Do You Think Pittsburgh Can Avoid A BOOM (Penn Hills, Lebanon: transplants, renting)

[greg42]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the city ever intentionally did anything to prevent/check sprawl. Pittsburgh has had a major out-migration for 30 years now, which took care of the sprawl problem.

The out-migration prevented sprawl? I would think the opposite; out-migration from the city caused some new sprawl. Almost all of the net out-migration was from within the city limits where there is no room for newer sprawl. (There are a few pockets of older commercial sprawl, like Banksville Rd.) It is hindered by rivers, hills, etc. Suburban areas were subjected to shifting populations through those times, so some have gone down in population but others have in fact boomed. Either I have a different definition of sprawl, or it is out there and people are ignoring it. If you take, say, McKnight Road starting at/near the city limit, go north all the way through booming Cranberry (which is something in the vicinity of 15 miles), that whole thing is sprawl, isn't it? Some of it is older, some of it is on hills, but it's still sprawl.

Most suburban municipalities aren't interested in preventing sprawl. Back to Cranberry, again, good example. Crazy growth there, uninhibited for the last 20 years, took them forever until sometime in the last few years they set down some better rules about how future growth would be managed. It had to get to where it was a huge headache before they decided it needed better management. Most other suburban municipalities aren't to the level of growth being part of the problem instead of part of the goal, so they're still "Bring on the sprawl".

[ddietrich]

Originally Posted by highway29south

Well, if that is the case, then several school districts were "overreacting" when they delayed and/or cancelled school for the day due to the wind chills.

This wasn't about the friendliness of Pittsburghers. This was about Pittsburghers not liking to challenge the status quo because the status quo is run by friends, relatives and other people they grew up with. Teachers in this area get their jobs by knowing someone or being related to someone. My middle daughter actually had a teacher that could not spell but she was hired to teach first graders. Know why? She was related to someone in the local government so she got the job. It's the same story throughout the whole school system. No one wants to rock the boat because they would offend a relative, friend or someone they grew up with.

It's a bubble and it's easy to see if you didn't grow up in it.

Considering that you called it sub-zero temperatures when it was nowhere near, I'd say you're the one who overreacted and was being dramatic.

I remember that day, and most of those school districts involved children who had to walk to school (i.e. Mt. Lebanon, City of Pittsburgh, etc.) or schools in outlying counties that had much worse weather to deal with.

You have a huge chip on your shoulder and a lot of bitterness about this that it seems entirely unreasonable to even try to engage you in an intellectual discussion on the subject. If someone disagrees with you, they are automatically part of that status quo.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by ddietrich

You have a huge chip on your shoulder and a lot of bitterness about this that it seems entirely unreasonable to even try to engage you in an intellectual discussion on the subject. If someone disagrees with you, they are automatically part of that status quo.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the City-Data Forum. You should save that as a template. Your typing fingers will thank you later on.

[ddietrich]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Welcome to the wonderful world of the City-Data Forum. You should save that as a template. Your typing fingers will thank you later on.

I think I was just delirious from the onslaught of Christmas candy my office has received this week... you're entirely right. What am I thinking- an intellectual discussion on an internet message board? lol

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by greg42

The out-migration prevented sprawl? I would think the opposite; out-migration from the city caused some new sprawl. Almost all of the net out-migration was from within the city limits where there is no room for newer sprawl. (There are a few pockets of older commercial sprawl, like Banksville Rd.) It is hindered by rivers, hills, etc. Suburban areas were subjected to shifting populations through those times, so some have gone down in population but others have in fact boomed. Either I have a different definition of sprawl, or it is out there and people are ignoring it. If you take, say, McKnight Road starting at/near the city limit, go north all the way through booming Cranberry (which is something in the vicinity of 15 miles), that whole thing is sprawl, isn't it? Some of it is older, some of it is on hills, but it's still sprawl.

Most suburban municipalities aren't interested in preventing sprawl. Back to Cranberry, again, good example. Crazy growth there, uninhibited for the last 20 years, took them forever until sometime in the last few years they set down some better rules about how future growth would be managed. It had to get to where it was a huge headache before they decided it needed better management. Most other suburban municipalities aren't to the level of growth being part of the problem instead of part of the goal, so they're still "Bring on the sprawl".

I meant out-migration from the MSA. I've posted this link before, but maybe it's time to post it again.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change

In 2008, the MSA population was 85% of what it was in 1970.

By contrast, the US population in 2008 was 150% of what it was in 1970.
(Numbers available from census bureau).

[TelecasterBlues]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I meant out-migration from the MSA. I've posted this link before, but maybe it's time to post it again.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change

In 2008, the MSA population was 85% of what it was in 1970.

By contrast, the US population in 2008 was 150% of what it was in 1970.
(Numbers available from census bureau).

Yeah people can talk all they want about PA annexation laws, older population dieing off, and whatnot being the reason why Pittsburgh can't "grow"....but you can't ignore the ridiculous amount of people that have left and continue to leave. The scary thing is that the patterns don't follow a step pattern that goes straight from top to bottom. It's all negative out-migration, but there's a lot of peaks and valleys strewn throughout and little reason to think that we'd definately be nearing the end of it all. 2008 looks identical to 1975 and 1994.

[creepsinc]

Hey BrianTH, they're talking about people leaving in droves, again. Help!

[greg42]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I meant out-migration from the MSA. I've posted this link before, but maybe it's time to post it again.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change

In 2008, the MSA population was 85% of what it was in 1970.

By contrast, the US population in 2008 was 150% of what it was in 1970.
(Numbers available from census bureau).

Yeah, yeah, I know. But the net of that out-migration (or the majority of it) is from within the city limits. Check the city population loss in real numbers against the metro area loss in real numbers. They should be similar. I'm going by rough numbers that I've seen, not a specific list, and I don't have time to search it at the moment. Maybe later. If you want to find it, go for it.

The 85% vs 150% has nothing to do with the premise in my post. I still find it odd that people think there's no sprawl here when it seems to me there obviously is. Do we have a difference in definition on sprawl?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by greg42

Yeah, yeah, I know. But the net of that out-migration (or the majority of it) is from within the city limits. Check the city population loss in real numbers against the metro area loss in real numbers. They should be similar. I'm going by rough numbers that I've seen, not a specific list, and I don't have time to search it at the moment. Maybe later. If you want to find it, go for it.

The 85% vs 150% has nothing to do with the premise in my post. I still find it odd that people think there's no sprawl here when it seems to me there obviously is. Do we have a difference in definition on sprawl?

I doubt it. I live in what is sometimes called "Sprawlorado" and I know what sprawl is. Certainly movement from the city to the burbs has contributed to sprawl in the Pgh area. I've seen it. (Despite what some think, I do get back there once in a while, and I'm not unobservant. [Not you, I'd add, greg]). Even in Beaver Falls, the city looks like a ghost town, albeit one with people in it, yet the burbs such as Chippewa have actual traffic jams, something you didn't see when I was a kid.

[BrianTH]

If you break it down, between 1990 and 2000 the Metro Area lost population, the Urbanized Area gained population, and the City lost population. The Urbanized Area is basically the City and its major suburbs, but not rural areas or small towns elsewhere in the Metro Area.

So I think that loosely supports the theory that the population decline in the Metro Area didn't exactly combat sprawl, because a lot of what people think of as sprawl would have been in the part of the Metro Area that was actually growing (the suburbs).

As for trends in the Metro Area in general, I would note first that the birth/death ratio continues to be affected at a lag by the steel bust diaspora (a point we have discussed many times before), but that effect will eventually wind down. Meanwhile, the more recent domestic migration numbers suggest that net domestic out-migration was slowing at the beginning of the decade, then picked up during the middle of the decade, and now is rapidly slowing again. The relation between those trends and the housing boom and bust probably isn't a coincidence (particularly since it is a common pattern in non-bubble cities, and reversed in bubble cities).

So one way of framing the question is where do people think those domestic migration numbers are heading? I honestly don't know, but I think it is at least possible that the current trend will continue and the domestic migration number will go positive. Along with the expected restoration of a normal birth/death balance as the lagged steel bust effect dies out, and maybe a bit more international immigration in response to the new economic realities, and you could see slow growth in the Metro Area fairly soon. Of course rural areas could continue to decline, but you might also see growth in the City (in fact other data suggests that slow growth in the City might have started around 2003, and Census estimate data isn't reliable for subcounty units for reasons I won't get into again).

None of that amounts to a "boom", however (and as an aside, I don't want a boom). A boom would require a much more rapid increase in net in-migration, international or domestic or both. As noted above, I think that would take a convergence of various forces and I would bet against it right now, but I also wouldn't rule it out.