'Bright Flight' - From the Suburbs (Pittsburgh: move, drivers license, activities)

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by gameguy56

Pittsburgh has lots of room, it's population is down over 50% from it's peak in 1950. There are plenty of houses from huge East Liberty/Friendship Mansions to cute little Greenfield row homes that could certainly use a little bit of loving

Part of that is because families have gone from an average of 5 sometimes 6 to usually no more than 4 in a household with usually 3. I think a good population the city should shoot for would be between 400,000-450,000. Any higher and I think overcrowding would start to be a problem.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Part of that is because families have gone from an average of 5 sometimes 6 to usually no more than 4 in a household with usually 3. I think a good population the city should shoot for would be between 400,000-450,000. Any higher and I think overcrowding would start to be a problem.

So, maybe some of us would have to live in the 'burbs?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by jimmyev

It's the only place I know of where 15-year mortgage payments with no down are $180 a month and rents for the same house are $800 a month.

That implies something like a $25,000 price. You shouldn't be paying $800/month for a place like that, even in Pittsburgh.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Part of that is because families have gone from an average of 5 sometimes 6 to usually no more than 4 in a household with usually 3. I think a good population the city should shoot for would be between 400,000-450,000. Any higher and I think overcrowding would start to be a problem.

I basically agree. Between 1960 and 2000, the City of Pittsburgh lost about 25,000 occupied housing units, with a population around 330,000 and pretty close to an average of 2 people per housing unit. If you assume it could easily regain those 25,000 occupied housing units but only at the lower average, that gets you to about 380,000 in population. We've got a lot of brownfields, upper floors we could convert, and so on, but even if you added another 25,000 housing units at 2 PPH, that still only gets you to about 430,000, right in the middle of your range.

Of course this is all very back of the envelope, and you might be able to find more room for new housing units, the average PPH could go up a bit if you changed the demographic mix, and so on. But I think you are definitely in the ballpark of what we could fit without too much in the way of fundamental changes to the existing residential neighborhoods.

That said, expand out to the innermost suburbs, and suddenly the available capacity will go up quite a bit more.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by Copanut

So, maybe some of us would have to live in the 'burbs?

I'm not the type to chastise those who live in the burbs because I can see why people will find the city or the suburbs appealing. It just depends on your taste. Pittsburgh was never just Pittsburgh, there were also many towns along the river and stream valleys with further expansion up on the hills with the advent of the car or post WW2 climate of the nation.

[BrianTH]

Unless the City goes on a crazy annexation binge, there will very likely be far more people living in the suburbs than the City for the conceivable future. I think the more interesting question is what will the suburbs be like.

[BrianTH]

A little coda: here is an interesting article on the decline of "car culture" among younger people:

Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture? - Advertising Age - Digital

A key excerpt:

In 1978, nearly half of 16-year-olds and three-quarters of 17-year-olds in the U.S. had their driver's licenses, according to Department of Transportation data. By 2008, the most recent year data was available, only 31% of 16-year-olds and 49% of 17-year-olds had licenses, with the decline accelerating rapidly since 1998. Of course, many states have raised the minimum age for driver's licenses or tightened restrictions; still, the downward trend holds true for 18- and 19-year-olds as well (see chart) and those in their 20s.

It's not just new drivers driving less. The share of automobile miles driven by people aged 21 to 30 in the U.S. fell to 13.7% in 2009 from 18.3% in 2001 and 20.8% in 1995, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration's National Household Travel Survey released earlier this year.

Meanwhile, Census data show the proportion of people aged 21-30 increased from 13.3% to 13.9%, so 20-somethings actually went from driving a disproportionate amount of the nation's highway miles in 1995 to under-indexing for driving in 2009.

And a couple graphics:





The article goes on to speculate this is in part because of activities involving the Internet and similar digital technologies. In a nutshell, they make transportation in general less necessary, but they particularly make transportation where you have to drive less desirable. They also mention Zipcar, which is itself possible because of wireless digital technology, some of the housing price patterns we were discussing above, E-commerce, and so on.

So if you are looking for concrete evidence that things really are different in this generation, and some possible explanations regarding why they would be different, this is one article to consider.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So if you are looking for concrete evidence that things really are different in this generation, and some possible explanations regarding why they would be different, this is one article to consider.

Yeah -- but I know more than one set of parents whose kids just don't want to learn to drive. They just don't want to move out. They don't feel the need to be an adult, as long as Mom and Dad are there to "do" for them. And they do everything for them!

Man -- at their age I couldn't wait to be on my own. I met my husband when we were 19....

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

Man -- at their age I couldn't wait to be on my own. I met my husband when we were 19....

Likewise, when I got out of college at 21, no way in hell was I moving back home. I see so many 20 somethings still living with the 'rents.

[Katarina Witt]

If this trend is indeed happening, it's not evident here in CO. (I realize this is a thread about Pittsburgh, and I'm not attempting to hijack it. I'm just speaking of my own experiences.)

Now my older daughter was in no rush to learn to drive. However, I was sick of driving her around, and she didn't want to give up any of her activities, some of which weren't readily accessible by bus. So she learned to drive, and enjoyed the freedom. The younger one couldn't wait to learn to drive, was upset that she had to wait 3 days past her 16th birthday to take her test b/c her birthday is July 4, which was a Friday that year, and she had to wait all the way till Monday to get the license. I have not seen anything indicative of this trend in any of my kids' friends, all in their 20s at this point, or my friend's kids, some of whom are younger than mine. My nephew moved to Chicago (from Pittsburgh) and talked about selling his car. While he walks to work (common in Chicago for many decades), he has kept the car. He is just 30.

The article offered no real evidence for why young adults are driving less, just a lot of specualtion. It did say that telecommuting has not taken off to the degree that was predicted a few years ago. That's the problem with predictions. No one has a crystal ball. That said, I'd posit that once these 20 somethings do move out and have families of their own, they will drive.