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.
Great, but this shift decimates the point you were trying to make. Namely, that when someone is looking for a home in Pittsburgh (the city) they aren't going to widen their attention to to the entire MSA, instead they will look largely at the city and possibly at some of the connecting communities.
That's not the point I made.
The point I made is that if people are looking in the region for housing, most of them won't restrict themselves to the City. Some won't look at the City at all. Some will look at the City and also some suburbs. But the number who will ONLY look at the City is a pretty small percentage.
So again, I see no reason to restrict our discussion to just the City, and I have no intention of doing so.
Quote:
the idea that the relevant borders are the MSA is just crazy.
A very large amount of widely-used housing data is presented on the MSA level, so I guess the whole world is crazy but you.
Quote:
Once you get out of the immediately surrounding areas commuting in and out of Pittsburgh becomes rather difficult. Pittsburgh, unlike larger metro areas, doesn't have an extensive system of highways connecting its urban core with surrounding areas.
Again, if you think it is not true that all the counties in the MSA "have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core", you need to take your complaint to the OMB.
At any rate, the sparsely populated areas of the MSA where people wouldn't be looking to buy are going to drag any stats down, not pump them up in a way that distorts what is happening. Fayette County is in the MSA. You think that's going to distort the stats positively? Heh.
Good point.
Generally, these MSA stats are dominated by the areas most people inquiring here are likely to be looking. If someone was looking in certain sorts of places--rural areas with little connection to the core area, the most depressed parts of the City or Mon Valley, and so forth--then they definitely should do a much more individualized analysis and not assume the general stats apply. For that matter, everyone should do that before actually buying anywhere in particular. But if we want to talk about general trends in the region, that is what these stats are commonly used for, and indeed appropriate for.
If the city plus "immediate surrounding areas" that would have common commuting with the city don't contain around 75% or so (give or take a few) of that population I would be quite surprised.
Pittsburgh and the "immediately surrounding areas" make up around 25% of the MSA. When I say "immediately surrounding areas" I'm referring to the areas outside of Pittsburgh that are very commutable to the city. This doesn't correspond well to actual distance due to the geography and location of public infrastructure.
The Pittsburgh MSA is very large and is not, due to its low density, well connected by highways, public transit, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
Restricting the discussion to the city makes no sense.
Whether it "makes sense" depends on what you're talking about, there are many people that want to live in the city and not some outer community.
Regardless, data on the MSA isn't going to tell you about Pittsburgh and its closely connected outer communities.
The point I made is that if people are looking in the region for housing, most of them won't restrict themselves to the City.
Some comment, different wording. What do you mean "the region"? If by that you mean the Pittsburgh MSA then your assertion is tautological...on the other hand if by "the region" you mean a more particular area then its inaccurate.
When people think about relocation they aren't thinking about some large abstract "region" spanning 6 counties, no, they are thinking of a particular place (e.g., the location of their job, school, etc) and are interested in locations near this place. Now, I'm sure some people don't have such focal points (e.g. retirees) and may consider large areas, but why would they isolate their attention to the borders of the MSA? They wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
So again, I see no reason to restrict our discussion to just the City, and I have no intention of doing so.
Umm....I never suggested you should restrict your discussion to just the city, instead I suggested that MSA level data isn't going to tell you about Pittsburgh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
A very large amount of widely-used housing data is presented on the MSA level, so I guess the whole world is crazy but you.
You see, this is why you can't be taken seriously. I really don't know what is up with you, is it a vested interest? I don't know....but what I do know is that you can probably name the fallacy you're committing here....yet still employ it.
Anyhow, metro statistical areas are loosely defined regions and some make more sense than others. To say it again, I have no issues with how the OMB is defining matters, instead I have an issue with how you are using the information. Same goes with the housing data, you're simply ignoring all the major methodological problems....not all indexes are going to work equally well for all areas. Indeed, all the major indexes have problems and one needs to make sure the methodology doesn't conflict with the realities "on the ground". For example, any repeated sale index is going to greatly exaggerate the appreciation in gentrifying communities. Such an index is going to entirely ignore the large capital investments into the properties. That is buying a property for $X and investing $Y into it is going to look like appreciation even if the house just sales for $X + $Y.
Pittsburgh and the "immediately surrounding areas" make up around 25% of the MSA. When I say "immediately surrounding areas" I'm referring to the areas outside of Pittsburgh that are very commutable to the city. This doesn't correspond well to actual distance due to the geography and location of public infrastructure.
Hm, well, I suppose you can torture your area consideration long enough to suit your argument, but the reality is the immediate surrounding areas as you define them are far from the only areas creating significant amounts of commuting to the city. There is also a fair amount of reverse and alternate commuting. Certain areas like the airport area and Cranberry/Warrendale are their own not insignificant centers of jobs. And many people who work there don't live where they work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The Pittsburgh MSA is very large and is not, due to its low density, well connected by highways, public transit, etc.
I'm sure overall the MSA density is pretty low. The city itself's density is fairly low anyway. But the density doesn't suddenly drop off outside your 500k/25% area. There are some pockets of very low density surprisingly close to the city, and this does tend to relate to the lack of highway connectivity in those areas as well as the hills and such. But I think you are underestimating the degree to which people will look a little further away to get certain other perceived benefits (school district, lower cost house, bigger house, newer house, larger yard, etc.) The trend may be swinging away from that, but it hasn't yet to a significant degree at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Whether it "makes sense" depends on what you're talking about, there are many people that want to live in the city and not some outer community.
Well, the topic was it's cheaper to own than rent in the Pittsburgh area. There are a lot of variations on how you could define that I suppose. Regardless, there are also many people who don't want to live in the city and will choose to live in some outer community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Regardless, data on the MSA isn't going to tell you about Pittsburgh and its closely connected outer communities.
I think your definition of "closely connected outer communities" doesn't fit the realities of this area. Your 25% zone is hardly the boundary of closely connected to the city, even if we completely ignore some of the more distant places significant numbers are commuting from. Perhaps this will hinge on your particular definition of "connected".
When people think about relocation they aren't thinking about some large abstract "region" spanning 6 counties, no, they are thinking of a particular place (e.g., the location of their job, school, etc) and are interested in locations near this place.
Some individual people cast a fairly wide net, but in any event, when you look not just at each individual in isolation, but rather all of them together, we do indeed get people asking about locations all over the MSA.
Quote:
Umm....I never suggested you should restrict your discussion to just the city, instead I suggested that MSA level data isn't going to tell you about Pittsburgh.
But if I am not restricting my discussion to the City of Pittsburgh, I don't need to claim that MSA statistics are a proxy for City of Pittsburgh statistics.
Incidentally, if you are really interested in the City, we just got some information from the reassessment. Apparently in total, the City's residential properties went up 46% from 2002 to 2010.
That's actually considerably more than the HPI would suggest for the same period for the MSA (it comes in more around 26%):
Of course the assessment is mathematically equivalent to a weighted average, so not quite the same as the HPI. On the other hand, it includes all properties.
Again, I don't see much point in focusing on the City exclusively, but we should also get similar numbers for Allegheny County and all of its subdivisions, which will be interesting as well.
Quote:
not all indexes are going to work equally well for all areas.
You have not in fact shown there is anything atypical about the Pittsburgh Metro to suggest it merits different treatment from other MSAs.
Some comment, different wording. What do you mean "the region"? If by that you mean the Pittsburgh MSA then your assertion is tautological...on the other hand if by "the region" you mean a more particular area then its inaccurate.
When people think about relocation they aren't thinking about some large abstract "region" spanning 6 counties, no, they are thinking of a particular place (e.g., the location of their job, school, etc) and are interested in locations near this place. Now, I'm sure some people don't have such focal points (e.g. retirees) and may consider large areas, but why would they isolate their attention to the borders of the MSA? They wouldn't.
Umm....I never suggested you should restrict your discussion to just the city, instead I suggested that MSA level data isn't going to tell you about Pittsburgh.
You see, this is why you can't be taken seriously. I really don't know what is up with you, is it a vested interest? I don't know....but what I do know is that you can probably name the fallacy you're committing here....yet still employ it.
Anyhow, metro statistical areas are loosely defined regions and some make more sense than others. To say it again, I have no issues with how the OMB is defining matters, instead I have an issue with how you are using the information. Same goes with the housing data, you're simply ignoring all the major methodological problems....not all indexes are going to work equally well for all areas. Indeed, all the major indexes have problems and one needs to make sure the methodology doesn't conflict with the realities "on the ground". For example, any repeated sale index is going to greatly exaggerate the appreciation in gentrifying communities. Such an index is going to entirely ignore the large capital investments into the properties. That is buying a property for $X and investing $Y into it is going to look like appreciation even if the house just sales for $X + $Y.
Hm, well, I suppose you can torture your area consideration long enough to suit your argument, but the reality is the immediate surrounding areas as you define them are far from the only areas creating significant amounts of commuting to the city.
There are different sorts of "commuting", I'm talking about the sort that is relevant for individuals, namely work related commuting. The MSA data, on the other hand, is using a much more general notion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
But the density doesn't suddenly drop off outside your 500k/25% area. There are some pockets of very low density surprisingly close to the city, and this does tend to relate to the lack of highway connectivity in those areas as well as the hills and such.
I never suggested it suddenly drops off, instead I suggested that the Pittsburgh MSA isn't well connected by public infrastructure because its relatively low density. Additionally, as I said, I'm not talking about mere distance from the city but rather commuting distance which is related to geography and the existence of key public infrastructure (usually public transit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
Well, the topic was it's cheaper to own than rent in the Pittsburgh area. There are a lot of variations on how you could define that I suppose.
Right, but the answer obviously depends on how you define "Pittsburgh area"....and the dynamics in the city aren't the same once you get outside the city contrary to what a focus on the entire MSA would lead you to believe.
Rents in the city are "inflated" by the high number of students with $$ not necessarily attached to the local economy. As a result real estate in the city (especially closest to the universities) tends to be more expensive to own than rent. On the other hand, renting outside of the city tends to be more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
I think your definition of "closely connected outer communities" doesn't fit the realities of this area. Your 25% zone is hardly the boundary of closely connected to the city, even if we completely ignore some of the more distant places significant numbers are commuting from.
Except that my definition is based on the realities of the area, in particular the particular structure of public infrastructure. My definition of "immediately connected" is defined by the existence appropriate public infrastructure. My estimate is that the areas that are well connected to Pittsburgh via public infrastructure make up around 200~300k (for a total, including Pittsburgh of 500~600k). Now, my estimate could be wrong, but suggesting that it isn't based on reality makes little sense.
Also, to say it again, I'm talking about the sort of commuting that is relevant to people looking in the area, namely commuting to your work place. Since Pittsburgh is the economic center of the area I don't think choosing Pittsburgh as the focal point (if no other information is given) is strange at all. So the question is, if one is going to school, working, etc in Pittsburgh (the city) what is the area that the vast majority of people would focus on? I'd suggest its an area of around 500~600k that is well connected by public infrastructure into/out of the city. Now will some people look outside of this area? I'm sure they will, but they will be outliers.
Anyhow, a general conversation on real estate in the MSA is pretty meaningless, that isn't how real people are going to be looking at it, they will have some sort of focal point and that focal point is usually Pittsburgh (the city).
when you look not just at each individual in isolation, but rather all of them together, we do indeed get people asking about locations all over the MSA.
This is a meaningless abstraction that is of no use to an individual. Furthermore, its not weighted, so its not even a good abstraction.... The most common focal point, by far, is Pittsburgh (the city).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Apparently in total, the City's residential properties went up 46% from 2002 to 2010.
Firstly, you are cherry picking some date range. So what's the point? Did you think I was just talking about the last few years? Secondly, appreciation during that period isn't exactly surprising, that period was marked by national housing bubble and I don't think Pittsburgh was at all immune from its effects. But note as well, I'm talking about the past and not what I expect for the future. I would expect, in the future, that Pittsburgh real estate roughly keeps up with inflation...but since it all depends on what happens with the economy its difficult to project. I don't think the recent "bump" during the housing bubble will sustain itself, instead it will cook off slowly over the next decade or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
You have not in fact shown there is anything atypical about the Pittsburgh Metro to suggest it merits different treatment from other MSAs.
Umm...yeah Pittsburgh is just like any other MSA. This is too absurd to even address....
Also, to say it again, I'm talking about the sort of commuting that is relevant to people looking in the area, namely commuting to your work place. Since Pittsburgh is the economic center of the area I don't think choosing Pittsburgh as the focal point (if no other information is given) is strange at all. So the question is, if one is going to school, working, etc in Pittsburgh (the city) what is the area that the vast majority of people would focus on? I'd suggest its an area of around 500~600k that is well connected by public infrastructure into/out of the city. Now will some people look outside of this area? I'm sure they will, but they will be outliers.
What sort of commuting did you think I meant? Commuting to grandma's house? When I say reverse and alternate commuting, I'm still talking workplace. "Alternate" was a quick way of saying they commute from one suburb to another. Not every new resident ends up with a job in the city; it's not even guaranteed that that is where the majority of them are. Your insistence upon a 500-600k area suggests a lack of understanding of where the populations are, where those people actually work and commute to, and so on. This is what I'm driving at.
Have you actually lived here and experienced the patterns, or are you insisting this based solely on maps and public transportation data and other such info? I'm not suggesting that you can't draw some conclusions from afar, but your assumptions about commuting distances/patterns and where people would look to live seem out of whack, and I'm trying to figure out why. Public transit has been cut back in some of the farther out places, but this hasn't stopped people from commuting. It never accounted for a large number of those folks commuting in the first place. But there are a large number of cars that come from those areas.
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.
When I say reverse and alternate commuting, I'm still talking workplace. "Alternate" was a quick way of saying they commute from one suburb to another. Not every new resident ends up with a job in the city; it's not even guaranteed that that is where the majority of them are. Your insistence upon a 500-600k area suggests a lack of understanding of where the populations are, where those people actually work and commute to, and so on. This is what I'm driving at. 
