Declining Metro Areas

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

When I mentioned it, I knew you would complain.

I never miss an opportunity to complain about the CB's stupid-ass county mash-up game


Anyway, tomorrow is December 1st, and I remember reading a while ago that the CB would finally be releasing 2020 UA data in December of 2022.

We'll see......

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I never miss an opportunity to complain about the CB's stupid-ass county mash-up game

That's because you don't care about your fellow forumers who like to put tables together. Instead of adding up 10 counties or so, it will be 100 divisions...

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you guys want to see, here's a map of the PA population change by municipality from 2010-2020.

In the western part of the state, high-growth is mostly restricted to a fringe of areas to the Northwest and Southwest of Pittsburgh. The northwest growth is at this point mostly in Butler County (since the North Hills suburbs are mostly built out) while the southwest growth has spread into Washington County. All of these areas are close to 79, which makes driving commutes fairly easy.

Outer Butler County is indeed shrinking, other than the township surrounding Slippery Rock. Arguably the decline isn't quite as bad as in some of the other exurban counties.

You can also see here that the exurban growth spilling into Westmoreland is much slower growth, which is why that county is in much worse shape. The basic reason is shitty commutes, as 376 is perpetually congested, largely due to being routed through an undersized former rail tunnel in the city. This is part of what pushed suburbanization in Pittsburgh to the north of the city, even though if you turn back to the mid 20th century the eastern suburbs were by far the most prominent and the North Hills was very underdeveloped.

And if we had similar maps for every decade since 1950, the contrast would be much starker.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Kendall
1990: 39,413
2000: 54,544
2010: 114,736
2020: 131,869

It puts the Sun Belt to shame.

more like it did put the sunbelt to shame.

look at how growth in Kendall fell off a cliff from the '00s to the '10s.

2000 - 2010: +60,192 (+110.4%)

2010 - 2020: +17,133 (+14.9%)


the great chicagoland sprawl machine massively slowing down in action.

if that curve continues, kendall will struggle to even get 5% growth this decade.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

4-county Pittsburgh growth (2020-1950):
+0,81% -3,39% -2,93% -7,35% -5,72% -0,17% +8,68%

Butler County growth (2020-1950):
+5,39% +5,62% +14,52% +2,77% +15,61% +11,60% +17,80%

That's a massive difference, one of the most extreme you can find in any metro area. And size alone doesn't explain it. There are plenty of very small counties in the western half of PA posting negative growth since the 1930's or earlier. The neighbouring Armstrong County, for instance: peaked in 1940 (!!!) and with less people in 2020 than it had in 1910 (!!!).

Or Butler had/has a very good reason for being growing on its own (a farming powerhouse centered in Butler city, I don't know) or it's indeed Pittsburgh spilling over it since 1950.

Again, I'm not sure what you're looking for, or what your point really is.

Pittsburgh did not "spill over" into Butler County in the 1950s and 1960s. Manufacturing was still chugging along at full speed throughout western PA up until the 1970s (and through the 70s and into the 80s in some places) and Butler County gained around 31k people because of its strong manufacturing economy.

For comparison, during the same time period, the following regional county gains:

- Beaver County +33k
- Westmoreland County +64k
- Allegheny County gained +90k
- Washington County +1k
- Fayette County -35k

The southern counties of Fayette and Washington were beginning to decline with the decline of the coal industry. Quite obviously, the same did not occur in the others.

As I've stated multiple times now, the addition in the 1970s of two interstate highways (I-79 & I-76) intersecting in the southwest corner of Butler County brought the sprawl of the greater Pittsburgh region across the border into Butler. And that is the direct and precise reason for population growth in the county from the late 70s/80s to today.

These are the reasons for Butler County's growth, plain and simple. It grew due to manufacturing for over a century (just like other counties in the region) and then grew to due to highway-induced sprawl in the SW corner since the 1980s primarily.

And since you've mentioned it a couple times... No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the county being a "farming boomtown" or a "farming powerhouse centered in Butler city"

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

As there is no evidence showing the opposite, it's clear that's Pittsburgh is the main driver of Butler County since 1950. There's no question about it.

False. Highway-induced sprawl is the main driver of population growth in Butler County since the late 1970s/80s. Manufacturing was the main driver of growth prior to that.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Again, I'm not sure what you're looking for, or what your point really is.

Pittsburgh did not "spill over" into Butler County in the 1950s and 1960s. Manufacturing was still chugging along at full speed throughout western PA up until the 1970s (and through the 70s and into the 80s in some places) and Butler County gained around 31k people because of its strong manufacturing economy.

For comparison, during the same time period, the following regional county gains:

- Beaver County +33k
- Westmoreland County +64k
- Allegheny County gained +90k
- Washington County +1k
- Fayette County -35k

The southern counties of Fayette and Washington were beginning to decline with the decline of the coal industry. Quite obviously, the same did not occur in the others. Interesting when ine considers the numbers and actually understands the history of the region, huh?

As I've stated multiple times now, the addition in the 1970s of two interstate highways (I-79 & I-76) intersecting in the southwest corner of Butler County brought the sprawl of the greater Pittsburgh region across the border into Butler. And that is the direct and precise reason for population growth in the county from the late 70s/80s to today.

These are the reasons for Butler County's growth, plain and simple. It grew due to manufacturing for over a century (just like other counties in the region) and then grew to due to highway-induced sprawl since the 1980s primarily.

And since you've mentioned it a couple times... No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the county being a "farming powerhouse centered in Butler city"

To be fair though, Butler County didn't really have anything analogous to the numerous small company towns/river boroughs which dotted Beaver, Westmoreland, Washington, and Fayette Counties (or Allegheny County, for that matter). It had Butler itself, which was the county seat. It had Slippery Rock, which was on the map solely due to having a state university. There was some manufacturing in Zelienople, Mars, and Evans City, by virtue of rail links, but they were less well-placed for manufacturing than the true mill towns. All the other boroughs are tiny (many only have a few hundred people).

In general though, Pittsburgh was a metro which decentralized quite early - beginning in the late 19th century, when the flat land by the rivers was tapped out in Pittsburgh and the major regional manufacturers began setting up in new communities like Braddock, Homestead, Clairton, and Aliquippa. While the core communities are often hollow/economically depressed, each of these little mill towns had it's own small suburban development in the mid 20th century before the bottom fell out of the steel industry, which means we have an incredibly decentralized suburban sprawl pattern.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

False. Highway-induced sprawl is the main driver of population growth in Butler County since the late 1970s/80s. Manufacturing was the main driver of growth prior to that.

Not gonna go and look at the population dynamics of each township to see where the growth was, but Cranberry in particular only really started posting very large numbers in terms of population growth during the 1970s. Yeah, it was growing before that, but it started at such a low base it was only adding a bit over a thousand people a decade. The growth of surrounding areas like Adams township is even more recent (started in the 1990s). So it's pretty clear that the population growth was not on the Pittsburgh fringe.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Again, I'm not sure what you're looking for, or what your point really is.

Pittsburgh did not "spill over" into Butler County in the 1950s and 1960s. Manufacturing was still chugging along at full speed throughout western PA up until the 1970s (and through the 70s and into the 80s in some places) and Butler County gained around 31k people because of its strong manufacturing economy.

Western PA or Butler County? Because it's only there that growth happened.

Originally Posted by pj3000

For comparison, during the same time period, the following regional county gains:

- Beaver County +33k
- Westmoreland County +64k
- Allegheny County gained +90k
- Washington County +1k
- Fayette County -35k

The southern counties of Fayette and Washington were beginning to decline with the decline of the coal industry. Quite obviously, the same did not occur in the others.

You cannot compare absolute numbers of a then tiny county with much larger ones. Births exceeded deaths by 2:1, 3:1 around that time. Natural growth had a massive role back then. All the big counties there were only had natural growth. All of them certainly already had negative migration surplus around that time.

Originally Posted by pj3000

As I've stated multiple times now, the addition in the 1970s of two interstate highways (I-79 & I-76) intersecting in the southwest corner of Butler County brought the sprawl of the greater Pittsburgh region across the border into Butler. And that is the direct and precise reason for population growth in the county from the late 70s/80s to today.

As the tables show, Butler County was growing big in the 1950's already. Their neighbors were either declining of flat.

Originally Posted by pj3000

These are the reasons for Butler County's growth, plain and simple. It grew due to manufacturing for over a century (just like other counties in the region) and then grew to due to highway-induced sprawl in the SW corner since the 1980s primarily.

That's completely inaccurate. Butler's growth is anything like its neighbours.

Originally Posted by pj3000

And since you've mentioned it a couple times... No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the county being a "farming boomtown" or a "farming powerhouse centered in Butler city"

Yes, not farming powerhouse. Manufacturing centre like other places there but the only one in direct Pittsburgh growth path. Hence its big population growth contrasting with decline everywhere.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Not gonna go and look at the population dynamics of each township to see where the growth was, but Cranberry in particular only really started posting very large numbers in terms of population growth during the 1970s. Yeah, it was growing before that, but it started at such a low base it was only adding a bit over a thousand people a decade. The growth of surrounding areas like Adams township is even more recent (started in the 1990s). So it's pretty clear that the population growth was not on the Pittsburgh fringe.

As Butler County growth pattern shows all signs of being a suburb-county in 1950, we'll certainly find all the growth is on the southern half and the northern half probably behaved like their northern neighbor (Venango County).

[eschaton]

It's interesting to compare the county seats of the outer counties in the Pittsburgh MSA.

Westmoreland has Greensburg, It sort of feels like its own mini-metro which was stapled on to the edge of the Pittsburgh MSA, since there's a lot of suburban sprawl in the surrounding Hempfield Township, but there's some open space between that and areas like Irwin/Murrysville, which are the furthest east parts of the Pittsburgh metro. It's definitely declining, but in a "managed" sort of way without any notable abandonment, and there's some downtown vitality.

Washington has...Washington. It's starting to be more connected to the Pittsburgh metro, as the new exurban development along 79 has mostly filled in a thin strip from the Allegheny County line on down. Little Washington (as it's called) has had a harder time of it than Greensburg, with the population having declined by about half since its peak. Downtown is helped somewhat by the presence of a private college (Washington & Jefferson) directly downtown, but it's still notably less vibrant than Greensburg.

Beaver has...Beaver. Beaver borough very different, sort of a smaller-scale, semi-urban old railroad suburb which is fairly upscale and has a thriving walkable business district. Honestly it's probably one of the top five nicest walkable towns outside the immediate urban core in the Pittsburgh MSA. Beaver has plenty of gritty, semi-urban areas that used to be mill housing, it's just that the county seat was not used for that.

The city of Butler is kinda nondescript. More urban than Beaver, less urban than Greensburg or Washington. Despite the overall growth in Butler County, Butler city has declined quite a bit in population (having fallen from 24,000 to 13,500) and shows no real signs of recovery, though there is a bit of destination retail/restaurant activity along Main Street.

Uniontown in Fayette County was built with a very dense downtown with high intensity of use (similar to Greensburg and Washington) but it was really damaged by parking craters more than the two larger cities. It's fallen from a population of nearly 22,000 to less than 10,000. Has a much larger black community than the other county seats, but it's still relatively small (around 20%). There's absolutely some blighted blocks in the primary black neighborhood.

I guess for completeness's sake I should mention Kittanning in Armstrong County. It's tiny (didn't break 8,000 people at its peak, less than 4,000 today) and has a sad, largely dead downtown.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Western PA or Butler County? Because it's only there that growth happened.



You cannot compare absolute numbers of a then tiny county with much larger ones. Births exceeded deaths by 2:1, 3:1 around that time. Natural growth had a massive role back then. All the big counties there were only had natural growth. All of them certainly already had negative migration surplus around that time.



As the tables show, Butler County was growing big in the 1950's already. Their neighbors were either declining of flat.



That's completely inaccurate. Butler's growth is anything like its neighbours.



Yes, not farming powerhouse. Manufacturing centre like other places there but the only one in direct Pittsburgh growth path. Hence its big population growth contrasting with decline everywhere.





As Butler County growth pattern shows all signs of being a suburb-county in 1950, we'll certainly find all the growth is on the southern half and the northern half probably behaved like their northern neighbor (Venango County).

If you actually lived in the region or had even visited Butler County at some point, I would say you have a disconnect with reality. But since your frame of reference is characterized by an overseas location and a reliance on numbers with no understanding of the contextual history, it seems it has to be chalked up to willful ignorance.

[Yuri]

Impressive buildings in all those towns. It's a testimony of how wealthy this region was by the turn of the century.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Rust Belt, I want all those cities to come back big, but gosh, PA towns feel so so depressing, even haunted. I don't know if it's the clouds, the buildings and their colours, the forested hills.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

If you actually lived in the region or had even visited Butler County at some point, I would say you have a disconnect with reality. But since your frame of reference is characterized by an overseas location and a reliance on numbers with no understanding of the contextual history, it seems it has to be chalked up to willful ignorance.

Well, if you ask random people in Pittsburgh or São Paulo streets how many inhabitants their city have, I guess you'll come back with 10%-20% somewhat right answers, and I'm being optimistic. If you pose more specific questions as the ones we're discussing here, even urbanism professors might get wrong.

So I'm sorry, but I rather stay with "my numbers" and "my ignorance" instead of anecdotal/visual references from locals.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Don't get me wrong, I love the Rust Belt, I want all those cities to come back big, but gosh, PA towns feel so so depressing, even haunted. I don't know if it's the clouds, the buildings and their colours, the forested hills.

It's really an issue of regional decline. If you look the "growth zone" of the state - the Philly metro, the Lehigh Valley, and South-Central PA - it's pretty hard to find dead/dying towns. Many of them have transformed into thriving walkable small cities and boroughs. Even those that haven't gentrified are mostly intact lower-income areas, increasingly populated by Latinos migrating out of NYC.

Then you just go a few hours north, and you find dead small cities like this. The Coal Region has to be the weirdest urban typography in the country. Dotted with dozens of little cities of a few thousand people packed with wood rowhouses - and no suburbs.

[Yuri]

Genoa


cruisemapper.com

Area: 626 km²

Population
1951: 825,395
1961: 934,085 --- 13.2%
1971: 994,053 ---- 6.4%
1981: 950,984 --- -4.3%
1991: 859,372 --- -9.6%
2001: 789,438 --- -8.1%
2011: 766,301 --- -2.9%
2021: 732,801 --- -4.4%

Population peak: 1971

Decline from the peak: -26.3%

Biggest decline: -26.3% (1971-2021)

Genoa, one of the most important and influential European cities and ports for the past 1,000 years, it's arguably the most well-known example of regional population decline.

Not only plagued by the 1970's industrial downturn on the Western developed economies, that also affected the industrialized northern Italy, but by also very low fertility rates for a very long period. A perfect storm. As result, we had a dramatic decline that also affected not only Genoa area, but the whole Liguria. There have been several articles and studies about this subject over the years, even in the mainstream media, like this one from New York Times in 2006.

As it happened with Turin, decline slowed down on the 2000's due mass immigration to Italy, specially Ecuadorians in Genoa. However, with such horrible age pyramid, it was not enough to put Genoa on positive terrain. And as Italy are under rough demographic and economic times, I don't think we'll see it. Decline is now the rule all over Italy.

BTW, in this list Genoa didn't reach 1 million people, but by broader definitions (using Genoa province or Genoa+Savonna provinces as metro area, then we would have 1.045 million and 1.343 million in 1971, respectively), it surpassed this mark. In any case, a thread dedicated to such subject, it's a must to have Genoa featured on it.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Well, if you ask random people in Pittsburgh or São Paulo streets how many inhabitants their city have, I guess you'll come back with 10%-20% somewhat right answers, and I'm being optimistic. If you pose more specific questions as the ones we're discussing here, even urbanism professors might get wrong.

So I'm sorry, but I rather stay with "my numbers" and "my ignorance" instead of anecdotal/visual references from locals.

Ok, I'll play... specific questions it is then. Let's start with your assertions.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Western PA or Butler County? Because it's only there that growth happened.

How is Butler County the only county in Western PA from 1950-1970 where growth happened? Please explain.

Originally Posted by Yuri

You cannot compare absolute numbers of a then tiny county with much larger ones. Births exceeded deaths by 2:1, 3:1 around that time. Natural growth had a massive role back then. All the big counties there were only had natural growth. All of them certainly already had negative migration surplus around that time.

Please explain how you know that the other counties' growth from the 50s into the 70s was only "natural growth" and had only "negative migration surplus".

Originally Posted by Yuri

As the tables show, Butler County was growing big in the 1950's already. Their neighbors were either declining of flat.

It grew by roughly 15k in the 1950s, and another 15k in the 1960s -- the majority of it being postwar suburban development in Butler Township outside Butler city limits. This was not anything close to be being "Pittsburgh sprawl" back then. This was a direct result of good-paying manufacturing jobs being available due to Armco Steel's major expansions in the 50s and 60s. The operations in Butler expanded significantly in the postwar era and was among the largest steel producers in the country into the early 1990s. Again, your notion of these population gains being attributed to becoming a "suburb-county" of Pittsburgh is simply wrong.

How is posting 20% population gains (like Beaver and Westmoreland counties) during the same time period, 1950-1970, "declining or flat"?

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's completely inaccurate. Butler's growth is anything like its neighbours.

This makes zero sense.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yes, not farming powerhouse. Manufacturing centre like other places there but the only one in direct Pittsburgh growth path. Hence its big population growth contrasting with decline everywhere.

"Only one in direct Pittsburgh growth path"... what does this mean?

Originally Posted by Yuri

As Butler County growth pattern shows all signs of being a suburb-county in 1950, we'll certainly find all the growth is on the southern half and the northern half probably behaved like their northern neighbor (Venango County).

No, it absolutely does not show any of the signs of being a "suburb-county" in 1950. None.

But I'll humor you, what are all these signs that Butler County supposedly displayed in 1950 that mark it as a "suburb-county" of Pittsburgh?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

How is Butler County the only county in Western PA from 1950-1970 where growth happened? Please explain.

1950-2020. It grew fast while all the others counties, with very few exceptions are below 1950 levels. The other two or three above, are below 1960 levels. Butler, 2x more people in 2020 than it had 1950.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Please explain how you know that the other counties' growth from the 50s into the 70s was only "natural growth" and had only "negative migration surplus".

By simply looking at their growth rates that matches with the national average around that time. In any case, my point is you cannot compare absolute growth with counties with such different population.

Originally Posted by pj3000

How is posting 20% population gains (like Beaver and Westmoreland counties) during the same time period, 1950-1970, "declining or flat"?

Beaver and Westmoreland ARE part of metro area Pittsburgh. I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying Butler also is as well.

In any case, Beaver grew 0% in 1960-1970 (!!!) and since then negative. Not even in 2020, they managed a come back. Westmoreland held on till 1970, but negative since then. Butler has grown, a lot, all over the board.

Originally Posted by pj3000

"Only one in direct Pittsburgh growth path"... what does this mean?

São Paulo growing over Guarulhos, Los Angeles growing over Inland Empire, you know, the very meaning of "metro area": an urban area growing beyond its administrative boudaries.

Allegheny is surrounded by four counties, Butler being one of them. Hence, when Pittsburgh overflows its borders, it will reach them.

I don't see what you found so challenging.

Originally Posted by pj3000

No, it absolutely does not show any of the signs of being a "suburb-county" in 1950. None.

But I'll humor you, what are all these signs that Butler County supposedly displayed in 1950 that mark it as a "suburb-county" of Pittsburgh?

You called me an ignorant because I don't live in Pittsburgh, so it's my turn to call you back on it, as you only mind about Pittsburgh and ignore all the rest. That's very common in SSP and SSC.

I've been going through several tables showing population evolution over time, so I will have no trouble to identify Butler as the classical suburb (suburb meaning not cul-de-sac, but urban area outside the main city proper). I don't even need a map to state that. Numbers suffice.

You have a rural county growing nothing since the late 19th century. As soon as the urban footprint of a big metropolis grows near them, be it in 1950's, 1960's or 1970's, it starts to grow insanely to eventually converge (in 2000-2020 or somewhere in the future).

I've seen it literally hundreds of times, in hundreds of metro areas, over different decades.

[badrunner]

The census bureau already defines metro areas. The problem with your approach of defining your own metro areas is that it's totally inconsistent and arbitrary. For example, in another thread you stated: "By 1920, the main urban cluster ended on Beverly Hills and didn't have enter San Fernando Valley. Didn't reach Pasadena either. Long Beach, a completely distinct city and had 55k people, Pomona 13k. We should at least deduct those from the 932k of Los Angeles County to find a metro population for Los Angeles." Apparently in that instance you have to be physically connected to the "main cluster" (whatever that means) to be a part of the metro area. But here you are taking the exact opposite approach with Pittsburgh metro, claiming disconnected and far distant towns as part of the metro based on your own arbitrary criteria and incorrect reading of population data.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

1950-2020. It grew fast while all the others counties, with very few exceptions are below 1950 levels. The other two or three above, are below 1960 levels. Butler, 2x more people in 2020 than it had 1950.

We were talking about 1950-1970. You suggested that Butler's growth since 1950 was due to Pittsburgh spill-over. So don't now bring later decades to 2020 into this. No goalpost shifting. I've stated many times that growth primarily from the 80s on could be characterized as "Pittsburgh sprawl".

Originally Posted by Yuri

By simply looking at their growth rates that matches with the national average around that time. In any case, my point is you cannot compare absolute growth with counties with such different population.

That is an incredibly tenuous association to stake your claim upon. Does not hold up.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Beaver and Westmoreland ARE part of metro area Pittsburgh. I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying Butler also is as well.

In any case, Beaver grew 0% in 1960-1970 (!!!) and since then negative. Not even in 2020, they managed a come back. Westmoreland held on till 1970, but negative since then. Butler has grown, a lot, all over the board.

And I've provided you very specific reasons for this over numerous posts.

Plus, you said:

Originally Posted by Yuri

As the tables show, Butler County was growing big in the 1950's already. Their neighbors were either declining of flat.

That was not true in the 1950s, as has been shown numerous times now.

Originally Posted by Yuri

São Paulo growing over Guarulhos, Los Angeles growing over Inland Empire, you know, the very meaning of "metro area": an urban area growing beyond its administrative boudaries.

Allegheny is surrounded by four counties, Butler being one of them. Hence, when Pittsburgh overflows its borders, it will reach them.

I don't see what you found so challenging.

Because that is not what happened since the 1950s in this example, as you're claiming. Pittsburgh did not overflow its borders back then. The "overflow" really did not happen from Allegheny County until quite recently... as northern suburban sprawl parts of Allegheny County are actually newer than than the sprawl across the line in Butler County in Cranberry Twp. It's more accurate to describe it as northern Allegheny sprawl meeting southwestern Butler (Cranberry and Adams township) sprawl.

There is only ONE neighborhood in Cranberry that could be characterized as late 1950s and 1960s suburban, which was built after the Turnpike was constructed. ALL of the rest is late 70s (once I-79 was built) to present day, with much of that being 1990s-2010s McMansion developments and commercial sprawl along US-19. Take a look at Google maps and check out what the vast majority of residential neighborhoods in the SW corner of Butler County look like -- this is what accounts for the gains from mainly the mid 1980s to present.

Originally Posted by Yuri

You called me an ignorant because I don't live in Pittsburgh, so it's my turn to call you back on it, as you only mind about Pittsburgh and ignore all the rest. That's very common in SSP and SSC.

I've been going through several tables showing population evolution over time, so I will have no trouble to identify Butler as the classical suburb (suburb meaning not cul-de-sac, but urban area outside the main city proper). I don't even need a map to state that. Numbers suffice.

You have a rural county growing nothing since the late 19th century. As soon as the urban footprint of a big metropolis grows near them, be it in 1950's, 1960's or 1970's, it starts to grow insanely to eventually converge (in 2000-2020 or somewhere in the future).

I've seen it literally hundreds of times, in hundreds of metro areas, over different decades.

I said your position on this after multiple explanations from myself and eschaton and others as well, has to be chalked up to willful ignorance... since you're simply not listening to anything that people who are familiar with the area and its history are saying. Rather, creating your own narrative to fit a set of numbers that are influenced by much more nuance than you want to acknowledge.

Also, Butler County was not "growing nothing since the late 19th century" as you suggest. It showed significant percentage increases in population which resulted from the establishment and expansion of heavy industrial manufacturing. Butler's steel mills are precisely the reason why the population grew up until the 1970s. Once the 1970s hit, the growth was then a combination of highway-induced sprawl and steel industry expansion into the 1980s. From then on, it has all been significant "Pittsburgh sprawl" into the southwest corner of the county.


1850 30,346 35.6%
1860 35,594 17.3%
1870 36,510 2.6%
1880 52,536 43.9%
1890 55,339 5.3%
1900 56,962 2.9%
1910 72,689 27.6%
1920 77,270 6.3%
1930 80,480 4.2%
1940 87,590 8.8%
1950 97,320 11.1%
1960 114,639 17.8%
1970 127,941 11.6%
1980 147,912 15.6%
1990 152,013 2.8%
2000 174,083 14.5%
2010 183,862 5.6%
2020 193,763 5.4%

You also chose to omit this part of my reply, which is re-posted for clarity on the topic at hand. Butler County could only be considered to become a Pittsburgh suburb-county by the 1980s, with real connection along its SW border from the 1990s on:

Originally Posted by pj3000

It grew by roughly 15k in the 1950s, and another 15k in the 1960s -- the majority of it being postwar suburban development in Butler Township outside Butler city limits. This was not anything close to be being "Pittsburgh sprawl" back then. This was a direct result of good-paying manufacturing jobs being available due to Armco Steel's major expansions in the 50s and 60s. The operations in Butler expanded significantly in the postwar era and was among the largest steel producers in the country into the early 1990s. Again, your notion of these population gains being attributed to becoming a "suburb-county" of Pittsburgh is simply wrong.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The census bureau already defines metro areas.

For the US, not for world areas worldwide. Areas that you didn't even bother to comment. Zero quotes for Liverpool, Glasgow, Turin, Genoa...

Originally Posted by badrunner

The problem with your approach of defining your own metro areas is that it's totally inconsistent and arbitrary. For example, in another thread you stated: "By 1920, the main urban cluster ended on Beverly Hills and didn't have enter San Fernando Valley. Didn't reach Pasadena either. Long Beach, a completely distinct city and had 55k people, Pomona 13k. We should at least deduct those from the 932k of Los Angeles County to find a metro population for Los Angeles." Apparently in that instance you have to be physically connected to the "main cluster" (whatever that means) to be a part of the metro area. But here you are taking the exact opposite approach with Pittsburgh metro, claiming disconnected and far distant towns as part of the metro based on your own arbitrary criteria and incorrect reading of population data.

That's a poor example you chose. You were the one using 1950 Census metro area definition and applied it to the 5x smaller 1920 Los Angeles. In the thread, a forumer was posting the proto metro area definition, the "metropolitan district", used by the US Census between 1910-1940 and that it was not county-based.

The said forumer simply forgot to post Los Angeles numbers and I speculated they probably included only some parts of LA County and nothing of OC. Later another forumer confirmed my guessing, posting that US Census Bureau gave 831k inh. for 1920 Los Angeles as opposed to 932k of LA or 997k of LA+OC.

And back to this thread, I brought numbers for Pittsburgh from 1890 way up to 2020. Several definitions were used by the Census Bureau between 1950 and 2020; 4 counties back then; 7 today. I made a compromise and picked up 5. But that's completely pointless here: the thread is about metro areas population decline. Definitions are completely secondary: for example, I worked with a 9,000 km² Pittsburgh and with a 600 km² Genoa.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

We were talking about 1950-1970. You suggested that Butler's growth since 1950 was due to Pittsburgh spill-over. So don't now bring later decades to 2020 into this. No goalpost shifting. I've stated many times that growth primarily from the 80s on could be characterized as "Pittsburgh sprawl".

Butler grew insanely between 1950-1970, even more than Beaver and Westmoreland, both part of Pittsburgh metro area. What are you trying to say here?

Originally Posted by pj3000

That is an incredibly tenuous association to stake your claim upon. Does not hold up.

Counties growing almost zero in the 1960's when the US natural growth was almost 20%? Ok, they were actually welcoming immigrants...

In any case, this whole section is completely nonsensical. It was just you comparing absolute growth in Butler with counties 3x, 10x more populated. I don't even know what you were trying to say.

Originally Posted by pj3000

And I've provided you very specific reasons for this over numerous posts.

Plus, you said:


That was not true in the 1950s, as has been shown numerous times now.

Two of them growing, two of them flat/negative. In the 1960's, the four negative/flat. Big difference.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Because that is not what happened since the 1950s in this example, as you're claiming. Pittsburgh did not overflow its borders back then. The "overflow" really did not happen from Allegheny County until quite recently... as northern suburban sprawl parts of Allegheny County are actually newer than than the sprawl across the line in Butler County in Cranberry Twp. It's more accurate to describe it as northern Allegheny sprawl meeting southwestern Butler (Cranberry and Adams township) sprawl.

As you're completely locked into Pittsburgh, you don't see it as a very common phenomenon. You don't need to see it growing on a map in form of lots of cul-de-sacs. Population explosion on the outlier counties predates the visual arrive of classical sprawl.

I provided examples of such counties in Great Lakes areas, but I can provide more in literally dozens of metro areas, over three, four decades.

Originally Posted by pj3000

There is only ONE neighborhood in Cranberry that could be characterized as late 1950s and 1960s suburban, which was built after the Turnpike was constructed. ALL of the rest is late 70s (once I-79 was built) to present day, with much of that being 1990s-2010s McMansion developments and commercial sprawl along US-19. Take a look at Google maps and check out what the vast majority of residential neighborhoods in the SW corner of Butler County look like -- this is what accounts for the gains from mainly the mid 1980s to present.

As I'm not talking about urban areas, but much broader county-based metro area definitions, I don't see the relevance of stating only Cranberry is contiguous to Pittsburgh main urban footprint.

McMansions are an US phenomenon and we certainly don't need them to define a metro area.

Originally Posted by pj3000

I said your position on this after multiple explanations from myself and eschaton and others as well, has to be chalked up to willful ignorance... since you're simply not listening to anything that people who are familiar with the area and its history are saying. Rather, creating your own narrative to fit a set of numbers that are influenced by much more nuance than you want to acknowledge.

Eschaton was completely opened to the idea of Butler being part of Pittsburgh metro area. I just casually said Butler could have been part of Pittsburgh metro area since 1950 and you went nuts.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Also, Butler County was not "growing nothing since the late 19th century" as you suggest. It showed significant percentage increases in population which resulted from the establishment and expansion of heavy industrial manufacturing. Butler's steel mills are precisely the reason why the population grew up until the 1970s. Once the 1970s hit, the growth was then a combination of highway-induced sprawl and steel industry expansion into the 1980s. From then on, it has all been significant "Pittsburgh sprawl" into the southwest corner of the county.

1850 30,346 35.6%
1860 35,594 17.3%
1870 36,510 2.6%
1880 52,536 43.9%
1890 55,339 5.3%
1900 56,962 2.9%
1910 72,689 27.6%
1920 77,270 6.3%
1930 80,480 4.2%
1940 87,590 8.8%
1950 97,320 11.1%
1960 114,639 17.8%
1970 127,941 11.6%
1980 147,912 15.6%
1990 152,013 2.8%
2000 174,083 14.5%
2010 183,862 5.6%
2020 193,763 5.4%

Yes, I said it wrong. It was actually growing as all the other coal counties. Divergence started precisely around 1950, when all the others started to decline and Butler started to demographically behave like a suburb (which is only natural as it shares a big border with the central county): growing like crazy while all the others were plunging. The same old story all over the US.