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.
Having to go back roughly to the year 1895 to reach the same population the city of Pittsburgh has this very day, the good news is the percentage of loss has slowed quite a bit as compared to a decade ago.
While we are a long way from our city high point population wise of 671.569 back in 1940 to our current tumble of around 311.000. Some census officals actually thought Pittsburgh would have fallen below the 300.000 mark for the latest figures.
Of course local media loves to ask when will the population decline stop and when might we actually see a rise in city population. I would ask this question. What will or would be the main factor for having a increase in Pittsburgh's population ? Will there be more than one large factor in growing the city's population?
And how about a wild card question.. Which will show signs of growth first.. City of Pittsburghs population or Pittsburgh International Airport?
As an aside, some recent estimates suggest the City proper may in fact have started gaining population recently, even while Allegheny County as whole has continued to lose population. So, the anticipated turnaround for the City specifically may have already happened. But we won't get really hard data until the 2010 Census, and even then that may not tell us exactly what has been happening recently.
Anyway, birth rates among native-born Americans are too low to support a growing population. So, for any given American region to be growing in population, it either has to be attracting more Americans away from somewhere else in America than vice-versa, or it has to be attracting international immigrants. I think the City of Pittsburgh is likely to be doing a little of both in the medium-term future, but probably more of the former (meaning attracting Americans from elsewhere, potentially including other parts of the region). Specifically, I suspect the City will continue to develop as a popular destination for people looking for a somewhat more urban lifestyle (e.g., shorter commutes, perhaps by public transit, walkable neighborhoods, a variety of cultural and recreational amenities, and so on), largely thanks to the relatively low cost of housing in the City as compared to the central parts of most cities of a comparable size or larger.
As for the wildcard question, I definitely think the answer is the City, not the airport. For one thing, I think the City is likely to start growing in population before the entire region (and indeed that may have already happened), but of course demand for the airport is determined by the entire region. Additionally, high oil prices are hammering the airline industry, which is resulting in service cutbacks that are likely to swamp any population-driven effects in the near term.
I don't think we're going to know for sure until after the 2010 census. As I understand it, these annual estimates are based on some pretty static trends from the last census in 2000, so there's no real way of knowing what the population actually is.
It's true that the hemmoraging has subsided and is nowhere near what it was during the collapse of the steel industry in the 80s. But we're still paying for that dislocation.
We're not unique. The tables show that newer cities in the south and west have grown the greatest, and places like Charlotte have grown because the city is able to annex new development, which is not possible in the northeast and midwest. A lot of these cities have far more land area than Pittsburgh and are more the land size of Allegheny County.
It will be interesting to see how future gasoline prices factor into this down the road. Will the suburbs become less desirable because of the added cost to live there? Will people start to re-populate the de-populatd cities of the north and midwest? Then there's the big water issue in the southwest. Was the desert floor of Phoenix ever meant to be home to 3 million people? But I digress...
I don't think we're going to know for sure until after the 2010 census. As I understand it, these annual estimates are based on some pretty static trends from the last census in 2000, so there's no real way of knowing what the population actually is.
The other problem with the official Census estimates is that they assume certain trends are uniform across counties for the purpose of making subcounty population estimates. But from other sources (including the Census Bureau's own American Community Surveys), we have reason to believe the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County may have recently been diverging in several notable ways--perhaps in part in response to the factors I will discuss below.
Quote:
It will be interesting to see how future gasoline prices factor into this down the road. Will the suburbs become less desirable because of the added cost to live there? Will people start to re-populate the de-populatd cities of the north and midwest? Then there's the big water issue in the southwest. Was the desert floor of Phoenix ever meant to be home to 3 million people? But I digress...
I have the same questions, and on top of all that I think you can also add the collapse of the housing market, which was driving a lot of the economic growth in these Sun Belt cities, and the collapse of the dollar, which is partially responsible for the continued high real estate prices in the central parts of coastal cities where non-Americans remain important components of the real estate market (e.g., Londoners buying in Manhattan). So I don't find it hard to imagine a real reversal of trends with respect to many post-industrial cities in the interior of the country as all these various factors come into play. Again, though, the official Census estimates aren't well-designed to capture these sorts of effects.
The area needs a new mega industry. That's what fed its phenomenal growth and that's what will revive it. Coal, glass, steel...now what? Medicine, high technology, higher education, alternative energy? Pittsburgh has been flirting with these showy, seductive ladies, has alot more going for it in these areas than other rust-belt cities, but until it grabs the bull by the horns, the ears or some other place a little more south and alot more response evoking, it will remain just that: a flirtation.
Most things don't happen until they have to, and it could be argued that now is the time we have to; cure stubborn, life-threatening diseases, improve the quality and length of our lives, start making earnest, sustained, well-directed progress in how we train and educate our young people, get off the damned oil, before we find ourselves in another war; Iran anyone?
Pittsburgh has some of the means to lead the way: state of the art universities, innovative energy companies (renegade off-shoots of co.'s like Westinghouse), a low cost of living that encourages the young and revolutionary spirit), but has other "attributes" that don't lend so well to the new: uncooperative, entangled, short-sighted local governments, a pervasive no-can-do mentality, a city ensnared in yesterday, it's time to turn the reins back over to the dreamers. Come one, come all, no hardhat required!
The area needs a new mega industry. That's what fed its phenomenal growth and that's what will revive it.
But do we really want Pittsburgh to go through another boom period? Personally I think a slow growth model would be just fine, particularly when one considers booms are usually followed by busts.
But do we really want Pittsburgh to go through another boom period? Personally I think a slow growth model would be just fine, particularly when one considers booms are usually followed by busts.
I don't live there anymore, so maybe it's not for me to say, but seems Pgh. has a way to go before it worries about another boom period. Some there or here on this forum might even say, "We should be so lucky." I don't know, it could be just me, but when I'm back in Pittsburgh it always feels like a big city waiting to happen. And by the way, the last boom period lasted for a good sixty years, if you just go from WWI to the start of the decline of the steel industry, and by your own estimation the down-slide hasn't been all that bad.
It's probably a selfish dream on my part. Though I've been in L.A. for years and years, it's never really felt like home, and when I imagine going home I'd hope for a cosmopolitan city to return to; it's just a matter of taste, of preferred lifestyle. If I wanted to live in a mega city I guess I could stay here, if this can be called a city, or I'd live in New York again, as I did for a few years back in the 90's. That can wear on you too. San Francisco's a great town, but so nice and quaint it doesn't seem real, not for a guy born and raised in a city as gritty as Pittsburgh. Boston's hip and has the right size and feel, but it's just not home. I'd say Pittsburgh isn't in danger of busting at the seams; still got plenty of room for growth in the shoulders and the length of the trousers. And what's the saying, "The best defense is a strong offense."
I don't live there anymore, so maybe it's not for me to say, but seems Pgh. has a way to go before it worries about another boom period. Some there or here on this forum might even say, "We should be so lucky." I don't know, it could be just me, but when I'm back in Pittsburgh it always feels like a big city waiting to happen.
I agree a lot of people in the area would like to see Pittsburgh return to being a much bigger city--I am just questioning the wisdom of that sentiment. Indeed, I think a lot of that ends up being a matter of civic pride, but not necessarily something that would really benefit the current residents.
Quote:
And by the way, the last boom period lasted for a good sixty years, if you just go from WWI to the start of the decline of the steel industry, and by your own estimation the down-slide hasn't been all that bad.
Oh, but the bust of the steel industry was undoubtedly horrible for the people involved. I don't think it is necessarily affecting those of us who came to Pittsburgh subsequently, and indeed in some ways we new residents are benefiting from the boom-and-bust cycle (e.g., through cheaper housing and an unusually large legacy of cultural and entertainment institutions for a city of Pittsburgh's current size). But I would never suggest it wasn't bad for all those people who were basically forced to move out of the region as their economic plans collapsed.
Quote:
It's probably a selfish dream on my part. Though I've been in L.A. for years and years, it's never really felt like home, and when I imagine going home I'd hope for a cosmopolitan city to return to; it's just a matter of taste, of preferred lifestyle. If I wanted to live in a mega city I guess I could stay here, if this can be called a city, or I'd live in New York again, as I did for a few years back in the 90's. That can wear on you too. San Francisco's a great town, but so nice and quaint it doesn't seem real, not for a guy born and raised in a city as gritty as Pittsburgh. Boston's hip and has the right size and feel, but it's just not home. I'd say Pittsburgh isn't in danger of busting at the seams; still got plenty of room for growth in the shoulders and the length of the trousers. And what's the saying, "The best defense is a strong offense."
Certainly I am guilty of some selfish sentiments as well, insofar as I noted above, I think in many ways I am actually benefitting from Pittsburgh being a much smaller city now (population-wise) than it was before. But I also think this somewhat confirms my suggestion above: to put it bluntly, I am a current resident, and you are not. So while Pittsburgh booming into a mega city might well be a good thing for the new residents (including returnees) it would necessarily be attracting as a result--at least as long as the party lasted--I am not sure that means Pittsburgh booming would be good for us current residents of the currently smaller Pittsburgh.
In any event, this is not really the sort of thing we can control. I am just personally hoping that Pittsburgh follows a slow growth track, which de facto means in the forseeable future it could not move too far back up the population tables.
Yeah, but Brian, slow growth can too easily be no growth, and no growth can too quickly begin the process of slow death. Every town, at least older town has had to reinvent itself to survive. Even the all powerful, ever-lasting NYC was losing millions and millions in tourist $ until they cleaned up the streets. It has in fact lost that New York excitement bordering on danger as a result, but it's one of the few places in the country where RE hasn't taken such a hit. Economically, New York's in very good shape, just not as much fun on a wild Saturday night. And anyway, if Pgh were to experience the kind of boom we're talking about, your house would probably double in value in a few years while mine and everybody else's in most parts of the country continue to go the other way.
Yeah, but Brian, slow growth can too easily be no growth, and no growth can too quickly begin the process of slow death. Every town, at least older town has had to reinvent itself to survive. Even the all powerful, ever-lasting NYC was losing millions and millions in tourist $ until they cleaned up the streets. It has in fact lost that New York excitement bordering on danger as a result, but it's one of the few places in the country where RE hasn't taken such a hit. Economically, New York's in very good shape, just not as much fun on a wild Saturday night.
Well, I think NYC is a good example of a slow growth success story. From the 1990 Census to the 2000 Census, the New York MSA grew about 8.4%, less than the overall 13.1% growth of the United States. But that was a great decade for NYC. The latest "official" estimate has it growing about 2.69% since 2000, again less than the overal 7.2% estimate for the entire nation. And yet I doubt a lot of New Yorkers would be willing to trade recent fortunes with much faster-growing cities such as Atlanta or Phoenix.
Now of course I agree that no (or negative) growth will eventually cause problems for a city if continued indefinitely. But I don't think that alone is a good enough reason to abandon a low growth model, and indeed precisely because many cities like New York are succeeding on that model.
Quote:
And anyway, if Pgh were to experience the kind of boom we're talking about, your house would probably double in value in a few years while mine and everybody else's in most parts of the country continue to go the other way.
Probably, but our home is only one of our assets, and I'm not sure the increase in home equity alone would make up for all the other downsides to hypergrowth. And some booms don't last 60 years anyway, so we might see the flipside during our time in Pittsburgh anyway, including with respect to our home.
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.
Having to go back roughly to the year 1895 to reach the same population the city of Pittsburgh has this very day, the good news is the percentage of loss has slowed quite a bit as compared to a decade ago. 
