Is the Pittsburgh Metro Growing in Population? (Riverside, Penn: 2013, live)

[trackstar13]

I have read a little bit on this forum about recent population growth in Pittsburgh and I happened to be reading a Forbes article yesterday and I was surprised to see Pittsburgh on the list of "Slowest Growing Cities." The article was based on an analysis by demographer Wendell Cox and I am interested to see what everyone thinks about this report. Here is what the list looks like and the link is below:

1. Cleveland (0% growth since 2011 and -4.1% contraction since 2000)
2. Detroit (0.1% growth since 2011 and -3.7% contraction since 2000)
3. Buffalo (0.1% growth since 2011 and -3.1% contraction since 2000)
4. Pittsburgh (0% growth since 2011 and -2.8% contraction since 2000)
5. Providence (0.9% growth since 2000 and 0.1% growth since 2011)

"Cleveland’s population is down 3.9% since 2000, the worst performance among the nation’s biggest metro areas apart from disaster-struck New Orleans. Cleveland lags in both family formation and has seen strong outmigration, but also attracts few foreign-born residents. Much the same can be said of Providence,R.I., Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Detroit. Nor do things seem to be improving with time; these areas continued to inhabit the nether regions in the most recent Census reports."

America's Fastest- and Slowest-Growing Cities - Forbes

[LIRefugee]

From what I recall, the census estimate for Pgh proper had a .15% growth rate from 2010 to 2011 and somewhat less to 2012. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

From what I recall, the census estimate for Pgh proper had a .15% growth rate from 2010 to 2011 and somewhat less to 2012. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless.

Do you mean the city or the metro? In the article they were discussing the metro and indicated there was no growth.

[SteelCityRising]

Both the city and county grew from 2010 to 2012 after declining from 2000 to 2010. Methinks Forbes relied upon outdated data.

City:
2000: 334,563
2010: 305,704
2012: 308,090

County:
2000: 1,281,666
2010: 1,223,348
2012: 1,229,866

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Both the city and metro area grew from 2010 to 2012 after declining from 2000 to 2010.

The analysis I posted here says otherwise and they based it off of the most recent census data.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Both the city and county grew from 2010 to 2012 after declining from 2000 to 2010. Methinks Forbes relied upon outdated data.

City:
2000: 334,563
2010: 305,704
2012: 308,090

County:
2000: 1,281,666
2010: 1,223,348
2012: 1,229,866

An analysis of population data by demographer Wendell Cox, including the Census report for the most recent year released late last week, shows that since 2000, virtually all the 10 fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States are located in Sun Belt states. The population of the Raleigh, N.C., metropolitan statistical area has expanded a remarkable 47.8% since 2000, tops among the nation’s 52 metro areas with over 1 million residents. That is more than three times the overall 12.7% growth of those 52 metro areas.

The most recent numbers, covering July 2011 to July 2012, also reveal some subtle changes in the Sun Belt pecking order. Over the 2000-2012 period, the growth winners included places like Las Vegas, Riverside-San Bernardino and Phoenix, all of which suffered grievously in the housing bust. Although they all clocked population growth better than the national average over the past year, none, besides Phoenix, ranked in the updated top 10.

[trackstar13]

Maybe the issue is the dates examined?

[LIRefugee]

The issue is rounding. Pittsburgh's metro area has grown from 2,356,285 in 2010 to 2,360,733 in 2012. That 4448-person increase (mostly attributable to the city proper) indicates a growth rate of 0.189% I don't have the 2011 number in front of me, but the growth rate might have been 0.04% or below and the author didn't want to get that detailed. Doesn't matter, I don't get the impression that the author did much research beyond looking at the numbers by themselves.

After decades of loss, even slow growth (and slow it is) is a good thing. The worst you can say is that Pittsburgh has bottomed out, but I think there are definite indications of improvement if you bother to look beyond simple population figures.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

The issue is rounding. Pittsburgh's metro area has grown from 2,356,285 in 2010 to 2,360,733 in 2012. That 4448-person increase (mostly attributable to the city proper) indicates a growth rate of 0.189% I don't have the 2011 number in front of me, but the growth rate might have been 0.04% or below and the author didn't want to get that detailed. Doesn't matter, I don't get the impression that the author did much research beyond looking at the numbers by themselves.

After decades of loss, even slow growth (and slow it is) is a good thing. The worst you can say is that Pittsburgh has bottomed out, but I think there are definite indications of improvement if you bother to look beyond simple population figures.

Maybe the authors were looking at this data?

"Western Pennsylvania families welcomed an estimated 323 fewer babies in 2012 than in 2011, according to Census Bureau figures released on Thursday, but a local obstetrician questions the estimate"

"The Census Bureau released its annual population estimates, which show the 10-county region lost about 590 people between July 1, 2011, and July 1, 2012. The official population estimate for the 10 counties in 2012 is 2,577,497 people."

"For about the past five years, one factor driving population growth in the Pittsburgh area was that it did relatively well compared with other metro areas during the recession. The new estimates suggest fewer people are moving to Western Pennsylvania as the economy improves elsewhere, but the region still had a net gain of 753 people from domestic migration."

Experts dispute census find of 1% fewer births in Western Pa. | TribLIV

[greg42]

I just heard this morning though something showing the metro had growth. Hm. What the heck were they saying? I'll have to find it.

Can't find but my other half is reminding me that they said "more people are moving in than moving out" which is not the same as an actual population growth rate because of deaths vs births, etc. But more people moving in than out has been decades coming if I remember right.