Census reports small drop in Pittsburgh's population (Penn Hills, Bethel Park: apartments, rentals)

[UKyank]

Nm

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Pittsburgh

Did you miss where I said core city? Of course Pittsburgh has less middle-aged adults than the national average - because that grouping tilts suburban nearly everywhere. San Francisco is an exception - 43% of the population is middle aged there, which is higher than both the national average and the metro average. That's for idiosyncratic reasons which I don't think Pittsburgh would want to emulate, such as a very high cost of living and rent control.

Regardless, the question whether Pittsburgh retains as many middle-aged adults as the surrounding suburbs, or even the national average. The question is do we do it as well or better than our peer cities. I'm guessing we do, but the presence of several large universities within the city will of course skew the numbers down as a percentage somewhat. It's not like if you add 1,000 more college students, and thus the percentage of the population which is middle-aged drops, the city has become any less attractive to middle-aged people than before. Just Oakland has.

[krogerDisco]

Since 2010, Allegheny County increased its population by more than 7,000.

[wanderlust76]

It's not as neat or as interesting of a city as Pittsburgh but Columbus is doing really really well, it cannot be denied, and that is definitely a peer city. Columbus has been reporting pretty nice wage growth numbers. I still in work in Pittsburgh but some things are really starting to worry me at this stage in the game. There's some metros in NC as well that are really starting to boom and a few already have.

[bluecarebear]

Originally Posted by wanderlust76

It's not as neat or as interesting of a city as Pittsburgh but Columbus is doing really really well, it cannot be denied, and that is definitely a peer city. Columbus has been reporting pretty nice wage growth numbers. I still in work in Pittsburgh but some things are really starting to worry me at this stage in the game. There's some metros in NC as well that are really starting to boom and a few already have.

State capitals have the government jobs and those are never leaving. Columbus is always going to have healthy job growth and higher wages. Plus Ohio is a cheaper state to live in.

[bluecarebear]

Originally Posted by Merge

No surprise there. Basically Columbus is edging toward becoming a Southern city just like those you mention in NC. The South has been struggling to devalue labor since slavery, so it doesn't shock me that corporations are looking to take their business in that direction.

The South has always offered a better business climate than the North with lower taxes, less red tape, and weak or no unions.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

The South has always offered a better business climate than the North with lower taxes, less red tape, and weak or no unions.

Absolutely. Better "business climate" indeed. No regulation either!

Edit: And the irony is http://www.marketplace.org/2014/06/0...rate-subsidies! So they collect less taxes and the corporations successfully demand more government subsidies. Who do you think makes up the deficit?

[Doowlle34]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Regarding better, you're of course right that it's subjective. I like that the City of Pittsburgh gives parents and students a lot of different educational options, from arts-focused to STEM-focused curriculum. About the only suburb I considered moving to when we were looking for a new house was Dormont, since it was closer to my wife's parents and more urban than the city neighborhoods in the South Hills. But I decided against in part due to the schools. In aggregate Keystone Oaks does than Pittsburgh, but that is because it's a district where the average student is...average...with few underperformers (and also less high performers than the City). But the lack of any choices besides the neighborhood school made the option unappealing to me personally.

No one has disentangled what causes students to perform well or fall behind. Some suggest that the results are mostly due to genetics, finding a big gap in the performance of biological children (who track with their parents) and adoptive children (who mostly do not). Others have suggested that home environment can still play a role. But there have been multiple studies which have shown that schools simply don't matter, at least in any systematic fashion. Almost the entirety of differences in school performance (urban, suburban, public, private, magnet, charter, etc) comes down to the socio-economic status of the parents. When this is accounted for, there is no evidence that any kind of school is any better than any other kind. Individual teachers may be better or worse for individual students, but everything gets washed out in the averages. Meaning the best thing a parent can do is just live where they want to with the assurance it won't ruin their child.

Eschaton, we would have been happy to have you out here in the South Hills, but I take your point about more options with the city schools. On the other hand (and I think this ties-in with your recent comments about the lack of walkable amenities in Lebo, despite its "walkable" reputation), it is nice that, in both (most of) Dormont and Lebo, the elementary schools are a short walk from a fair amount of the homes. Of course, I'd also be in favor of more amenities, but (in just the last few weeks), we've walked to Thai on Potomac, Bea's Taco Town and Mintt on Banksville, Aladdin's on Washington Road, bakeries on Beverly and Potomac, and just today (and even in the rain) we walked to a special "throw-back" matinee showing at the Hollywood Theatre (complete with 10 cent popcorn). Also add in countless trips to Kuhn's market (although this is, according to one Shadyside bloke I was in a photography class with back in 2002, "where poor people shop") and a few trips to the new (and hopefully long-lasting but many fear short-lived) "international" market on Potomac, and you have quite a few walkable options in this area.

[DaisyDaisy]

Not sure Pittsburgh is trying to compete with Columbus but here's some info on job growth in Pittsburgh since we're in a Pittsburgh forum on a thread about Pittsburgh population...

Over the next decade, job seekers in the Pittsburgh region will find abundant opportunities, particularly in cybersecurity, “FinTech” (financial technology) and predictive analytics for the healthcare and energy sectors, a report released today suggests.

The need for talented individuals is already apparent on ImaginePittsburgh.com (a program of the Conference): there are more than 20,000 jobs open across the 10-county region, with cybersecurity and other IT professionals in highest demand. - See more at: Inflection Point = Opportunity for Pittsburgh Job Seekers Now and In the Future « ImaginePittsburgh Now

[eschaton]

In case anyone is curious, I went and looked at the 2010-2015 totals for the other cities and boroughs in the region. Can't do townships, because the Census doesn't track them the same way. I'm mostly focusing on Allegheny County, but I'll list a few cities and boroughs in the outlying counties too.

Franklin Park 7.02%

Jefferson Hills: 6.98%

Oakmont: 2.22%

Plum: 1.40%

Murrysville: 0.27%
Baldwin: 0.26%

Fox Chapel: -0.09%
Pleasant Hills: -0.19%
Pittsburgh: -0.43%
Carnegie: -0.51%
Duquense: -0.54%
Bethel Park: -0.60%
Monroeville: -0.74%
Whitehall -0.79%
Castle Shannon: -0.97%

Bridgeville: -1.09%
Forest Hills: -1.15%
West Mifflin: -1.17%
Washington -1.21%
Wilkinsburg: -1.25%
Crafton: -1.26%
West View: -1.27%
Brentwood: -1.36%
Munhall: -1.39%
McKeesport -1.41%
Bellevue: -1.41%
Swissvale:-1.42%
Turtle Creek -1.44%
Dormont: -1.49%
Coreopolis: - 1.53%
McKees Rocks: -1.54%
Clairton: -1.69%

Aliquippa: -2.55%
Greensburg: -2.67%
Ambridge: -2.71%

Monessen: -3.07%
New Kensington -3.07%
Butler: -3.40%

It's interesting to note here that even if Pittsburgh's population has declined, it's declining now at a slower rate than a number of first-ring suburbs that no one considers bad places to live. This is probably due to the "two Pittsburghs" element I mentioned earlier in the thread. Around half of the city seems to be doing well and growing, and the other half is somewhere between these ho-um suburbs and the bad mill towns in terms of decline.