Prediction: City of Pittsburgh to lose much more population in the next 5 years. (York: moving, activities)

[gg]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

We will be talking about those same things 20-50 years from now and likely well beyond any of us living to see things really different.

I was dumb enough to think a black president made a difference. Wholly crap was I wrong. I felt pride in our country not paying attention to race and just voting Obama in as people felt he was a good choice. In hindsight it did absolutely nothing. I think we regressed into 1960. Amazing how the media can do that. Such power. It is as if we never had a black man in the white house for not one, but two terms. I enjoyed the fake pride I had though. I call it fake because it seems no one cares at all anymore. I really find that odd. The media is wildly powerful over many people. I still like Obama. He didn't do much, but he was a good speaker and I liked him fine. Oh well, seems we are moving way back in time. Very dangerous if you ask me.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Cities have never been dead. Even in the 1960s-80s, they were run down, but they weren't dead. No matter how suburbanized industries and living becomes, suburban life will always rely and depend on a central city for a core.

The "cities are dead" line I've been hearing a lot lately seems to assume that everyone not wanting to live in a major metro has enough money saved to not have to work again. Contrary to what you may have heard, "everyone" isn't moving to Boise or Richmond because they don't have economies there to support serious population assuming people need to work for a living.

Los Angeles and NYC are 2 of the 3 trillion dollar GDP metros on the planet. They'll only get bigger and denser, like all the other major cities that wealth and jobs accrue to.

Pittsburgh is a unique case, still an economic power with dwindling city and metro population. Its the opposite of "up and coming" cities that gain population but don't have the infrastructure to be big metros. I suppose it would be attractive to NYC expats who are finding things a bit much there, but its not like there won't be people lined up to fill their spot when they move.

[Craziaskowboi]

I've been saying since the riots started that the American urban renaissance of the last 25 years is over now. The future is in smaller cities and towns, especially for those who can work remotely. Like globalism, living in a major metropolitan area simply isn't worth it anymore.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Sonny3

I agree people will leave the cities. It started with the virus but the looting and destruction seals the deal.

A very prophetic statement was made many, many years ago: the suburbs are our future slums.

And, you can see that happening clear across the country!

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by gg

I was dumb enough to think a black president made a difference. Wholly crap was I wrong. I felt pride in our country not paying attention to race and just voting Obama in as people felt he was a good choice. In hindsight it did absolutely nothing. I think we regressed into 1960. Amazing how the media can do that. Such power. It is as if we never had a black man in the white house for not one, but two terms. I enjoyed the fake pride I had though. I call it fake because it seems no one cares at all anymore. I really find that odd. The media is wildly powerful over many people. I still like Obama. He didn't do much, but he was a good speaker and I liked him fine. Oh well, seems we are moving way back in time. Very dangerous if you ask me.

I think in many ways that is the perfect president. You don’t want seismic change. There is something to be said for status quo, keeping things going.

We don’t need to blow things up and start over. The only thing the president and Congress should do is protect our personal liberties and try to prevent the big battle or total collapse of this country. Things were fine before trump and before Obama. People just need to be better people and find their purpose in life so they can be a positive contributor to society. Life isn’t fair and some may have to work harder than others, but you will still never find a country with more freedom to evolve. What I see is people not wanting to or want to be handled through life. Many leaders and soldiers died to preserve that.

Abe Lincoln is a black hero. He abolished slavery, paid for it with a bullet in the head. But we evolved and life was better. He paid the ultimate sacrifice back then so people can moan and complain now. Carry your own torch and move forward. Geeze...

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

I've been saying since the riots started that the American urban renaissance of the last 25 years is over now. The future is in smaller cities and towns, especially for those who can work remotely. Like globalism, living in a major metropolitan area simply isn't worth it anymore.

I agree. In another thread I talked about how dense and urban these little towns are. Especially in the Pittsburgh area. Many have a business district, dense population and less than 20K people in the limits. You don’t need hundreds of thousands or millions of people living on each other for urbanization. And in my opinion safe urbanization where you aren’t just a number and truly feel you are heard and contributing to the local economy.

Small cities and towns is where it is. Pittsburgh has become let me hold your hand and give you hugs and kisses. Let’s let the inmates run the asylum. Not a good direction for sustainability. People of all races that work for a living don’t want to live in a world of chaos or crime.

The far left white folks don’t understand that either

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

The "cities are dead" line I've been hearing a lot lately seems to assume that everyone not wanting to live in a major metro has enough money saved to not have to work again. Contrary to what you may have heard, "everyone" isn't moving to Boise or Richmond because they don't have economies there to support serious population assuming people need to work for a living.

Los Angeles and NYC are 2 of the 3 trillion dollar GDP metros on the planet. They'll only get bigger and denser, like all the other major cities that wealth and jobs accrue to.

Pittsburgh is a unique case, still an economic power with dwindling city and metro population. Its the opposite of "up and coming" cities that gain population but don't have the infrastructure to be big metros. I suppose it would be attractive to NYC expats who are finding things a bit much there, but its not like there won't be people lined up to fill their spot when they move.

Thank you for your reasoned response.

[Charlesaf3]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

The "cities are dead" line I've been hearing a lot lately seems to assume that everyone not wanting to live in a major metro has enough money saved to not have to work again. Contrary to what you may have heard, "everyone" isn't moving to Boise or Richmond because they don't have economies there to support serious population assuming people need to work for a living.

Los Angeles and NYC are 2 of the 3 trillion dollar GDP metros on the planet. They'll only get bigger and denser, like all the other major cities that wealth and jobs accrue to.

Pittsburgh is a unique case, still an economic power with dwindling city and metro population. Its the opposite of "up and coming" cities that gain population but don't have the infrastructure to be big metros. I suppose it would be attractive to NYC expats who are finding things a bit much there, but its not like there won't be people lined up to fill their spot when they move.

I don't know about Boise, but you'd be amazed by the size of Richmond's economy - google it. It's only small in comparison to NYC.

[fat lou]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

You all must have very short memories of what cities used to be like across America about 50 years ago. Here’s a hint: many were much, much worse than what they are now. It also seems much of your unrest comes from political factors and your disdain for basic things like a police chief kneeling in solidarity with protesters. If that is what you get angry about, there’s not much discussion to be had so I’ll go ahead and tap out of this one.

Yeah, and they're going to go back to being what they were like 50 years ago. That's what I'm saying. There's this urban-living fad going on right now, but once that's over where will Pittsburgh be? Crap city.

And yes, I do have disdain for the current political scene in many American cities. And those policies are likely going to lead to urban decline. But I can't say that I'm feeling any "unrest." I moved to the suburbs years ago, and I ain't never going back.

[fat lou]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

And it collapsed due to the collapse of a very specific industry in the mid 70s after the OPEC oil embargo lead to utilization of foreign steel markets for a good decade with minimal intervention by both the Carter and Reagan administrations. Then it got pretty bad. Then it got a lot better. It’s now a great place to live. Did you go to NYC or LA in the 70s? How were they compared to today? See how silly this all seems when blaming the downfall of cities on a cop kneeling with protesters?

Bud, the problem in the Taxi-Driver era of NYC was crime. Crime and quality-of-life things like prostitution, homelessness, open-air drug use, etc. The 90s New-York-City-cleanup involved cracking down on those things. Current soft-on-crime policies will reverse that.

[gg]

Originally Posted by fat lou

Bud, the problem in the Taxi-Driver era of NYC was crime. Crime and quality-of-life things like prostitution, homelessness, open-air drug use, etc. The 90s New-York-City-cleanup involved cracking down on those things. Current soft-on-crime policies will reverse that.

Very true. Watched it with my own eyes growing up. New York Police did an amazing job. NYC is so much nicer now. Sure was a dump before the broken window era.