SPRAWL IN THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY
The County’s slow rate of growth has not slowed the rate of land consumption. Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of land developed increased by nearly 43% even though the population declined by 8%, according to Sustainable Pittsburgh’s 2002 Sustainability Indicators Report.
Over the past two decades, much new development in Allegheny County has been in the form of suburban sprawl. Sprawl is a term used to describe a classic pattern of land development where different types of uses are separated – often widely – by zoning, and development is at a much lower density compared to urbanized areas. Suburban sprawl typically consumes greenfields and requires the extension of infrastructure such as water and sanitary sewer lines, and roads. Sprawl tends to foster dependence on automobiles because where people live is located far from where they work, shop, and attend school.
In Allegheny County more than 14,000 acres were developed between 1993 and 2005. About 9,000 acres, or 67% of the total land area developed, was residential development. Single-family was the predominant dwelling type, and the average lot size was ½ acre. Most of the development was in the northwestern and southern parts of the County (primarily Marshall, Pine, Moon, Collier, North Fayette, South Fayette, and Robinson Townships), but the north-central and eastern portions of the County also experienced increases.
Inefficient land use patterns can lead to higher costs for utilities and services, an erosion of the urban core tax base, a decline in downtown commercial centers and a concentration of poverty in older urban centers.
According to a 1998 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, sprawl is more inefficient, costly, and inequitable, and uses more resources than traditional city and town development.
Unlike modern sprawl, historical patterns of development in Allegheny County were highly supportive of transit use. In 1947, more than one million persons – about 70% of the County’s population – resided in 19 of the County’s 130 municipalities. All were in, or close to, urban population centers accessible by trolley lines. Public transit ridership hit a peak of 280 million per year in 1947.
The typical suburban land use pattern does not have the density to support transit use. After 1950, when individual ownership of automobiles became more common, many of the core communities experienced substantial population losses, while the municipalities in outlying areas gained. Public transit ridership dropped dramatically. In 2006, it was slightly more than 70 million per year.
DECLINING POPULATION, ESPECIALLY IN CORE AREAS
In each decade from 1960 to 2000, the County’s population has decreased. From 2000 to 2006, Allegheny County is estimated to have lost 4.3% of its population, falling from approximately 1.28 million to 1.22 million.
Of Allegheny County’s 130 municipalities, 97 lost population in the 1990s. Population losses were concentrated in the urban core and in former industrial communities along the rivers. The City of Pittsburgh lost the largest number of people in the 1990s – over 35,000 residents – while Braddock Borough suffered the largest percentage of population loss – nearly 38% of its population.
More than one-third of the County’s municipalities, or 46, have less than one square mile of land, and 14 have fewer than 1,000 people.
DISINVESTMENT IN OLDER COMMUNITIES
Over the past twenty years, the County has been ‘hollowing out’, as people moved from the urban core and older river communities to the outlying suburban municipalities. With no population growth to offset outmigration and natural population loss, many older communities became increasingly tax burdened. As the lack of revenue impacted the provision of services, it led to further decline.
When property values decline, local taxing bodies are often forced to increase millage rates in an attempt to meet the demand for services. When higher tax rates are coupled with lowered property values and an eroding quality of life, it is difficult to retain existing residents and businesses or to attract new ones. It is a cycle of decline that is hard to break.