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.
The fact is on average you got a pretty big gap between Pittsburgh and Providence that you’re trying to make up with isolated areas that maintained their historic amenities and a Commercial core for a larger metro. And I don’t think it’s enough to make up for what has been abandoned/depopulate and what was never heavily urbanized due to geography.
Again I totally disagree. But that's fine, its obvious that we are not gonna convince each other.
Again I totally disagree. But that's fine, its obvious that we are not gonna convince each other.
Honestly I think it’s a median vs average thing. Because so many neighborhoods are depopulated/underdeveloped well not that many people live/go there. But do consist of a significant part of the area but a much less significant fraction of the people.
So the Median Pittsburgher might live in a more urban neighborhood than the median Providence resident. But the average place in Providence is more urban than the average place in Pittsburgh
Honestly I think it’s a median vs average thing. Because so many neighborhoods are depopulated/underdeveloped well not that many people live/go there
You often reference "undeveloped" or "depopulated" neighborhoods, when like 85% of Pittsburgh is still solidly developed and/or pretty densely residential. I posted a link to the Census tract density map upthread, and it was obvious that both cities really do have remarkably similar tiers of population density in their core 50 sqmi, and Pittsburgh had the densest Census tract. And while not quite as common as in Pittsburgh, Providence is not exactly without breaks in its development and does exhibit its fair share of property abandonment or underused parcels interspersed in its neighborhoods.
So, I'm not sure why this factor of "depopulation" comes up so often in your posts in when that's far from the norm, unless you're referring to smaller household sizes. But that has nothing to do with structural density.
You often reference "undeveloped" or "depopulated" neighborhoods, when like 85% of Pittsburgh is still solidly developed and/or pretty densely residential. I posted a link to the Census tract density map upthread, and it was obvious that both cities really do have remarkably similar tiers of population density in their core 50 sqmi, and Pittsburgh had the densest Census tract.
So, I'm not sure why this factor of "depopulation" comes up so often in your posts in when that's far from the norm, unless you're referring to smaller household sizes. But that has nothing to do with structural density.
They’re not though. Providence has about ~26-27% (80,000) more people. That’s not insignificant.
For comparison that’s roughly the same difference between Pittsburgh and Atlanta. But people would pretty much laugh out load at the idea that Pittsburgh is less urban than Atlanta (despite robust transit share in Atlanta proper). Because people give those midwestern rust belt cities way too much credit as if it’s still 1962.
And yes actually, it’s quite Obvious Pittsburghs population is much smaller than it used to be. It’s 45% of what it used to be. Yes the neighborhoods that are nice are probably 70% of their original Population and with the growth of wealth/lower household sizes it’s not noticeable but a lot of the city is hallowed out. Look around Station square. Nice urban new age neighborhood. But surrounded by an undeveloped hillside and several blocks of surface parking. Denying that is denying a mathematical fact.
Yeah providence has its areas (and is generally poorer) but there is so clearly a huge difference between losing 24% and 56% of your population in terms of abandoned parcels.
Rust belt cities (other than Buffalo IMO) ) are pretty much coasting on vibes these days as for their reputations as big urban cities when is most cases west coast and some southern cities have surpassed them
Last edited by btownboss4; 02-11-2023 at 12:25 PM..
They’re not though. Providence has about ~26-27% (80,000) more people. That’s not insignificant.
That's not borne out significantly higher population density by Census tract, nor does it feel that way "on the ground."
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
And yes actually, it’s quite Obvious Pittsburghs population is much smaller than it used to be. It’s 45% of what it used to be. Yes the neighborhoods that are nice are probably 70% of their original Population and with the growth of wealth/lower household sizes it’s not noticeable but a lot of the city is hallowed out.
As I said, somewhere around 15% of the land area of Pittsburgh is depopulated or significantly non-intact (in Providence in guessing it's something like 5%). That means the vast majority of both cities are structurally intact and depopulation is insignificant.
You've only pointed out exceptions; they aren't the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Rust belt cities (other than Buffalo IMO) ) are pretty much coasting on vibes these days as for their reputations as big urban cities when is most cases west coast and some southern cities have surpassed them
Ironically, Providence is arguably much more economically "Rust Belt" than Pittsburgh, just with more diversity and immigration as it sits on the East Coast. Pittsburgh has also continued to densify and develop (and will continue to do so). And for that reason, no one can generalize entire regions.
Pittsburgh isn't Cleveland or Buffalo, just like Providence certainly isn't Boston or even Worcester.
Urbanism in the "Rust Belt" is much more nuanced than you've alluded to.
That's not borne out significantly higher population density by Census tract, nor does it feel that way "on the ground."
As I said, somewhere around 15% of the land area of Pittsburgh is depopulated or significantly non-intact (in Providence in guessing it's something like 5%). That means the vast majority of both cities are structurally intact and depopulation is insignificant.
You've only pointed out exceptions; they aren't the rule.
Ironically, Providence is arguably much more economically "Rust Belt" than Pittsburgh, just with more diversity and immigration as it sits on the East Coast. Pittsburgh has also continued to densify and develop (and will continue to do so). And for that reason, no one can generalize entire regions.
Pittsburgh isn't Cleveland or Buffalo, just like Providence certainly isn't Boston or even Worcester.
Urbanism in the "Rust Belt" is much more nuanced than you've alluded to.
I think the question would be how much is it borne out in census tracts over 50 contiguous square miles, because I think it's hard for most US cities to have a high level of urbanization for that large of an area. I think there's also the problem is that your guess of 15% off the land area is depopulated were also probably among the most urban and densely developed parts of Pittsburgh rather than the more suburban-ish parts. That's something that holds over pretty much any US city that was of some size in the 1950s where it was often the more densely built and more bustling parts of the city that were either straight out demolished via freeways or urban renewal projects or saw their fortunes steadily turn worse. Providence had that to some measure as well, but it wasn't nearly as much of a behemoth at the time and it essentially started rebounding earlier.
That's not borne out significantly higher population density by Census tract, nor does it feel that way "on the ground."
As I said, somewhere around 15% of the land area of Pittsburgh is depopulated or significantly non-intact (in Providence in guessing it's something like 5%). That means the vast majority of both cities are structurally intact and depopulation is insignificant.
You've only pointed out exceptions; they aren't the rule.
Ironically, Providence is arguably much more economically "Rust Belt" than Pittsburgh, just with more diversity and immigration as it sits on the East Coast. Pittsburgh has also continued to densify and develop (and will continue to do so). And for that reason, no one can generalize entire regions.
Pittsburgh isn't Cleveland or Buffalo, just like Providence certainly isn't Boston or even Worcester.
Urbanism in the "Rust Belt" is much more nuanced than you've alluded to.
The city is a collection of census tracts. What’s it is over 50 sq miles is what it is over the sum of bits of that 50 sq miles.
15% is 1/7th of the city 5% is 1/20th that is a big difference.
And no Pittsburgh isn’t densifying, it’s still losing population, Providence is getting denser.
Stats and vibes just are wildly disconnected in the Rust belt.
And no Pittsburgh isn’t densifying, it’s still losing population, Providence is getting denser.
Structurally, it's most definitely densifying relative to unit/housing production. That's primarily what I'm referring to.
But, as of 2020, Allegheny County did register population growth for the 1st time in 6 decades, although Pittsburgh proper declined only 0.89% percent over 10 years--far lower than prior decades.
So, yes, the precursors to re-growing population are definitely in place for the city, leading to both population and development density growth very likely this decade.
I think the question would be how much is it borne out in census tracts over 50 contiguous square miles, because I think it's hard for most US cities to have a high level of urbanization for that large of an area. I
Right, I agree completely, and also regarding urban renewal taking out some of the most dense neighborhoods in US history.
I've conceded the likelihood of Providence having greater population in its most urban 50-sqmi area, but as we know, urbanism is comprised of multiple factors other than just a simple density of residents.
Right, I agree completely, and also regarding urban renewal taking out some of the most dense neighborhoods in US history.
I've conceded the likelihood of Providence having greater population in its most urban 50-sqmi area, but as we know, urbanism is comprised of multiple factors other than just a simple density of residents.
Yea, population density is just one of many measuring sticks, but it's also a factor that probably to some degree correlates with other ones and it's one that should be relatively easy to get numbers on. I think of it as a good starting point. I do think there's potentially a lag time in structural density loss to population loss, but it's definitely true there's structural density loss. Pittsburgh unfortunately has seen quite a bit of structural density loss.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-11-2023 at 08:50 PM..
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.
