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.
As of 2010 the city overall had a population of 305,704. This was down from 334,563 in 2000.
The following is a breakdown of each neighborhood by 2010 population and change in numerical value from 2000-2010. I also calculated the percentage of the overall population that lived in each major section of the city---East End, West End, North Side/North Hills, and South Side/South Hills---for both 2000 and 2010. I will follow up in replies with some observations and invite dialogue about predictions for how these figures may change for 2010-2020. Bear in mind the city is estimated to have grown to 308,090 in 2012, an increase of 2,386 since 2010. If we were to extrapolate that growth rate to 2020, then we could estimated the city's population to be around 317,634 in 2020. I personally predict that we'll actually be more in the 320,000-325,000 range by 2020 with slightly accelerated growth from 2015-2010 over 2010-2015.
EAST END
Bedford Dwellings: 1,202 (Down 935 from 2000)
Bloomfield: 8,442 (Down 755 from 2000)
*Bluff/Uptown: 6,600 (Up 2,379 from 2000)
Central Lawrenceville: 4,482 (Down 457 from 2000)
Central Oakland: 6,086 (Up 744 from 2000)
Crawford-Roberts: 2,256 (Down 437 from 2000)
East Hills: 3,169 (Down 782 from 2000)
East Liberty: 5,869 (Down 1,068 from 2000)
Friendship: 1,785 (Down 65 from 2000)
Garfield: 3,675 (Down 1,709 from 2000)
Glen Hazel: 716 (Down 158 from 2000)
Greenfield: 7,294 (Down 469 from 2000)
Hazelwood: 4,317 (Down 1,017 from 2000)
Highland Park: 6,395 (Down 354 from 2000)
Homewood North: 3,280 (Down 1,340 from 2000)
Homewood South: 2,344 (Down 1,205 from 2000)
Homewood West: 818 (Down 173 from 2000)
Larimer: 1,728 (Down 997 from 2000)
Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar: 4,883 (Down 667 from 2000)
Lower Lawrenceville: 2,341 (Down 266 from 2000)
Middle Hill District: 1,707 (Down 415 from 2000)
Morningside: 3,346 (Down 203 from 2000)
North Oakland: 10,551 (Up 694 from 2000)
Point Breeze North: 2,054 (Down 225 from 2000)
Point Breeze South: 5,315 (Down 375 from 2000)
Polish Hill: 1,274 (Down 192 from 2000)
Regent Square: 928 (Down 209 from 2000)
Shadyside: 13,915 (Up 161 from 2000)
South Oakland: 2,969 (Down 38 from 2000)
Squirrel Hill North: 11,363 (Down 32 from 2000)
Squirrel Hill South: 15,110 (Up 603 from 2000)
Stanton Heights: 4,601 (Down 414 from 2000)
Strip District: 616 (Up 301 from 2000)
Swisshelm Park: 1,361 (Down 11 from 2000)
Terrace Village: 3,228 (Up 625 from 2000)
Upper Hill District: 2,057 (Down 210 from 2000)
Upper Lawrenceville: 2,669 (Down 57 from 2000)
West Oakland: 2,604 (Up 362 from 2000)
2000 EAST END TOTAL: 172,716 (51.6% of City Population)
2010 EAST END TOTAL: 163,350 (53.4% of City Population)
2000 - 2010 EAST END CHANGE: -9,366 while gaining 1.8% share of city population.
NORTH SIDE/NORTH HILLS
Allegheny Center: 933 (Up 97 from 2000)
Allegheny West: 462 (Down 40 from 2000)
Brighton Heights: 7,247 (Down 932 from 2000)
California-Kirkbride: 761 (Down 175 from 2000)
Central North Side: 2,923 (Down 187 from 2000)
Chateau: 11 (Down 30 from 2000)
East Allegheny/Deutschtown: 2,136 (Down 611 from 2000)
Fineview: 1,285 (Down 540 from 2000)
Manchester: 2,130 (Down 352 from 2000)
Marshall-Shadeland: 6,043 (Down 779 from 2000)
North Shore: 303 (Up 36 from 2000)
Northview Heights: 1,214 (Down 1,351 from 2000)
Perry North: 4,050 (Down 580 from 2000)
Perry South: 4,145 (Down 1,099 from 2000)
Spring Garden: 884 (Down 277 from 2000)
Spring Hill/City View: 2,648 (Down 392 from 2000)
Summer Hill: 1,051 (Down 58 from 2000)
Troy Hill: 2,714 (Up 81 from 2000)
2000 NORTH SIDE/NORTH HILLS TOTAL: 48,129 (14.4% of City Population)
2010 NORTH SIDE/NORTH HILLS TOTAL: 40,940 (13.4% of City Population)
2000-2010 NORTH SIDE/NORTH HILLS CHANGE: -7,189 while losing 1.0% share of city population.
WEST END
Chartiers City: 477 (Down 141 from 2000)
Crafton Heights: 3,814 (Down 385 from 2000)
East Carnegie: 570 (Up 64 from 2000)
Elliot: 2,381 (Down 583 from 2000)
Esplen: 301 (Down 164 from 2000)
Fairywood: 1,002 (Down 52 from 2000)
Oakwood: 1,027 (Down 13 from 2000)
Ridgemont: 483 (Down 21 from 2000)
Sheraden: 5,299 (Down 802 from 2000)
West End Village: 254 (Down 179 from 2000)
Westwood: 3,066 (Up 15 from 2000)
Windgap: 1,369 (Down 87 from 2000)
2000 WEST END TOTAL: 22,391 (6.7% of City Population)
2010 WEST END TOTAL: 20,043 (6.6% of City Population)
2000-2010 WEST END CHANGE: -2,348 while losing 0.1% share of city population.
SOUTH SIDE/SOUTH HILLS
Allentown: 2,500 (Down 720 from 2000)
Arlington: 1,869 (Down 96 from 2000)
Arlington Heights: 244 (Down 46 from 2000)
Banksville: 4,144 (Down 467 from 2000)
Beechview: 7,974 (Down 798 from 2000)
Beltzhoover: 1,925 (Down 906 from 2000)
Bon Air: 808 (Down 70 from 2000)
Brookline: 13,214 (Down 1,106 from 2000)
Carrick: 10,113 (Down 572 from 2000)
Duquesne Heights: 2,425 (Down 297 from 2000)
Hays: 362 (Down 99 from 2000)
Knoxville: 3,747 (Down 685 from 2000)
Lincoln Place: 3,227 (Down 485 from 2000)
Mount Oliver: 509 (Down 163 from 2000)
Mount Washington: 8,799 (Down 1,016 from 2000)
New Homestead: 990 (Up 98 from 2000)
Overbrook: 3,644 (Down 378 from 2000)
St. Clair: 209 (Down 1,226 from 2000)
South Shore: 19 (Down 54 from 2000)
South Side Flats: 6,597 (Up 946 from 2000)
South Side Slopes: 4,423 (Down 571 from 2000)
2000 SOUTH SIDE/SOUTH HILLS TOTAL: 86,453 (25.8% of City Population)
2010 SOUTH SIDE/SOUTH HILLS TOTAL: 77,742 (25.4% of City Population
2000-2010 SOUTH SIDE/SOUTH HILLS CHANGE: -8,711 while losing 0.4% share of city population.
Downtown rounded out the remainder of the city population with 3,629 inhabitants in 2010, a decrease of 1,245 since 2000. Bear in mind, though, the large jump in the Bluff/Uptown neighborhood and the large decline here was largely attributed to the relocation of the prison's population.
Although the East End lost the greatest population in terms of raw numbers from 2000-2010 it also, by far, had the most to lose, which is why it actually gained share of the city's population while the other three areas housed, proportionally, fewer residents than the East End. even while all three lost fewer residents in raw numbers.
In 2020 I predict there will be no more "Chateau" as a neighborhood, and as of right now I'd have no idea where those 11 people live today there. The South Shore, which is essentially in and around Station Square, also puzzles me as to where its residents currently live, but I DO see residential construction occurring in Station Square by 2020 that will permit the South Shore to remain relevant.
Some neighborhoods that I predict will change from showing a loss from 2000-2010 to showing either minor or modest growth from 2010-2020:
Arlington (As the South Side Flats and South Side Slopes continue to become more and more expensive we should see see more urban pioneers and hipsters colonizing Arlington by the latter part of this decade). Bloomfield (Many of the 20-somethings who are currently moving into Bloomfield will be marrying and having children by the end of this decade. Assuming they stay in place, Bloomfield may be poised for a baby boom. While most will move out of the neighborhood when their children reach school-age, you wouldn't see the outflux of those young families until the 2020-2030 decade, and even then who knows as the Pittsburgh Public Schools may have improved by then). Bluff/Uptown (There's just no way a historic neighborhood wedged between Oakland and Downtown and along a major bus route will continue to languish. Most of the growth seen over the past decade was the result of the difference in how the prison population was accounted for as it was shifted from Downtown to this neighborhood. You'll see organic growth, though, also by 2020 here). Central Lawrenceville (Most of the old-timers who have been dying off will have died off or moved away to places like Shaler Township by the middle of this decade, accelerating the growth we've been seeing here of hipsters and young professionals from 2015-2020. As with Bloomfield you may see a baby boom here, too, either by 2020 or shortly thereafter). Central North Side (The Mexican War Streets are hot right now, and they'll be even hotter in the coming years as the Garden Theater Block project is finished and as more of the North Shore's parking lots are filled in with attractions and destinations. I foresee the Central North Side attracting more 30-somethings and 40-somethings than the 20-somethings that have been flooding into Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, and even Polish Hill over the past five years, though. The Central North Side will become the best neighborhood for DINKs---dual income/no kids---in the city). Central Oakland (I don't foresee the "meds and eds" bubble bursting here in Pittsburgh anytime soon, and with continued growth of UPMC, Pitt, Carlow, and CMU, all of which dominate Oakland, modest growth will likely continue through 2020. Pitt is building a large new dormitory on Fifth Avenue as we speak, and I predict you'll see more infill and tear-downs over the next decade in Central Oakland as the city and private developers try to cram more people here. The city will NEED to work to get light rail or a subway from Downtown to Oakland ASAP). East Liberty (Once the Highland/Wallace Building is completed we'll see more people living in the core of East Liberty. If that project is successful, which I'm certain it will be, we'll see more smaller-scale loft/condo/apartment projects throughout the heart of East Liberty, as it continues to shed its formerly nefarious reputation and re-establishes itself as the "Second Downtown" of the East End, behind Oakland. Once again the city will need to pay attention to the East End for a change of pace and extend a subway or light rail line from Downtown through Oakland to East Liberty to accommodate this future growth). Garfield (This neighborhood had a horrid reputation in the early-2000s, and any attempt at decelerating its population loss over the past few years was too little and too late. With that being said I think by the end of this current decade we'll start to see modest population growth again in Garfield; we've already seen urban pioneers and even young professionals living in the streets a block or two in from Penn Avenue, and I predict that will continue). Larimer (I personally don't foresee this happening by 2020, but some on here keep tossing around Larimer's name like it will become this red-hot place overnight. Bakery Square is in Larimer, and it does make sense that as East Liberty becomes more attractive Larimer SHOULD take off. If it does, however, by 2020 is uncertain). Lower Lawrenceville (The trendy people have already branded this neighborhood has "LoLa". The Iron City Brewery site straddles the border between LoLa and Polish Hill, which may become PoHi at this rate, and it will feature some housing options. I predict the neighborhood directly behind Church Brew Works will continue to increase in density, and more infill projects like Doughboy Square will also come into play to help boost the population here by 2020). Manchester (As the Central North Side becomes more expensive, Manchester is the next likely candidate in line for growth. We've already seen it occurring in parts of the neighborhood, but I predict it will be more widespread by 2020). North Oakland (As Central Oakland runs out of room to grow it makes sense that North Oakland, which also offers ease of access to Shadyside and Downtown, will accelerate in growth. Some currently run-down student housing will be razed and replaced. I can already envision the block of Melwood Avenue between Centre Avenue and Baum Boulevard facing that fate). North Shore (In addition to the Morgan at North Shore complex I can also envision one more project going in near where Toby Keith's restaurant will be going---near Stage AE. With such a low population to begin with just a couple hundred new people in one new apartment complex would cause this neighborhood to boom). Polish Hill (We have one of the most active neighborhood associations in the city, and as part of our long-term planning process last year we recognized that there is an undersupply of housing in the neighborhood relative to demand to live here. Right now it's a rarity for a home to come onto the market here, and it's also rare to find an apartment to rent here. This unmet demand could be met with more aggressive efforts by the city to "force" those who are currently sitting on derelict properties, including two rowhomes across Brereton Street from me, to sell to developers to provide much-needed new housing units. Whether or not this will happen by 2020 is uncertain, but we're one of the few safe and somewhat affordable neighborhoods left within walking distance to both Oakland and Downtown). Shadyside (This neighborhood's recent inclusion into the Allderdice school feeding pattern along with its growing reputation as being an LGBT mecca should both serve to help continue modest growth in the neighborhood. Space to build is at a premium, but there is one decent-sized apartment building going up on Ellsworth Avenue, across from the Shadyside Saloon, and there are other parcels I can think of in the neighborhood that could undergo residential conversion). South Shore (A narrow part of the city right around Station Square, this area SHOULD be home to more residential projects in the coming years. I'd say the future vitality of the businesses in Station Square, which already has a struggling small shopping mall, depends upon it). Strip District (New residential projects will continue to infill here, including the one currently under construction near the Cork Factory Lofts, those planned by Buncher on the riverfront behind the produce terminal, and others).
One thing I think your forgetting is the a rise in the quality of houses and wealth of the householders doesn't mean an increase in population.
Here in the 9th Ward of Lawrenceville north of Butler, we've definitely seen a large number of houses remodeled, fancier cars on the street and upscale new residents moving in during the 5 1/2 years I've been here.
But the population has actually gone down by my guestimate. Not nearly as many families here. If a couple of guys buy a beat-to-hell old rowhouse and move in--its a reduction in population if you had a multigenerational section 8 family there before they undertook the project.
If hipsters start moving into largely intact Arlington, you'll see single individuals and couples displacing the families that are up there now.
If you find out where the displaced lower income families will be going, you'll figure out where the increase in city population is going to be.
Carrick, Overbrook and Beechview are largely physically intact, none with a really nefarious rep, and on major transit lines. The city would love to have new housing in Larimer and Homewood-Brushton on the large flat urban prairies out there that would be easy to build on. I drove out to the meat market on Larimer near the bridge, with all of the number of vacant and buildable lots on that avenue, there is room for anyone who wants to live there and the renters being displaced from L'ville due to rising rents/lack of available are going to have to live somewhere.
Last edited by I_Like_Spam; 12-25-2012 at 06:08 PM..
Reason: grammar
In 2020 I predict there will be no more "Chateau" as a neighborhood, and as of right now I'd have no idea where those 11 people live today there. The South Shore, which is essentially in and around Station Square, also puzzles me as to where its residents currently live, but I DO see residential construction occurring in Station Square by 2020 that will permit the South Shore to remain relevant.
There are approximately 2 intact homes in "Chateau", one behind the Mickey D's and one left on Ridge Avenue below Allegheny Ave.
Of course, the census bureau may also be counting "homeless" individuals who might be in the area, as well as casino patrons who are permanently sitting at a slot machine in the neighborhood long enough to be counted. And the possibility of Census Bureau mistakes is definitely there as well, the bureau isn't infallible and neither is its staff.
Looking at the "South Shore" map, there are definitely homes within the official boundaries of "South Shore" on the portion of New Arlington below the PJ McArdle as well as on East Sycamore St- particularly the rump portion of East Sycamore on its former route down to the north portal of the Mt. Wash streetcar tunnel.
Good idea also to look at Pittsburgh institutional populations- you should consider in your analysis not not only the County Jail in the Bluff but also Western Pen in Marshall-Shadeland and the VA dom care, Shuman Center and Lemington Home out in Lincoln Lemington.
One thing I think your forgetting is the a rise in the quality of houses and wealth of the householders doesn't mean an increase in population.
Allegheny West is a great example of this. Gentrification is probably 85% done, but what that has meant is the conversion of the old grand houses from multi-unit back into palatial single-family housing. Few people who live in these houses have children, meaning DINKs/empty nesters (or, in some cases, a single person) occupy a space which formerly housed dozens in some cases.
Much better indicators of the growth of a neighborhood include changes in the number of households, and changes in the number of occupied housing units. Gentrification only really leads to population growth once it hits the South Side phase - where peak local displacement has passed, and actual new developments are increasing the number of housing options. Most neighborhoods don't have enough intact vacant housing options to pick up any slack worth mentioning. Lawrenceville is nearing the transition point, but I don't see it happening in many other places - especially places like Bloomfield or East Liberty where large working-class families are going to have to relocate elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
In 2020 I predict there will be no more "Chateau" as a neighborhood, and as of right now I'd have no idea where those 11 people live today there. .
IIRC, besides the one occupied house by the McDonald's, the rest of the population lives on housboats in the marina(s) in the neighborhood.
Arlington (As the South Side Flats and South Side Slopes continue to become more and more expensive we should see see more urban pioneers and hipsters colonizing Arlington by the latter part of this decade).
I don't see it. Arlington isn't going to get much worse (even if they close the last remaining chunk of Arlington Heights), but it's not a convenient area to get to East Carson Street, except by car, and if you're going to drive, why live in an unwalkable semi-ghetto with ugly housing?
If Arlington turned, it would have to be its own thing, and If it came to that, I'd expect to see the East Warrington or Brownsville corridors gentrify first. Both are much more intact business districts which run for many blocks. In contrast, the commercial section of Arlington Avenue is around three blocks long, and around half missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Bloomfield (Many of the 20-somethings who are currently moving into Bloomfield will be marrying and having children by the end of this decade. Assuming they stay in place, Bloomfield may be poised for a baby boom. While most will move out of the neighborhood when their children reach school-age, you wouldn't see the outflux of those young families until the 2020-2030 decade, and even then who knows as the Pittsburgh Public Schools may have improved by then).
I don't see it. There's still a lot of poor renter families in Bloomfield. Keep in mind, as an example, that Woolslair (which until recently, was the local Elementary for Polish Hill, Bloomfield, Friendship, and Shadyside, has a pretty solid black majority despite only drawing from white neighborhoods. Every time a family with kids moves out of the neighborhood, you probably need two households of 20somethings to make up the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Bluff/Uptown (There's just no way a historic neighborhood wedged between Oakland and Downtown and along a major bus route will continue to languish. Most of the growth seen over the past decade was the result of the difference in how the prison population was accounted for as it was shifted from Downtown to this neighborhood. You'll see organic growth, though, also by 2020 here).
Uptown will grow. In 2010, only 475 people lived in non-group quarters (meaning, not in the jail or on in Duquesne dorms. There's no way that the new apartment projects coming on won't counteract dropping household size in the still rowhouse-occupied blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Central Lawrenceville (Most of the old-timers who have been dying off will have died off or moved away to places like Shaler Township by the middle of this decade, accelerating the growth we've been seeing here of hipsters and young professionals from 2015-2020. As with Bloomfield you may see a baby boom here, too, either by 2020 or shortly thereafter).
There's hardly any new units coming on the market in Central Lawrenceville yet. I can count on one hand the major projects I've seen in my hood since moving here five years ago. And I definitely have noticed, as has been noted, the Section 8 renters being displaced to Millvale and the like had much larger families than the one or two 20somethings replacing them in the lowest of low alley houses. The decline will be a lot less, but I think absent a major redevelopment by the river, it's probably going to continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Central North Side (The Mexican War Streets are hot right now, and they'll be even hotter in the coming years as the Garden Theater Block project is finished and as more of the North Shore's parking lots are filled in with attractions and destinations. I foresee the Central North Side attracting more 30-somethings and 40-somethings than the 20-somethings that have been flooding into Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, and even Polish Hill over the past five years, though. The Central North Side will become the best neighborhood for DINKs---dual income/no kids---in the city).
Agreed. I dunno if this means growth though. On one hand, new projects are being built there, like the Federal Street rowhouses, which means available housing is increasing. On the other hand, the working-class black families leaving the area had more people per household than the childless yuppie couples replacing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Central Oakland (I don't foresee the "meds and eds" bubble bursting here in Pittsburgh anytime soon, and with continued growth of UPMC, Pitt, Carlow, and CMU, all of which dominate Oakland, modest growth will likely continue through 2020. Pitt is building a large new dormitory on Fifth Avenue as we speak, and I predict you'll see more infill and tear-downs over the next decade in Central Oakland as the city and private developers try to cram more people here. The city will NEED to work to get light rail or a subway from Downtown to Oakland ASAP).
Nothing will stop the growth of Central Oakland sadly. Unlike elsewhere, all the families long ago left, so the last remaining old-timers tend to be truly ancient. Slumlords continue to snap these up, subdivide them, and rent them out to a half-dozen undergrads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
East Liberty (Once the Highland/Wallace Building is completed we'll see more people living in the core of East Liberty. If that project is successful, which I'm certain it will be, we'll see more smaller-scale loft/condo/apartment projects throughout the heart of East Liberty, as it continues to shed its formerly nefarious reputation and re-establishes itself as the "Second Downtown" of the East End, behind Oakland. Once again the city will need to pay attention to the East End for a change of pace and extend a subway or light rail line from Downtown through Oakland to East Liberty to accommodate this future growth).
East Liberty South of Broad Street will probably see a growth in population, barring the demolition of Penn Plaza and replacement with something lower density (which seems more likely now - I saw on PlanPGH's website they plan to connect Amber and Saint Clair back through, which would mean demoing the complex. North of Broad I expect the population to continue to decline, as multi-unit housing will continue to be converted back to single-family use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Garfield (This neighborhood had a horrid reputation in the early-2000s, and any attempt at decelerating its population loss over the past few years was too little and too late. With that being said I think by the end of this current decade we'll start to see modest population growth again in Garfield; we've already seen urban pioneers and even young professionals living in the streets a block or two in from Penn Avenue, and I predict that will continue).
Hopefully the infill project discussed the other day works well. As I see it, barring intervention Garfield is going to split into two neighborhoods. Everything south of Broad (on both sides of the street) is intact, and will probably be gentrified eventually. Further up the slope the neighborhood is almost as demolished as Larimer, and if natural forces take their course, nearly everything but the new mixed-income apartments at the crest of the hill would probably be gone in 10-20 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Larimer (I personally don't foresee this happening by 2020, but some on here keep tossing around Larimer's name like it will become this red-hot place overnight. Bakery Square is in Larimer, and it does make sense that as East Liberty becomes more attractive Larimer SHOULD take off. If it does, however, by 2020 is uncertain).
If Larimer took off, I'd see it starting around the Hamilton and Frankstown Corridors. Maybe the potential relocation of the Shadow Lounge would do it? I think gentrification and mixed-income infill are mutually exclusive though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Lower Lawrenceville (The trendy people have already branded this neighborhood has "LoLa". The Iron City Brewery site straddles the border between LoLa and Polish Hill, which may become PoHi at this rate, and it will feature some housing options. I predict the neighborhood directly behind Church Brew Works will continue to increase in density, and more infill projects like Doughboy Square will also come into play to help boost the population here by 2020).
The population will only increase significantly if the old Iron City site gets redeveloped this decade. Lawrenceville in general has a remarkably low amount of vacant lots compared to other neighborhoods which have gone through rough patches, and few other obvious sites for redevelopment exist in Lower Lawrenceville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Manchester (As the Central North Side becomes more expensive, Manchester is the next likely candidate in line for growth. We've already seen it occurring in parts of the neighborhood, but I predict it will be more widespread by 2020).
No. Manchester will shrink if it gentrifies more. That said, it has a lot more vacant lots Central North Side, so there are real options for redevelopment here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
North Oakland (As Central Oakland runs out of room to grow it makes sense that North Oakland, which also offers ease of access to Shadyside and Downtown, will accelerate in growth. Some currently run-down student housing will be razed and replaced. I can already envision the block of Melwood Avenue between Centre Avenue and Baum Boulevard facing that fate).
North Oakland already has a ton of condos - probably more than anywhere else in the city. I don't see what about that block in particular merits razing though. Half of it is already small apartment buildings, and in general it's in better shape than much of "Central Oakland."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
North Shore (In addition to the Morgan at North Shore complex I can also envision one more project going in near where Toby Keith's restaurant will be going---near Stage AE. With such a low population to begin with just a couple hundred new people in one new apartment complex would cause this neighborhood to boom).
Yep. Nowhere to go but up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Polish Hill (We have one of the most active neighborhood associations in the city, and as part of our long-term planning process last year we recognized that there is an undersupply of housing in the neighborhood relative to demand to live here. Right now it's a rarity for a home to come onto the market here, and it's also rare to find an apartment to rent here. This unmet demand could be met with more aggressive efforts by the city to "force" those who are currently sitting on derelict properties, including two rowhomes across Brereton Street from me, to sell to developers to provide much-needed new housing units. Whether or not this will happen by 2020 is uncertain, but we're one of the few safe and somewhat affordable neighborhoods left within walking distance to both Oakland and Downtown).
The problem with new development in Polish Hill is basically scattered-site infill is expensive, and it's really not feasible to build without either government subsidies (meaning mixed-income housing), or really high demand. Add to this the topography of Polish Hill and it gets even more complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Shadyside (This neighborhood's recent inclusion into the Allderdice school feeding pattern along with its growing reputation as being an LGBT mecca should both serve to help continue modest growth in the neighborhood. Space to build is at a premium, but there is one decent-sized apartment building going up on Ellsworth Avenue, across from the Shadyside Saloon, and there are other parcels I can think of in the neighborhood that could undergo residential conversion).
Honestly, while I do think Shadyside will begin being seen as more of an alternative for parents, this could lead to a shrinking in population. This is because more parents will cause some people to become interested in buying badly-subdivided Victorians formerly used as student rentals and restoring them to former glory. A yuppie family of 3-4 will still be a lot smaller than the number of students formerly in such houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
South Shore (A narrow part of the city right around Station Square, this area SHOULD be home to more residential projects in the coming years. I'd say the future vitality of the businesses in Station Square, which already has a struggling small shopping mall, depends upon it).
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Strip District (New residential projects will continue to infill here, including the one currently under construction near the Cork Factory Lofts, those planned by Buncher on the riverfront behind the produce terminal, and others).
There is no way the Strip District doesn't have an explosion in population this decade.
Another look at the change in population for Pittsburgh from 2000 to 2010 is on a scale of miles from City Hall. In the first mile, the population went up by 60 people. With one very small exception, all zones out to 12 miles from City Hall went down in population. Then between miles 13 and 18 the population went up, to only begin to go down again.
Keep in mind that the "miles" measurement is to the centroid of a census tract. As you move away from the city center the census tracts tend to get geographically bigger. Mile 7 is probably not more than two tracts. It is not so much a ring around the city with no people, as it means that the centroids of the census tracts just happened to fall in the ring before and after mile 7-8.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 12-25-2012 at 10:56 PM..
One thing I think your forgetting is the a rise in the quality of houses and wealth of the householders doesn't mean an increase in population.
Here in the 9th Ward of Lawrenceville north of Butler, we've definitely seen a large number of houses remodeled, fancier cars on the street and upscale new residents moving in during the 5 1/2 years I've been here.
But the population has actually gone down by my guestimate. Not nearly as many families here. If a couple of guys buy a beat-to-hell old rowhouse and move in--its a reduction in population if you had a multigenerational section 8 family there before they undertook the project.
This has happened all over SF. The population of families has gone down and the population of unrelated adults living together has gone up. So in homes that used to house a family of 4+ people and maybe their one car, you now have 2+ unrelated adults with each of their cars living as roommates. The population of cars has exponentially increased because due to high rents, you have larger numbers of unrelated adults sharing places. Parking has always been at a premium and now it has reached a ridiculous level. Does Pittsburgh have parking problems in the neighborhoods you describe?
Downtown rounded out the remainder of the city population with 3,629 inhabitants in 2010, a decrease of 1,245 since 2000. Bear in mind, though, the large jump in the Bluff/Uptown neighborhood and the large decline here was largely attributed to the relocation of the prison's population.
The strip, downtown, and the north shore are often lumped together in the PDP's "greater downtown" number so it may be useful for you to do so as well.
Strip District: 616 (Up 301 from 2000)
North Shore: 303 (Up 36 from 2000)
Downtown rounded out the remainder of the city population with 3,629 inhabitants in 2010, a decrease of 1,245 since 2000
Bluff/Uptown: 6,600 (Up 2,379 from 2000)
Quote:
When looking at the residential sector of Greater Downtown, the geographic area is
inclusive of the Golden Triangle, North Shore, Near Strip (to 26th street) and the Lower
Hill/Bluff. The population according to 2010 U.S. Census estimates was approximately
7,796, up 21.3% over the 2000 population of approximately 6,425. All of the areas
within Greater Downtown experienced an increase in population in 2010 over 2000.
The Golden Triangle grew the most, an increase of nearly 1,000 residents, or over 33%.
if I'm not mistaken, the population increase downtown since 2010 has been even more robust with plenty of supply in the pipeline. perhaps the advantage of lumping them together is you don't worry about the prison move. as others have suggested, an influx of younger people doesn't mean more people...but where you see new construction you are more likely to see an increase. I'd also suggest that census numbers aren't a wonderful way to predict what is happening today since it includes numbers that are not 13 years old.
Quote:
According to the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, the residential population Downtown jumped by 21.3 percent to 7,796 people between 2000 and 2010. It estimates there are now more than 8,000 people living in the Golden Triangle, the North Shore, the Strip and the lower Hill District.
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.
