307,484 (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lawrenceville: houses, neighborhoods, housing)

[Geeo]

There's plenty of room for new population, although I sure wouldn't want to see 676,000 people (1950 population) crammed into this city again - not much chance of that happening. But I think we could comfortably fit 100,000 more, as long as they all don't use their cars at the same time!

[BrianTH]

I agree 400-450K, assuming decent public transportation and redevelopment of brownfields with lots of residential, would be doable.

Much beyond that, and you would have to start bulldozing existing neighborhoods to redevelop them more densely. Which shouldn't be necessary for a long time, since there is a lot more room in the core area outside the City's borders, and also potentially in bedroom communities farther out that could be connected with rapid commuter services.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

lots of good news in the 2010-2011 estimates. All of our big cities gained, and a large number of mediums gained too (including PGH obviously). Houston's numbers are downright impressive.

[pman]

there's probably enough room for far more than an extra 90k people. you could probably add 25k downtown without the need for any additional transportation or much in the way of any infrastructure. a lot depends on where those people would live and work. how many people live in the hill district now vs 1950?
anyway,

For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs as young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers...city growth in 2011 surpassed or equaled that of suburbs in roughly 33 of the nation's 51 large metro areas, compared to just five in the last decade...Roughly 52 of the 73 cities with population of greater than 250,000 showed faster annual growth (or slower rates of losses) in 2011 than their average growth over the last decade. Cities switching from declines to gains included Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.

Cities grow more than suburbs, first time in 100 years - Money - TODAY.com

in fact, only six cities lost population
Cleveland
Detroit
St Louis
Baltimore
Cincy
Buffalo

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by pman

Cities grow more than suburbs, first time in 100 years - Money - TODAY.com

in fact, only six cities lost population
Cleveland
Detroit
St Louis
Baltimore
Cincy
Buffalo

pretty much Pittsburgh's "peer" cities.

[SPSGuy]

as much as I love that my generation is taking a far more attraction to cities, and that we are shying away from suburbs. this statement still makes me mad.

"From 2009 to 2011, just 9 percent of 29- to 34-year-olds were approved for a first-time mortgage." I get so ticked reading the political forums on this site from baby boomers taking down my generation as lazy occupiers who got everything for free. yet we will be forced to have trouble finding mortgages and retiring due to the excessive living of prior generations.

"Young adults simply can't amass the down payments needed and don't have the earnings," she said. "They will be renting for a very long time." Another statement that hits me hard.

But anyways, go Pittsburgh!

[Evergrey]

676k or bust!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

676k or bust!

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.

[SPSGuy]

Yes, 10 children in a Roman Catholic Household squeezed into a rowhome is now going to happen again. but I think Evergrey was just being sarcastic. Also, I hope the human race really considers de-populating anyways. 1 child or less people.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SPSGuy

but I think Evergrey was just being sarcastic.

Probably, but I thought it was worth briefly reviewing the basics of the situation.