Pittsburgh Region

The Pittsburgh region has experienced both gentrification and decline since 2000, in moderate proportions. About 8 percent of regional residents live in a neighborhood with strong economic expansion, while 19 percent of residents live in a strongly declining area. The expanding areas have experienced some displacement since 2000, losing about 27 percent of their low-income population. Neighborhoods with displacement are scattered across the metro, but are particularly focused around downtown Pittsburgh, and extended northeast through the Strip District and Lower Lawrenceville. In Pittsburgh proper, black residents have suffered especially from displacement, and the black population of strongly expanding central city neigborhoods has dropped by 47 percent, or about 3,000 overall.

Neighborhood decline has been moderate, both in extent and in degree. In Pittsburgh proper, a higher share of residents live in strongly declining neighborhoods than elsewhere – about 30 percent. Metrowide, the population of strongly declining areas has fallen about 11 percent since 2000, while the low-income population has increased by 16 percent, concentrating poverty. There has also been some degree of white flight, as the white population of these areas has fallen by 19 percent. Several areas are also experiencing abandonment, such as the neighborhoods of Highland Park and Morningside.

Regional Total Population: 2,354,926

Regional Low-Income Population: 635,042

Regional Nonwhite Population: 327,996

Central City Population: 305,305

Central City Low-Income Population: 117,724

Central City Nonwhite Population: 108,795

NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)

Central City: -2,981

Suburbs: -9,381

NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)

Central City: 3,671

Suburbs: 21,660

1 DETAILS ON TABLES

The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:

• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live). • Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low- income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).

Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:

• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non- low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps. • In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.

Three sets of tables are provided. They are:

• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city. This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.

Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.

• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share. • 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts. • Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.

* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.

2 DETAILS ON MAPS

Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.

The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:

• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive. • Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving. • Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring. • Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.

The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.

The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.

3 TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Pittsburgh Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion Experiencing Strong Economic Decline (Pittsburgh Metro) (Pittsburgh Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 8.2% 192,715 13.0% +22,101 TOTAL 19.0% 447,242 -10.5% -52,447 Low-Income 5.3% 33,781 -26.8% -12,362 Low-Income 29.0% 183,924 16.0% +25,331 Poverty 5.1% 14,126 -18.6% -3,224 Poverty 31.9% 87,998 30.9% +20,759 Extreme Poverty 5.2% 6,381 -13.2% -972 Extreme Poverty 31.4% 38,905 26.8% +8,225 American Indian 8.6% 148 -26.7% -54 American Indian 22.9% 395 -38.6% -248 Asian 7.5% 3,732 158.8% +2,290 Asian 17.5% 8,713 77.5% +3,804 Black 4.3% 8,158 -17.6% -1,745 Black 43.3% 82,337 12.5% +9,134 Hispanic 8.1% 2,978 165.4% +1,856 Hispanic 22.3% 8,245 87.5% +3,848 White 8.6% 174,497 11.3% +17,730 White 16.4% 332,340 -18.8% -76,728 College-Educated 10.0% 54,883 92.0% +26,298 College-Educated 13.9% 76,322 16.4% +10,778 Non-College 7.4% 84,508 -8.4% -7,713 Non-College 20.7% 235,761 -15.1% -41,903 Families 8.6% 21,483 2.5% +525 Families 18.9% 47,202 -20.8% -12,379 Families in Poverty 4.7% 1,705 -30.6% -752 Families in Poverty 36.5% 13,331 29.7% +3,050 Non-Poor Families 9.3% 19,778 6.9% +1,277 Non-Poor Families 15.9% 33,871 -31.3% -15,429 Single Mothers 4.7% 1,195 -17.6% -255 Single Mothers 39.1% 9,898 30.9% +2,335 Children (Under 18) 8.5% 38,645 -2.3% -890 Children (Under 18) 19.5% 88,829 -18.0% -19,471 Young Adults (18-34) 8.0% 40,772 18.8% +6,440 Young Adults (18-34) 21.5% 109,917 1.2% +1,306 Adults (35 to 64) 8.4% 80,536 13.9% +9,823 Adults (35 to 64) 17.7% 169,196 -9.6% -17,894 Seniors (65 and up) 7.6% 32,762 12.8% +3,708 Seniors (65 and up) 18.3% 79,300 -15.0% -14,030 U.S.-Born 8.2% 186,583 11.6% +19,373 U.S.-Born 19.0% 431,170 -11.4% -55,509 Foreign-Born 7.0% 6,132 77.9% +2,685 Foreign-Born 18.5% 16,072 23.8% +3,085 Owner Units 8.3% 57,732 13.2% +6,740 Owner Units 16.3% 112,690 -15.3% -20,337 Renter Units 7.3% 21,812 28.4% +4,830 Renter Units 27.1% 81,299 4.0% +3,109 Vacant Units 6.4% 7,264 40.7% +2,103 Vacant Units 26.6% 30,248 36.3% +8,055

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Expansion* with Any Indicators of Economic Decline* (Pittsburgh Metro) (Pittsburgh Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 28.5% 672,211 7.9% +49,223 TOTAL 45.9% 1,081,651 -8.7% -103,028 Low-Income 20.2% 127,999 -19.6% -31,302 Low-Income 57.1% 362,596 7.2% +24,230 Poverty 19.2% 52,892 -10.6% -6,272 Poverty 59.4% 163,656 18.6% +25,649 Extreme Poverty 19.1% 23,702 -5.9% -1,473 Extreme Poverty 58.7% 72,739 17.5% +10,819 American Indian 30.8% 532 -9.7% -57 American Indian 50.2% 868 -39.0% -554 Asian 29.9% 14,847 142.4% +8,721 Asian 46.2% 22,950 71.0% +9,528 Black 12.1% 22,978 -10.7% -2,743 Black 72.3% 137,502 6.5% +8,418 Hispanic 24.2% 8,927 126.7% +4,989 Hispanic 52.3% 19,312 99.2% +9,615 White 30.3% 615,032 5.7% +33,350 White 43.0% 871,390 -14.2% -144,714 College-Educated 33.4% 183,984 67.8% +74,370 College-Educated 41.6% 229,197 22.4% +41,900 Non-College 26.4% 301,282 -7.9% -25,694 Non-College 47.5% 542,459 -14.7% -93,443 Families 29.8% 74,252 -3.9% -3,005 Families 45.8% 114,200 -20.7% -29,735 Families in Poverty 15.8% 5,747 -28.4% -2,278 Families in Poverty 64.5% 23,545 10.5% +2,237 Non-Poor Families 32.2% 68,505 -1.1% -727 Non-Poor Families 42.6% 90,655 -26.1% -31,972 Single Mothers 15.2% 3,846 -11.9% -518 Single Mothers 66.2% 16,736 11.1% +1,677 Children (Under 18) 29.5% 134,332 -6.1% -8,749 Children (Under 18) 46.0% 209,828 -19.4% -50,545 Young Adults (18-34) 27.0% 137,616 12.9% +15,745 Young Adults (18-34) 47.9% 244,213 1.0% +2,523 Adults (35 to 64) 29.6% 283,257 9.8% +25,333 Adults (35 to 64) 44.5% 425,359 -7.5% -34,550 Seniors (65 and up) 27.1% 117,006 13.8% +14,180 Seniors (65 and up) 46.8% 202,251 -8.0% -17,672 U.S.-Born 28.6% 647,985 6.6% +40,267 U.S.-Born 45.9% 1,040,078 -9.7% -111,389 Foreign-Born 27.8% 24,226 58.4% +8,929 Foreign-Born 47.7% 41,573 25.3% +8,391 Owner Units 29.8% 206,572 10.3% +19,329 Owner Units 43.9% 304,009 -10.0% -33,617 Renter Units 23.7% 71,035 14.3% +8,888 Renter Units 53.8% 161,274 2.0% +3,233 Vacant Units 22.8% 26,001 41.2% +7,583 Vacant Units 52.5% 59,758 39.5% +16,927 *The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very slight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed. Data: U.S. Census.

4 TABLES FOR CENTRAL CITY ONLY - Pittsburgh

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion Experiencing Strong Economic Decline (Pittsburgh) (Pittsburgh)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 8.6% 26,364 0.1% +20 TOTAL 29.6% 90,271 -12.5% -12,923 Low-Income 6.1% 7,152 -29.4% -2,981 Low-Income 35.8% 42,090 9.6% +3,671 Poverty 5.8% 3,636 -28.8% -1,470 Poverty 34.9% 21,905 21.1% +3,816 Extreme Poverty 5.1% 1,630 -34.5% -857 Extreme Poverty 33.4% 10,593 13.9% +1,293 American Indian 5.7% 24 -59.3% -35 American Indian 22.4% 94 -55.7% -118 Asian 5.9% 985 63.1% +381 Asian 25.9% 4,352 78.2% +1,910 Black 4.2% 3,071 -47.1% -2,739 Black 37.0% 27,140 1.8% +468 Hispanic 10.1% 870 168.5% +546 Hispanic 24.3% 2,104 79.8% +934 White 10.5% 20,663 7.8% +1,491 White 27.0% 53,133 -24.7% -17,421 College-Educated 12.2% 10,166 138.5% +5,904 College-Educated 19.4% 16,155 34.3% +4,125 Non-College 8.1% 9,832 -35.3% -5,366 Non-College 32.9% 39,774 -24.2% -12,732 Families 6.0% 1,559 -26.8% -570 Families 32.9% 8,580 -24.8% -2,829 Families in Poverty 3.8% 264 -52.2% -288 Families in Poverty 41.0% 2,886 16.0% +397 Non-Poor Families 6.8% 1,295 -17.9% -282 Non-Poor Families 29.9% 5,694 -36.2% -3,226 Single Mothers 3.9% 205 -49.4% -200 Single Mothers 42.2% 2,209 15.1% +289 Children (Under 18) 5.5% 2,670 -32.6% -1,294 Children (Under 18) 34.5% 16,686 -22.0% -4,716 Young Adults (18-34) 9.9% 11,382 49.7% +3,781 Young Adults (18-34) 28.4% 32,573 8.9% +2,656 Adults (35 to 64) 8.9% 8,839 -9.8% -959 Adults (35 to 64) 29.1% 28,952 -16.8% -5,864 Seniors (65 and up) 8.1% 3,473 -34.6% -1,837 Seniors (65 and up) 28.3% 12,060 -26.6% -4,372 U.S.-Born 8.8% 24,684 -1.4% -358 U.S.-Born 30.2% 84,276 -15.0% -14,871 Foreign-Born 6.5% 1,680 28.6% +374 Foreign-Born 23.1% 5,995 48.5% +1,958 Owner Units 7.8% 4,961 -10.4% -578 Owner Units 30.5% 19,319 -23.3% -5,884 Renter Units 11.8% 8,183 32.8% +2,020 Renter Units 24.8% 17,216 3.8% +637 Vacant Units 8.8% 1,843 -11.1% -231 Vacant Units 29.8% 6,258 17.8% +946

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 20.7% 63,327 -0.1% -63 TOTAL 58.2% 177,616 -11.8% -23,665 Low-Income 17.4% 20,438 -22.1% -5,788 Low-Income 65.3% 76,896 -0.1% -58 Poverty 18.5% 11,602 -14.2% -1,921 Poverty 64.1% 40,264 7.9% +2,939 Extreme Poverty 18.6% 5,911 -11.2% -748 Extreme Poverty 63.2% 20,051 4.3% +832 American Indian 20.0% 84 -34.4% -44 American Indian 61.8% 259 -30.7% -115 Asian 23.6% 3,961 99.6% +1,977 Asian 52.7% 8,863 69.5% +3,633 Black 13.2% 9,651 -34.1% -5,004 Black 65.7% 48,220 -10.0% -5,382 Hispanic 25.1% 2,171 106.4% +1,119 Hispanic 54.9% 4,754 89.1% +2,240 White 23.4% 46,077 3.6% +1,619 White 55.6% 109,336 -19.1% -25,849 College-Educated 30.5% 25,371 78.9% +11,187 College-Educated 47.1% 39,150 32.4% +9,578 Non-College 17.0% 20,495 -33.9% -10,489 Non-College 61.7% 74,544 -24.2% -23,848 Families 14.4% 3,747 -29.5% -1,570 Families 65.9% 17,178 -25.7% -5,940 Families in Poverty 8.3% 586 -53.6% -677 Families in Poverty 73.4% 5,161 -5.6% -307 Non-Poor Families 16.6% 3,161 -22.0% -893 Non-Poor Families 63.1% 12,017 -31.9% -5,633 Single Mothers 8.6% 448 -49.5% -440 Single Mothers 73.8% 3,862 -11.8% -519 Children (Under 18) 13.4% 6,505 -32.4% -3,117 Children (Under 18) 67.0% 32,417 -24.0% -10,227 Young Adults (18-34) 24.9% 28,576 41.2% +8,340 Young Adults (18-34) 53.9% 61,796 9.1% +5,155 Adults (35 to 64) 19.6% 19,540 -12.5% -2,788 Adults (35 to 64) 58.6% 58,341 -15.1% -10,355 Seniors (65 and up) 20.4% 8,706 -24.3% -2,797 Seniors (65 and up) 58.7% 25,062 -22.8% -7,422 U.S.-Born 20.5% 57,385 -1.9% -1,129 U.S.-Born 58.8% 164,105 -14.3% -27,388 Foreign-Born 22.9% 5,942 21.9% +1,066 Foreign-Born 52.0% 13,511 38.2% +3,733 Owner Units 18.3% 11,595 -5.2% -640 Owner Units 61.4% 38,831 -19.0% -9,115 Renter Units 29.6% 20,562 10.5% +1,955 Renter Units 51.1% 35,488 -1.5% -553 Vacant Units 24.9% 5,216 2.2% +113 Vacant Units 55.6% 11,674 19.1% +1,876 *The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very slight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed. Data: U.S. Census.

5 TABLES FOR REGIONAL SUBURBS - Pittsburgh Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 8.1% 166,351 15.3% +22,081 TOTAL 17.4% 356,971 -10.0% -39,524 Low-Income 5.1% 26,629 -26.1% -9,381 Low-Income 27.4% 141,834 18.0% +21,660 Poverty 4.9% 10,490 -14.3% -1,754 Poverty 31.1% 66,093 34.5% +16,943 Extreme Poverty 5.2% 4,751 -2.4% -115 Extreme Poverty 30.7% 28,312 32.4% +6,932 American Indian 9.5% 124 -13.3% -19 American Indian 23.0% 301 -30.2% -130 Asian 8.4% 2,747 227.8% +1,909 Asian 13.3% 4,361 76.8% +1,894 Black 4.4% 5,087 24.3% +994 Black 47.2% 55,197 18.6% +8,666 Hispanic 7.5% 2,108 164.2% +1,310 Hispanic 21.7% 6,141 90.3% +2,914 White 8.4% 153,834 11.8% +16,239 White 15.3% 279,207 -17.5% -59,307 College-Educated 9.6% 44,717 83.8% +20,394 College-Educated 12.9% 60,167 12.4% +6,653 Non-College 7.3% 74,676 -3.0% -2,347 Non-College 19.2% 195,987 -13.0% -29,171 Families 8.9% 19,924 5.8% +1,095 Families 17.3% 38,622 -19.8% -9,550 Families in Poverty 4.9% 1,441 -24.4% -464 Families in Poverty 35.5% 10,445 34.0% +2,653 Non-Poor Families 9.5% 18,483 9.2% +1,559 Non-Poor Families 14.5% 28,177 -30.2% -12,203 Single Mothers 4.9% 990 -5.3% -55 Single Mothers 38.3% 7,689 36.3% +2,046 Children (Under 18) 8.8% 35,975 1.1% +404 Children (Under 18) 17.7% 72,143 -17.0% -14,755 Young Adults (18-34) 7.4% 29,390 9.9% +2,659 Young Adults (18-34) 19.6% 77,344 -1.7% -1,350 Adults (35 to 64) 8.4% 71,697 17.7% +10,782 Adults (35 to 64) 16.4% 140,244 -7.9% -12,030 Seniors (65 and up) 7.5% 29,289 23.4% +5,545 Seniors (65 and up) 17.3% 67,240 -12.6% -9,658 U.S.-Born 8.1% 161,899 13.9% +19,731 U.S.-Born 17.4% 346,894 -10.5% -40,638 Foreign-Born 7.3% 4,452 107.9% +2,311 Foreign-Born 16.5% 10,077 12.6% +1,127 Owner Units 8.4% 52,771 16.1% +7,318 Owner Units 14.8% 93,371 -13.4% -14,453 Renter Units 5.9% 13,629 26.0% +2,810 Renter Units 27.8% 64,083 4.0% +2,472 Vacant Units 5.8% 5,421 75.6% +2,334 Vacant Units 25.8% 23,990 42.1% +7,109

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000

TOTAL 29.7% 608,884 8.8% +49,286 TOTAL 44.1% 904,035 -8.1% -79,363 Low-Income 20.8% 107,561 -19.2% -25,514 Low-Income 55.2% 285,700 9.3% +24,288 Poverty 19.4% 41,290 -9.5% -4,351 Poverty 58.0% 123,392 22.6% +22,710 Extreme Poverty 19.3% 17,791 -3.9% -725 Extreme Poverty 57.2% 52,688 23.4% +9,987 American Indian 34.2% 448 -2.8% -13 American Indian 46.5% 609 -41.9% -439 Asian 33.1% 10,886 162.8% +6,744 Asian 42.8% 14,087 72.0% +5,895 Black 11.4% 13,327 20.4% +2,261 Black 76.4% 89,282 18.3% +13,800 Hispanic 23.9% 6,756 134.1% +3,870 Hispanic 51.5% 14,558 102.7% +7,375 White 31.1% 568,955 5.9% +31,731 White 41.6% 762,054 -13.5% -118,865 College-Educated 33.9% 158,613 66.2% +63,183 College-Educated 40.6% 190,047 20.5% +32,322 Non-College 27.5% 280,787 -5.1% -15,205 Non-College 45.9% 467,915 -12.9% -69,595 Families 31.6% 70,505 -2.0% -1,435 Families 43.5% 97,022 -19.7% -23,795 Families in Poverty 17.5% 5,161 -23.7% -1,601 Families in Poverty 62.4% 18,384 16.1% +2,544 Non-Poor Families 33.7% 65,344 0.3% +166 Non-Poor Families 40.6% 78,638 -25.1% -26,339 Single Mothers 16.9% 3,398 -2.2% -78 Single Mothers 64.2% 12,874 20.6% +2,196 Children (Under 18) 31.4% 127,827 -4.2% -5,632 Children (Under 18) 43.5% 177,411 -18.5% -40,318 Young Adults (18-34) 27.6% 109,040 7.3% +7,405 Young Adults (18-34) 46.1% 182,417 -1.4% -2,632 Adults (35 to 64) 30.8% 263,717 11.9% +28,121 Adults (35 to 64) 42.8% 367,018 -6.2% -24,195 Seniors (65 and up) 27.8% 108,300 18.6% +16,977 Seniors (65 and up) 45.5% 177,189 -5.5% -10,250 U.S.-Born 29.7% 590,600 7.5% +41,396 U.S.-Born 44.1% 875,973 -8.8% -84,001 Foreign-Born 29.9% 18,284 75.5% +7,863 Foreign-Born 45.9% 28,062 19.9% +4,658 Owner Units 31.0% 194,977 11.4% +19,969 Owner Units 42.2% 265,178 -8.5% -24,502 Renter Units 21.9% 50,473 15.9% +6,933 Renter Units 54.6% 125,786 3.1% +3,786 Vacant Units 22.4% 20,785 56.1% +7,470 Vacant Units 51.8% 48,084 45.6% +15,051 *The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very slight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed. Data: U.S. Census.

6 PITTSBURGH (CENTRAL) REGION: Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tract with Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016

New Brighton Daugherty Callery Manor 79 Pulaski Saxonburg South 76 Buffalo BUTLER Rochester (t) Adams Bethel Brighton New Sewickley Cranberry Mars Freeport Beaver Clinton Buffalo Rochester Middlesex East Rochester Seven Fields Valencia Monaca Freedom 28 Gilpin Vanport Conway ARMSTRONG Center Pine Potter Har- Leechburg BEAVER Fawn rison Parks Economy Bradford Richland Baden West Deer Hyde Marshall Woods West Frazer Park Harmony Bracken- Leechburg Aliquippa ridge North Apollo Franklin Tarentum McCandless Allegheny Raccoon Am- Park East Apollo Bell Acres Lower bridge Deer Burrell 376Hopewell Sewickley Hills Hampton Leetsdale Arnold Leet Indiana New South Sewickley Kensington Heights L Edge- Heights Crescent worth ALLEGHENY Harmar Springdale Upper Ohio Cheswick Burrell Okla- Sewickley Ross Fox homa Aleppo 279 Chapel Osborne Shaler Oakmont Independence Kilbuck West View Coraopolis Emsworth O'Hara Neville Verona Washington Avalon Plum Ben Avon Etna Bellevue Sharpsburg Blawnox Reserve Aspinwall Findlay Moon Kennedy Millvale Stowe Penn Hills 76 Robinson McKees Rocks Murrysville 576 Wilkinsburg Thornburg Export Delmont Churchill Wilmerding North Crafton Rosslyn Farms Edgewood 22 Fayette Wilkins Monroeville 22 Green Pittsburgh SwissvaleForest Hills Oakdale Tree Rankin Carnegie Homestead Turtle Pitcairn Braddock Creek Whitaker East Collier Robinson Dormont Pittsburgh Wall Mount Munhall Trafford WESTMORELAND ScottLebanon Baldwin Baldwin East McKeesport Salem Castle Brent- DuquesneNorth Penn Twp Shannonwood Versailles West Mifflin Bridgeville Whitehall South Dravosburg White Oak Manor McDonald Fayette McKeesport Midway Port Vue Upper Pleasant Hills North Jeannette St. Clair GlassportLiberty Huntingdon 66 Bethel Park Versailles Adams- Cecil 79 Jefferson Hills Irwin burg 0 4 ClairtonLincoln Hempfield South Park Greens- Miles 528 burg Peters Economic Decline: Arona Sewickley Canonsburg Finleyville Elizabeth Abandonment: Sutersville < -700 Low Income (0)76 Youngwood Union Chartiers North Forward -1 to -699 Low IncomeMadison (33) Strabane New Stanton WASHINGTON Low Income Concentration: 43 New Nottingham Eagle NJ Washington Monon- 1 to 699 LowWest Income (129) Canton Carroll gahela Newton Donora Rostraver> 700 Low Income (2) Hunker South Strabane North Charleroi South Economic Expansion:Huntingdon 70 Monessen Fallowfield East North North Belle VernonLow Income Displacement: Smithton Huntingdon Franklin Charleroi Somerset Belle 700 Low Income (0) Bullskin West Newell 280Jefferson Bethlehem Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data). 7