Pittsburgh MSA 2019 Population Estimates (Erie, Washington: how much, living in, stats)

[runpens1]

Here's a little something different. Pittsburgh MSA Population estimates for the counties for July 2019 are in. It seemed weird this year. As expected though, Armstrong and Fayette lost the most again. Armstrong lost 627 residents, which is a 1% drop for it. Fayette lost 1,049 residents, which is a 0.8% drop for it. Allegheny County did pretty well this year, losing only 1,236 residents, only a o.1 percent drop. Washington dropped only about the same. Beaver lost 653 residents, a drop of 0.4%, which is better than the past few years. Westmoreland lost 1,560 residents, a drop of 0.5%, about the same as last year, but better than the couple years before that still. Butler only barely grew this year, an increase of only 215 residents, which seems to be its lowest for a while. Not sure what's up with that. That gives the metro area loss of 4,953 for the year, down to 2,317,700 from 2,332,653 in 2018, a 0.2% drop. So does that mean decent news overall for the city of Pittsburgh once this all breaks? I look forward to seeing everyone's insight on the metro area's population as a whole.

[SteelCityRising]

Thanks for sharing!

I'm very curious to hear Eschaton's insight. I'm sure IndependentThinker will be along soon, too, to say "Yep. Dying area, and the stats show it..."

I really can't say this is good news. I mean if the MSA only declined in population by 0.2% for an entire 10-year period? YIPPEE! 0.2% per year, though? At that rate we're losing 2.0% of our MSA population per decade. That's NOT good.

The lower our population goes, the lower our state congressional representation goes, and the less state dollars we receive in return. Given that only cities with a population of at least 500,000 will be receiving a Federal bailout from our impending recession (and given that Pittsburgh has MAYBE 300,000 people right now), then that's just another hit to the gut because Pittsburgh will be worse off than larger cities who will actually be getting Federal funds.

This sub-forum has some sort of weird fetish with people trying to "mansplain" why ongoing population loss is a good thing or "right-sizing". I mean I've lived here for a decade now. The population has supposedly decreased considerably in our MSA since 2010, but I've just noticed worsening traffic congestion and air quality to show for it along with more urban sprawl. Shouldn't we have less traffic congestion, better air quality, and less urban sprawl with a consistently lower population?

[runpens1]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Thanks for sharing!

I'm very curious to hear Eschaton's insight. I'm sure IndependentThinker will be along soon, too, to say "Yep. Dying area, and the stats show it..."

I really can't say this is good news. I mean if the MSA only declined in population by 0.2% for an entire 10-year period? YIPPEE! 0.2% per year, though? At that rate we're losing 2.0% of our MSA population per decade. That's NOT good.

The lower our population goes, the lower our state congressional representation goes, and the less state dollars we receive in return. Given that only cities with a population of at least 500,000 will be receiving a Federal bailout from our impending recession (and given that Pittsburgh has MAYBE 300,000 people right now), then that's just another hit to the gut because Pittsburgh will be worse off than larger cities who will actually be getting Federal funds.

This sub-forum has some sort of weird fetish with people trying to "mansplain" why ongoing population loss is a good thing or "right-sizing". I mean I've lived here for a decade now. The population has supposedly decreased considerably in our MSA since 2010, but I've just noticed worsening traffic congestion and air quality to show for it along with more urban sprawl. Shouldn't we have less traffic congestion, better air quality, and less urban sprawl with a consistently lower population?

Ok yeah I see what you're saying. Last decade, the metro lost a little over 3%, even with significant increases in both Butler and Washington, along with Westmoreland having a small decline. It maybe had to do with losses in the city maybe. So if it only loses 2% this time, that's not too bad. Since Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh seem to at least be doing better adding younger people, I think that helps a little. For the rest of the metro, Butler will definitely still increase a little, Washington may stay right around the same, but will most likely lose a little due to having a higher death rate than birth. Beaver also seems do be doing a little better due to the cracker plant, if that gets up and running again. Fayette and Armstrong just seem too disconnected from the urban center to foster growth. Westmoreland will probably do a little worse as the estimates are projecting but overall maybe the MSA will do a little better.

[Joe_P]

It's very significant that Allegheny's change - while declining - will be around a 10K drop, which is a much smaller drop than previous decades.

[runpens1]

Originally Posted by Joe_P

It's very significant that Allegheny's change - while declining - will be around a 10K drop, which is a much smaller drop than previous decades.

Yeah if the estimates are right, that's where it will be, which isn't bad at all.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Thanks for sharing!

I'm very curious to hear Eschaton's insight. I'm sure IndependentThinker will be along soon, too, to say "Yep. Dying area, and the stats show it..."

I really can't say this is good news. I mean if the MSA only declined in population by 0.2% for an entire 10-year period? YIPPEE! 0.2% per year, though? At that rate we're losing 2.0% of our MSA population per decade. That's NOT good.

The lower our population goes, the lower our state congressional representation goes, and the less state dollars we receive in return. Given that only cities with a population of at least 500,000 will be receiving a Federal bailout from our impending recession (and given that Pittsburgh has MAYBE 300,000 people right now), then that's just another hit to the gut because Pittsburgh will be worse off than larger cities who will actually be getting Federal funds.

This sub-forum has some sort of weird fetish with people trying to "mansplain" why ongoing population loss is a good thing or "right-sizing". I mean I've lived here for a decade now. The population has supposedly decreased considerably in our MSA since 2010, but I've just noticed worsening traffic congestion and air quality to show for it along with more urban sprawl. Shouldn't we have less traffic congestion, better air quality, and less urban sprawl with a consistently lower population?

Bingo

If population was going up 10,000, the same people who “mansplain” that it’s no big deal would be jumping for joy. Instead, they’ll say that a 10k drop is no big deal “because past decades”.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Thanks for sharing!

I'm very curious to hear Eschaton's insight. I'm sure IndependentThinker will be along soon, too, to say "Yep. Dying area, and the stats show it..."

I really can't say this is good news. I mean if the MSA only declined in population by 0.2% for an entire 10-year period? YIPPEE! 0.2% per year, though? At that rate we're losing 2.0% of our MSA population per decade. That's NOT good.

The lower our population goes, the lower our state congressional representation goes, and the less state dollars we receive in return. Given that only cities with a population of at least 500,000 will be receiving a Federal bailout from our impending recession (and given that Pittsburgh has MAYBE 300,000 people right now), then that's just another hit to the gut because Pittsburgh will be worse off than larger cities who will actually be getting Federal funds.

This sub-forum has some sort of weird fetish with people trying to "mansplain" why ongoing population loss is a good thing or "right-sizing". I mean I've lived here for a decade now. The population has supposedly decreased considerably in our MSA since 2010, but I've just noticed worsening traffic congestion and air quality to show for it along with more urban sprawl. Shouldn't we have less traffic congestion, better air quality, and less urban sprawl with a consistently lower population?

The estimates are great news. Hopefully they are true. Keep note that census usually underestimates decline or growth by thousands. It can vary from city to city. There is always an outside chance they can be spot on.

2010 was a good census. People don’t realize how much decline has been reported every year for the last 80 years.

The city losing less than 28,000 people is a great census. The county losing less than 50,000 is a great census. The city could very well decline by 20,000 and the county by 40,000. That would still be the best census in 70 years! Again most people can’t wrap their head around how significant the decline has been around here every decade.

The right sizing and mansplain is baloney. If we were the size of Erie, Youngstown, Akron or Canton it wouldn’t be a big deal. This city has the structure to serve 500,000 or more living in the city limits. And the county to handle over 1.5 million. The fact Pittsburgh has fallen so much people also don’t realize how big we were. Our relevancy has declined with it.

Pittsburgh won’t get money for big projects or upgrades due to its shrinking size. The bill passed by Congress gives Pittsburgh 0 dollars. We aren’t a city of 500,000 anymore. Growth and relevancy matter when crisis happen. Otherwise you are left behind.

This event is a big wake up call to those that embrace mediocrity or believing that cruising the way through is ok. And that is the problem with mansplaining decline here. It embraces mediocrity. This region is going to be on its own for recovery. We are going to to see how strong this region really is. This is 1982 all over again. Does it break this place? We will see.

[Joe_P]

I merely pointed out the trend.

FFS people. Nobody is saying a drop is good. I simply noted it terms of that context.

Now go back to your scripts and straw men.

[PghYinzer]

The lack of direct federal funding highlights the need for consolidation. No one in this area is getting funding as we continue to live in this massively fragmented area. The whole concept of continuing to go it alone so some small borough mayor can have power but no police force is unsustainable in the long run and it looks like the long run has run out.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

The lack of direct federal funding highlights the need for consolidation. No one in this area is getting funding as we continue to live in this massively fragmented area. The whole concept of continuing to go it alone so some small borough mayor can have power but no police force is unsustainable in the long run and it looks like the long run has run out.

Excellent post and couldn’t agree more. SCR has said before municipalities should just merge with the city. Now here is the reason why. If the city was 500,000 or more residents it would be getting federal help. Instead we are a city of 300,000 with many small tiny governments making up a metro population of 2.3 million people.

The region gets zero federal dollars as a result. No help money coming.

The very thing that is woven into the culture of this region may be the same thing that leads to its mass consolidation. The era of many kingdoms with their own kings is probably over. The feds aren’t going to preserve it and the state won’t either. The state has a golden opportunity to change things around here permanently and make it more streamlined and less red tape. Ashame it is going to take an international disaster to do it.