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.
Please read the report and understand the city you left years ago is not the same. I think the Brookings report would be a positive thing to walk away from and understand as well as the TIME videos.
And I said IMO. If you would read some very informative articles you would understand A.I and robotics are 2 very important industries Amazon is looking to enter and Amazon has been sponsoring CMU for YEARS. In terms of ranking regions and cities/metros IN MY OPINION Pittsburgh is a Top 5.
Please keep in mind that while I live at altitude, I have not lost any brain cells up here, nor have I fried my brain with any legal recreational marijuana that we have. I also own a TV (several), a computer and subscribe to several newspapers. I have family in Pittsburgh and have for forever. I get back there occasionally, the last time this past September. IOW, I know what's happening in Pittsburgh, at least in the big picture. I get tired of having to explain this.
And while these "lists" that various media put out have their limitations, the lists of cities with the most tech jobs tend to include the same cities over and over (with a few outliers like Grand Rapids, Ogden, Provo, Palm Bay, FL, etc) and some are conspicuous by their absence. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/27/tech...on-valley.html
Seattle
DC
Detroit
Denver
Austin
SF
DFW
NYC
Orlando
Raleigh-Durham
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...obs-2017-10-26
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington.
California-Lexington Park, Maryland.
Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Washington, D.C., Arlington-Alexandria, Virginia, Maryland.
Boulder, Colorado. (With a nod to Denver)
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California.
Austin-Round Rock, Texas.
I interpreted your statement about Pittsburgh being in the top 5 to mean it was your opinion that was why Pittsburgh made the top 5, which have not been released. I understand what you're saying now.
One thing to keep in mind for Pittsburgh is something like 20% of the city is nearly unbuildable slope. The same factor doesn't affect the other four cities, which are significantly flatter.
Even on the census tract level, steep slopes are included with dense areas in many parts of the city. It's only if you get down to the block level you see the pockets of very high density. Here is the 2010 map If i were done today, there would be a lot more red, due to significant new clumps of apartments popping up across the city.
Again though, the OP's question was not why the Pittsburgh metro performed better than the other rust belt metros. It was why Pittsburgh's core city performed better than the core cities of other rust belt metros.
Cincy is quite hilly, too, so I've heard. (The one city on your list I haven't been to)
It's a little hard to separate Pittsburgh or any city from its metro. Maybe especially Pittsburgh since so much industry was in the burbs. But I re-read the OP and you're right.
Cincy is quite hilly, too, so I've heard. (The one city on your list I haven't been to)
It's a little hard to separate Pittsburgh or any city from its metro. Maybe especially Pittsburgh since so much industry was in the burbs. But I re-read the OP and you're right.
It is hilly in spots, but most of the land is not steep enough to be a big problem for building there from what I've seen. It doesn't have the many cliffs and ravines that Pittsburgh does.
Please keep in mind that while I live at altitude, I have not lost any brain cells up here, nor have I fried my brain with any legal recreational marijuana that we have. I also own a TV (several), a computer and subscribe to several newspapers. I have family in Pittsburgh and have for forever. I get back there occasionally, the last time this past September. IOW, I know what's happening in Pittsburgh, at least in the big picture. I get tired of having to explain this.
I interpreted your statement about Pittsburgh being in the top 5 to mean it was your opinion that was why Pittsburgh made the top 5, which have not been released. I understand what you're saying now.
I never said Pittsburgh is the top tech city in the USA, clearly being a mid size city with a modest metro of around 2 Million, (an area just slightly larger than the City of Philadelphia alone) other parts of the country have higher tech concentrations. But the quality of the work being done in Pittsburgh is top notch, and the Brookings report really proves that Pittsburgh is adding quality not quantity and in terms of its regional economy, and on many metrics of economic performance, wage and skills growth ranks in the Top 10 metros nationwide.
This forum is comparing Pittsburgh to other rust belt cities, and Pittsburgh definitely has come out on the top in comparison.
This is a great article from only the other week, I recommend. And please do read that Brookings Report. There is a reason Pittsburgh is in the Top 20.
Yea, transit in the US is awful compared to cities in peer developed countries—is this topic comparing transit in Pittsburgh to transit in Prague?
My point is that if metro A has 6% transit usage, and metro B has 4% transit usage, it's basically the same. There's no meaningful difference. It isn't like metro A is going to have a noticeably different built form and connectivity. U.S. metros, excepting NYC are pretty uniquely car-oriented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Pittsburgh isn’t blowing out the other cities in this group—it just does relatively well in most categories compared to others in this group (not on the West Coast, not in the European Union, but this group). The question was why.
And I agree Pittsburgh (city proper) is doing reasonably well compared to this specific peer group. I just think the differences are pretty marginal, and Pittsburgh isn't that much of an outlier.
And many of the differences can be explained by Pittsburgh's smaller city limits and generally more white population. It just happened that random city boundaries encompassed a few more stable areas. If you look by metro (a more apples-to-apples comparison) the marginal differences mostly evaporate.
No response to the Brookings report that ranks the U.S 100 LARGEST METROS I posted with Pittsburgh outperforming every other rust belt city on metrics that matter. ?
By metro? Pittsburgh is not outperforming other Rust Belt metros. Certainly not by population or economy.
By metro? Pittsburgh is not outperforming other Rust Belt metros. Certainly not by population or economy.
Educate yourself and read the Brookings Report. Your ignorance is astounding. Your basis of ranking a metro solely on population growth lacks any serious comprehension of analytics.
Educate yourself and read the Brookings Report. Your ignorance is astounding. Your basis of ranking a metro solely on population growth lacks any serious comprehension of analytics.
Since you're the one imploring others to "educate themselves" and to develop "serious comprehension of analytics", let's indulge your silliness with actual data.
Let's compare Metro Pittsburgh to Metro Detroit, probably the nation's punching bag metro. I mean, if Pittsburgh is performing better than "every metro" than certainly it performs better than the "worst".
Population trends (as of 2016):
Metro Detroit is growing per Census (MSA and CSA). Metro Pittsburgh is declining per Census (MSA and CSA).
So Metro Pittsburgh is trailing even Metro Detroit on major Census categories. Yet the claim is that Pittsburgh outperforms all the Rust Belt metros. We aren't exactly comparing to Seattle here. Can you say homerism?
My point is that if metro A has 6% transit usage, and metro B has 4% transit usage, it's basically the same. There's no meaningful difference. It isn't like metro A is going to have a noticeably different built form and connectivity. U.S. metros, excepting NYC are pretty uniquely car-oriented.
And I agree Pittsburgh (city proper) is doing reasonably well compared to this specific peer group. I just think the differences are pretty marginal, and Pittsburgh isn't that much of an outlier.
And many of the differences can be explained by Pittsburgh's smaller city limits and generally more white population. It just happened that random city boundaries encompassed a few more stable areas. If you look by metro (a more apples-to-apples comparison) the marginal differences mostly evaporate.
Why don't you use something with the actual stats posted?
You had transit trips per capita for metro and you had percentages for the city.
Pittsburgh has 17% of its workforce commuting by transit. Among its peer cities, this is high. Not compared to NYC.
The last parts of your sentence address the topic directly, though I don't think the differences evaporate. On a very practical level, what you're tossing aside is pretty important--those random city boundaries for Pittsburgh include a lot of people and neighborhoods that can generate revenue. That less stark population loss difference between metro and city means the city's power doesn't diminish as much compared to its suburbs which I think played a pretty decent role in wrecking Detroit as Metro Detroit pretended that Detroit didn't matter so much and they can go at it on their own.
A few years ago, the Washington Post put together an interactive map ranking the combined income and college education attainment of every ZIP code in the United States by percentile (the higher, the better). Each ZIP code is colored by percentile, with dark blue as 0th-19th, medium blue as 20th-39th, light blue as 40th-59th, cyan as 60th-79th, green as 80th-94th, and yellow as 95th-99th.
Using this information, I looked at all the ZIP codes that are either entirely or partially in Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis cities proper, and I compiled a list of all "comfortable" and "distressed" ZIP codes in each, with comfortable being the 60th percentile or higher, and distressed being lower than the 20th percentile. Here are the results:
Only Baltimore and Pittsburgh have more comfortable ZIP codes than distressed. Only Pittsburgh and St. Louis have downtowns in comfortable ZIP codes. Only Cleveland and Detroit have no comfortable ZIP codes entirely within the cities proper. Only Baltimore, Cincinnati and Detroit have ZIP codes in the 90th percentile or higher. Only Pittsburgh has no ZIP codes below the 10th percentile. Only Cincinnati and Cleveland have ZIP codes in the 0th percentile.
Here are screenshots of each city proper and the ZIP codes therein:
Baltimore
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Detroit
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
I'd rank the health of each city proper this way, from best to worst:
1. Baltimore
2. Pittsburgh
3. St. Louis
4. Cincinnati
5. Cleveland
6. Detroit
Worth noting is that Baltimore, Cincinnati and St. Louis are not considered "Rust Belt" nearly as often as Cleveland, Detroit or Pittsburgh, but if you look at the lists and maps above, you'll see that Pittsburgh looks most similar to Baltimore and, to a lesser extent, St. Louis, without the large areas of distressed ZIP codes like Cleveland and Detroit. This is why it's not wrong to say that Pittsburgh has been doing pretty well relative to other Rust Belt cities, regardless of whether it's growing or not.
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.
