Pittsburgh ranked as 3rd-best Rust Belt comeback story in nation | TribLIVE.com

Pittsburgh ranked as 3rd-best Rust Belt comeback story in nation

Nicole C. Brambila
Comeback city.

A new study ranks Pittsburgh No. 3 among the 17 most successful Rust Belt comebacks.

Using U.S. Census data, the commercial real estate information services provider CommercialCafé evaluated a city’s performance across a number of indicators, including population and income growth, unemployment and poverty, educational attainment levels, and median home price, among others.

Diana Sabau, author of the report, noted that Pittsburgh had the highest income growth increase on the list, with median wages increasing 25% over the past decade.

“Much like New Orleans, Buffalo or Providence, Pittsburgh has managed to decouple population growth from rising incomes for its residents,” Sabau wrote. “In doing so, it has created a model and has managed to regain some of its momentum despite a net demographic loss since the 1950s.”

Pittsburgh ranked fourth with a 5% poverty reduction since 2008, behind Grand Rapids, St. Louis and Chicago.

Pittsburgh is routinely cited as a post-industrial success story, with international recognition peaking when the city hosted the G-20 Summit in 2009. More recently, SmartAsset deemed the city the best bargain in America for the second straight year; Pew Stateline noted that residents are better-off even as the population of the metro area has shrunk 4% since 2000.

Grand Rapids, Mich., took first place in the CommercialCafé survey. It scored the highest for its labor force participation and decreasing the city’s poverty rate.

Madison, Wisc. came in second. Other notables included Philadelphia (No. 9), Baltimore (No. 11) and Detroit (No. 17).

Five states, including Pennsylvania, had multiple showings on the list, but Ohio had the most with five comeback cities.

To read the full report, click here.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.