Prediction: City of Pittsburgh to lose much more population in the next 5 years. (Churchill: real estate, apartment)

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Except you didn’t answer what infrastructure and institutions Pittsburgh has to be a wealthy metropolis, which is relevant if you’re going to claim it does. You deflected to Columbus, instead.

I didn't answer because it didn't seem like rational question to anyone who knows anything about Pittsburgh....do we need to list Pitt, CMU, the top in class mass transit system?


I feel a bit ridiculous explaining how a city that pretty much wrote the book on being a wealthy metropolis in America could someday be a wealthy metropolis.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

the top in class mass transit system

This is honestly funnier than something Dave Chappelle would say

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

This is honestly funnier than something Dave Chappelle would say

As has been repeatedly pointed out, out of major U.S. metros we have one of the highest transit utilizations in the core city. Only NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle outrank us. Baltimore is about the same. Transit utilization is significantly higher than in any of our rust-belt peer cities (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Buffalo, etc).

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

I didn't answer because it didn't seem like rational question to anyone who knows anything about Pittsburgh....do we need to list Pitt, CMU, the top in class mass transit system?


I feel a bit ridiculous explaining how a city that pretty much wrote the book on being a wealthy metropolis in America could someday be a wealthy metropolis.

You’re living deep in the past and hoping for the future.

If Pitt and CMU were going to make it a wealthy metropolis, it would’ve happened by now. They’ve been there awhile, lol.

[gg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As has been repeatedly pointed out, out of major U.S. metros we have one of the highest transit utilizations in the core city. Only NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle outrank us. Baltimore is about the same. Transit utilization is significantly higher than in any of our rust-belt peer cities (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Buffalo, etc).

That is great to hear!

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by erieguy

You’re living deep in the past and hoping for the future.

If Pitt and CMU were going to make it a wealthy metropolis, it would’ve happened by now. They’ve been there awhile, lol.

what is a "wealthy" metropolis, though? annual revenue? per capita income?

universities are a measure of importance and prestige, which sure, must be some indication of wealth, but there is more to the discussion.

when i was at CMU, for my professors of which I knew their place of residence (bad syntax/grammar, sorry), NONE lived in the City limits. the students do not pay local wage tax, correct? So, those two things might counter the argument to some degree that the universities' presence is a measure of wealth.

im not sure these days, but in the 1990s, CT cities Hartford and Bridgeport were considered dangerous - I got that perspective straight from a friend who was from Waterbury. But CT was then (maybe still is) a 'rich' state, probably in terms of median income. So were Hartford and Bridgeport "wealthy"? Maybe so, but with an asterisk that says "although the suburban residents are of a much higher median income".

For the City, it might not seem it because of the housing stock, but come on, there ARE many people well off or 'rich' who reside here. They just dont choose to relocate to more exclusive areas, for whatever reason, and arent in the Squirrel Hill stratosphere level of home buying.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

what is a "wealthy" metropolis, though? annual revenue? per capita income?

universities are a measure of importance and prestige, which sure, must be some indication of wealth, but there is more to the discussion.

when i was at CMU, for my professors of which I knew their place of residence (bad syntax/grammar, sorry), NONE lived in the City limits. the students do not pay local wage tax, correct? So, those two things might counter the argument to some degree that the universities' presence is a measure of wealth.

im not sure these days, but in the 1990s, CT cities Hartford and Bridgeport were considered dangerous - I got that perspective straight from a friend who was from Waterbury. But CT was then (maybe still is) a 'rich' state, probably in terms of median income. So were Hartford and Bridgeport "wealthy"? Maybe so, but with an asterisk that says "although the suburban residents are of a much higher median income".

For the City, it might not seem it because of the housing stock, but come on, there ARE many people well off or 'rich' who reside here. They just dont choose to relocate to more exclusive areas, for whatever reason, and arent in the Squirrel Hill stratosphere level of home buying.

Pittsburgh is fairly unique when it comes to mid-sized rust-belt cities because of the large number of upper-middle class to wealthy people who live within city limits. Most cities don't have anything like Squirrel Hill/Point Breeze/Shadyside - a wide swath of urban(ish) area which is white, wealthy, family-friendly, and where many parents even send their kids to public schools. It's much more typical to have all of this type of person exclusively out in the suburbs.

The flipside of this is the decentralized "mill town" nature of the region means that poor boroughs and first-ring suburbs are scattered widely. Thus if you look at an income map of the region it's really kind of a patchwork, rather than a more typical "wealth doughnut." I actually think this is part of the reason why the East End stayed desirable - there were basically no desirable suburbs to the east of the city, with Penn Hills and Woodland Hills being considered to have undesirable schools, and Wilkinsburg experiencing white flight. Thus if you weren't ready to move all the way out to Murraysville and have a hell commute, you might as well just stay in the city.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

what is a "wealthy" metropolis, though? annual revenue? per capita income?

universities are a measure of importance and prestige, which sure, must be some indication of wealth, but there is more to the discussion.

when i was at CMU, for my professors of which I knew their place of residence (bad syntax/grammar, sorry), NONE lived in the City limits. the students do not pay local wage tax, correct? So, those two things might counter the argument to some degree that the universities' presence is a measure of wealth.

im not sure these days, but in the 1990s, CT cities Hartford and Bridgeport were considered dangerous - I got that perspective straight from a friend who was from Waterbury. But CT was then (maybe still is) a 'rich' state, probably in terms of median income. So were Hartford and Bridgeport "wealthy"? Maybe so, but with an asterisk that says "although the suburban residents are of a much higher median income".

For the City, it might not seem it because of the housing stock, but come on, there ARE many people well off or 'rich' who reside here. They just dont choose to relocate to more exclusive areas, for whatever reason, and arent in the Squirrel Hill stratosphere level of home buying.

Never in my lifetime have I heard anyone say Pittsburgh “is” a wealthy metropolis. In the past that was likely said.

Unless something has changed in regards to wealth equaling money, I’d like to see where Pittsburgh is a wealthy metropolis and/or when one thinks it’s going to become one.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

Yep Pittsburgh is Graceland. So why is the job growth stagnant and why aren’t people moving here in droves? Nobody thinks about this city unless you are from here or live here. I lived other places and the only time I heard Pittsburgh mentioned is during football season. We are nowhere near as relevant as we were decades ago. And we are a very distant second in our own state.

It's irrelevant.

In the game of "lets try and be the up and coming city that everyone's talking about", Pittsburgh has already beat all of the bosses and set all the high scores.


San Francisco and Seattle of today are a big "been there, done that" for Pittsburgh (except on an even larger scale for PGH). There isn't a need to re-achieve the same thing over again because the institutions, character, and structural density of 1950 Pittsburgh are all still in place, plus the magnificent additions and recognition that 1980's brought.

If someone leaves Pittsburgh to go live in a bland, pop-up megaburbia to have a bigger house with a yard I don't really see that as a strike against Pittsburgh, which is why population decline figures there are meaningless to me.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by erieguy

You’re living deep in the past and hoping for the future.

If Pitt and CMU were going to make it a wealthy metropolis, it would’ve happened by now. They’ve been there awhile, lol.

You can't place a dollar value on an asset like CMU. Its not Dallas or Chicago, but Pittsburgh's metro GDP qualifies it as wealthy. Its a big country and Pittsburgh is in the top 25.