Pittsburgh MSA municipal population data (2020) (Upper St. Clair, Baldwin: neighborhoods, university, income)

[Independentthinking83]

FYI, Allegheny County is one of the most least densely populated urban counties over 1million in the nation. There is by and large huge swaths that are still forested. Now one can argue the hilly topography which is true.

I still think this county and city could and should do better. It’s the age old stagnant economy and low wages keeping this area back.

[Jbraybarten65]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

Most growth is north and west of the city. Pretty much the I-79 corridor is where most of the growth is.

The eastern suburbs are doing better with population than expected. Outside of upper st Clair I’d say the south hills is the biggest disappointment. I expected the eastern Allegheny county burbs to tank completely. I was wrong. Better than expected and better than south hills.

Outside of Mt. Lebo and USC is the eastern burbs more desirable than the south hills now? Thoughts?

They are more mature burbs. Where would all the growth be able to happen?

[PITairport]

Also of note is the population decline along the rivers. Not just the Mon (expected), but nearly the entire length of all three major rivers with the exception of a smallish section of the Allegheny and Ohio.

[runpens1]

Originally Posted by PITairport

Also of note is the population decline along the rivers. Not just the Mon (expected), but nearly the entire length of all three major rivers with the exception of a smallish section of the Allegheny and Ohio.

Yeah you're right, the rivers seem to be where the largest declines are. Mostly the Mon as expected, just kind of with the exception of Jefferson Hills being on part of it. The lower Allegheny, Ohara, Harmar, and Oakmont did pretty well. Not much growth past there though. Highlands area is usually more comprable to the Elizabeth Forward/South Allegheny fringes of the county. Those losses maybe weren't quite as big as years before but still happened. The Ohio likely mostly had more people move into the western suburbs from the towns and areas right along the river. The south hills did do better than expected, other than the Mon area, the only area that had slight decline was Dormont/Baldwin Township/Castle Shannon. Although, that was improved from years before too. The east suburbs were mixed but better than I though they would've been. Plum's stagnant growth may have sort of come as a surprise as they have built many new homes within Plum Borough over the past decade. Maybe it was offset by natural decline in the older neighborhoods of the borough though.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PITairport

Also of note is the population decline along the rivers. Not just the Mon (expected), but nearly the entire length of all three major rivers with the exception of a smallish section of the Allegheny and Ohio.

I don't think population declined along the Ohio, TBH. If you look at the list of "combined municipal population change" (places the OP couldn't break down due to shared census tracks) there was growth for Sewickley Heights, Sewickley Hills, Aleppo Township, Ben Avon Heights, Glen Osborne, Glenfield, Haysville, and Killbuck Township as a whole. Thus it's really only a handful of areas along the Ohio which shrunk - all of which are built out, and most of which are lower-middle to working class.

The shrinking along the Allegheny is not surprising at all, because the independent municipalities once you get north of Fox Chapel School district are all pretty economically destressed. That whole area might as well be in Westmoreland County.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by Jbraybarten65

They are more mature burbs. Where would all the growth be able to happen?

More families and younger people moving in. There is a lot of undeveloped land in South Park, USC, bethel park, around pleasant hills and across the river from Elizabeth to the westmoreland county line is all pasture or forest on 51.

But then again I think pittsburgh is unique due to topography. The vacant land may be cost prohibitive to build on due to being hilly.

[runpens1]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

More families and younger people moving in. There is a lot of undeveloped land in South Park, USC, bethel park, around pleasant hills and across the river from Elizabeth to the westmoreland county line is all pasture or forest on 51.

But then again I think pittsburgh is unique due to topography. The vacant land may be cost prohibitive to build on due to being hilly.

Yeah most of the Allegheny from past the Turnpike to Buffalo Township across the Butler County line.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by runpens1

Yeah most of the Allegheny from past the Turnpike to Buffalo Township across the Butler County line.

I mean the city of Pittsburgh density along with some immediate surrounding suburbs is what? 4,000-7,000 per sq mile? Overall Allegheny County is 1,713 people per square mile which is not really dense for a population of 1.25 million. We aren’t even in one of the top 65 urban counties for population density in the country. Delaware County and Philly county are more dense than Allegheny. And Montgomery and bucks may be as well. I haven’t looked it up.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) is more dense roughly 1000 more people per sq mile than Allegheny. And Franklin County (Columbus) is 2,400 people per sq mile.

Only Erie County NY (Buffalo) appears to have more vacant and unused land it’s actually half of Allegheny with density 950 people sq mile.

I just think Allegheny county is huge land wise and you don’t have to go far to find huge chunks of undeveloped land. My guess is the eastern suburbs are the most built out area until you reach plum.

I think too that if the job market and wages were better here this city and metro would grow at a decent clip. Maybe not as fast as Columbus but at least a respectable amount. The forested and unused land in Allegheny County would fill in.

I think Chris Briem noted that as a metro whole, including the surrounding counties that Pittsburgh is the most least densely populated large metro in the country. Lots of unused land and development that stopped around little coal and steel towns likely due to the lack of long term job prospects

[Craziaskowboi]

After digging through more of the data, I now know exactly where the unexpected population growth came from in the inner southern suburbs: Asian immigrants and refugees. In fact, many of the southern suburbs now have double-digit Asian population percentages. Here's the list of Allegheny County suburbs that are at least 5.0% Asian:


Asian population percentage (2020)

16.9% Franklin Park
15.0% Marshall Township
14.2% Scott Township
13.2% Whitehall
12.3% South Fayette Township
12.2% Baldwin
9.4% Upper St. Clair
7.5% Monroeville
7.4% Fox Chapel
7.1% Blawnox
7.1% Brentwood
6.8% Pine Township
6.6% McCandless
6.5% Castle Shannon
6.3% Green Tree
6.0% O'Hara Township and Sharpsburg
6.0% Carnegie
5.9% Aspinwall
5.5% Indiana Township
5.1% Moon Township
5.1% Robinson Township


There are many other municipalities in Allegheny County that are at least 2.0% Asian, but I don't have time to list them right now. I will in the future when I break down the data by race.

Outside of Allegheny County, these are the only municipalities with Asian population percentages that move the needle:


Asian population percentage (2020)

5.7% Slippery Rock
5.0% Delmont, Export and Murrysville
4.3% Cranberry Township
2.9% Adams Township, Callery, Mars and Valencia
2.3% Peters Township
2.2% Cecil Township


Otherwise, there are only two census tracts that are at least 2.5% Asian: one in Slippery Rock Township that is defined by the Slippery Rock University campus, and one in Hempfield Township that includes the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg campus and adjacent areas near Westmoreland Mall.

[runpens1]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

I mean the city of Pittsburgh density along with some immediate surrounding suburbs is what? 4,000-7,000 per sq mile? Overall Allegheny County is 1,713 people per square mile which is not really dense for a population of 1.25 million. We aren’t even in one of the top 65 urban counties for population density in the country. Delaware County and Philly county are more dense than Allegheny. And Montgomery and bucks may be as well. I haven’t looked it up.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) is more dense roughly 1000 more people per sq mile than Allegheny. And Franklin County (Columbus) is 2,400 people per sq mile.

Only Erie County NY (Buffalo) appears to have more vacant and unused land it’s actually half of Allegheny with density 950 people sq mile.

I just think Allegheny county is huge land wise and you don’t have to go far to find huge chunks of undeveloped land. My guess is the eastern suburbs are the most built out area until you reach plum.

I think too that if the job market and wages were better here this city and metro would grow at a decent clip. Maybe not as fast as Columbus but at least a respectable amount. The forested and unused land in Allegheny County would fill in.

I think Chris Briem noted that as a metro whole, including the surrounding counties that Pittsburgh is the most least densely populated large metro in the country. Lots of unused land and development that stopped around little coal and steel towns likely due to the lack of long term job prospects

Montgomery is the same as Allegheny County. Bucks slightly behind, appears to be.