What is an optimistic but reasonable timeframe and scenario for Pittsburgh to pass its record peak population? (Munhall: homes, neighborhood)

[OyCrumbler]

I think there's more than enough room for pessimistic or moderate scenarios on this forum. My question is more about what are conceivable optimistic scenarios and timeframes for this. I'm not saying if this likely nor desirable--it's all hypothetical of course.

So far the most optimistic one is basically that of global climate change causing a mass exodus from the coasts and water-starved parts which is at least optimistic for Pittsburgh in some way.

I'm also not asking about the MSA, but the city. I have seen old pictures of Pittsburgh and its neighborhoods that are incredibly bustling.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I think there's more than enough room for pessimistic or moderate scenarios on this forum. My question is more about what are conceivable optimistic scenarios and timeframes for this. I'm not saying if this likely nor desirable--it's all hypothetical of course.

So far the most optimistic one is basically that of global climate change causing a mass exodus from the coasts and water-starved parts which is at least optimistic for Pittsburgh in some way.

I'm also not asking about the MSA, but the city. I have seen old pictures of Pittsburgh and their neighborhoods that are incredibly bustling.

Pittsburgh pessimistic scenario: -1% pop growth, hitting 240 by 2040
Pittsburgh optimistic scenario: 0.5% pop growth, hitting 340 by 2040

Those are my bets. No clue on metro growth, probably negative for another 10-20 years.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I think there's more than enough room for pessimistic or moderate scenarios on this forum. My question is more about what are conceivable optimistic scenarios and timeframes for this. I'm not saying if this likely nor desirable--it's all hypothetical of course.

So far the most optimistic one is basically that of global climate change causing a mass exodus from the coasts and water-starved parts which is at least optimistic for Pittsburgh in some way.

I'm also not asking about the MSA, but the city. I have seen old pictures of Pittsburgh and their neighborhoods that are incredibly bustling.

Best case? Well, let's say we win Amazon's HQ2, and the 50,000 jobs are not an oversell (which they are). Some of those hires may come from within the region, but every local hire means that another person from outside the region will have to move in for an outside job. Some estimates have suggested that 4.3 jobs are created for every one tech job, so let's say 265,000 jobs created in total over a few decades. Some potential workers will come here with spouses or kids, so something like 300,000 to 400,000 net residents added to the MSA wouldn't be out of the question. Of course, all of those residents would not live in the city, though a disproportionate number would. Regardless, HQ2 alone puts us on your scenario.

Another option - although unlikely - is the "Portland model." Portland has increased its population by roughly 273,000 (about 75%) since 1980 - despite not having a particularly dynamic job market. In the 1980s and 1990s this was in part driven by suburban annexation in East Portland, but the roughly 20% growth since 2000 has had little to do with this. Regardless, most transplants to Portland don't move there for jobs, they moved there (at least until recently) to take advantage of the relatively lower COL than California, often moving from job to job or starting their own small business once they got there. If Pittsburgh became really "hip" it's at least within the realm of possibility it would have the same sort of relationship to the East Coast as Portland did for California. But again, I think it's unlikely.

[charisb]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Naw, that really isn't true. Spend some time in Homewood and you can see the city can comfortably fit a lot more people than it does now. Not twice as many however. That would just be insane.

Only if the additional population are non-drivers and public transportation was greatly expanded. Traffic here is bad enough. Back when the population was 600,000+ there would have been a lot more people who used public transportation, which would have helped a lot.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Best case? Well, let's say we win Amazon's HQ2, and the 50,000 jobs are not an oversell (which they are). Some of those hires may come from within the region, but every local hire means that another person from outside the region will have to move in for an outside job. Some estimates have suggested that 4.3 jobs are created for every one tech job, so let's say 265,000 jobs created in total over a few decades. Some potential workers will come here with spouses or kids, so something like 300,000 to 400,000 net residents added to the MSA wouldn't be out of the question. Of course, all of those residents would not live in the city, though a disproportionate number would. Regardless, HQ2 alone puts us on your scenario.

Another option - although unlikely - is the "Portland model." Portland has increased its population by roughly 273,000 (about 75%) since 1980 - despite not having a particularly dynamic job market. In the 1980s and 1990s this was in part driven by suburban annexation in East Portland, but the roughly 20% growth since 2000 has had little to do with this. Regardless, most transplants to Portland don't move there for jobs, they moved there (at least until recently) to take advantage of the relatively lower COL than California, often moving from job to job or starting their own small business once they got there. If Pittsburgh became really "hip" it's at least within the realm of possibility it would have the same sort of relationship to the East Coast as Portland did for California. But again, I think it's unlikely.

Thanks for that link--that pdf is an interesting read. The report seems to deal with a pretty wide of tech including pharmaceutical and biotech. Am I right in saying that Pitt is a pretty sizable player in that (and larger than CMU in that field)?

I wonder what the retention rate for Pitt and CMU are for its graduates. Certainly people go to Pittsburgh for the education, though I'm guessing most leave because of job opportunities elsewhere. Maybe HQ2, if that does happen, and allied industries might convince more to stay.

I didn't consider the Portland model. That seems pretty tricky--how many hip cities can a country have?

Originally Posted by charisb

Only if the additional population are non-drivers and public transportation was greatly expanded. Traffic here is bad enough. Back when the population was 600,000+ there would have been a lot more people who used public transportation, which would have helped a lot.

Right, many and all kinds of infrastructure would have to greatly expand in order to accommodate that kind of population growth. That larger population should also mean a larger tax base and potentially greater political representation, so supposedly that should come hand in hand in better infrastructure.

Does Pittsburgh actually have many large parcels in the city that are unused and underused? I'd expect that the shift from manufacturing and the large population loss in the latter 20th century would mean there's probably quite a bit of that within the city.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Best case? Well, let's say we win Amazon's HQ2, and the 50,000 jobs are not an oversell (which they are). Some of those hires may come from within the region, but every local hire means that another person from outside the region will have to move in for an outside job. Some estimates have suggested that 4.3 jobs are created for every one tech job, so let's say 265,000 jobs created in total over a few decades. Some potential workers will come here with spouses or kids, so something like 300,000 to 400,000 net residents added to the MSA wouldn't be out of the question. Of course, all of those residents would not live in the city, though a disproportionate number would. Regardless, HQ2 alone puts us on your scenario.

Another option - although unlikely - is the "Portland model." Portland has increased its population by roughly 273,000 (about 75%) since 1980 - despite not having a particularly dynamic job market. In the 1980s and 1990s this was in part driven by suburban annexation in East Portland, but the roughly 20% growth since 2000 has had little to do with this. Regardless, most transplants to Portland don't move there for jobs, they moved there (at least until recently) to take advantage of the relatively lower COL than California, often moving from job to job or starting their own small business once they got there. If Pittsburgh became really "hip" it's at least within the realm of possibility it would have the same sort of relationship to the East Coast as Portland did for California. But again, I think it's unlikely.

Do you have any documentation of this "Portland Model", especially this: "most transplants to Portland don't move there for jobs"? Most people there do have to earn a living.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Do you have any documentation of this "Portland Model", especially this: "most transplants to Portland don't move there for jobs"? Most people there do have to earn a living.

I definitely know people who have moved to Portland, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City without jobs lined up at all. They simply wanted to move there.

Of course, they end up finding jobs at some point (you sort of have to ), but these people didn't move there for jobs. I've also known some of those people who end up leaving the city if they don't end up being able to get steady income, especially as those places got increasingly expensive.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I definitely know people who have moved to Portland, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City without jobs lined up at all. They simply wanted to move there.

Of course, they end up finding jobs at some point (you sort of have to ), but these people didn't move there for jobs. I've also known some of those people who end up leaving the city if they don't end up being able to get steady income, especially as those places got increasingly expensive.

As you know, anecdotes are not data. I know some people, including DH and I, who moved to Denver w/o jobs, but he had just finished grad school and didn't have a job to leave! However, I certainly don't think the preponderance of people who move here come here jobless or with intent to start a business.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I definitely know people who have moved to Portland, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City without jobs lined up at all. They simply wanted to move there.

Of course, they end up finding jobs at some point (you sort of have to ), but these people didn't move there for jobs. I've also known some of those people who end up leaving the city if they don't end up being able to get steady income, especially as those places got increasingly expensive.

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

As you know, anecdotes are not data. I know some people, including DH and I, who moved to Denver w/o jobs, but he had just finished grad school and didn't have a job to leave! However, I certainly don't think the preponderance of people who move here come here jobless or with intent to start a business.

I moved to Pittsburgh jobless because it was my dream to live here. I had two jobs within a few weeks.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Naw, that really isn't true. Spend some time in Homewood and you can see the city can comfortably fit a lot more people than it does now. Not twice as many however. That would just be insane.

Heh. Even here in Polish Hill, which is walkable to Downtown and Oakland as well as served by the East Busway, the 77, and the 54 bus routes, for every $400,000 flip there is still another vacant home. The triple-decker next-door to me is vacant. There’s a house across the rear alley from me that is vacant. There is a place across the street and down the hill a few doors that’s vacant. Instead of having 1,274 (2010) people (probably more like 1,150 today) this neighborhood could have 1,500 without feeling noticeably more crowded.