The funny thing about those "livability" ratings is that they always select cities that no one actually wants to live in. I think the cost of housing skews the results. Logically, cities that have low costs of housing are undesirable to live in relative to other cities. But in this ranking low housing costs boost a city's livability. So while Pittsburgh didn't score that well on any single index, it won because it didn't blow the cost of housing score, with which places that are considered desirable by real people, like NY, Boston, SF and DC, knock themselves out of the running.

I would also contest its high "ambiance" rating, as I don't find a downtown that has more idling unemployed men than bustling professionals very pleasing.

Pitts would be toward the end of the cities rated if there was a measure of the level of depression of the residents because their beloved city is in its death throes.

The city is also very isolated with no interesting cities less than four hours away (DC) and no good vacation spots nearby, unlike, say, Boston or SF.

I could not believe how much every manager at the companies I visited there complained about the fact that they have to live in Pitts. They admit that housing is cheap, but they say they have to carefully consider what to buy as the big concern is how far their property values will decrease.
Leonardo | 05.03.07 - 6:22 pm | #