More really interesting background reading, Brookings has a report out about perceived jobs density, or what I would call weighted average density. The report explains the concept, but basically rather than looking over the whole area and calculating the average jobs per unit of land, you use a weighting calculation to figure out how clustered the jobs are within that broader area. Here is the report in both interactive graphic and PDF forms:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/w...s-and-regions/
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...rt.pdf#page=14
There are many interesting observations in the report, but as to Pittsburgh specifically--apparently by this measure, as of 2015 Pittsburgh ranked as the 7th highest weighted jobs density metro area, after NYC, SF, Honolulu, Chicago, Seattle, and Philly. Next after us in the top 10 are Minneapolis-Saint Paul, LA, and Las Vegas. Not bad!
But I note for data reasons, three major metros, Boston, Washington DC, and Milwaukee are not included (and it is probably a good bet the first two of those would rank above us). But otherwise we still ranked ahead of cities like Denver, Portland, Cleveland, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Phoenix, Miami, and many others.
On the bad side, we were one of the metros where as of 2015 this density measure was falling, despite the national average increasing. And we were specifically well below what they called the expected change, which is basically what would happen if new jobs were being added where the old jobs were already located.
So from a big picture development standpoint, we currently have a pretty good set up in terms of weighted jobs density. Which is good because more jobs clustering leads to all sorts of economic and policy efficiencies that fosters better overall outcomes.
But we should be worried we are slipping. Which again means we should be thinking about how to help get more development within existing jobs clusters, versus investing public capital in opening up new site locations in greenfield areas.