Pittsburgh a top relocation destination (Rankin, Austin: best cities, how much, unemployed)

[nuwaver88]

Pittsburgh a top relocation destination - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

I don't know what to make of this list. Pittsburgh is #18 on the list and Cleveland is #20. Pittsburgh has gotten a lot of good pub lately and Cleveland not as much as they were getting a decade or so ago. In fact, Cleveland supposedly has fallen on harder times than Pittsburgh. I guess it is good news for Pittsburgh, but you know. Are we more comparable to Austin, who is #1 on the list, or Cleveland in a prospective transplant's mind?

[Awesomo.2000]

Those lists are always so stupid. I never been to Austin, or even Texas. Texas is the last place I really want to go to in this country. I don't get the youth obsession with Austin. There was a thread on another forum that got pretty heated about youth magnet cities. How do these cities come youth magnet cities? When I was in college every kid was going to graduate and go to 3 cities besides N.Y.; Seattle, Portland, and San Fransisco. I felt like such a dorky outcast, as mine was going back to Pittsburgh and working on the green revolution here.

I think Austin really just had good PR with announcing itself as "cool". Most college kids don't know anything about livablity, COL, or how much more unique some of the old "uncool" places are over the "cool & hip" ones. Once you get the sheep flocking, they will all go with a job, or no job.

The youth magnet thread I mentioned was about so many unemployed 20 somethings in Portland. They just want to be there, because it's "Cool".

[Hotlanta2]

Originally Posted by nuwaver88

Pittsburgh a top relocation destination - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

I don't know what to make of this list. Pittsburgh is #18 on the list and Cleveland is #20. Pittsburgh has gotten a lot of good pub lately and Cleveland not as much as they were getting a decade or so ago. In fact, Cleveland supposedly has fallen on harder times than Pittsburgh. I guess it is good news for Pittsburgh, but you know. Are we more comparable to Austin, who is #1 on the list, or Cleveland in a prospective transplant's mind?

Well according to the Census Bureau's estimates, it can't be as good as it sounds:

Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html - broken link)

Pittsburgh will have lost the fourth greatest percentage of its population in cities over 100,000.

The biggest losers:

1. New Orleans
2. Cleveland
3. Flint
4. Pittsburgh
5. Buffalo

It's bad. It's time to stop saying "Pittsburgh is the greatest city in history and we need no changes."

For anyone who has never been to Austin, please shut up. And trying to make Pittsburgh out to be this utopia is just strange. It's not a terrible place, lovely in fact in certain areas. But it appears prettier in pictures and at night... Just because it has a few jobs in the education and medical sector does not qualify it for this heroic spot you people seem to insist on giving it. Are there some bright spots? Definitely. But telling people out right lies about our economy and the housing it just plain mean.

If you are hellbent on moving here - welcome. But if you have not decided, then I would highly suggest you drive around the city - north, south, east and west of it to decide for yourself. Being driven around by a Realtor is one thing and different than doing the actual driving yourself. I would highly recommend you pend an entire day driving around the neighborhood of your choice to see if it truly lives up to your standards.

I think many would be surprised to find it probably does not.

[BrianTH]

These links provide some more details on the four criteria used:

Relocation.com Announces 'Best Cities for a Fresh Start' Rankings (http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-21-2009/0005030723&EDATE= - broken link)

And on how the cities being evaluated ranked on each criteria:

Relocation.com’s Top Cities for a Fresh Start | Relocation.com

Versus Cleveland, Pittsburgh was ranked lower in terms of "popularity" as measured by moving service quote requests on relocation.com weighted by population and a little lower on housing affordability (although both ranked high on the latter measure). In contrast, Pittsburgh ranked higher on volunteerism (see the links for how this was measured and why it was included) and prospects for economic/job growth (measured by Forbes.com's list of the Best Places for Businesses and Careers).

As usual, I think the composite rankings don't really tell you anything significant. But some of the data is somewhat interesting to me.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Hotlanta2

Well according to the Census Bureau's estimates, it can't be as good as it sounds . . . .

I'm just going to note again that I don't think the City proper is a particularly useful unit for tracking population dynamics (I think it makes more sense to look at things like the Census-defined urban areas, which don't depend on political unit boundaries). Plus, there is a specific problem with the way the Census estimates the populations of subcounty places like cities: they collect county-level data and then impute that to subcounty places based on counting housing units, and that can lead to errors if the city and county aren't experiencing roughly similar dynamics in terms of persons per household and/or occupancy rates.

Fortunately, in 2010 we will get an actual Census, and that should give us a better idea of what has been going on in the region (e.g., we should get an actual count for the Census-defined urban area of Pittsburgh).

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by Hotlanta2

Well according to the Census Bureau's estimates, it can't be as good as it sounds:

Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html - broken link)

Pittsburgh will have lost the fourth greatest percentage of its population in cities over 100,000.

The biggest losers:

1. New Orleans
2. Cleveland
3. Flint
4. Pittsburgh
5. Buffalo

It's bad. It's time to stop saying "Pittsburgh is the greatest city in history and we need no changes."

For anyone who has never been to Austin, please shut up. And trying to make Pittsburgh out to be this utopia is just strange. It's not a terrible place, lovely in fact in certain areas. But it appears prettier in pictures and at night... Just because it has a few jobs in the education and medical sector does not qualify it for this heroic spot you people seem to insist on giving it. Are there some bright spots? Definitely. But telling people out right lies about our economy and the housing it just plain mean.

If you are hellbent on moving here - welcome. But if you have not decided, then I would highly suggest you drive around the city - north, south, east and west of it to decide for yourself. Being driven around by a Realtor is one thing and different than doing the actual driving yourself. I would highly recommend you pend an entire day driving around the neighborhood of your choice to see if it truly lives up to your standards.

I think many would be surprised to find it probably does not.

Don't be a troll! Some of our population losses are from old people dying.

[Awesomo.2000]

Originally Posted by Hotlanta2

It's bad. It's time to stop saying "Pittsburgh is the greatest city in history and we need no changes."

For anyone who has never been to Austin, please shut up. And trying to make Pittsburgh out to be this utopia is just strange. It's not a terrible place, lovely in fact in certain areas. But it appears prettier in pictures and at night... Just because it has a few jobs in the education and medical sector does not qualify it for this heroic spot you people seem to insist on giving it. Are there some bright spots? Definitely. But telling people out right lies about our economy and the housing it just plain mean.

.

Nobody here even did what you just said. NOBODY. I posted on how PR can change city images,and the OP just asked a question. Would you please stop. I always post the truth. I know Pittsburgh has ugly spots. I never try to pretend it is utopia. It is underrated, and it is livable. I always post about how areas like the Mon valley, and others need dire help. Don't put words in people's mouth. That is just a jackass thing to do.

Every city has ugly spots, and cities that don't like Charlotte just have huge swaths of god awful boring sprawl. I myself, would rather live in a older city with Character and having blightend areas than a newer city with no character whith no blight, but just sprawl everywhere. That is me. But don't come in here and accuse people of trying to act like this is utopia, and lying to people about their city. Nobody in here is lying, and nobody in here is pretending this is utopia.

[Hotlanta2]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm just going to note again that I don't think the City proper is a particularly useful unit for tracking population dynamics (I think it makes more sense to look at things like the Census-defined urban areas, which don't depend on political unit boundaries). Plus, there is a specific problem with the way the Census estimates the populations of subcounty places like cities: they collect county-level data and then impute that to subcounty places based on counting housing units, and that can lead to errors if the city and county aren't experiencing roughly similar dynamics in terms of persons per household and/or occupancy rates.

Fortunately, in 2010 we will get an actual Census, and that should give us a better idea of what has been going on in the region (e.g., we should get an actual count for the Census-defined urban area of Pittsburgh).

Good point. And, point well taken. 2010 will be interesting indeed. I hope for ALL our sakes it has stopped hemorrhaging.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Hotlanta2

Good point. And, point well taken. 2010 will be interesting indeed. I hope for ALL our sakes it has stopped hemorrhaging.

Obviously we shall have to see (that is what the counting is for), but I am reasonably hopeful. I would note that the urban area of Pittsburgh actually increased in population between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, so that was a positive trend. I do think many of the parts of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area outside the main urban area (rural areas and some small towns) likely continued to lose population, which obviously isn't good for those areas. But, to be very blunt, that doesn't trouble me too much personally because I don't think it really has much to do with the prospects of the urban area, and that is where I live.

The City in my mind is the real wild card (although as previously noted, I don't think it is a particularly meaningful unit to track). I think the estimates are probably too low right now, because I think it is likely occupancy rates and PPH have followed a more positive track in the City as opposed to Allegheny County as a whole. Indeed, I'd bet the City population was actually growing right now. However, I also suspect that the City was still losing people in the first few years after 2000, so what I don't really know is whether or not the City has actually gained population since 2000 (because even if it is going back up now, it still might not have gotten back to 2000 levels thanks to losses in the first part of the decade).

Of course the 2010 Census may show I am wrong about all of this. But I have at least some data to support all of these contentions, so I don't think I am making terrible bets.

[LiveinPA]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Don't be a troll! Some of our population losses are from old people dying.

I've got to laugh at the rose-colored glasses here...

Half the pro-pittsburgh threads argue that pgh does not have an elderly population problem...but I guess the population loss is from elderly people dying?

Which is it?