Region vs. city

[TheGerbil]

http://post-gazette.com/pg/07255/816744-85.stm

The above article cites statistics for the region, showing low number of immigrants and all the other stuff we've heard about as nauseum. But it irritates me because it's all regional statistics. I KNOW the stats for the city alone paint a better picture. I think the regional statistics are misleading. I mean, if someone lives in the city they aren't really affected by the demographics of, say, Washington county.

A lot of people look at the regional statistics and expect them to apply to the city. But they don't. For example the above article says the region is about 8.9% black. I know for a fact that the city proper has a much much higher percentage of blacks than that.

The city also out-performs the region as a whole in growth of younger age groups. I posted some statistics about that in the "Future of Metro Pittsburgh" thread, so I won't repeat them here. And I'd bet money that the city's immigrant situation looks a lot better than the regional situation.

I think you see what I'm saying.

[urbanophile]

The problem is that you can't have it both ways. I know many people in this forum hate it when "Pittsburgh" is used only with reference to the city because it makes the city seem so small. There's always talk about how the 312,000 population figure is misleading and how the 2.4 million figure for the MSA should be used. However, if the larger figure is to be used, then the racial stats, etc. should also reflect those for the MSA and not just the city.

The bottom line though is that the city and the region, in general, does lag behind other major cities/metros when it comes to diversity and ability to attract and keep young people. There's no way around that since it's a fact.

While it is annoying that the press seems to keep harping on these details, it is a good thing that people are recognizing that there are areas for improvement. Now all that's needed is the next step which is what can be done about it.

[TheGerbil]

You're right, I completely agree.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely misleading to say that Pittsburgh is 90% white (this is the stat someone told me, no clue if it's the true number). Because if you walk around in Oakland or Squirrel Hill or East Liberty etc. you most certainly won't see 90% white people.

I would really like to see articles specify these things. If they say the city has 312,00 people, it'd be nice if they went on to say that the metro area has a lot more than that. And so on.

And yes it is true that we lag behind the nation in attracting immigrants. But I maintain that any attempt to fix that is putting the cart before the horse. As we work on other things, especially job creation, the immigration thing will resolve itself. Not that we shouldn't make some effort to attract more immigrants here, but I think you know what I mean.

I also maintain that it's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be. Not in and of itself. I got into a big discussion about this on another forum. A few people were putting the city down for not being diverse (and citing the 90% white statistic I mentioned above). Myself and several others countered with the argument that you can experience diversity here if you want to, you just have to spend time in the downtown/university areas. And since you can see diversity here, and really a place like Oakland is quite diverse no matter what the rest of the region looks like, then is it SUCH a big deal what the statistics say? (Speaking in terms of diversity for the sake of diversity)