Group wants to lure newcomers to city vs burbs (Pittsburgh: house, dorms)

[greg42]

Article about hashing out transportation features to make city more appealing.

Group seeks to lure newcomers to live in city, not suburbs - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/group-seeks-to-lure-newcomers-to-live-in-city-not-suburbs-629649/?p=0 - broken link)

I wonder if their 100k people in next 25 years seems a bit conservative? Because that would have to be raw incoming. It would take even more people moving in to get to 100k net gain.

This is far from the only thing that's going to make it appealing though. It will be appealing to certain types of newcomers, but I'm not sure they're going to swing that 30/70 split that much.

[BrianTH]

That article isn't really clear on what they are talking about. Aside from the issue of whether they are talking gross or net, as we have also been discussing, the City is a gateway destination for migrants to the region, thanks in part to the universities and hospitals, and other big employers in the City. Then, of course, many of those people end up moving to other parts of the area. So there is a difference between where new migrants to the region start out and where they end up longer-term.

Incidentally, that's a natural role for the central city of a large metro to play (as a gateway for new migrants). On the other hand, small changes in percentages can ultimately have large consequences, meaning exactly how many migrants to the region start in the City and exactly how many ultimately stay longer-term will have profound consequences for the development of the City.

None of this is meant to detract from the basic point of that article, which is that transportation issues are indeed a key part of preparing the City for future in-migration. But I just wouldn't get too caught up in specific percentages of the sort they were discussing.

[Evergrey]

Obviously, the 100k number over 25 years cannot refer to gross in-migration... as the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area receives over 100k in-migrants every three years. I suppose 100k sounded like an impressive number to Diana Nelson Jones... but it is an exceptionally meager figure. Perhaps the 100k number represented a projected "net migration" figure for that period? But long-term migration projections are pretty meaningless due to evolving economic situations.

If Pittsburgh MSA were to net 100k migrants over the next 25 years... it would represent a reversal of fortune from the past oh... 90 years. We would need to average a migration surplus of 4k per year. We netted close to 1500 in both '09 and '10... so I certainly think it would be possible to get to 4k in the near future considering our economic trajectory and improving national brand.

http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/frp/...Report2011.pdf

Now for the 70/30 suburb/city in-migration split... the article doesn't make clear if that holds for the Pittsburgh region. The "national patterns" Diana Nelson Jones mentioned would be significantly different from the Pittsburgh region due to the municipal hyper-fragmentation present here. Is there any migration data for the city that can make clear its share of regional in-migration? (The table BrianTH posted in another thread about city migration only listed the top sources and destinations... not the total migration).

Considering the City of Pittsburgh is one of the most underbounded major cities in the country at a mere 55 sq miles and contains less than 13% of the metropolitan population... attracting 30% of in-migrants would mean the city would be massively out-performing its suburban rivals. I can't imagine this 55 sq mile city featuring limited fresh housing inventory doing any better than that.

While there are some nice urban planning ideas presented in the article, I don't care for the intra-regional antagonistic tone. While I am frustrated by the City's geographic and political limitations, the city and suburbs need to work together. We are not in competition with each other... but with other regions across the globe.

[BrianTH]

Here is where the data in the charts in the prior thread came from:

Geographical Mobility/Migration - County-to-County Migration Flows - U.S. Census Bureau

"County/MCD-to-County/MCD Migration Flows" contains data on the City of Pittsburgh specifically. Note these are HUGE and massively complex files.

If I am using that data correctly--a very big if--for migration into the City, I got 3629 from some other country, 11519 from some other state, and 6515 from some other part of the state beside the MSA, for a total of 21663 non-MSA in-migrants.

Cheating a little, I know the domestic inflow to the MSA should have averaged around 38,000 in that period. From the county files at that source I get 8583 for international inflows to the MSA, for a total of around 47,000.

So if all that is right, then it looks like the City has recently been the first place of residence for about 46% of annual in-migrants to the MSA.

That may seem shocking, but thinking of just student churn alone, it starts to make more sense (e.g., it helps solve the housing puzzle, as every year a bunch of matriculating in-migrants to the City takes over beds vacated by a bunch of recently graduated out-migrants). Look more years into the future at the people who actually stick around the MSA long-term, and it would be a different picture.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

While there are some nice urban planning ideas presented in the article, I don't care for the intra-regional antagonistic tone. While I am frustrated by the City's geographic and political limitations, the city and suburbs need to work together. We are not in competition with each other... but with other regions across the globe.

By the way, I almost entirely agree with this sentiment. The "almost" is necessary, however, because I do think it matters for the long term health of the region how we develop, and I think it would be better to have more future development occur either in the core area or within established urbanized areas in the outlying portions of the region as opposed to new outlying greenfield developments, at least relative to how we have developed in recent decades.

But that sentiment isn't really about the City versus suburbs in general--in fact, more than anything it is about which suburbs see more development activity, and how those suburbs themselves develop. Hence why I almost entirely agree.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Here is where the data in the charts in the prior thread came from:

Geographical Mobility/Migration - County-to-County Migration Flows - U.S. Census Bureau

"County/MCD-to-County/MCD Migration Flows" contains data on the City of Pittsburgh specifically. Note these are HUGE and massively complex files.

If I am using that data correctly--a very big if--for migration into the City, I got 3629 from some other country, 11519 from some other state, and 6515 from some other part of the state beside the MSA, for a total of 21663 non-MSA in-migrants.

Cheating a little, I know the domestic inflow to the MSA should have averaged around 38,000 in that period. From the county files at that source I get 8583 for international inflows to the MSA, for a total of around 47,000.

So if all that is right, then it looks like the City has recently been the first place of residence for about 46% of annual in-migrants to the MSA.

That may seem shocking, but thinking of just student churn alone, it starts to make more sense (e.g., it helps solve the housing puzzle, as every year a bunch of matriculating in-migrants to the City takes over beds vacated by a bunch of recently graduated out-migrants). Look more years into the future at the people who actually stick around the MSA long-term, and it would be a different picture.

I forgot to account for international migrants. The numbers I used were domestic migration. So we may already be on the way toward a net gain of 100k migrants over 25 years.

I do find it hard to believe the city is the destination for almost half of all migrants. Students are a tricky issue. I assume if you're merely residing in a dorm... you're not counted as a resident... unless you change your "permanent address". Many students keep their parents' house as their permanent address.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I do find it hard to believe the city is the destination for almost half of all migrants. Students are a tricky issue. I assume if you're merely residing in a dorm... you're not counted as a resident... unless you change your "permanent address". Many students keep their parents' house as their permanent address.

I haven't looked into the specific methodology for those data files, but as a general matter the ACS now does in fact include people in group quarters, such as students in dorms. Note that "residence" is an ambiguous phrase--it can mean a lot of different things depending on the context.

Edit:

So I just checked the methodology, and they are in fact including students moving into or out of dorms (or anyone who is living in a different place from a year before).