Why isn't Pittsburgh growing? (Penn Hills, Washington: apartment, rental, homes)

[lprmesia]

There used to be a table easy to find on the Census website, not so much anymore. Here's the actual story.

1. Pittsburgh does see a POSITIVE net domestic migration rate that's actually pretty average compared to most major US cities. People are in fact moving here, and this has been the case for about a decade.

2. Pittsburgh is one of the few cities with a higher death rate than birth rate. This has been slowly reversing over the past few years, but is still an issue that nearly wipes out gains.

3. Pittsburgh is landlocked. A lot of other growth cities are either able to expand via annexation (e.g. Columbus) or have large surpluses of undeveloped land which they are able to develop (e.g. Jacksonville, etc.)

4. Pittsburgh sees a much lower international migration rate than most major US cities. Many major cities such as NYC and LA see growth (NYC gained more people between 2010 and 2015 than any city in the US; however saw a negative domestic migration rate) via the international community. In 2009, the % of population in Pittsburgh which was foreign born ranked 93rd out of 109 cities with over 200K people.

Is it's not that people aren't moving here. They surely are. Maybe not at alarming rates. But there are a few things buried in the details that keep Pittsburgh's numbers from jumping off the page like you see in other areas.

[bradjl2009]

About the international immigration to further expand on, it's worth noting many other northern cities are only seeing population growth due to the immigrants that move there. Many places such as NYC, Philly, and Chicago have outward migration rates which are higher than Pittsburgh's.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

My big concern for many cities is #3 in lprmesia's post above. Greenfield new development is more appealing to the average American and is seemingly cheaper, more profitable, and better subsidized than redevelopment and repurposing of already developed land. We see it at a macro level in metro area and city growth numbers and in pockets that are very obvious when you look at blighted mill towns outside of the city. I question the long-term viability of this model, its environmental impact as well as ability to support long term population growth. Are we going to continually abandon cities that are left behind and allow the infrastructure to crumble in favor of new development? What happens when we don't have more green fields left to destroy?

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

My big concern for many cities is #3 in lprmesia's post above. Greenfield new development is more appealing to the average American and is seemingly cheaper, more profitable, and better subsidized than redevelopment and repurposing of already developed land. We see it at a macro level in metro area and city growth numbers and in pockets that are very obvious when you look at blighted mill towns outside of the city. I question the long-term viability of this model, its environmental impact as well as ability to support long term population growth. Are we going to continually abandon cities that are left behind and allow the infrastructure to crumble in favor of new development? What happens when we don't have more green fields left to destroy?

We need to somehow try to convince people that living in a desirable walkable established neighborhood in population decline, such as Polish Hill, Millvale, Etna, Sharpsburg, Bellevue, Aspinwall, Dormont, Bloomfield, Allegheny West, Lawrenceville, East Liberty, etc. is still more desirable than living in a desirable greenfield area experiencing strong population growth, such as Cranberry Township, Peters Township, Murrysville Municipality, Jefferson Hills, Adams Township, Richland Township, Pine Township, South Fayette Township, etc.

How do we do this? I honestly have no idea. A neighborhood like Bloomfield or Polish Hill should have no trouble attracting new residents but instead remain in steep population decline, despite being adjacent to the second- and third-largest employment concentration centers in the Commonwealth. It's truly mind-numbing to me, and I'm tiring of being told "it's because there's too many old people dying off" because that's been the lame excuse provided for DECADES now for Pittsburgh's nosediving population. I'm not willing to buy that excuse any longer because by the time those old people all die off my massive Millennial generation will be starting to die off in droves, too.

We also need to kill off NIMBY's in the city who oppose increased density. People in my neighborhood opposed a proposed high-rise residential tower in the Upper Strip because it would "affect views". You're not going to be able to grow the urban residential population without building UPwards.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

We need to somehow try to convince people that living in a desirable walkable established neighborhood in population decline, such as Polish Hill, Millvale, Etna, Sharpsburg, Bellevue, Aspinwall, Dormont, Bloomfield, Allegheny West, Lawrenceville, East Liberty, etc. is still more desirable than living in a desirable greenfield area experiencing strong population growth, such as Cranberry Township, Peters Township, Murrysville Municipality, Jefferson Hills, Adams Township, Richland Township, Pine Township, South Fayette Township, etc.

How do we do this? I honestly have no idea. A neighborhood like Bloomfield or Polish Hill should have no trouble attracting new residents but instead remain in steep population decline, despite being adjacent to the second- and third-largest employment concentration centers in the Commonwealth. It's truly mind-numbing to me, and I'm tiring of being told "it's because there's too many old people dying off" because that's been the lame excuse provided for DECADES now for Pittsburgh's nosediving population. I'm not willing to buy that excuse any longer because by the time those old people all die off my massive Millennial generation will be starting to die off in droves, too.

We also need to kill off NIMBY's in the city who oppose increased density. People in my neighborhood opposed a proposed high-rise residential tower in the Upper Strip because it would "affect views". You're not going to be able to grow the urban residential population without building UPwards.

Said density is why you will never convince those that choose to live in Peters that it is better to live in Bloomfield. Heck, I love city living and don't plan on leaving it, but I could not handle living in Bloomfield.


Also please keep in mind that your not being able to accept a statistical fact, does not make that fact any less true.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by gladhands

We've discussed this a million times, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a troll. Only DC and Jersey City have higher rates of millennial population growth than Pittsburgh. That means people, especially young (college educated) people DO want to move here. Young singles and childless couples are replacing poor families, so the population is not rising commensurate with the influx of transplants. This year, the city collected 17 million more in income taxes without population growth OR at tax increase.

"(R)ates of growth" is a way to obfuscate with statistics. I don't doubt your stat. Pittsburgh, DC and Jersey City may have high rates of millennial growth, but there are many cities that have more millennials as a percent of their population than Pittsburgh. Here are the top 10, as of last December.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/bl...ties-with.html

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

We need to somehow try to convince people that living in a desirable walkable established neighborhood in population decline, such as Polish Hill, Millvale, Etna, Sharpsburg, Bellevue, Aspinwall, Dormont, Bloomfield, Allegheny West, Lawrenceville, East Liberty, etc. is still more desirable than living in a desirable greenfield area experiencing strong population growth, such as Cranberry Township, Peters Township, Murrysville Municipality, Jefferson Hills, Adams Township, Richland Township, Pine Township, South Fayette Township, etc.

How do we do this? I honestly have no idea. A neighborhood like Bloomfield or Polish Hill should have no trouble attracting new residents but instead remain in steep population decline, despite being adjacent to the second- and third-largest employment concentration centers in the Commonwealth. It's truly mind-numbing to me, and I'm tiring of being told "it's because there's too many old people dying off" because that's been the lame excuse provided for DECADES now for Pittsburgh's nosediving population. I'm not willing to buy that excuse any longer because by the time those old people all die off my massive Millennial generation will be starting to die off in droves, too.

We also need to kill off NIMBY's in the city who oppose increased density. People in my neighborhood opposed a proposed high-rise residential tower in the Upper Strip because it would "affect views". You're not going to be able to grow the urban residential population without building UPwards.

I couldn't be convinced into ever believing it's more desireable and couldn't be paid to live in Bloomfield or Polish Hill.

You do realize that many have lived in cities and walkable neighborhoods and it's just not for us/them, but we greatly enjoy visiting every so often?

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Said density is why you will never convince those that choose to live in Peters that it is better to live in Bloomfield. Heck, I love city living and don't plan on leaving it, but I could not handle living in Bloomfield.

I was just in Bloomfield last week throwing candy at children. (Maybe next year I'll participate in the Halloween Parade so nobody calls the cops on me.) It struck me as nicer than I remember it, not just the part that everybody thinks of as Friendship. The business district really looks lively and you could walk to Oakland.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by erieguy

I couldn't be convinced into ever believing it's more desireable and couldn't be paid to live in Bloomfield or Polish Hill.

You do realize that many have lived in cities and walkable neighborhoods and it's just not for us/them, but we greatly enjoy visiting every so often?

Well then how do even denser cities than Pittsburgh account for having rapid population growth while simultaneously increasing their density while Pittsburgh, which isn't very dense overall, can't convince people to move into its boundaries due to it being "too dense"?

Is it a "manifest destiny" Pennsylvania sort of issue? I don't get it. Even Pittsburgh's sparsely-populated and/or "country in the city" sorts of neighborhoods are bleeding residents, so it's not a problem of people avoiding Pittsburgh because it's "too dense".

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Said density is why you will never convince those that choose to live in Peters that it is better to live in Bloomfield. Heck, I love city living and don't plan on leaving it, but I could not handle living in Bloomfield.


Also please keep in mind that your not being able to accept a statistical fact, does not make that fact any less true.

Is Bloomfield THAT much denser than Brookline? (I'll defer to Eschaton on that one). Brookline certainly has more trees.

I want someone to definitively answer what year in particular we can stop blaming "too many old people" for Pittsburgh's decades-long population nosedive. Why do I feel as if just when we'll be saying "the city is rounding a corner on population" the older Millennials will start dropping like flies?