The perfect Population size for the Burgh ?? (Pittsburgh, McKeesport: homes, employment)

[simetime]

I think that I'm going to keep my summer home in pittsburgh

[stburr91]

As the area is currently, not much more with out some serious growing pains.

The infrastructure is so dated, it needs quite a few upgrades just to support the current number of people. As Geeo mentioned, the city's infrastructure is largely stuck in the 1950's. Built at time of larger households, and much fewer cars per household.

I think finding a way to pay for the major infrastructure improvements will be an impediment to Pittsburgh's growth for the next 10-20 years.

[trotter_rej]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I hate that our area's only IKEA is in Robinson Township. I hate that the Ross Park Mall has our area's only Crate & Barrel. Why not build both in the city and encourage suburbanites to come into the city to shop (you know---like the "good 'ole days") instead of the other way around? Whole Foods and Trader Joe's are major regional draws in the city for suburbanites. IKEA and Crate & Barrel could have been the same.

I don't think IKEA's business model is very well suited to a city location since it is almost all put-it-together-yourself furniture. In other words, I can't see taking a bus to IKEA to shop. Another furniture showroom with better delivery options might work, however.

A little off-topic, but still interesting to me is that IKEA was the trail-blazer in the whole Robinson sprawlopolis. When it was built, the only shopping nearby was a Giant Eagle and a Murphy Mart (or maybe it was Ames by then). The rest (Robinson Towne Center, The Pointe, The Mall, Settler's Ridge, etc.) filled in around it.

[BrianTH]

Assuming we are right that 450,000 or so is a practical limit for population inside the City's borders, it just isn't possible for more than a small fraction of the current suburban population to move into the City, and that doesn't account for future population growth. In fact even if the practical limit was substantially higher, that would remain true.

For that reason, if you want more people in the future Pittsburgh area to be able to choose a more-urban/walkable/low-energy/less-autocentric lifestyle, you have to be thinking in terms of how to shape the future development of the suburbs, not just how to add more people to the City. In other words, you have to bring some city to the people, not just try to bring some people to the City, because the City just ain't big enough.

Edit: Oh, and I agree that means giving people in the suburbs a wealth of retail options near them, not trying to pack them all into the City.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Assuming we are right that 450,000 or so is a practical limit for population inside the City's borders, it just isn't possible for more than a small fraction of the current suburban population to move into the City, and that doesn't account for future population growth. In fact even if the practical limit was substantially higher, that would remain true.

For that reason, if you want more people in the future Pittsburgh area to be able to choose a more-urban/walkable/low-energy/less-autocentric lifestyle, you have to be thinking in terms of how to shape the future development of the suburbs, not just how to add more people to the City. In other words, you have to bring some city to the people, not just try to bring some people to the City, because the City just ain't big enough.

Edit: Oh, and I agree that means giving people in the suburbs a wealth of retail options near them, not trying to pack them all into the City.

Nicely said. And don't forget that stores that initially open in the burbs often open additional stores closer into the city if the first store is successful. That's how Wegman's came to Nova. The first store was way out in the burbs in Sterling. It was such a success that they built several more, most of them closer in. Supporting that initial store out in the burbs can be in your own best interest.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The current City of Boston has about 618,000 people in 90 square miles. Applying the same density to the City of Pittsburgh and its 58 square miles, you get about 400,000 people. And that's not accounting for all the developable area Pittsburgh loses to its topography.

boston only has 48 sq miles of land

City89.63 sq mi (232.14 km2) - Land48.43 sq mi (125.43 km2)
Water41.21 sq mi (106.73 km2)

Boston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it has about double the density so you could double the population of pittsburgh
Pittsburgh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now, I'd say, 450k is about the limitation of current infrastructure but I wouldn't say 450k is the absolute limitation on the city before QOL went down. I wouldn't worry that much about cars. you have to figure, if pittsburgh had double the population, PAT would be bigger, and have a smaller problem with legacy costs, and thus transit service would be better. adding people today in core areas will put more butts in seats. this is largely theoretical since it's unlikely that pittsburgh will double in size in 20 years. still, if the city adds 20k residents downtown, I don't think you'd need to add ANY infrastructure. and what of the north side? or strip district? there's lots of room in these areas and vehicle demand might be small, especially presuming job growth in the city itself in places like oakland, downtown, east liberty, and maybe the north side/shore.

[Craziaskowboi]

Pittsburgh needs to extend T lines to the east and the west, and I-376 needs an extreme makeover in the form of six lanes and upgraded interchange capacity. BAM! Infrastructure upgraded.

[BrianTH]

The limit on current infrastructure is lower than 450K--450K is about when you would have to start changing the character of existing neighborhoods.

I don't think you can get to 450K, or more, first, then invest in infrastructure. You have to be willing to invest in infrastructure along the way, and in fact somewhat in advance.

[pman]

i

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The limit on current infrastructure is lower than 450K--450K is about when you would have to start changing the character of existing neighborhoods.

I don't think you can get to 450K, or more, first, then invest in infrastructure. You have to be willing to invest in infrastructure along the way, and in fact somewhat in advance.

maybe. i dont think it would be a bad thing if the character of certain neighborhoods changed.

[bradjl2009]

400,000 but no more than 450,000. I think that the all time high population in most Rust-belt cities would be undesirable for all of them for the reasons stated above. Just as I couldn't imagine over 600,000 in Pittsburgh ever again I'm sure people in Cleveland couldn't imagine 900,000 and 840,000 in St. Louis again without so many people living in towers.