How much further can Pittsburgh's population drop before it hits rock bottom?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by TelecasterBlues

I don't understand where this "we've bottomed out years ago" thing is coming from

I'm primarily using American Community Survey data, which is an annual sample survey also conducted by the Census. The ACS data suggests the population of the City likely bottomed out in 2003 or so.

I realize the official Census estimates say otherwise, but I think there is a good chance the ACS is more accurate in this case than the Census estimates. My reasons for believing that are complicated, but the Census itself acknowledges its subcounty estimates (such as for a unit like the City) are based on certain assumptions, and I think the ACS gives us good reason to believe those assumptions are not valid in the case of the City.

It's not worth debating until the actual real deal 2010 census data is taken and we have numbers and results that are forced upon us as being "factual" and indisputable.

At this point I very much agree: we'll get a real Census soon, so it isn't worth wasting too much time arguing about estimates. That said, a real Census might not actually answer this particular question: it can tell us whether we are up or down since 1990, but won't necessarily tell us what has happend in recent years, nor what is happening after 2010. So if people are still interested in recent trends, I think we are going to be getting right back to this issue sooner rather than later.

The good news is that they are upping the funding for the ACS, and adding neighborhood-level data reports on a rolling three-year average basis. That is fantastic news for data-hungry people like me.

[BrianTH]

By the way, the 2003 ACS population estimate for the City of Pittsburgh was 276,517. As linked above, the 2008 ACS estimate was 297,187.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah the newer suburbs will likely keep adding population. My concern about the farther-out older river towns--and I should note I would be very glad if I was wrong about this--is that they will be competing with closer-in historic neighborhoods that are getting redeveloped, and I am not sure there is going to be enough demand in the near future to spread all the way up the rivers.

While that is probably true, and much of the housing in the old river towns is substandard anyway, it is the river town's suburbs that I was referring to when I said they seem to be bustling. So there are people living there, and apparently working, but the old cities are getting really run down. There is a possibility that Beaver Falls may close its library for lack of funds to do some necessary renovations. IMO, that is a shame. I guess the old cities would benefit from some intergovernmental sharing.