So that Brookings Institution report mentioned in the previous post, the one exploring the growth (or degradation) of downtown population in major American cities, is finally out.
It's pretty fascinating, actually. No, really. It is. Take a look. Pittsburgh is on the list.
Some of the cities known to everyone as "cool" places to live score as you might expect. From 1970 to 2000, for instance, San Francisco's total population grew by 9.4 percent, but the number of people living downtown exploded by almost 25 percent. As we all, know, living downtown is oh so au courant, especially when compared to the oafish practice of living in the suburbs. San Francisco is therefore that much cooler today than it was in 1970.
Other hip,young places have seen similar trends. Seattle, largely seen as a symbol of the Internet boom mentality, has actually only grown by 6.9 percent over the 30 years studied. But the downtown population grew by an astounding 85.6 percent. That, despite all the Grunge-related heroin overdoses.
So where does that leave our beloved Pittsburgh?
Well, the city's population contracted by 35.2 percent since 1970. But the downtown population dipped by just 13.2 percent. By my math, that means a higher percentage of 'Burgh dwellers live downtown than did in the 1970s. So does that mean it's cooler? Hmm. Maybe so. At least cooler than in 1990. The number of people living downtown increased by more 26 percent since then.
It's hard to say what any of this means. But what the hell, I'll try. Take a look at Austin, another favorite of the creative class cutesy brigade. The city has grown by an astonishing 160 percent over the past three decades, while the number of people living downtown dropped by 23 percent. Does that mean it's less cool?
I haven't read the report yet. So maybe some of this gets explained away. Maybe not. I'll take a look.
In the meantime, even without having read the report, I bet you an infinite number of dollars that I know what this will mean to the people in charge of interpreting it for Pittsburgh's redevelopment officials. I predict they will use it to say something like: "This report supports our current efforts to create a cooperative atmosphere among people dedicated to breathing life back into downtown Pittsburgh. It calls for all of us--local government, state government and the private sector--to come together in creative ways to create an atmosphere conducive to business and cultural amenities, and to build on Pittsburgh's historic success in reinventing its downtown." The final report will not spend an inordinate amount of time discussing that historic success in light of the fact that the city's population has fallen by one-third in 30 years.
And after they spend another $200,000 on studies, the experts will recommend subsidies for loft apartments, mixed in with retail development. Plus complaints about transit.
Any takers?
Last, does it strike anyone else as odd that SO FEW people live downtown? Pittsburgh's numbers for 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000, respectively, were 9468, 6904, 6517 and 8216. So there has been an upswing recently. But does it matter?
I can check for the complete numbers, but for now, doesn't Pittsburgh have something like 300,000 residents? So the people living downtown represent something like two percent of the total? Remember, getting more people to live downtown has been a virtual obsession among planners. But let's say they REALLY succeed and get it to, say, double, by 2010. That won't do much for the city's total population.
So maybe it's time to think about why the OTHER people left the city since 1970? You know, the other 95,000, other than "downtown residents," that have bolted? And how to draw them back to the area?
Just a thought.
Update: Uh oh. I was wondering how to explain the fact that Pittsburgh has seen such strong growth in downtown population since 1990. The number had increased by something like 26 percent by 2000. For a minute I thought some kudos might be in order for the people in charge of development. Take a look at page six of the report. Seems that the growth falls to 5 percent if you exclude a certain group: People who are incarcerated.
Maybe 5 percent is pretty good. But the whole incarcerated thing seems kind of icky. Jails are drawing far more people than our developers are. Sheesh.
Comments