Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2012, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,361 posts, read 16,890,821 times
Reputation: 12390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Because of declining people per household, that wouldn't be possible without WAY more housing units than the City has ever had.

Which is not impossible, but again it would likely require leveling existing neighborhoods (unless perhaps we started building residential highrises on every available brownfield site.
According to the 1950 Census data I downloaded, we had around 191,000 households in 1950 and 135,000 households in 2010. Overall decline of around 29%.

This implies we have enough room for roughly 56,000 additional households in Pittsburgh. Of course, that presumes that the housing stock from 1950 hasn't changed, when much of the old stock is gone, and some new stock has taken its place. Still, we should be able to fill the missing teeth left in many neighborhoods regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Wilkinsburg
1,657 posts, read 2,679,687 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPSGuy View Post
Also, I hope the human race really considers de-populating anyways. 1 child or less people.
Population growth rates generally seem to fall as humans become more prosperous, so the population is somewhat self-regulating.



World Population Growth Rate (1950-2050est)

Last edited by ML North; 06-28-2012 at 01:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Philly
10,220 posts, read 16,741,433 times
Reputation: 2971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212 View Post
pretty much Pittsburgh's "peer" cities.
this is exactly what I mean when I say that the city is repositioning itself. heck, johnstown was the fastest shrinking city in the state. hopefully pittsburgh's success will give some hope to places like connelsville and johnstown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
According to the 1950 Census data I downloaded, we had around 191,000 households in 1950 and 135,000 households in 2010. Overall decline of around 29%.

This implies we have enough room for roughly 56,000 additional households in Pittsburgh. Of course, that presumes that the housing stock from 1950 hasn't changed, when much of the old stock is gone, and some new stock has taken its place. Still, we should be able to fill the missing teeth left in many neighborhoods regardless.
I too think Brian is being a bit overly dramatic. Pittsburgh has some very empty spaces that I think people forget about. There is a lot of room for new development without levelling existing neighborhoods which might lead people to believe you'd have to level squirrell hill, which isn't the case. doubling the population would only give you a density the same as what philadelphia has today (and philadelphia has vast empty spaces as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Because of declining people per household, that wouldn't be possible without WAY more housing units than the City has ever had.Which is not impossible, but again it would likely require leveling existing neighborhoods (unless perhaps we started building residential highrises on every available brownfield site.
was anyone else struck by the photo on popcitymedia taken from the hill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:07 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,891,955 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman View Post
I too think Brian is being a bit overly dramatic.
To the math!

56,000 additional occupied housing units at about 2.11 people per household (2010 amount) is about 118,000 additional people. Add that to the 2010 population count, and you get around 424,000 people. Hence why I suggested 400-450K should be doable.

Quote:
Pittsburgh has some very empty spaces that I think people forget about. There is a lot of room for new development without levelling existing neighborhoods which might lead people to believe you'd have to level squirrell hill, which isn't the case.
Of course there is indeed a lot of available space, but it would actually have to be used to get us those 56,000 additional housing units. Specifically, in 2010 there were about 20,000 more housing units than households, so even after getting almost all the existing units renovated and occupied, you would need to find space for around 35-40000 more units.

That's a lot of new units! I think we can do it, but I also think by the time we got there, we would be running out of sites. Hence, why you would start having to destroy existing structures and replacing them (which is already happening, I might note, in neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill).

Quote:
doubling the population would only give you a density the same as what philadelphia has today (and philadelphia has vast empty spaces as well.
Philadelphia's topography and existing built environment is very different from ours. Again, it is theoretically possible to remake Pittsburgh along those lines, but not unless one of two things happen:

(1) We change the nature of existing semi-urban neighborhoods to make them a lot more dense; or

(2) We immediately start building high-rise residential in our brownfields.

I doubt (2) will happen, so we would like be confronted with whether or not to do (1).

Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical, since it will likely take us quite a while to even reach 425,000. But I do think people aren't always aware of the implications of declining people per household.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,361 posts, read 16,890,821 times
Reputation: 12390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical, since it will likely take us quite a while to even reach 425,000. But I do think people aren't always aware of the implications of declining people per household.
It could be less time than we think. Portland's population went up by around 217,000 in the past 30 years (nearly 60% increase). When you consider the number of children in Portland fell over that period, the increase in households was an even greater jump.

Last edited by eschaton; 06-28-2012 at 03:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:47 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,891,955 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It could be less time than we think.
True. I'm assuming a slow growth model, along the lines of other Northeast cities that were actually growing in recent decades. If growth went faster than that, for an extended period, then you could hit that mark a lot sooner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Philly
10,220 posts, read 16,741,433 times
Reputation: 2971
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Hence why I suggested 400-450K should be doable.
I never said doubling it was going to happen, just that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, nor would it require substantial levelling such as what is going on in places like santiago chile.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
which is already happening, I might note, in neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill).
right, but not because it has to to fit them in the city.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Philadelphia's topography and existing built environment is very different from ours. Again, it is theoretically possible to remake Pittsburgh along those lines, but not unless one of two things happen:
Philadelphia used to have almost 2.2 million people back when a third of the city (the northeast)was mostly unpopulated, just to give you an idea of how many more people it fit...mostly in rowhomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
(1) We change the nature of existing semi-urban neighborhoods to make them a lot more dense; or
(2) We immediately start building high-rise residential in our brownfields.
I doubt (2) will happen, so we would like be confronted with whether or not to do (1).
both are possible. places like lawrenceville will be a lot more attractive without all the gaps. part 2 could certainly happen in places like the strip in the near term. anyway, I wasn't saying it was going to happen, but that the city could accomodate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post

Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical, since it will likely take us quite a while to even reach 425,000. But I do think people aren't always aware of the implications of declining people per household.
yes, not worth arguing about too much. 1700 people a year would be a sea change as it is. I think a faster growth rate is desirable given how much housing stock needs to get reused and space filled but it's a start
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 05:04 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,891,955 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman View Post
Philadelphia used to have almost 2.2 million people back when a third of the city (the northeast)was mostly unpopulated, just to give you an idea of how many more people it fit...mostly in rowhomes.
Right, more people per household in more houses per land unit results in a much higher population density (I believe you are also talking about Philly's population in the 1950s).

So how do you get all the areas of Pittsburgh which have far fewer housing units per land unit than a rowhouse neighborhood, and also far fewer people per housing unit than back in the 1950s, to such population densities per land unit?

Answer: you can't, not without changing the built environment to greatly increase the number of housing units per land unit.

Quote:
places like lawrenceville will be a lot more attractive without all the gaps.
There are not enough gaps just in places like Lawrenceville to add more than a small number of people (relative to the scales we are talking about). Indeed, the rowhouse neighborhoods are mostly already doing well and already eliminating vacancies (Lawrenceville and the South Side being top examples).

So infilling those neighborhoods is going to fall within just getting the 50-60,000 units you need to get over 400K. We're talking about the next 200K in population, another 100K or so housing units, after that. That next 100K is a lot, when you have already added 60K.

Quote:
part 2 could certainly happen in places like the strip in the near term.
The Strip will likely get multi-units at around 8-10 stories. Again, doing that is what you need just to get the City to the aforementioned 400-450K. To get to 650k+, you would need many more units in developments like that, if you weren't going to change the existing neighborhoods.

Quote:
anyway, I wasn't saying it was going to happen, but that the city could accomodate them.
Right, and I am describing what would likely have to happen to accommodate different population levels, not saying it is impossible. My point is simply that with infill of existing neighborhoods and brownfield developments like those currently on the books, you won't get much past that 425K mark (if you reach it at all). So to get to 650K+, you'd need something different to happen, and the most likely scenario is that it would involve bulldozing some existing neighborhoods in order to rebuild more densely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 07:21 PM
 
2,269 posts, read 3,779,317 times
Reputation: 2133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey View Post
676k or bust!
I always figured that it actually was above 700k during WWII. People poured into the cities during the war. A lot of people left for the suburbs between 1946, and 1950.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,361 posts, read 16,890,821 times
Reputation: 12390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
True. I'm assuming a slow growth model, along the lines of other Northeast cities that were actually growing in recent decades. If growth went faster than that, for an extended period, then you could hit that mark a lot sooner.
While I'm not saying it's likely, I think Portland is probably the best case model for Pittsburgh because.

1. The birth rate continually has fallen.
2. There has not been a sizable movement of international immigrants (unlike other west coast cities)
3. AFAIK, the borders of the city proper have been relatively stable unlike a lot of western cities, so they were not annexing tremendous areas of undeveloped land in the last 30 years. I could be wrong on this, as little information is available online. Still, the metro itself has a local planning agency there which has for the most part kept development within 1978 boundaries, so I presume comparably little suburban land has been annexed.

Thus for the most part all of Portland's growth has been from net domestic migration - exactly how Pittsburgh is going to have to grow.

In contrast, many Northeastern cities have seen net domestic outmigration, which have only been offset by positive birthrates and lots of international migration - neither of which are likely things we're going to see right away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top