Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pittsburgh Voted Most Livable City
City Last Earned Title In 1985
POSTED: 9:26 am EDT April 27, 2007
PITTSBURGH -- Pittsburgh is at the top of the list of America's most livable cities.
To come up with the rankings, Rand McNally's "Places Rated Almanac" judges 379 metropolitan areas in nine categories, including cost of living, transportation, jobs and education.
Pittsburghers said they're not surprised their city is taking top honors, reported WPXI-TV.
Mark Foerster, of Swissvale, said, "It's no surprise, there's so much going on. You see the new stadiums, of course PNC Park, Heinz Field, the new Pens Arena. It's just amazing it's taken the world this long to figure out we're No. 1."
The last time Pittsburgh claimed the No. 1 spot was in 1985. The city was 12th in 1999, the last year the rankings were done.
Five of the top 10 cities are in the Northeast, four are on the West Coast and one is in the upper Midwest. None is in the Sunbelt.
The good news for Pittsburgh comes amid recent bleak Census Bureau data that showed about 60,000 people had left the seven-county Pittsburgh metro area from 2000 to 2006.
Only metro areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina had seen greater declines.
I disagree with that list. Pittsburgh as the most livable city, please don't hold your breath! I'd vote Pittsburgh as one of the LEAST livable cities with all that crime and pollution. Otherwise I'd say it's pretty good with the possible exception of San Jose.
Pittsburgh Voted Most Livable City
City Last Earned Title In 1985
Here are the top 10 most livable cities
1. Pittsburgh
2.San Francisco
3.Seattle, Wash.
4.Portland, Ore.
5.Philadelphia.
6.Rochester, N.Y.
7.Washington, D.C.
8.San Jose-Sunnyvale, Calif.
9.Boston
10.Madison, Wis.
Is this a joke? I MUST know, then, what exactly makes a city liveable. Pittsburgh is a fine city, I suppose, but it's Pittsburgh. If you're hot for grimey steel mills, rude people, and clouds, I guess Pittsburgh is liveable. But for the rest of us?
San Francisco? Whaaaa??? Who can afford that place? And for whom is that city exactly 'liveable?' Gays. Liberals. Nancy Pelosi. But how about the normal folks in America? You know...work-a-day families?
Seattle and Portland are fine cities but they are really only liveable for a select population. It's not exactly the kind of place you'd go to retire or raise a family. If you're young and single they're great--but that's not most people.
Philly? No way. Just no way. They just threw that one in to make sure we were paying attention.
Don't know about Rochester.
Suburban DC is great and it's growing rapidly because of it. But the district itself is hell. It's too expensive, too rude, bad weather, and, ugh.
San Jose is great--but too expensive.
Boston's lame. Maybe 200 years ago it would have been the 9th mosts liveable, but it's 2007 and things have changed.
Madison I hear is a great town. But it's mostly college kids.
Who published this list? The Nation? Code Pink? I mean, when I think of liveable towns I think of good schools, growing job market, affordability, good for families, low taxes, etc. This list seems to think that a preponderance of stoned-out-of-their-mind college kids, thugs, crime, millionaires, and the 'creative class' a la Richard Florida--gays, artists, etc.--make a city great.
I'd put Denver first. It's truly liveable in the purest sense--affordable, beautiful, good jobs, good for families, etc. True, unlike the cities listed, most people don't drive around in hybrids with "arms are for hugging" bumperstickers--but it's still a great city and one that continues to grow with families.
I'd say if a city is growing it's liveable. But Boston, NY, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Francisco all experienced negative growth last year. Taxes are too high, regulation too high, and businesses are moving out--and along with them the workers.
I doubt they took in account the cost of living when they compiled that list. I mean San Fran, San Jose, Boston, and DC are most certainly NOT affordable.
Quote:
Seattle and Portland are fine cities but they are really only liveable for a select population. It's not exactly the kind of place you'd go to retire or raise a family. If you're young and single they're great--but that's not most people.
Seattle and Portland are very family-friendly cities as well as for the single. I see no problem with either one and both are affordable which makes them even more appealing.
Is this a joke? I MUST know, then, what exactly makes a city liveable. Pittsburgh is a fine city, I suppose, but it's Pittsburgh. If you're hot for grimey steel mills, rude people, and clouds, I guess Pittsburgh is liveable. But for the rest of us?
San Francisco? Whaaaa??? Who can afford that place? And for whom is that city exactly 'liveable?' Gays. Liberals. Nancy Pelosi. But how about the normal folks in America? You know...work-a-day families?
Seattle and Portland are fine cities but they are really only liveable for a select population. It's not exactly the kind of place you'd go to retire or raise a family. If you're young and single they're great--but that's not most people.
Philly? No way. Just no way. They just threw that one in to make sure we were paying attention.
Don't know about Rochester.
Suburban DC is great and it's growing rapidly because of it. But the district itself is hell. It's too expensive, too rude, bad weather, and, ugh.
San Jose is great--but too expensive.
Boston's lame. Maybe 200 years ago it would have been the 9th mosts liveable, but it's 2007 and things have changed.
Madison I hear is a great town. But it's mostly college kids.
Who published this list? The Nation? Code Pink? I mean, when I think of liveable towns I think of good schools, growing job market, affordability, good for families, low taxes, etc. This list seems to think that a preponderance of stoned-out-of-their-mind college kids, thugs, crime, millionaires, and the 'creative class' a la Richard Florida--gays, artists, etc.--make a city great.
I'd put Denver first. It's truly liveable in the purest sense--affordable, beautiful, good jobs, good for families, etc. True, unlike the cities listed, most people don't drive around in hybrids with "arms are for hugging" bumperstickers--but it's still a great city and one that continues to grow with families.
I'd say if a city is growing it's liveable. But Boston, NY, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Francisco all experienced negative growth last year. Taxes are too high, regulation too high, and businesses are moving out--and along with them the workers.
No thanks. I take Denver.
FYI Madison is about 15% college students. Denver is ok, but the Mountains are pretty lame when compared mts. in Montana, Wyoming, Utah and California. Where is the great San Diego?
If I had to choose the real "most livable" cities- that combine actually being able to find a great job, afford a nice house, has family values, gives you big city amenities without big city problems (okay, some of these have big city problems), are somewhat exciting, have an educated population and good schools, and offer decent weather and outdoor opportunities (I think none of the cities in the original top 10 fits this), I'd say (and these are metro areas, not just cities themselves):
1. Austin, TX
2. Raleigh, NC
3. Denver, CO
4. San Diego, CA
5. Minneapolis, MN
6. Northern Virginia
7. Portland, OR
8. Atlanta, GA
9. Madison, WI
10. Nashville, TN
I disagree with that list. Pittsburgh as the most livable city, please don't hold your breath! I'd vote Pittsburgh as one of the LEAST livable cities with all that crime and pollution. Otherwise I'd say it's pretty good with the possible exception of San Jose.
This map was posted by member "Air" recently, and the dark red shadings show the worst levels of smog. PA sits smack dab in the midlde of the blobs around the Ohio River Valley (coal plants), and the BosWash Corridor (congestion). Scranton/Wilkes-Barre's air quality sucks big time in the summer with 15 code red days last year, so I'd imagine Pittsburgh's must be even worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
