Immigrants or any minority ethnic group tend to move to where there is already an established population with employment opportunities. For example, where I grew up in Colorado had a high percentage of Guatemalans. Whatever the original reason, the main reason they continued to move there was that they knew others who already did or perhaps had relatives in the community.

Pittsburgh doesn't currently have that preexisting base of Hispanics or Latinos that would spur further growth. I suspect that because, historically most immigrant influxes involved people who are willing to work hard at low paying jobs. When the steel industry died, even those low paying jobs were gobbled up by existing residents. There was little if any demand for additional agricultural or construction workers in the Pittsburgh region. As you say, this coincided with the time period in which those populations grew rapidly in many American regions.

On the other hand, academia and medicine have driven some ethic population growth in Pittsburgh in the past couple decades. I suspect this is why the Asian population has grown while some other groups have not.

Hopefully none of the above is seen as insulting or harmful stereotyping. It is intended as impartial analysis given historical trends, and not as justification for how different ethic groups experience America.

One other point while we are on the topic. So far it appears Hispanic immigrants are assimilating--as measured by things like intermarriage rates, the dominant language spoken at home, and so on--at about the same rate per generation as prior immigrant waves (German, Irish, Italian, and so forth).

If that holds true, then even to the extent Pittsburgh does show some convergence in terms of the percentage of residents with at least some Hispanic heritage (say through domestic migration), that population likely won't be as "noticeable" by the time it arrives due to such assimilation.

In fact, you can still trace today where the popular immigrant destinations were located at various points in U.S. history by looking at which places still have relatively large English, Irish, Italian, German, or so on populations today. I think it is a good bet that some day Hispanic heritage will be very similar, both in the sense that places not prominent on the map by now will likely never be, and also that it will also gradually fade farther and farther into the background as assimilation takes hold.

My allegation?

Please, save the lecture. Much like Boston, it is no big secret that Pittsburgh (and SW PA in general) garnered a repuation as being a major northern US city where black people were going to face even greater and more overt discrimination than in cities like Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, or Detroit.

With what you say and the questions you pose, it sounds almost like you've never heard of Pittsburgh mentioned in such a light and that this is all news to you. The sentiment exists out there, and it has for a long time.

It has nothing to do with me "painting the city as racist". I'm certainly not going to foolishly paint an entire metro area with a term like 'racist'. Though if you can't understand that a region characterized by an often isolated, aging, white, working-poor population just may happen to be a bit more racist (or at least xenophobic) than others, then here is some rather recent factual data for you to interpret as you see fit:

- metro Pittsburgh was the only major metro region to vote more Republican in 2008 than 2004; and the only other regions of the nation to do so besides Pittsburgh were... well, see below map
- only 6 Democratic counties as part of the nation's largest metro areas voted Republican in 2008; 3 of those counties (Fayette, Washington, Beaver... among the most reliably Democratic counties in the past 90 years) are part of metro Pittsburgh

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages...004-shift2.jpg

Regardless of all of the above, I strongly believe the city of Pittsburgh is greatly improving in this area, and will continue to do so as it attracts more immigrants and becomes a generally more diverse place in all phases of the 'diversity' definition.

Ok you win. I really don't care. You're into labels and identity politics. You are now equating republicans as proof of racism. So in your view its best to have just one view, one party, etc. Other view points must be racist, therefore open and shut case. Since you brought up parties, hasn't Pittsburgh been run by democrats for decades. Why didn't they step in and end the unfriendliness? A diverse Pittsburgh would welcome many views as well as races. It never ceases to amaze me that people claiming diversity also want to shut down any view other than their own.

^ Wow. What interpretations, misinterpretations, and jumps to erroneous conclusions.

Oh geez...

Rather than post something to feed the fire of this topic of racism and the Steel City, I'm going to post something else.

It's not really about Pittsburgh-proper, but here's an article in the Trib about the Airport Corridor getting a 1.8 million dollar grant to start land prep for an industrial park off US 30. This grant will go toward improving water flow, and I think the other half of the 3.4 million dollar funding will go toward the actual site prep...

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5...#axzz2zlVeaNt9

There is a lot more to being racist than not voting for Barack Obama. Your point is one I believe to be true, but this map - total non sequitor.

Looking at the distribution of orange on that map tells me that those concerned with Obama's energy policy -- not the color of his skin-- voted against him.

Produce Terminal
 

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201404240170

I didn't notice anything too new in this article, but hoping to steer this thread back to development...

Looks like the Homewood Proposal for the new animal shelter is receiving some NIMBY-ism. However, the weirdest statements have come from those who say that this will spur development. A $15 million dollar shelter may help the area, but talk of demand just because of this seems a little far-fetched.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201404240208

I suggest everyone debating the history and current state of racism or "unfriendliness" in Pittsburgh to sit down and actually read some of August Wilson's plays. They are amazingly intricate and powerful portrayals of African American culture in Pittsburgh and will tell you what the city was like and the reputation it had in the community all throughout the 20th century.

I think it is news! That's three actual bids being submitted, which is great. And all this shows the merits of having more open bidding processes for this sort of project.

Of course there is, and that's why I stated "interpret as you see fit" when I posted the facts and map -- topics we've discussed on this very thread on more than one occasion. When you look at the dramatic change in those voting patterns in 2008, it's hard to support that it is a total non-sequitur. For the record, I would not characterize Pittsburgh as a racist city -- that's just far too broad a statement. I stated that the historical sentiment exists and still does... and looking at the Pittsburgh region's still-existing demographics, it not that difficult to fugure out the reasons for it... and how it ay have existed in a bit stronger form than in other northern cities after deindustrialization.

Yup, thank you for the very good suggestion. I started to read the cycle back in high school at the urging of my uncle, who grew up with Wilson. It will provide a history of Pittsburgh that most people are obviously still unaware of.

I think former city councilman Sala Udin said it very well recently on the radio, “August loved Pittsburgh, and he hated Pittsburgh," Udin said. "He hated the racism, he hated the poverty, he hated the brutality of the police. There was a lot to hate about Pittsburgh, the place that we loved. And you’ll see that throughout all of August’s plays.”

There's nothing wrong with constructive discussion about Pittsburgh social issues when there is a lull in development news, particularly when the topic springs from a very current downtown development issue. The topic has as much to do with Pittsburgh's future success as does the removal of Allegheny Center/reconnection of the northside grid, yet we continue to rehash that tired, dead story and continue to complain about it...

This is news, and the end of the lull!

You do realize that many people change their votes for more complex reasons than just the skin color of the candidate?

Can you actually prove that the people who changed their vote to republican in 2008 were doing it simply because of racism?

Edit: That map shows that the Boston metro trended more republican as well, I guess those people who changed their vote there were also racist.

As I've said, interpret as you see fit. This is hardly the first time we've discussed metro and county 2008 election results and this map on here. Please feel free to share those "more complex reasons".

And yes, suburban counties of Pittsburgh and Boston were the only two parts of major metro regions in the north to go more red. Boston is another city long-plagued with the tag of being 'racist'. Interpret that however you want.

I think this is an interesting viewpoint. Though, Hispanic is such a general description that it is almost meaningless. I think it would be more informational to look at destinations in terms of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Peruvian, Honduran, etc., etc., etc... just like we look at it in terms of English, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc., etc., etc., rather than just broadly "Anglo European" immigrant destinations. But I'm assuming you probably mean it in those terms I speaking of.

Quick observation/question: I returned home for Easter this weekend and was pleasantly surprised by some additions at PIT. The new Tumi store, Italian Food Market/sandwich shop and "duty free" style fragerence/body lotions store gave that middle section between the terminals a much nicer, more "cosmopolitan" feel to it. It also looks like there are a few areas around there that are preparing for more new shopping space. Does anyone know exactly what will be there? Does it seem odd that higher end options are going into PIT when service has been cut in the past 5-10 years? Does anyone that has a better handle on these types of developments think this at all illudes to PIT anticipating more traffic, more international traffic, or at least attempting to attract it? Just curious......

Absolutely.

I also noticed a deliberate attempt to move the "air mall" to a more central location when I flew last. I doubt they are preparing for more traffic. More likely acknowledging the lack of foot traffic within the individual terminals and having more centralized shops makes sense. The airport authority has marcellus shale money now and are making improvements. I overheard a traveler when he was walking with his bag (click clack click clack)look down at the tile floor.."this airport must be old." I have to agree. They need to replace it. Makes it look dated.