 |
| Pittsburgh, home of a ketchup empire (photo: ArchPlan) |
"And there is one more piece in the Pittsburgh puzzle, something Mr. King learned after a long conversation with historian David McCullough, who described his childhood in Pittsburgh as idyllic. It is the "Pittsburgh character."To be fair, Reimer is basing her text on this article in the Wall Street Journal, which is hidden behind a paywall (I copied it below). One would expect Darwinian capitalism from WSJ, I suppose.
"The Scot-Irish, the Eastern Europeans, the Germans, the English, the blacks. Each successive wave of immigrants adopted this Pittsburgh character," said Mr. King, quoting Mr. McCullough. "No-nonsense, straight-forward, hard-working, committed to the idea of community and family".
A quick look at some basic demographic figures will reveal significant differences, some of which the WSJ recognizes. Without analyzing what they mean explanations are probable fruitless. But overall, the numbers don't show that Pittsburgh is really so much better off than Baltimore. With a 22% poverty rate its poor may look different, but they represent about the same stunning percentage as ours. And as far as manufacturing output? Given that Pittsburgh is less than half Baltimore's size, quite comparable. Foundations, universities, non profits? Not much difference. However, Pittsburgh is doing much better with conventions and much better with conveying an image of decisiveness and leadership.Pittsburgh’s Revival Lesson for Baltimore
If Charm City wants to address the hopelessness that fueled the riots, a blueprint already exists
The maybe most significant difference: Baltimore lies in the heart of a rapidly growing metro area, Pittsburgh does not. Instead it sits in a corner that Philadelphians deride as "Pennsyltucky". This means Baltimore should actually be doing much better than Pittsburgh.
Maybe some real Pittsburgh experts can shed more light on the matter.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA
Pittsburgh Quick Facts from Census:
| People QuickFacts | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | |
|---|---|---|---|
 | Population, 2013 estimate | 305,841 | 12,781,296 |
| Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base | 305,702 | 12,702,884 |
| Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 | Z | 0.6% |
| Population, 2010 | 305,704 | 12,702,379 |
| Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 | 4.9% | 5.7% |
| Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 | 16.3% | 22.0% |
| Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 | 13.8% | 15.4% |
| Female persons, percent, 2010 | 51.6% | 51.3% |
| White alone, percent, 2010 (a) | 66.0% | 81.9% |
| Black or African American alone, percent, 2010 (a) | 26.1% | 10.8% |
| American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2010 (a) | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Asian alone, percent, 2010 (a) | 4.4% | 2.7% |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2010 (a) | Z | 0.0% |
| Two or More Races, percent, 2010 | 2.5% | 1.9% |
| Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 (b) | 2.3% | 5.7% |
| White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 | 64.8% | 79.5% |
| Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2009-2013 | 79.0% | 88.0% |
| Foreign born persons, percent, 2009-2013 | 7.4% | 6.0% |
| Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2009-2013 | 9.8% | 10.3% |
| High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 | 90.4% | 88.7% |
| Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 | 35.5% | 27.5% | |
| Veterans, 2009-2013 | 19,404 | 943,417 |
| Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2009-2013 | 22.8 | 25.9 |
| Housing units, 2010 | 156,165 | 5,567,315 |
| Homeownership rate, 2009-2013 | 48.8% | 69.8% |
| Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2009-2013 | 39.7% | 20.5% |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2009-2013 | $89,400 | $164,700 |
| Households, 2009-2013 | 133,005 | 4,958,427 |
| Persons per household, 2009-2013 | 2.12 | 2.48 |
| Per capita money income in past 12 months (2013 dollars), 2009-2013 | $26,892 | $28,502 |
| Median household income, 2009-2013 | $39,195 | $52,548 |
| Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009-2013 | 22.6% | 13.3% |
| Business QuickFacts | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of firms, 2007 | 24,605 | 981,501 |
| Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 9.1% | 4.6% |
| American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, percent, 2007 | S | 0.3% |
| Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 4.1% | 3.2% |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms, percent, 2007 | F | 0.0% |
| Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 | S | 2.3% |
| Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 28.2% | 27.0% |
| Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) | 2,535,019 | 234,840,418 |
| Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) | 7,097,194 | 142,859,202 |
| Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) | 3,412,987 | 166,842,778 |
| Retail sales per capita, 2007 | $10,928 | $13,323 |
| Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000) | 1,042,893 | 19,625,449 |
| Geography QuickFacts | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land area in square miles, 2010 | 55.37 | 44,742.70 |
| Persons per square mile, 2010 | 5,521.4 | 283.9 |
| FIPS Code | 61000 | 42 |
| Counties | Allegheny County |
Baltimore Quick Facts from Census:
| People QuickFacts | Baltimore city | Maryland | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population, 2014 estimate | 622,793 | 5,976,407 |
| Population, 2013 estimate | 623,404 | 5,938,737 |
| Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base | 621,121 | 5,773,785 |
| Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 | 0.3% | 3.5% |
| Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 | 0.4% | 2.9% |
| Population, 2010 | 620,961 | 5,773,552 |
| Persons under 5 years, percent, 2013 | 6.7% | 6.2% |
| Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013 | 21.1% | 22.7% |
| Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2013 | 12.1% | 13.4% |
| Female persons, percent, 2013 | 52.8% | 51.5% |
| White alone, percent, 2013 (a) | 31.6% | 60.5% |
| Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) | 63.3% | 30.1% |
| American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a) | 0.4% | 0.6% |
| Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a) | 2.6% | 6.1% |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Two or More Races, percent, 2013 | 2.0% | 2.6% |
| Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b) | 4.6% | 9.0% |
| White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 | 28.3% | 53.3% |
| Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2009-2013 | 82.6% | 86.7% |
| Foreign born persons, percent, 2009-2013 | 7.4% | 14.0% |
| Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2009-2013 | 8.8% | 16.7% |
| High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 | 80.2% | 88.7% |
| Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 | 26.8% | 36.8% | |
| Veterans, 2009-2013 | 35,446 | 427,068 |
| Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2009-2013 | 30.1 | 32.0 |
| Housing units, 2013 | 295,737 | 2,404,012 |
| Homeownership rate, 2009-2013 | 48.3% | 67.6% |
| Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2009-2013 | 32.4% | 25.5% |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2009-2013 | $157,900 | $292,700 |
| Households, 2009-2013 | 241,455 | 2,146,240 |
| Persons per household, 2009-2013 | 2.47 | 2.65 |
| Per capita money income in past 12 months (2013 dollars), 2009-2013 | $24,750 | $36,354 |
| Median household income, 2009-2013 | $41,385 | $73,538 |
| Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009-2013 | 23.8% | 9.8% |
| Business QuickFacts | Baltimore city | Maryland | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private nonfarm establishments, 2012 | 12,128 | 134,3051 |
| Private nonfarm employment, 2012 | 283,535 | 2,152,4581 |
| Private nonfarm employment, percent change, 2011-2012 | 4.4% | 2.3%1 |
| Nonemployer establishments, 2012 | 39,252 | 442,314 |
| Total number of firms, 2007 | 42,272 | 528,112 |
| Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 34.6% | 19.3% |
| American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, percent, 2007 | S | 0.6% |
| Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 5.9% | 6.8% |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms, percent, 2007 | F | 0.1% |
| Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 2.1% | 4.9% |
| Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 | 37.0% | 32.6% |
| Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) | 5,730,887 | 41,456,097 |
| Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) | 4,843,424 | 51,276,797 |
| Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) | 4,348,797 | 75,664,186 |
| Retail sales per capita, 2007 | $6,793 | $13,429 |
| Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000) | 1,434,689 | 10,758,428 |
| Building permits, 2013 | 1,257 | 17,918 |
| Geography QuickFacts | Baltimore city | Maryland | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land area in square miles, 2010 | 80.94 | 9,707.24 |
| Persons per square mile, 2010 | 7,671.5 | 594.8 |
| FIPS Code | 510 | 24 |
| Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area |
Pittsburgh’s Revival Lesson for Baltimore
If Charm City wants to address the hopelessness that fueled the riots, a blueprint already exists.
A few years ago, the distinguished political scientist Robert Putnam made what turned out to be a fateful visit to his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio, to attend the 50th reunion of his high-school class. Despite their modest backgrounds, most of his classmates had enjoyed remarkable upward mobility. Not so for their children and grandchildren who had chosen to remain in Port Clinton. Instead, divorce, unwed parenthood, child poverty and juvenile delinquency soared.
What happened? Starting in the 1970s and continuing through the ’80s and ’90s, Mr. Putnam found, the foundation of Port Clinton’s economy collapsed, and nothing replaced it. Manufacturing employment as a share of total jobs fell to 25% in 1995 from 55% in 1965 and kept on falling. Real wages shrank from slightly above the national average in the 1970s to 25% below average in the current decade. Not surprisingly, many young people moved away in search of opportunity.
Port Clinton’s story is Baltimore’s story. In the 1950s and 1960s, Charm City was a thriving economic and financial center. Young people with high-school educations or less found good manufacturing jobs—at Bethlehem Steel’s Sparrow Point mill and the General Motors plant, among many others. In 1960 the Port of Baltimore—another major source of good working-class jobs—ranked second in the country.
Then everything changed. By 1995 Baltimore had lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs. Today, the steel and auto factories are closed, the port has fallen to 11th place and manufacturing accounts for only 7% of Baltimore’s employment. People with a high-school education or less find jobs in lower-wage service occupations or fall prey to long-term unemployment. Median household income stands at $41,400, 44% lower than the state average. Twenty-four percent of Baltimore’s population lives below the poverty level, compared with 10% for Maryland. Since 1950, Baltimore’s population has fallen by 35%.
The situation in Baltimore’s Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood—the epicenter of recent protests—is far worse. According to a recent analysis by ThinkProgress, 52% of the neighborhood’s inhabitants age 16 to 64 are out of work, and the unemployment rate is twice that of the city as a whole. At $24,000, the neighborhood’s median household income is lower than the federal poverty line for a family of four—and fully 54% below the national median. Thirty-three percent of Sandtown-Winchester’s homes stand vacant and decaying, despite a $130 million investment spearheaded in the 1990s by developerJames Rouse and Kurt Schmoke, Baltimore’s first African-American mayor.
In Baltimore as in Port Clinton, no effective substitute for the industrial-era economy has emerged. In both cities a tangle of social pathologies is the consequence—not cause—of vanishing opportunity. And when a community’s economic foundation crumbles, social programs—however intensive and well-intentioned—cannot fill the gap.
But deindustrialization need not condemn a city to permanent failure. Pittsburgh long symbolized the industrial era. When the U.S. steel industry withered in the second half of the 20th century under foreign competition, Pittsburgh’s unemployment surged to 17%, and its population declined even faster than Baltimore’s. Many observers wrote off the city, as they write off Detroit today.
Yet Pittsburgh found a way forward. The manufacturing sector diversified into advanced metal alloys and surgical implants. With a base in Carnegie Mellon University, entrepreneurs turned the city into a center for robotics. Even so, as late as 2002, Pittsburgh suffered from low levels of innovation and poor workforce retention.
It took a coordinated effort by the city’s political, economic and nonprofit leaders to link education and innovation, nurture new businesses and turn Pittsburgh into one of America’s most livable cities. The city now hosts two of the 15 largest law firms and more than 100 firms valued at more than $1 billion. By 2009 Pittsburgh was selected to host the annual G-20 summit, hailed by the group as “a model for economic, environmental, and quality-of-life transformation.”
Much work remains. Pittsburgh’s median household income is still 25% below Pennsylvania’s, and poverty exceeds 20%. Still, the unemployment rate is only 5.4%, slightly below the national average, and opportunity is on the rise.
There is of course a difference between Pittsburgh and Baltimore: African-Americans form 63% of Baltimore’s population, compared with 26% of Pittsburgh’s. Between 1970 and 2010, employment rates of prime working-age black males in large metropolitan areas declined by an average of more than 18 percentage points. The question is whether this difference is decisive. We won’t know the answer until Baltimore works as hard to leverage its educational and health-care assets into economic vitality as Pittsburgh has.
Government, nonprofits and the private sector must come together around a long-term blueprint for growth and job creation. Institutions such as Johns Hopkins University will have to do a better job of commercializing the fruits of their research and integrating their activities with the city. Only a vigorous, self-sustaining economy can offer the opportunity needed the break the cycle of hopelessness in neighborhoods like Sandtown.
No comments:
Post a Comment