2,360,867 (Pittsburgh, Butler: apartments, house, neighborhoods)

[Craziaskowboi]

UPDATE: Net migration in the Pittsburgh MSA was +3,368 last year, which means that the natural population change was -3,490. Also, the U.S. Census Bureau did a minor upward revision of the net migration estimates in 2011 and 2012.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

So let's just abandon towns in one half of the county, letting them decay, while plowing over farmland and woodlands in the other half of the county to start over?

It's easier to get into the city from Peters Township than it is from Monongahela.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

It's easier to get into the city from Peters Township than it is from Monongahela.

Exactly. Like it or not, jobs are in the Pittsburgh metro area now, not in Monongahela--so anyone moving into a town like that is likely to be commuting to the Burgh. And aren't long commutes supposed to be the sin of all soulless sins? Or was that last month's reason to bash the burbs. I lose track.

As for plowing over farmland--think of it this way. After generations of farming, a lot of those fields aren't that fertile anymore, anyway. Meanwhile, if there really is a demand for farmland and if smaller towns that are farther out are truly being abandoned, then buildings can be torn down and new fields can be planted on land that has had time to replenish.

[FreightTrainRunning]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

So let's just abandon towns in one half of the county, letting them decay, while plowing over farmland and woodlands in the other half of the county to start over?

What's the alternative? If no one wants to live there and there's logically no reason left for a place to exist, we probably need to let it go.

[zman63]

The problem with the population loss or stagnant growth is the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Pittsburgh City has the infrastructure to hold nearly 700,000 people, Allegheny County's infrastructure is for 1.62 million and the entire metro area was once 2.8 million in population. The City is 300,000, county is 1.23 million and the metro is 2.3 million. The cost of maintaining all of these roads, tiny governments and school districts costs more and there is less people.

You have a good neighborhood (Town, borough, small city) here and then one completely abandoned next door. You still have to deliver the utility services through these dead areas to reach the ones that are still good. But there is nobody to pay the fees and taxes to maintain in between. Some of the towns like Donora, Wilkinsburg, Mckees Rocks, Aliquippa, Braddock and so on held 15,000 or more people. Now they are ghost towns with infrastructure for 15,000 that still needs maintained.

The most disturbing part of this post gazette article is this statement......

The Census Bureau reported that of 381 metropolitan areas, 92 lost population between 2012 and 2013. Pittsburgh was the largest region to show any net loss.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/re...#ixzz2xCl7zN9Y


2 hrs and 45 mins west of Pittsburgh they are in the middle of a baby boom. That is a sharp contrast as to what is going on here.

[pman]

didnt cayuhoga lose 15k people?

[zman63]

Originally Posted by pman

didnt cayuhoga lose 15k people?

They are 1hr 45 mins up the road. Im talking a little further and off of I-70

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

UPDATE: Net migration in the Pittsburgh MSA was +3,368 last year, which means that the natural population change was -3,490. Also, the U.S. Census Bureau did a minor upward revision of the net migration estimates in 2011 and 2012.




It's easier to get into the city from Peters Township than it is from Monongahela.

Even if we could get to an equal amount of births and deaths, we probably would have an extra 12,000 people here over the last 4 years.

[JoeP]

The problem with the population loss or stagnant growth is the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Pittsburgh City has the infrastructure to hold nearly 700,000 people,

That's not true. While it is true that the city had about 700,000 about 70 years ago, most families were larger and the city was a crowded mess. People think of density in only good terms. The city is turning around and yes it can hold a lot more people, but most cities can't live like they did 70 years ago.

[charisb]

JoeP, your posts on this thread have been entirely too reasonable. I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to leave the internet.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by JoeP

That's not true. While it is true that the city had about 700,000 about 70 years ago, most families were larger and the city was a crowded mess. People think of density in only good terms. The city is turning around and yes it can hold a lot more people, but most cities can't live like they did 70 years ago.

My point is there are not enough taxpayers in the city to maintain its infrastructure. You probably need 150,000 more taxpayers living in the city limits to pull the city out of debt and to maintain the infrastructure.

I could then see more money going to transit and improved city schools.