Pittsburgh compared to Seattle

[Randy@Tacoma]

Im from Seattle and have been to Pittsburgh. What i cant figure out is why someone would even think of comparing Pittsburgh to Seattle. Pittsburgh was once a LARGE city (almost 800,000) that has dwindled down to 400,000. It's steel mills have closed and so is the city. It's dying and dying fast. Seattle on the other hand is young and growing. There hasn't been a year that Seattle's population has shrank. Seattle's building more skyscrapers and building a mass transit system. Seattle's on the verge World Class City status, while Pittsburgh is on the verge of being wiped off the map (no offense to anybody from Pittsburgh, but I feel sorry for you.)

[PghUSA]

Blueblack interesting perspective. Pittsburgh is too special to really be equal to any other city . If I was forced to pick an "overall" choice though and as you've mentioned above, it would have to be Seattle. Portland has some things that are very Pittsburghesque, unfortunately you can't root for a major league team all year, go to work at dozens of fortune 1000 companies, have scores of 4 year colleges in the area or a strip of major universities downtown. Both are great cities, Seattle just has the critical mass that Pittsburgh also enjoys, one is new, one is old but if you stay in the NW you will always have that discrepancy when comparing a city to Pittsburgh.

SunD,

Omaha is actually very much like Portland, Buffalo and Memphis when considering Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies, and Omaha is a pretty cool town "About Schmidt", "Election" etc.

4 Fortune 500's and 6 Fortune 1000's (by the way the 1000's INCLUDE the 500's as logic would dictate).

So the breakdown would look like this:

Fortune 500 corportations:

Metro Seattle 9

8

Metro Pittsburgh 7

6

5

Metro Omaha 4

3

Metro Memphis 2

Metro Buffalo 1

Metro Portland 1

Fortune 1000 corporations:

Metro Pittsburgh 16

15

Metro Seattle 14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

Metro Memphis 6

Metro Omaha 6

5

Metro Portland 4

Metro Buffalo 3

[Sundodger]

If you're looking only at topology, contrasting Seattle's bay/ocean to Portland's single river and Pittsburgh's confluence of three, none of them really resemble one another.

Portland is located at a confluence of rivers; the Willamette & Columbia. It doesn't resemble the confluence in Pittsburgh because the rivers are much larger in Portland & the downtown isn't located at the confluence, but rather at the old high river mark for ocean going shipping on the Willamette.

If you size either port by tonnage, Pittsburgh's is as large as many ocean ports, which makes it irrelevant that it's only on a river. While a far cry from the port of LA or NYC, a comparison to Seattle seems fair game.

The ports aren't similar at all though Portland is probably the most comparable port to Pittsburgh because of the Columbia River barge traffic. The ports of Seattle & Tacoma host massive oceanliners & are massive container ports. Portland gets the ocean traffic too but they are the point on the Columbia where the barges are unloaded & put on to the ships.

If you look at population density then there's only 4 cities in the US which top Pittsburgh and I doubt Seattle's one, so why direct our attention at Portland which is even more sparse? PD is probably the single most telling number about a city, affecting every aspect of lifestyle and culture (including the music scene).

The city of Seattle has a denser population than Pittsburgh does. The reason the city of Portland's population per sq. mile numbers take a hit is due to gigantic parks & other natural reserves within the city limits. Also Seattle & Portland have two of the liveliest downtowns in the country. More people live in downtown & the area's around downtown of Portland & Seattle than Pittsburgh.

Downtown population, 2000:

Seattle - 16,443

Portland - 12,903

Pittsburgh - 3,210

Some of the densest neighborhoods in Seattle & Portland are adjacent to downtown & are not included in these numbers. Also Portland & Seattle are going through a downtown condo tower boom, Seattle suburb Bellevue too.

Yes Seattle had Nirvana but not every band in Seattle is cool just cos they're from the same city.

True but considering record sales, influence, etc., Seattle has put a bigger mark on music than a city its size should.

Where's that movie about that famous music venue in Portland? Seattle?

Portland's music scene blows away mosts cities. For Seattle, the movie Singles covers one sect of the live music scene. The documentary Hype! also covers part of the Seattle music scene.

Pittsburgh has slightly less Fortune 500 companies than Seattle but it's an apples to oranges comparison. Seattle is a relatively new city that didn't really get national prominance until the high-tech era. Before then what, Jack London hung out there for the gold rush?

Boeing, United Airlines, UPS, Nordstrom, Eddie Bauer, Washington Mutual, Weyerhaeuser, PACCAR (Peterbilt & Kenworth) all came before the tech boom. True, Seattle first became a player when the Alaska gold rushes hit in the late 19th century & hasn't looked back. Back in those days, Portland was the premier NW city.

Also, Seattle is a lot more than Microsoft. If Microsoft died, it would hurt but wouldn't kill the area. It wouldn't affect the city of Seattle much; the Eastern Suburbs would take the biggest hit but they are also home to Costco, PACCAR, & many other large companies. The Eastside is also a leading wireless technology center, video gaming center (Nintendo, not Microsfot started that), etc.

I think it's pretty charitable of Pittsburgh to compare itself to Seattle when all is said and done.

I think it is Pittsburgh trying to link its name with Seattle & not vice versa. That's how this whole thread began in the first place.

[blueblackcat]

Im from Seattle and have been to Pittsburgh. What i cant figure out is why someone would even think of comparing Pittsburgh to Seattle. Pittsburgh was once a LARGE city (almost 800,000) that has dwindled down to 400,000. It's steel mills have closed and so is the city. It's dying and dying fast. Seattle on the other hand is young and growing. There hasn't been a year that Seattle's population has shrank. Seattle's building more skyscrapers and building a mass transit system. Seattle's on the verge World Class City status, while Pittsburgh is on the verge of being wiped off the map (no offense to anybody from Pittsburgh, but I feel sorry for you.)

When was the last time you came to Pittsburgh, 1980? Pittsburgh is expanding it's mass transit (including the first under-river tunnel for the city for a subway, a new water taxi service, and at least being considered for the nations first maglev train, unlike Seattle), building several large scale developments within the city, new high rise housing developments downtown (after a 30 year hiatus), two brand new world-class stadiums and a third planned, new Wabash tunnel, university research spending growing and set to top $1billion/year (including the biggest supercomputer in the nation which will hopefully be expanded soon), several brand new malls/lifestyle centers, several new corporate HQs coming, and believe it or not the city has posted steady job growth since the national steel industry collapse. Seattle is only beginning to get things that Pittsburgh has already had for a long time, including the skyscrapers.

Oh, and add to that a brand new world-class convention center, new marinas built and on the way, and a now thriving cultural district.

Right now the way things look is that Pittsburgh is passing through a period where developers want to build things, but aren't quite sure what the market can handle. Now that a few have tested the waters, there seems to be a rush to build more of what works. I think downtown housing units under development are numbering in the thousands right now, and they are being bought up or rented out at an incredibly fast rate. Other rennovations are taking place all over the city. If things continue this way, the population loss will reverse itself in just a few years, and I'm sure everyone will seem shocked.

[Sundodger]

=PghUSA' date='Oct 29 2005, 12:01 PM' post='235032]

Blueblack interesting perspective. Pittsburgh is too special to really be equal to any other city . If I was forced to pick an "overall" choice though and as you've mentioned above, it would have to be Seattle. Portland has some things that are very Pittsburghesque, unfortunately you can't root for a major league team all year, go to work at dozens of fortune 1000 companies, have scores of 4 year colleges in the area or a strip of major universities downtown.

Again, Portland has the universities downtown & the scores of 4 year colleges in the are, not Seattle. Also Portland is home to tons of Fortune 500 companies; just not the HQs. The Portland area has the 2nd most Intel employees of any other metro. If you just compare pro-sports & HQs, Seattle is closer, compare everything & Portland is waaaay more similar to Pittsburgh than Seattle is.

If you think Seattle has more 4 year colleges than Portland, name them. You are totally wrong on this point.

[PghUSA]

Since you have mentioned skylines blueblack maybe we should compare the "skyline". Emporis.com is kind of flaky with the medium heights (errors in data etc.) and the overall number (including proposed, never builts and demolished). So instead I took the 5 tallest from each city and compared.

Pittsburgh definitely would never be confused with Portland if one was to glipse both cities skylines.

Seattle and Pittsburgh are at a glance very similar, it would probably take a skyscraper aficionado and close inspection to guess which city was which.

Likewise Portland though a step above Memphis and Buffalo still would take some closer looks to differentiate from those cities.

Skyscrapers

Sports

Business

Education

. . . I'm not seeing how I'll enjoy Portland as a "west-coast" Pittsburgh after some hills and bridges, Seattle though seems much more like home.

[blueblackcat]

Since you have mentioned skylines blueblack maybe we should compare the "skyline". Emporis.com is kind of flaky with the medium heights (errors in data etc.) and the overall number (including proposed, never builts and demolished). So instead I took the 5 tallest from each city and compared.

That's an interesting graph. It does make Seattle look good, although I'll wager that Pittsburgh still has more total square feet in office space above 500 feet (or whatever qualifies as a skyscraper) than Seattle. Too bad we don't have numbers on that. New technology makes it cheap to build higher buildings, but there still has to be a very strong demand to build both higher and wider.

Another thing I can notice from this graph is the precipitous drop in height in Seatle's top 5 versus Pittsburgh's top 5. It points to some aspect of development and growth, I'd say if the top 10 or 15 showed the same pattern then it would be a nice visual fingerprint of Seattle's boom-town economy versus Pittsburgh's steady growth. So unless Seattle's taller buildings have a big technological advantage making them more efficient, an economic downturn could show this neat pattern of the tallest buildings being vacated first while the shorter ones remain viable. IOW Pittsburgh's buildings share economic risk more evenly.

[PghUSA]

^^I agree blueblack, the US Steel Building for a long time was the world's tallest uniform skyscraper (the mezzanine having the same sq. footage as the highest floor which unlike structural masts, towers and steeples at the top, or a terraced top 20 floors, is the actual top of the building). It is still one of the world's tallest in that category.

I believe Emporis does have some sq. footage data, that would be a chore to get on the breadth of Seattle, Pittsburgh and Portland but I imagine you are correct, on sq. footage Pittsburgh and Seattle might be even closer twins. The graph to me shows Pittsburgh and Seattle intertwined as far as there cityscapes go, Portland not very close at all being a better twin with other smaller metros.

[Sundodger]

Since you have mentioned skylines blueblack maybe we should compare the "skyline".

How about comparing more than just the 5 tallest?

Over 250ft:

Seattle - 65 (soon to be 67)

Pittsburgh - 31

Portland - 18 (soon to be 19)

Memphis - 11

Buffalo - 11

Bellevue, WA - 8 (soon to be 12)

. . . I'm not seeing how I'll enjoy Portland as a "west-coast" Pittsburgh after some hills and bridges, Seattle though seems much more like home.

Spend some time in both & it is a no brainer that Portland is Pittsburgh's twin while Seattle & Pittsburgh are not that much alike.

[Sundodger]

That's an interesting graph. It does make Seattle look good, although I'll wager that Pittsburgh still has more total square feet in office space above 500 feet (or whatever qualifies as a skyscraper) than Seattle.

I doubt that. Office buildings over 500 ft:

Seattle -

Columbia Center - 943 ft

Two Union - 740 ft

Washington Mutual - 735 ft

Gateway - 722 ft

Seafirst - 609 ft

WaMu (under construction) - 598 ft

U.S. Bank - 580 ft

Wells Fargo - 574 ft

5th Ave Plaza - 543 ft

Bank of California - 543 ft

Rainier Tower - 514 ft

IDX Tower - 512 ft

Pittsburgh -

U.S. Steel - 841 ft

1 Mellon - 725 ft

PPG - 635 ft.

5th Ave Pl - 616 ft

One Oxford - 615 ft

Gulf - 582 ft

3 Mellon - 520 ft

FreeMarkets - 511 ft.

[PghUSA]

SunD,

How does that stat help your viewpoint?

Pittsburgh is soon to be 33 or possibly 35 actually (Convention Center Hotel, Liberty Avenue Hotel, Southside Works Hotel, etc.) Also on the Emporis site I don't see how Seattle is soon to be 67+?

Even with those numbers Memphis and Buffalo are within 7 or 8 of Portland . . . but Portland has to build almost 25 to catch up to Pittsburgh?!? Does Portland compare well with Pittsburgh or with Buffalo and Memphis given that math?

Seattle does have a massive amount of 30 and 27 floor structures 330 feet to 270 feet.

But again, look at the chart above, does Buffalo's skyline make big impressions, or Memphis's or maybe even Portland's after the first 4 buildings? People don't really look at 300 ft. or 250 ft. structures as "skyscrapers" something that catches the eye as your speeding by gazing at a cityscape.

To Blueblack's point about skyscrapers being more then just great things to catch the eye (thus the 500 ft. or above rule), Pittsburgh's tallest while almost 100 feet shorter then Seattle's tallest has almost twice as much office space (almost a full acre per floor!).

US Steel Tower sq. footage=217,045 m

[blueblackcat]

I doubt that. Office buildings over 500 ft:

I doubt it too, now. But it could still be very close in square footage. Pittsburgh's taller buildings are fairly expansive. I didn't think much of it until I visited Frankfurt and realized their skyscrapers are all stick-figures. And it depends on if you draw the line at 600, 500, 400, etc. A nice skyline comparison would be total square footage at each elevation level.

By the way, a population desnsity comparison should include all of the city limits if you're comparing cities, not downtowns. Pittsburgh's downtown has pretty much been a commuter workplace for the last few decades, much to it's detriment, but that's also not possible with Seattle's lack of mass transit.

http://www.bestplaces.net/city/compare_Pit...attle_WA?PEOPLE

PEOPLE Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Seattle, Washington National Avg.

Population 336710 569000 48662

Pop. Density 6052.2 6409.9 3043.9

Pop. Change -8.99% 4.03% 11.65%

Median Age 37.78 37.46 35.5

Household Size 2.05 2 2.55

PEOPLE Portland, Oregon

Population 538544

Pop. Density 3698

Pop. Change 3.61%

Median Age 36.45

Household Size 2.14

All the numbers on that website pretty much make Pittsburgh look more like Seattle than Portland, but I'm finding a lot of discrepancies looking around the site so I'm taking the statistics with a grain of salt

[Sundodger]

quote name=PghUSA' date='Oct 29 2005, 02:05 PM' post='235104]

SunD,

How does that stat help your viewpoint?

It shows Portland & Pittsburgh are more clsely related in the tall building catergory than Pittsburgh & Seattle. In another decade, Portland will be nipping at your heels in the plus 250 ft. catergory. They still won't hold a candle to you in the number of 500 footers then or ever. Portland almost takes pride in their anti-Seattle skyline. Condo towers are sprining up like weeds in Portland; heck they may pass Pittsburgh in the highrise catergory sooner than later!

Pittsburgh is soon to be 33 or possibly 35 actually (Convention Center Hotel, Liberty Avenue Hotel, Southside Works Hotel, etc.) Also on the Emporis site I don't see how Seattle is soon to be 67+?

The WaMu building just topped out & a condo tower is also underconstruction giving Seattle 67 in the near future.

Even with those numbers Memphis and Buffalo are within 7 or 8 of Portland . . . but Portland has to build almost 25 to catch up to Pittsburgh?!?

Portland is actually building things over 250 ft tall unlike Memphis, Buffalo, & Pittsburgh. Portland is catching up to Pittsburgh while places like Buffalo & Memphis are being passed by a Seattle suburb.

Does Portland compare well with Pittsburgh or with Buffalo and Memphis given that math?

Pittsburgh. Between Portland, Pittsburgh, Memphis, & Buffalo, Portland by far has the nicest downtown. Pittsburgh is a distant 2nd. In my opinion, Pittsburgh compares more to Buffalo & Memphis than Portland. Looking at building heights is a silly way of comparing places IMO. Size, geography, influence, & culture are way more important factors worth considering.

But again, look at the chart above, does Buffalo's skyline make big impressions, or Memphis's or maybe even Portland's after the first 4 buildings? People don't really look at 300 ft. or 250 ft. structures as "skyscrapers" something that catches the eye as your speeding by gazing at a cityscape.

People are too busy looking at the four 9,000 to 12,000 ft. tall volcanoes towering over Portland than the skyscrapers.

[Sundodger]

quote name=blueblackcat' date='Oct 29 2005, 02:16 PM' post='235109]

By the way, a population desnsity comparison should include all of the city limits if you're comparing cities, not downtowns.

Why? City limits are arbitrary. Portland includes massive amounts of wetlands, forest preserves, & parks that are uninhabited. Look at the core city & I bet Portland is close to Pittsburgh's density (if not currently higher) & will pass the density of Pittsburgh shortly. Portland's downtown & city as a whole are growing, unlike Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's downtown has pretty much been a commuter workplace for the last few decades, much to it's detriment, but that's also not possible with Seattle's lack of mass transit.

What are you talking about? Seattle has commuter rail & one of the best bus networks in country. It has tons of commuters. A few hundred thousand more people work there than live there plus many of the people who work on the Eastside commute from Seattle & vice versa. I commuted from Olympia to Seattle for 8 months.

[PghUSA]

Office buildings over 500 ft:

Seattle -

Columbia Center - 943 ft

Two Union - 740 ft

Washington Mutual - 735 ft

Gateway - 722 ft

Seafirst - 609 ft

WaMu (under construction) - 598 ft

U.S. Bank - 580 ft

Wells Fargo - 574 ft

5th Ave Plaza - 543 ft

Bank of California - 543 ft

Rainier Tower - 514 ft

IDX Tower - 512 ft

Pittsburgh -

U.S. Steel - 841 ft

1 Mellon - 725 ft

PPG - 635 ft.

5th Ave Pl - 616 ft

One Oxford - 615 ft

Gulf - 582 ft

3 Mellon - 520 ft

FreeMarkets - 511 ft.

SunD, please check your facts you forgot 2 really (Emporius leaves off the Grant Building because the "structural" tower was added a few years after construction), and you forgot the Cathedral of Learning which is in all respects a skyscraper with offices and the like.

The correct count really should be:

Seattle 12 (I'll give you WaMu though it isn't a "snapshot stat")

Pittsburgh 10

Portland though only has 3, much in line with Buffalo's 1.

Here is a breakdown for you:

Seattle 11 or (12 as you've mentioned)and 8 over 550 feet

937, 772, 740, 722, 630, 598*, 580, 574, 543, 536, 514, 512

Pittsburgh 10 (really check it) and 6 over 550 feet

841, 725, 635, 616, 615, 582, 535, 520, 511, 501*

9? none

8? none

7? none

6? none

5? none

4? none

Portland none over 550 feet and only 3 over 500 feet

546, 536 & 509

2? none

Buffalo none over 550 feet 1 over 500 feet

Memphis none over 550 feet

Also if you kick out the "lets just slap some more doyles to the roof to get it over 500 feet" syndrome and count only 550 footers the breakdown as you can probably tell from above is:

Seattle 8

Pittsburgh 6

Buffalo, Memphis, Portland 0

Pittsburgh and Seattle are VERY Closely related.

Portland could only be closely related to Buffalo or Memphis.

Also though Seattle has a few higher ones as I've mentioned above Pittsburgh has much much more sq. footage!

Seattle's tallest:

Bank of America tower sq. footage=142,879 m

[Sundodger]

Why haven't you tried to compare city size, metro size, T.V. market size, airports, etc. between the three? You will see Portland & Pittsburgh are twins. Skyscrapers & sports teams aren't a good indicator of a city. Washington D.C. doesn't have skyscrapers & L.A. doesn't have the NFL.

[blueblackcat]

quote name=blueblackcat' date='Oct 29 2005, 02:16 PM' post='235109]

By the way, a population desnsity comparison should include all of the city limits if you're comparing cities, not downtowns.

Why? City limits are arbitrary. Portland includes massive amounts of wetlands, forest preserves, & parks that are uninhabited. Look at the core city & I bet Portland is close to Pittsburgh's density (if not currently higher) & will pass the density of Pittsburgh shortly. Portland's downtown & city as a whole are growing, unlike Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh has one of the largest parks within city limits. Behind Fairmont & Pennypack in Philly, Central Park in NYC, Pittsburgh ranks next. Pittsburgh has innumerable cliffs and steep slopes not suitable for development, along with several rivers (not just the two main ones!), and plenty of space devoted to industrial areas. And Pittsburgh is 55.5 square miles, smaller than either Portland or Seattle. If you multiply Pittsburgh's population density over Seattle's land area, it would be equivalent to a population 94% of Seattle's, but with MORE parks, not less. Since city limits are arbitrary, I believe one could pick and choose another 30 square miles to Pittsburgh that would more than cover 94-100% of Seattle's population in an equivalent area.

And in case you haven't seen the numbers I posted, Portland's population density is roughly HALF of either Pittsburgh's or Seattle's. If you extrapolate Portland gaining on Pittsburgh by 4% a year, it will take over 20 years to catch up if nothing else changes. Except that Pittsburgh's population loss has been shrinking and is most likely to reverse. A LOT can happen in 20 years, that is not a trivial timespan. Seattle hasn't been bigger than Pittsburgh for as long. For instance Cranberry, our most begrudgingly sprawling suburb, is the fastest growing community in the USA. Some slight change in say, cost of gas, taxes, or job opportunities, could send all those people back to Pittsburgh overnight.

What seems to be happening is the oppositte of how you portray it. By your own description, both Seattle and Portland are hemmed in either by mountains, ocean, and parks that are *outside* of city limits, concentrating the population and limiting where sprawl can spread to. I recall reading something about how there is actually tremendous population pressure pushing up against Olympia National Park because of Seattle's sprawl. 45 minutes outside Seattle you have Olympia NP, 45 minutes outside of Pittsburgh you have Cranberry.

Also notice, Pittsburgh has already grown into itself and settled down, one thing that Seattle can never take away from Pittsburgh. We're improving air and water quality while in Seattle and Portland it's been getting worse. In fact it *is* worse in Seattle by double digits, and getting worse, while Pittsburgh is getting better. More people here commute in environmentally friendly ways (see below), there are massive cleanup efforts, and Pennsylvania is one of the top states developing wind energy, etc. Seattle and the NW corridor as a whole has yet to go over that hump and develop in an environmentally sustainable way.

What seems to be happening in Seattle, with housing prices rising at 12%, but population rising at 4% and average income not changing much, is a housing bubble. Average income there may be double Pittsburgh's, but the average house is 5 times as much. And it's not like Pittsburgh is depreciating at all. Housing bubbles have got everything to do with speculation and hype than with economic reality. Wspecially with people moving in from around the country thinking they can arbitrage in a peak market. There's a limit to how much the market will take sort of like there's a limit to who can profit in a pyramid scheme. People will buy a house for more than it's worth only if they think someone else will buy it for even more later on. Eventually 12% growth can't be sustained by 4% population growth and income growth on par with inflation. Congratulations and good luck with that!

Pittsburgh's downtown has pretty much been a commuter workplace for the last few decades, much to it's detriment, but that's also not possible with Seattle's lack of mass transit.

What are you talking about? Seattle has commuter rail & one of the best bus networks in country. It has tons of commuters. A few hundred thousand more people work there than live there plus many of the people who work on the Eastside commute from Seattle & vice versa. I commuted from Olympia to Seattle for 8 months.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/21/real_estat...ulation_cities/

Acording to US Census data, Pittsburgh's daytime population jumps 41.3% versus Seattle's 28.4%

Using this with stats from from www.bestplaces.net:

This means Pittsburgh's daytime population goes up by 139,061 versus in Seattle by 161,596, so it's a fairly similar number of commuters from outside the city.

Of the total commuters, 47.88% of Pittsburgh's commuters are able to take mass transit, carpool, bike, or walk, versus only 37.35% in Seattle. 21.51% in Pittsburgh take mass transit versus 16.34% in Seattle.

Therefore, Pittsburgh is much better able to serve its non-driving commuters and mass transit commuters alike.

BUT, when I made the original comment, I think I was thinking about Portland and said Seattle. Only 11% of Portland's commuters actually take mass transit. 64% drive. Which makes it even more of a mismatch to Pittsburgh than Seattle.

[PghUSA]

SunD,

I welcome any stats on metro population, media market sizes etc. I will grant you the relevance of skyscrapers, pro franchises, student population and fortune 500 & 1000 companies can be debated (though almost everyone would admit they are integral to a metro's makeup), but does this mean Seattle and Pittsburgh are twins on those matters?

One word of caution on the media markets and metro populations . . . just as you failed to include TWO Pittsburgh skyscrapers that were over 500 feet, please analyze the media and population data. Apples to apples is not what the Census bureau or Nielsen counts because of political pressure from "critical mass" communities in West Virginia and Ohio. Both of which depend solely on Pittsburgh for ABC and FOX programming, whose newspaper ownership group owns the "hometown" Pittsburgh Pirates, but yet the Census and Neilsen b/c of pressure from Columbus and Charleston will not include Wheeling, Wierton, Steubenville, E. Liverpool and the like into Pittsburgh's metro stats nor DMA. The census and Pittsburgh have been going at this for awhile now, with Armstrong county finally joining the metro stats just a few years ago!

Seattle and Portland have no such outstanding disputes with the census or Nielsen. I have never fully understood how I can watch Channel 4 Pittsburgh or FOXPittsburgh, fly out of Pittsburgh International Airport, go to the Pittsburgh concert center, and read my local newspaper owned by the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates, and yet NOT be in metro Pittsburgh.

4 Senators and about a half dozen congressman are very adament that the "rules" of metros don't apply to Pittsburgh's west hills. Imagine for a moment Seattle and Tacoma being split up into two very seperate metros that would have no more commonality then San Diego and Seattle as far as media, sports, airports, concerts etc. or Portland and Vancouver, Washington.

So please provide all the stats you can, just be sure to include those households watching Channel 4 Pittsburgh for their ABC station, reading the Pittsburgh Pirates owner's newspaper, and flying out of Pittsburgh International Airport in Ohio and West Virginia .

[Sundodger]

Pittsburgh has one of the largest parks within city limits. Behind Fairmont & Pennypack in Philly, Central Park in NYC, Pittsburgh ranks next.

Forest Park in Portland is larger than Fairmont, Pennypack, Central, & anything in Pittsburgh. In fact Pittsburgh's largest city park doesn't rank in the nation's top largest city parks.

And in case you haven't seen the numbers I posted, Portland's population density is roughly HALF of either Pittsburgh's or Seattle's.

Again, due to geography.

For instance Cranberry, our most begrudgingly sprawling suburb, is the fastest growing community in the USA.

Really? I have seen fastest growing places lists & didn't see it listed. I am sure there are places around Seattle & Portland growing faster.

What seems to be happening is the oppositte of how you portray it. By your own description, both Seattle and Portland are hemmed in either by mountains, ocean, and parks that are *outside* of city limits, concentrating the population and limiting where sprawl can spread to.

Portland has what east coaste people would call mountains within their city!

I recall reading something about how there is actually tremendous population pressure pushing up against Olympia National Park because of Seattle's sprawl.

Nope. You mean Olympic Natl. Park. Seattle isn't close to touching it. If you have a map, Seattle sprawls pretty much from Tumwater in the south to Arlington in the north, Poulsbo in the west to North Bend in the east. There is plenty of room to grow.

Seattle and the NW corridor as a whole has yet to go over that hump and develop in an environmentally sustainable way.

You are joking, right? The NW leads the country practically in granola greener enviroreligion. Portland is the green building & "smart growth" capital of this country. Also we are the nation's largest hydroelectric (clean energy) producer.

What seems to be happening in Seattle, with housing prices rising at 12%, but population rising at 4% and average income not changing much, is a housing bubble.

It is a supply shortage, not a housing bubble. Urban growth laws have dminished developable land & increased prices. Also the area is rapidally growing to the point builders can barely keep up with the demand hence the new housing in condo towers boom in the area.

This means Pittsburgh's daytime population goes up by 139,061 versus in Seattle by 161,596, so it's a fairly similar number of commuters from outside the city.

What are the total numbers? Want to add Portland's numbers too?

[Sundodger]

One word of caution on the media markets and metro populations . . . just as you failed to include TWO Pittsburgh skyscrapers that were over 500 feet, please analyze the media and population data.

I did, Seattle is a level or two larger than Pittsburgh & Portland, who are virtually the same size. Soon Portland will be larger than Pittsburgh. I looked at airport statistics; again Seattle is a step or two above while Portland & Pittsburgh are close. Again, PDX will likely pass Pittsburgh in traffic also. Maybe you are reluctant to mention your similarities with Portland because it is passing Pittsburgh by. People are voting with their feet & Portland is winning.

Seattle and Portland have no such outstanding disputes with the census or Nielsen.

Not true. Portland believes it should have Salem, OR included.

Imagine for a moment Seattle and Tacoma being split up into two very seperate metros that would have no more commonality then San Diego and Seattle as far as media, sports, airports, concerts etc. or Portland and Vancouver, Washington.

Huh?

[blueblackcat]

Forest Park in Portland is larger than Fairmont, Pennypack, Central, & anything in Pittsburgh. In fact Pittsburgh's largest city park doesn't rank in the nation's top largest city parks.

I looked into this, a search result yielded "Forest Park largest park in US" at portland.about.com, only to reveal that it's qualified by the largest *forrested* park, and nothing else about it being part of the largest inner city park system or the single largest inner city park. The Fairmount Park system, which includes Pennypack, still ranks as the largest in the *world*, which I just verified on several sites. So if my memory serves correctly, NYC still has the second largest system, and Pittsburgh is either third or fourth but I can't remember exactly. Pheonix also claims to have the single largest park, with one park encompassing 16 thousand acres, but it's doubtfull it really qualifies as an "inner" city park by anything more than a drawing of city limits around it.

Either way a comprehensive comparison is really hard to google, but it's coming out that Portland is way overhyped, along with each and every other area of the country all doing a great deal to exagurate themselves.

For instance Cranberry, our most begrudgingly sprawling suburb, is the fastest growing community in the USA.

Really? I have seen fastest growing places lists & didn't see it listed. I am sure there are places around Seattle & Portland growing faster.

I don't think that's disputable.

Portland has what east coaste people would call mountains within their city!

I lived near the border of Switzerland and Bavaria for two years, so I wouldn't exactly start a "you call those mountains?" contest between Pittsburgh and Portland because it's stupid. Pittsburgh has extremely rugged terrain with steep hills coming virtually right up to the riverbanks, and yes, in fact much of the topography is to steep to build on and the rest is highly channelized, necessitating tons of infastructure which would otherwise be redundant.

I recall reading something about how there is actually tremendous population pressure pushing up against Olympia National Park because of Seattle's sprawl.

Nope. You mean Olympic Natl. Park. Seattle isn't close to touching it. If you have a map, Seattle sprawls pretty much from Tumwater in the south to Arlington in the north, Poulsbo in the west to North Bend in the east. There is plenty of room to grow.

If its about 45 minutes away like I am thinking, then that counts as touching it to me. These days even subrubs have their own suburbs. I'm pretty sure it was a National Geographic piece that talked about Seattle's sprawl encroaching on Olymipic NP, although not quite there yet it was projected to be soon.

What seems to be happening in Seattle, with housing prices rising at 12%, but population rising at 4% and average income not changing much, is a housing bubble.

It is a supply shortage, not a housing bubble. Urban growth laws have dminished developable land & increased prices. Also the area is rapidally growing to the point builders can barely keep up with the demand hence the new housing in condo towers boom in the area.

I don't feel like disputing this. Read one of the many economic articles on the subject versus self-analysis by real-estate firms.

This means Pittsburgh's daytime population goes up by 139,061 versus in Seattle by 161,596, so it's a fairly similar number of commuters from outside the city.

What are the total numbers? Want to add Portland's numbers too?

I didn't see Portland being listed at first. OK. It's daytime population jumps by 23.0%, equivalent to an additional 123,865 people, making Pittsburgh centered evenly between Portland and Seattle in this metric. But Portland's transit figures are dismal, with 64% driving and only 11% taking mass transit. The percantage who walk or bike is barely above national average and only half of Pittsburgh's.

The "smart growth" capital seems to be all hype and no substance to me, just a bunch of green labels and pretentious laws on paper to make sprawl seem other than what it is. Pittsburgh has the largest green building *and* is putting up the largest residential green building, has double the use of mass transit, double the number of people walking/biking, more parks (you dispute that, but that's to the best of my knowledge), comparable air and water quality (that's actually improving), etc. Yet it's not on the "top green cities" the way all these west coast cities are. By the way, also, hydroelectric doesn't count as environmentally friendly or green because it's downright destructive.

If the Sperling's stats that I'm going by to calculate this are accurate, it more than proves that Pittsburgh is severely under-rated.

[Sundodger]

I looked into this, a search result yielded "Forest Park largest park in US" at portland.about.com, only to reveal that it's qualified by the largest *forrested* park, and nothing else about it being part of the largest inner city park system or the single largest inner city park. The Fairmount Park system, which includes Pennypack, still ranks as the largest in the *world*, which I just verified on several sites. So if my memory serves correctly, NYC still has the second largest system, and Pittsburgh is either third or fourth but I can't remember exactly.

Above you said park, not park system. Here is the acerage of the largest parks & preserves, within city limits: (pdf file)

http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/TPL_100BiggestParks.pdf

Either way a comprehensive comparison is really hard to google, but it's coming out that Portland is way overhyped, along with each and every other area of the country all doing a great deal to exagurate themselves.

Judging by this thread, Pittsburgh is the king.

I don't think that's disputable.

What isn't disputable?

If its about 45 minutes away like I am thinking, then that counts as touching it to me.

Nope. The ferry to Bremerton alone takes 60 minutes.

These days even subrubs have their own suburbs. I'm pretty sure it was a National Geographic piece that talked about Seattle's sprawl encroaching on Olymipic NP, although not quite there yet it was projected to be soon.

It isn't anywhere close to touching or remotely touching the place. Look at a map. There is some significant barriers seperating Seattle from Olympic NP, say Puget Sound.

I don't feel like disputing this. Read one of the many economic articles on the subject versus self-analysis by real-estate firms.

I am in real estate, I understand the market here. We have a housing shortage, hence the massive appreciation. High in migration + low supply = high prices. Builders are just starting to catch up in some areas. Built out areas like Seattle's eastside is going through a high rise condo boom. A 450 ft. hotel/condo tower opened this weekend in Bellevue.

The "smart growth" capital seems to be all hype and no substance to me, just a bunch of green labels and pretentious laws on paper to make sprawl seem other than what it is.

So true. The smart growth in Portland & Seattle is actually backfiring pushing growth even further in the periphery (not to mention skyrocketing housing prices).

Pittsburgh has the largest green building *and* is putting up the largest residential green building, has double the use of mass transit, double the number of people walking/biking, more parks (you dispute that, but that's to the best of my knowledge), comparable air and water quality (that's actually improving), etc.

Again, Portland is the green king. Look at an aerial photo to see all of those ugly "eco roofs" there. Portland has an infant light rail system & the walking & biking #s are seasonal due to the wet season. Also Portland is the athletic capital of America. Home to Nike, Addidas, Nautilus, Columbia Sportswear, Leatherman, etc. They take pride in their parks, bikes, running, etc. Compare the Willamette Riverfront & its utility to walkers, bikers, boaters & compare that to the rivers in Central Pittsburgh.

By the way, also, hydroelectric doesn't count as environmentally friendly or green because it's downright destructive.

And wind energy isn't? Both forms are land intensive. At least lakes are natural. Sure they shift the existing eco system but they are natural. Hydroelectric power is very environmentally friendly in the macro scheme of things. In the micro sense sure, they are devestating but we have left many watercourses in their natural state.

If the Sperling's stats that I'm going by to calculate this are accurate, it more than proves that Pittsburgh is severely under-rated.

Not by the people voting with their feet.

[PghUSA]

Not by the people voting with their feet.

Seems like a whole lot of them never got the chance to vote . . . seems like if they got that chance Pittsburgh would be larger then metro San Fran-Oakland right now . . .

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7839

Being that the U.S. sold itself out in the 1980's and basically has NO heavy infrastructure (no more Westinghouse's, Pennzoil's, Gulf Oil's, Cyclops, Mesta Machinery, Rockwell International, Jones & Laughlin Steel, etc. etc.) isn't really anything a mayor or Governor could go up against.

Trust me they tried, the murder of Gulf Oil being the most obscene abuse of the American economy probably in history.

Pittsburgh is a leader today (regionally at least) in technology, finance, law, services, and medicine, all those "soft industries" that pay well but ship out our infrastructure to China and India.

If Seattle and Portland are the "kings" of that type of economy, you have my condolences.

[Sundodger]

Unions & tax laws killed those industries in America. The solution isn't more 100 year old govt. & policy. Pittsburgh is dying not because of its great assets, it is dying because it is in an awful human/government environment currently. I was hoping Rendell would help things; I guess not. Maybe Gov. Lynn Swann can do a better job & finally fix PA so it can prosper again.

[PghUSA]

SunD, you should move here just for year so we can vote Swannie in!

On a serious note though, I don't think that a nation free of unions is a thing that we want.

I would love to see Harrisburg change the way the state does business and am a big proponent of that but even with that said I would imagine it costs more in real dollars for parking taxes, property taxes, school taxes and don't even talk about taxes on clothes in Seattle and Portland.

Also Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania do have income taxes, if I am correct Oregon and Washington do to. I am not that familiar with Seattle or Portland but I do know Pittsburgh has one of the lowest if not the lowest commuter taxes in the country.

A lot of people like to dismiss Pittsburgh as an obselete and overtaxed city, upon closer inspection it is neither.