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.
Pittsburgh by far has the most of its proverbial **** together. That's just plain obvious compared to every other city in this thread.
This is despite being demographically heavy on a white population, which of course is not a long-term growth strategy. However, industry mix, solid urban neighborhoods, top COL/ income ratio, income growth, educational attainment--basically all the ingredients for a thriving 21st Century economy--are highly in Pittsburgh's favor.
There also appears to be a lot of ignorance of Pittsburgh's suburbs; quite a simplification and broad brush to paint them all as "dying mill towns."
Places like Mt. Lebanon, Fox Chapel, Sewickley, Oakmont, Dormant, Upper Saint Clair--the list of very livable middle/upper-middle class locales goes on. Allegheny County is a world apart from Fayette County.
I also vote Pittsburgh just based off of what I hear. However, like the point I was making with Hartford, how much do the not-city proper of Pittsburgh take away from the actual city of Pittsburgh? I am not familiar with PITT at all.
I should note that vast majority of Pittsburgh's small population from 2010-2020 due to a decline in the incarcerated population.
1. A state prison on the North Side was closed in 2017. It had 1,797 people in 2010.
2. Due to COVID-19, the population of the county jail was reduced in 2020, meaning the overall population of this block fell from 2,594 to 1,807 (so minus 800 or so).
Adding these two together, the city lost 2,584 incarcerated people from 2010 to 2020. The total population loss of the city was 2,733. Thus, discounting a reduced number of prisoners, the number of people only decreased by 149.
It's also true that the number of adults and households rose from 2010 to 2020, since overall more families (particularly black families) left for the suburbs, explaining why housing demand kept going up despite a (barely) shrinking population.
I also vote Pittsburgh just based off of what I hear. However, like the point I was making with Hartford, how much do the not-city proper of Pittsburgh take away from the actual city of Pittsburgh? I am not familiar with PITT at all.
Pittsburgh is a weird metro because the core city is actually a fairly representative sample of Allegheny County as a whole. It's a bit more diverse and lower income as a whole than the county, but it's also much more educated (as it has lots of college students, which artificially drops the income levels).
There are plenty of bonafide wealthy neighborhoods within the city proper, from areas like Squirrel Hill which never went through a "bad" period to areas that have experienced significant gentrification over the last 20 years in the Upper East End.
The "suburbs" are also a huge mix, n part because it's a highly fragmented county, with 150 or so different municipalities. Pittsburgh actually has wealthier suburbs than anything you can find in Philly (largely because the Philly wealth concentrations are within larger townships), and it also has dirt-poor, blighted mill towns.
As big as metro Pittsburgh is, I figured there were more quality burbs than simply Sewickley and Mt. Lebanon (isn't Upper St. Clair pretty upscale as well?). As for areas inside the City borders, while I know the far eastern section of Pittsburgh (don't know the neighborhood name) is very exclusive with several mansions, I did think it was as extensive as Shaker Heights, Lakewood (near Lake Erie), or even lower Cleveland Heights (which is often overlooked as a real tony district esp along the Fairmount mansion corridor and Ambler Heights/Chestnut Hills overlooking Cleveland).
Pittsburgh has plenty of "quality" suburbs if you're looking for like a safe area with "good schools." Where we're lacking is in upper-middle class areas outside of the city with a walkable town center - in part because Squirrel Hill is within city limits and has essentially filled that function for generations.
Pittsburgh has plenty of "quality" suburbs if you're looking for like a safe area with "good schools." Where we're lacking is in upper-middle class areas outside of the city with a walkable town center - in part because Squirrel Hill is within city limits and has essentially filled that function for generations.
^ This. Other than Mt. Lebanon we don't really have any suburbs like Squirrel Hill. Sewickley and Oakmont are nice, but both are rather distant from the urban core and are on the smaller side (albeit Oakmont is growing moderately via that large new master-planned housing community there---Edgewater?). Otherwise we do have a lot of ho-hum "I want a vinyl-clad 3-BR/2-BA home with an attached garage on 1/4-acre lot of grass on a street without sidewalks because the township can't afford them" suburbs that aren't anything special.
Agree in a way, but atleast Pittsburgh and Baltimore have some sort of a cool urban neighborhood that is a destination. Hartford's is West Hartford, just outside the city. If they can find a way to remove 91 or do something to the highways/crime problem, the City of Hartford has a lot of protentional. But I think for now, the suburbs are seeing most of the growth potential. Like West Hartford.
The city of Hartford has some areas it can displace its lowe middle income population but its large poor population is held in place Physically the city need less work than everywhere but Milwaukee. it literally just needs to be cleaned and maintained. THe outright abadone,ent/Blight has been going away steadily.
It's extreeeemely walkable and bikeale. I literally walked 90% of city, easily. And it has some nice architecture and is pretty functional economically and gridded. It is not like it's bare in its retail corridors. It's just the feeling of poverty is very powerful. The abundant social services and scant police presence are major contributors to that fact. Exclusionary zoning mean the poor really are hostage to Hartford with their only hope for refuge being across state lines in Springfield Or way down in Bridgeport/New Haven. But I dont think New Haven is taking applications for more poor given its trajectory. Springfield despite its affordability, proximity, and chance at more physical space-is difficult to move to simply because you need to "register" all your everything in a new state.
If you could get the stench of poverty off Hartford it would be ripe to gentrify given its layout, economic strength, affordability (possibility to flip) and structural density. It's also rather flat and gridded as it sit within a Valley. Easy to Develop.
The city of Hartford has some areas it can displace its lowe middle income population but its large poor population is held in place Physically the city need less work than everywhere but Milwaukee. it literally just needs to be cleaned and maintained. THe outright abadone,ent/Blight has been going away steadily.
It's extreeeemely walkable and bikeale. I literally walked 90% of city, easily. And it has some nice architecture and is pretty functional economically and gridded. It is not like it's bare in its retail corridors. It's just the feeling of poverty is very powerful. The abundant social services and scant police presence are major contributors to that fact. Exclusionary zoning mean the poor really are hostage to Hartford with their only hope for refuge being across state lines in Springfield Or way down in Bridgeport/New Haven. But I dont think New Haven is taking applications for more poor given its trajectory. Springfield despite its affordability, proximity, and chance at more physical space-is difficult to move to simply because you need to "register" all your everything in a new state.
If you could get the stench of poverty off Hartford it would be ripe to gentrify given its layout, economic strength, affordability (possibility to flip) and structural density. It's also rather flat and gridded as it sit within a Valley. Easy to Develop.
I agree with all of this. Super walkable. Easy to develop.
All these cities have potential but it’s a tough call to say which one actually manages to start growing to any great degree.
People are giving lots of reasons for potential, but I’m not convinced that translates into reality.
I can get grumpy about Milwaukee sometimes.
I live pretty close by, but it really has a ton of untapped potential. The lakefront, downtown and surrounding parts, the neighborhoods… even the weather is tame. Cold, but generally harmless.
It also hasn’t really experienced the same sort of decline that other rustbelt cities have seen.
Crime, taxes, atrocious street conditions, and reckless driving are the biggest hurdles to achieving greater livability. They’re working on all those except maybe the taxes (***).
It has a great housing stock, its affordable, diverse economy, unique cultural identity, etc. Of course it’s also close to Chicago and reasonably not too far from some natural resources as well.
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.
