modeling them would be quite difficult with ACS data. But Westwood and Windgap only appear to have been left off because they were forgotten about, as they are the last two Pittsburgh neighborhoods in alphabetical order. They're a bit harder to model with census data than some of the other neighborhoods, because they no longer have their own census tract, but others in a similar situation (Esplen, North Shore, Allegheny West, Bon Air, etc) were broken out, so I'm left at a loss.
But yeah, anyone with even a cursory understanding of the city knows these numbers are implausible. There will of course be a few rando neighborhoods which post growth from 2010-2020 (East Carnegie did last time, for example) but too many of the "blue neighborhoods" are areas still in steep decline.
In general though, I'm not blaming Chris Briem for this. He's done good work in the past. The problem is the ACS data is just garbage on the neighborhood level. Years back I considered doing an analysis of it myself, and I found basically the same things (big projected population increases in the Hill District, and a population decline in Oakland) and decided it was bad data and that we're just out of luck till the 2020 census numbers.
As far as I'm aware, ACS estimates are largely correct on the county level. When it comes to the municipal level, my understanding is how the ACS models population is they modify the overall growth/decline of the county to take in account changes in reported group quarters (college dorms, nursing homes, prisons, military bases, etc) and any additional units of housing reported built by a municipality over that period. This isn't perfect, as it doesn't take into account abandonment of existing units (which can shrink population). It also doesn't really model demographic shifts within existing housing units well, so displacement of families by single people - or vice versa - is not really taken into account except for the general national/state/county trends. I have no idea how they drill things down to the local level. For example, there's been absolutely no new construction (HUD-assisted or otherwise) in the Greater West End to warrant the population increases in places like Fairywood, Chartiers City, Sheraden, Crafton Heights, Elliott, and Ridgemont. I'm just left at a total loss.
This reminds me of 2009 all over again. They projected Pittsburgh’s population at 312,000 and it was 305,000. Cleveland’s projection was way off 415,000 and the official count was 390,000. I think the census bureau estimates are under when it comes to decline and growth.
I feel the East end numbers are probably pretty close because it is mostly a 1 for 1 replacement with a few hundred on the positive side. I think they have a good pulse on that area. The rest of the city looks like they are just picking from bad data. If those are the estimates they used all decade to show the city above 300K I’ve got some bad news and I think you and others would agree with that.
The growth in Fairywood is believable. From the mid 70s till about 2000, Fairywood was the worst neighborhood in the city. Gangs and crime there were unbelievable. Westgate Village was privately owned section 8 and Broadhead manor was housing authority. Poverty was the highest in the city at 48 percent at one time. People would get shot in broad daylight. It was pretty much the drug dealing capital east of Chicago. Those from all over Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and New York would buy and transfer drugs there. The west side convicts were the main gang over there. You didn’t go and challenge them. You would be shot on the spot. Back in the early 90s Jamaicans came in from ny city to take over the neighborhood. Sophie was mayor and almost called in the national guard. Westgate Village had more money flowing out of it than the wealthy parts of Pittsburgh. Slowly they moved folks out of there in the late 90s. In 2002 westgate closed and in 2004 Broadhead closed after Ivan flooded them out. All of those great residents moved out to Sheradan, mckees rocks, Stowe and crafton heights after the projects closed. Hence the decline of those areas. Westgate was purchased in 2010 and renamed emerald gardens. It is now moderately priced apartments. So yes I agree they added 75 residents due to westgate renovation into apartments.
Boy that was a scary place even for black folks. The kids from homewood were afraid to go there....but Fairywood numbers would show an increase due to the apartments.
I digress.
I think the overall data is inaccurate and will show the city losing a lot more than anticipated. Allegheny West, unless there is a major baby boom going on did not add those residents. Maybe they are including Allegheny center in those numbers?
Sheraden and crafton heights have the capacity to add that much, but what new construction or renovation is going on? Same thing with carrick adding 1,000 residents. It’s just hard to believe.
Maybe we are wrong and they are right, my gut says they are way off though and have bad data.
Lol this is kinda like the east end workforce snippet I posted and took a beating on here for.
If you believe this data then Sheraden and carrick together grew more than all of Lawrenceville, the Strip, Polish hill, Bloomfield and East Liberty combined.
I guess the south and west Pittsburgh neighborhoods are the ones really growing.
So I can’t be a hypocrite and not agree with it. It actually aligns pretty well with the east end workforce data.
So I’m changing my stance. I agree with the data.
It’s calling out Larimer, East Liberty and Bloomfield as adding the residents.
Maybe we got our answer as to why the 2014 report focused on these areas. Growth was stagnant or in slight decline in the Lawrencevilles, shadysides and other east end areas
Without interpreting that this data was inaccurate and in terms of what I know:
North: California-Kirkbride, Central Northside, Deutschtown, Fineview, Manchester and Northview Heights losing Blacks all made sense to me. I’m not sure if this survey accounted for Sandusky Court being demolished and redeveloped into “Sandstone Quarry” though. Both Manchester and Northview Heights Estates areas have relocated to distinct parts of Marshall-Shadeland (which may flip racial majority as soon as 2020 census), among other areas. Allegheny Center increasing Black residents (probably from Central Northside to Allegheny Commons East Apts) was no surprise. Perry Hilltop was surprising though, if it’s any area in specific though it’s gotta be the portion near Fineview. I was also surprised about Brighton Heights, Perry North, Spring Garden, Spring Hill-City View (especially with Three Rivers Manor) and Troy Hill losing Blacks — as so many moved to these areas at the start of the past decade.
South: If Allentown actually flipped to majority Black it’s be due to the exodus of Blacks in Beltzhoover. Although, I foresee this changing by the looks of East Warrington Avenue these days. Southeast Mt. Washington has more Duquesne University folks than ever, so I’m not surprised Blacks could be leaving the neighborhood. By 2010, the St. Clair Village folks relocated mostly to Arlington Heights, parts of Carrick, most of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver, PA. Knoxville has gotten so bad perhaps recently relocating the residents to Arlington, Arlington Heights, nearby South Side Slopes and to Carrick/Mt. Oliver, PA in turn. St. Clair Village used to be rivals with Arlington Heights, but that’s changed since both housing projects went down.
West: The Crafton Heights Townhomes / Mountain-View Apts (formerly Greenway Park Apts) area received many Congolese refugees (meanwhile Northview Heights and other areas are heavily Somalia-Bantu, plus a few Somali, Burundi and Rwanda refugees). Sheraden and Elliott are indeed “free for alls”. At first it was Fairywood’s Broadhead/Westgate residents, but since then it’s been various parts of the Northside who’ve been relocating there. So probably not too much Knoxville.
Hill District: Bedford Dwellings had increased in under 18, 25–44 and 65+. Makes sense people having kids, more rental units have been developed (ex. 2100 Bedford Ave) and more elderly around the 2800-2900 blocks. Terrace Village has demolished and now redeveloped formerly Addison Terrace at Bentley Drive into Skyline Terrace, perhaps skewing the data. In terms of Middle Hill population growth: Davenport Wy, Erin St, Trent St, Wooster St, 2100 Wylie and most recently 2100 Webster have been renovated; along with URA developments indicating that changes may be coming to the area from Kirkpatrick Street to Herron Avenue. Yet many residents did leave the Middle Hill individually on their own terms without displacement (like Beltzhoover, Braddock, Homewood North, Lincoln-Lemington, etc.).
Oakland: West Oakland having a huge loss in Black residents is no surprise. Although, South Oakland and North Oakland gaining Black residents is indeed surprising.
Lawrenceville: especially Lower Lawrenceville from Penn to Liberty/west of Butler St, Central Lawrenceville west of Butler St (like Blackberry Way) and Upper Lawrenceville from Dresden Wy to Keystone St and near Stanton Heights has lost many Black residents. Both “African Americans” and Sub-Saharan African immigrants.
Zone 5: Friendship/Bloomfield - north of Coral Street and 200 blk of S Mathilda St/Millvale Ave were once spillover for Garfield, now you would never know that. Everyone knows about Garfield and East Liberty. Yet gentrification of East Liberty notably carried over to southern Highland Park and even southernmost Morningside as well. Even part of [Lower] Larimer has had a displacement of Black residents with the revitalization of East Liberty. The final stages of Cornerstone Village should bring some back in. Point Breeze North has flipped and Homewood South has had a lot of demolition / remodeling so no surprises there either in loss of Blacks. Homewood North, Lincoln-Lemington, East Hills no surprises due to continued decline. Homewood West uptick was a surprise though. It’d be really unfortunate if the reason why Blacks are leaving Stanton Heights is anything other than aging! As one would think that area would be stable, but perhaps it will meet the fate of Point Breeze North.
Hazelwood-Glen Hazel. Makes sense if Hazelwood was actually losing Blacks even though it was somewhat surprising due to percentages in parts of the neighborhood (off Hazelwood Ave and historic Glenwood). Glen Hazel was the safest public housing complex in the city (before it went private) so no surprise that families would be moving there. Unlike Homewood North, which is so reputedly dangerous that the area is actually safe from outsiders/rivals.
All in all I wasn’t too surprised but could see why others think it’s slightly off the mark.
Probably not, but close? Back in 2010 it was 97% white, and only 1.5% black. Given the black population is so small (50 people) it's basically a rounding error, and hard for the Census to model.
There was a prominent story right around when I moved here where a black family closed on a house, and it was burnt down a few days later. It probably has a more racist reputation than any other neighborhood in the city. I wouldn't want to live there if I were black.
I think this is a good thing for the City if it’s indeed accurate. I would think they pulled credible data from somewhere to compile this report as it is quite detailed.
Reading the report it pretty much shows the growth is spread out, which makes sense if the city is indeed still at 300,000. There is no way around it. The surprise neighborhood growth would have to be happening.
Right now this is factual data until the final census comes out.
The lower part of the north side is breaking even or gaining population. It has spilled over to Spring Hill and Perry hilltop.. Marshall Shadeland may be growing as well. They show negative 700, but that is a lot to do with the prison closing. If it wasn’t for the loss of the prison I think Marshall Shadeland is probably up 1000 residents. Brighton heights and observatory hill continue to bleed residents.
The south side makes sense it is losing a lot of population. The south side works has tanked and was sold to someone else. There are a lot of vacancies over there and scattered throughout East Carson Street. It was also more crime ridden the past decade. I believe it has declined. There is a lot for sale over there and prices are flat or declined.
The south hills has a lot of housing and room to add more residents. Carrick is a huge affordable residential neighborhood as Arlington but more compact. Bon air was always a decent neighborhood so those numbers are believable they have affordable housing there. Mt Washington is large but the south side of Shiloh street has always fared poorly. The farther you get away from grand view the more it declines. The housing is also hard to access and not desirable, lack of transit. Etc.
The west end, as I said in a previous post is the place to be. Developers are taking notice and the Main Street Valley is getting new development. Crafton heights, Elliot and Sheraden all have affordable housing and the west busyway nearby. The west end is the place to go in the 2020s.
The east end growth is limited mostly to the 2014 east end workforce report. Garfield, Bloomfield, East Liberty and Larimer are pretty much the growth areas of the east. Shadyside added a few hundred and greenfield added the most. Probably due to its affordability and housing stock. It’s fair to say people are choosing to live there over Lawrenceville. And the data backs that claim. We see the reason why the other neighborhoods weren’t included in that report. Growth is around that part of Penn Ave and the immediate neighborhoods touching it.
If this report is accurate with neighborhoods in the north, south and West the city is most certainly over 300,000. If this data is way off for those areas and they are bleeding residents as in the past you are looking at a way off estimate. Probably around the low 280s as official count.
This report certainly doesn’t fit the east end booster narrative. There only appears to be one cluster of neighborhoods over there growing and it doesn’t include Oakland, polish hill Lawrenceville or the strip and downtown. Pretty sobering data if it’s true. Hopefully it is true and it forces the mayor and everyone else to take the entire city seriously.
But the growth out side the east end would be shocking if true.
this is definitely interesting data. i am interesting in commuting patterns and racial makeup. for example, upper lville increased from 65% white to 81% white and driving in car alone increased from 55% to 69%. this puts it slightly below the 84% white of allegheny county outside the city and drive along of 76%. franklin park, in the lily white north hills, is 84% white.
is there a data source for this? it would be interesting to dig into this stuff a little more. are there any neighborhoods that got more diverse during this period?
It's based upon American Community Survey data from the Census
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul2421
it would be interesting to dig into this stuff a little more. are there any neighborhoods that got more diverse during this period?
So, I just did a little map, which I am attaching. Key:
Gold: Neighborhoods with a rising white, and falling black percentage
Brown: Neighborhoods with a rising black, and falling white percentage
Purple: Neighborhoods where both the black and white percentage is falling (due to rising Asian/Other)
Green: Upper Hill only, where supposedly both the black and white percentage rose.
This doesn't look quite a suspect as the overall population change map, though I see some individual neighborhoods that are probably wrong (small neighborhoods which are already heavily one race or another are probably the most prone to error). The general theme though is pretty clear: The East End/Lower North Side are shedding black residents, while South Pittsburgh and sections of the Outer North Side continue to get blacker.
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.
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.
