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.
This is complicated but I don't think the city will ever grow in my lifetime unless something drastically changed yesterday... My experience has been this is an inward-looking region where even the small growing parts are not well prepared for growth/change. My 3 main points, very generally speaking:
#1- lack of immigrants. Pittsburgh has the fewest immigrants of the 40 largest metros. Immigrants historically have lots of children. And the article notes the very high levels of education of immigrants here... however well-educated people in general do not have lots of children, which is key for growth. Double whammy.
#2- Of the city's 90 neighborhoods how many are not recommended, about 70? The city still has a large amount of blight and I'm assuming people are either leaving it or the old folks holding down the fort are dying without adequate replacements. It really amazes me how forgotten these areas really are, by folks who live <2 miles away from it.
#3- While it's obvious part of the city is thriving and perhaps becoming more affluent, it just isn't big enough nor growing fast enough to offset losses of the other side. The "affluent" have always been a small piece of any population, and the younger affluent lack something vital for growth: children (once again). As soon as they get too old to have kids they have them, and schools become top priority. Now places like growing NA for instance become a focus unless they are truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy are an even smaller piece of a population.
I can't seem to find it now, but awhile back I saw a 2050 city/metro govt projection for major areas and Pittsburgh showed a pretty significant slide through then as the baby boomers and older Gen X pass away, while total # of children continue to decline.
This is complicated but I don't think the city will ever grow in my lifetime unless something drastically changed yesterday... My experience has been this is an inward-looking region where even the small growing parts are not well prepared for growth/change. My 3 main points, very generally speaking:
#1- lack of immigrants. Pittsburgh has the fewest immigrants of the 40 largest metros. Immigrants historically have lots of children. And the article notes the very high levels of education of immigrants here... however well-educated people in general do not have lots of children, which is key for growth. Double whammy.
#2- Of the city's 90 neighborhoods how many are not recommended, about 70? The city still has a large amount of blight and I'm assuming people are either leaving it or the old folks holding down the fort are dying without adequate replacements. It really amazes me how forgotten these areas really are, by folks who live <2 miles away from it.
#3- While it's obvious part of the city is thriving and perhaps becoming more affluent, it just isn't big enough nor growing fast enough to offset losses of the other side. The "affluent" have always been a small piece of any population, and the younger affluent lack something vital for growth: children (once again). As soon as they get too old to have kids they have them, and schools become top priority. Now places like growing NA for instance become a focus unless they are truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy are an even smaller piece of a population.
I can't seem to find it now, but awhile back I saw a 2050 city/metro govt projection for major areas and Pittsburgh showed a pretty significant slide through then as the baby boomers and older Gen X pass away, while total # of children continue to decline.
Brilliant insight. Thanks for sharing.
1.) I agree wholeheartedly. We have few immigrants here, and the immigrants we do receive are generally well-educated, literate, and affluent. Such people do tend to have few, if any, children. With rare exception (County Executive Rich Fitzgerald comes to mind) wealthier and more educated people aren't having lots of kids.
2.) Agreed again. We always hear South Side Flats, South Side Slopes, Mexican War Streets, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Point Breeze, Bloomfield, Highland Park, Friendship, Mt. Washington, East Liberty, Regent Square, Morningside, Stanton Heights, Polish Hill, Strip District, Downtown, Oakland, Greenfield, Lawrenceville, Brighton Heights, East Allegheny, Manchester, Allegheny West, Brookline, Beechview, Troy Hill, and a few other select neighborhoods mentioned while people pretend that the other ~2/3 don't exist. Even of the desirable neighborhoods I listed a good chunk of them are in population decline due to declining household size and gentrification. Bringing 3,000 people in one year into Shadyside, East Liberty, the Strip District, South Side Flats, Oakland, and Downtown combined is useless if we lost 3,500 combined in The Homewoods, Lincoln-Lemington, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, Elliott, Sheraden, California-Kirkbride, Marshall-Shadeland, Northview Heights, Hill District, etc. It means despite all of the "growth" the city is seeing our population is still declining.
3.) Yeah, I admire city residents like Eschaton and Lobick who are raising their children to attend public schools by choice. I'm hoping more follow suit to help improve the schools, but you can't blame some parents for not wanting to be "guinea pigs" or "pioneers".
2.) Agreed again. We always hear South Side Flats, South Side Slopes, Mexican War Streets, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Point Breeze, Bloomfield, Highland Park, Friendship, Mt. Washington, East Liberty, Regent Square, Morningside, Stanton Heights, Polish Hill, Strip District, Downtown, Oakland, Greenfield, Lawrenceville, Brighton Heights, East Allegheny, Manchester, Allegheny West, Brookline, Beechview, Troy Hill, and a few other select neighborhoods mentioned while people pretend that the other ~2/3 don't exist. Even of the desirable neighborhoods I listed a good chunk of them are in population decline due to declining household size and gentrification. Bringing 3,000 people in one year into Shadyside, East Liberty, the Strip District, South Side Flats, Oakland, and Downtown combined is useless if we lost 3,500 combined in The Homewoods, Lincoln-Lemington, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, Elliott, Sheraden, California-Kirkbride, Marshall-Shadeland, Northview Heights, Hill District, etc. It means despite all of the "growth" the city is seeing our population is still declining.
I actually don't expect that we'll see as many neighborhoods with 20% or greater population declines in 2020 as we had in 2010. A lot of those declines were driven by the closure or reduction in housing projects. Pittsburgh doesn't have many of those left, and most of what remains hasn't been messed with much this decade. Really the single biggest change causing a population drop will have been the elimination of nearly 2,000 "residents" due to the closure of the SCI prison in Marshall-Shadeland. Even in the blighted neighborhoods without housing projects, as they empty out a 20% decline progressively means less and less, so the troubles of "the Homewoods" and the like demographically mater less and less for Pittsburgh.
That said, as I've noted in the past, due to the continual drop in average household size across the U.S., the only way - absent some sort of fluke - that any city neighborhood can see an increase in population is through a major new project which adds hundreds of new apartment units. This means aside from a handful of areas, like South Side Flats, Station Square, and some bits and bobs on the North Side, there aren't any neighborhoods outside those between the Allegheny and the Monongahela which are experiencing population growth of any sort.
This is complicated but I don't think the city will ever grow in my lifetime unless something drastically changed yesterday... My experience has been this is an inward-looking region where even the small growing parts are not well prepared for growth/change. My 3 main points, very generally speaking:
#1- lack of immigrants. Pittsburgh has the fewest immigrants of the 40 largest metros. Immigrants historically have lots of children. And the article notes the very high levels of education of immigrants here... however well-educated people in general do not have lots of children, which is key for growth. Double whammy.
#2- Of the city's 90 neighborhoods how many are not recommended, about 70? The city still has a large amount of blight and I'm assuming people are either leaving it or the old folks holding down the fort are dying without adequate replacements. It really amazes me how forgotten these areas really are, by folks who live <2 miles away from it.
#3- While it's obvious part of the city is thriving and perhaps becoming more affluent, it just isn't big enough nor growing fast enough to offset losses of the other side. The "affluent" have always been a small piece of any population, and the younger affluent lack something vital for growth: children (once again). As soon as they get too old to have kids they have them, and schools become top priority. Now places like growing NA for instance become a focus unless they are truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy are an even smaller piece of a population.
I can't seem to find it now, but awhile back I saw a 2050 city/metro govt projection for major areas and Pittsburgh showed a pretty significant slide through then as the baby boomers and older Gen X pass away, while total # of children continue to decline.
Very good post. I agree with 100 percent of what you stated. A lot of money was poured into newer and renovated housing in the south side flats from the late 90s to 2010. I am not 100 percent sure but I think the amount of units added was probably greater than what has been added to lawrenceville over the last 10 years.
With all the new housing and renovations the south side flats only added a mere 871 residents in 10 years from 2000 to 2010. That is the most dense city neighborhoods I believe.
To offset major losses the growth in the lawrencevilles and south sides is going to have to be in the thousands. A few hundred added in each neighborhood will do very little for a city of 300K. And population losses could be anywhere from under 10K on the low end to over 20K on the high end.
Hopefully the city is adding thousands of new residents in those neighborhoods or there could be a big negative surprise with estimates being way off and missing the other 70 neighborhoods you speak of.
On the flip side 871 new residents would do wonders for a dormont, millvale or even a city like McKeesport or Weirton. It just isn’t enough to make an impact outside of the city neighborhood where it’s happening. Pittsburgh needs thousands to make a difference not hundreds
1.) I agree wholeheartedly. We have few immigrants here, and the immigrants we do receive are generally well-educated, literate, and affluent. Such people do tend to have few, if any, children. With rare exception (County Executive Rich Fitzgerald comes to mind) wealthier and more educated people aren't having lots of kids.
2.) Agreed again. We always hear South Side Flats, South Side Slopes, Mexican War Streets, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Point Breeze, Bloomfield, Highland Park, Friendship, Mt. Washington, East Liberty, Regent Square, Morningside, Stanton Heights, Polish Hill, Strip District, Downtown, Oakland, Greenfield, Lawrenceville, Brighton Heights, East Allegheny, Manchester, Allegheny West, Brookline, Beechview, Troy Hill, and a few other select neighborhoods mentioned while people pretend that the other ~2/3 don't exist. Even of the desirable neighborhoods I listed a good chunk of them are in population decline due to declining household size and gentrification. Bringing 3,000 people in one year into Shadyside, East Liberty, the Strip District, South Side Flats, Oakland, and Downtown combined is useless if we lost 3,500 combined in The Homewoods, Lincoln-Lemington, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, Elliott, Sheraden, California-Kirkbride, Marshall-Shadeland, Northview Heights, Hill District, etc. It means despite all of the "growth" the city is seeing our population is still declining.
3.) Yeah, I admire city residents like Eschaton and Lobick who are raising their children to attend public schools by choice. I'm hoping more follow suit to help improve the schools, but you can't blame some parents for not wanting to be "guinea pigs" or "pioneers".
The southside flats had more investment from 2000 to 2010 than any city neighborhood. It added 871 residents for a growth rate of 15 percent! Wonderful for the Southside. Over that same time period the city lost 28,000 residents a decline of 8.6 percent. That proves one neighborhood not makeith a city.
Fast forward to present day. Look at two big neighborhoods Sheridan (West End) and Marshall Shadeland (North Side). In 2010 5,299 residents were in Sheridan and Marshall Shadeland a whopping 6,043 residents in 2010. Take a drive through both of those neighborhoods look at the homes and see if people are out and around. Does anybody think both of those neighborhoods have even 4,000 residents each anymore? I drove through Sheridan and if there is 4,000 residents in census 2020 I think people were double counted. Those places are / were lower and middle class communities. There is no way the east end has grown that much to offset what’s been lost in those two forgotten neighborhoods. If so I would be shocked.
We aren’t even talking about the carricks, Knoxvilles, beltzhoovers and Allentown’s yet. Anybody think carrick still has 9’or 10K residents anymore? I’m not even mentioning the homewoods yet. Again I think growth is siloed into a few east end areas while the rest of the city is forgotten.
There are a lot of good things going on in the east end, but what about the 70
Other neighborhoods? That will be the wild card. Estimates may be right and the city may lose less than 10,000 residents in a census which hasn’t happened in over 70 years. That would be big news and should be a national headline. On the other hand estimates could be way off and losses underestimated around the rest of the city.
One surprise growth neighborhood will be beechview and that will be due to an influx of Hispanic residents there.
but you can't blame some parents for not wanting to be "guinea pigs" or "pioneers".
Yeah, been there. Thought I was an early adopter, urban progressive 30 years ago. Then them little ones come along and all you think about is safety, future, education....everything you want for THEM, not YOU. That's a problem for these older cities with diverse economic layers and public schools that simply can't measure up to the more economically homogeneous suburb of choice. Some think charter schools, home schools, internet schools may change this. I'm not convinced.
#1- lack of immigrants. Pittsburgh has the fewest immigrants of the 40 largest metros. Immigrants historically have lots of children. And the article notes the very high levels of education of immigrants here... however well-educated people in general do not have lots of children, which is key for growth. Double whammy.
Yep
Quote:
#2- Of the city's 90 neighborhoods how many are not recommended, about 70? The city still has a large amount of blight and I'm assuming people are either leaving it or the old folks holding down the fort are dying without adequate replacements. It really amazes me how forgotten these areas really are, by folks who live <2 miles away from it.
I don't know what the number would be but what city has distributed growth among all neighborhoods?
That seems like an odd thing to point out.
Quote:
#3- While it's obvious part of the city is thriving and perhaps becoming more affluent, it just isn't big enough nor growing fast enough to offset losses of the other side. The "affluent" have always been a small piece of any population, and the younger affluent lack something vital for growth: children (once again). As soon as they get too old to have kids they have them, and schools become top priority. Now places like growing NA for instance become a focus unless they are truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy are an even smaller piece of a population.
Yes, hence the growing younger workforce, talent, education etc in the city, but not enough to move the overall population at this point.
Personally, I stayed in the city because I thought it was the best choice for my kids.
Me too. But you can't let kids push you around regardless. They're really bossy.
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.
