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