Forbes List 2005

[PghUSA]

8:42 PM EDT Tuesday 7/26/2005 no story on Post-Gazette.com or the Tribune-Review newsdesk. Urbanplanet is breaking this story in Pittsburgh? A new high for this forum!

Good news, finally some respect for Pittsburgh, we now rank #29 out of 40 cities for "best places for singles", again I think we are TOO LOW but we do rank ahead of "cool" cities like Orlando, Tampa, San Antonio, and basically a tie with Cleveland.

1. Denver-Boulder

2. Boston

3. San Francisco

4. Raleigh-Durham

5. Washington-Baltimore

6. Atlanta

7. Los Angeles

8. New York

9. Chicago

10. Seattle

11. Austin

12. Philadelphia

13. Minneapolis-St. Paul

14. Phoenix

15. Sacramento

16. Detroit

17. Houston

18. Columbus

19. Portland

20. Dallas-Ft. Worth

21. San Diego

22. Nashville

23. Miami

24. Salt Lake City

25. Las Vegas

26. New Orleans

27. St. Louis

28. Cleveland

29. Pittsburgh

30. Cincinnati

31. Orlando

32. Milwaukee

33. Charlotte

34. Indianapolis

35. San Antonio

36. Tampa

37. Providence

38. Kansas City

39. Norfolk

40. Greensboro

http://www.forbes.com/home/singles/2005/07...g_0725land.html

And the Pittsburgh page:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/3/2530.html

Pittsburgh's rankings:

#34 Singles

#14 Nightlife

#19 Culture

#39 Coolness

#37 Job Growth

#4 Cost of Living

[TheGerbil]

We moved way up! That is wonderful!!

But it irks me that the local papers are all over it when we rank last, yet this year we moved up to 29 and there is no mention! Sheesh.

Edit - I take it back, there is something in the PG today about it. Here: http://post-gazette.com/pg/05208/544108.stm

[PghUSA]

What is amazing to me is the MIA CULPA that forbes has just taken, Pittsburgh's worst ranking AGAIN is the "cool factor" highly subjective, non-scientific ranking! So the one ranking to bolt us to the top is the "revised" cost of living ranking, which Forbes realized they were measuring like the Iraqi Republican Guard measures battle assigiments--wrongly. So now they act as if Pittsburgh "is improving" when really their ranking methodology (comparing beer sales in Pittsburgh to beer sales in any other city that has NO state regulation, and finally thinking how entry level job salaries affect the cost-of-living when the U.S. Census and Fed could have told them that 5 years ago!) is finally coming into the 20th century.

Next year their ranking methodology could break into 2000 or 2001 and actually put the 2nd most "uncooooool" city of Pittsburgh at the top of the "cost of living" rankings as the best value. By the mere definition of cost of living if someplace or something is the MOST UNCOOL, the market value (supply and demand) for that region or product would be the lowest, thus the lowest most afforable cost. Once someplace has gotten "cool" then everyone wants one, the value is a sellers market, the costs are highest. Forbes needs to go back to Economics 101 and learn some basic comparables among other things.

I am kind of shocked to learn that according to Forbes I can stretch my dollar further in Denver, Charlotte and Atlanta!!!!! Last time I checked beer and a place to live in Denver or Atlanta was through the freaking roof. Charlotte isn't bad but its doesn't have some of the value of Pittsburgh. And again how is it that Forbes is shooting their own rankings in the foot? If Atlanta's club scene and social scene is 10x MORE COOL then Pittsburgh then why is it that people have to sell it at a discount to Pittsburgh's "uncool" digs. Atlanta has to undersell us to make a buck? That is what Forbes cost of living ranking is saying, Denver has to be on clearance to move their product? Pittsburgh can't be BELOW those cities in cost of living value UNLESS it is SO MUCH MORE COOL then those towns and can get more at the checkout because people know your buying a superior and cooler brand then some generic ripoff Denver or Atlanta product. These rankings look like a 4 year old came up with. It would be similar to me coming out with a ranking of coolest coffee shops and having the #1 coolest be the tenth cheapest?!?!?!?! The "coolest" brands sell at a premium, because they are the "coolest", the "uncoolest" would not sell at a premuim to Starbucks or Abercrombie and Fitch would they? According to Forbes Pittsburgh sells at a premium to Denver and Atlanta?!?! The city of Pittsburgh should convene an annual celebration on this ranking and go flush it down the toilet on national TV every year along with a top ten list of why the people of Forbes are apparently on acid. I hate to be over the top here but seriously how can one be the 2nd uncoolest city but then can sell you on it for a MORE expensive price then 3 very cool cities?!?

[blueblackcat]

lol let's not get too quazi scientific about the quack science. we already know the rankings never reflect reality in any sensible way. the sad thing indeed is that they revised how they add up some randomly weighted numbers (don't anyone dare say statistics) yet the implied response to the death threats from pittsburghers is "see, you guys shaped up a little, don't get mad now, buy the new issue."

-blue black cat

[TheGerbil]

Yes, it is ludicrous to imply they can rank "coolness." How do you quantify that? And how do you say with a straight face that we are number 39 for coolenss but 14 for nightlife and 19 for culture (or whatever the exact numbers were)?

Are they still going by the readers survey? "Let's see, we'll tell them 3 years in a row that Pittsburgh sucks... Then we'll ask them to rank how cool it is, and use their answers in our next survery saying Pittsburgh sucks!" Yeah, that makes sense.