CNN's Best City to live

[C-town]

This was an article that I saw a few months ago which had listed a number of cities which were most desirable to live in around the world. The only two cities in the United States that made the final cut were Cleveland and Pittsburgh which were 26 in the world. Vancouver and Toronto were among the top 5 most livable. You can view the other cities and their rankings at this site Cnn Most Livable.

[PghUSA]

^^Great find C-Town, I seem to remember this, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, though very different cities, share lots in common and are becoming more and more dependent on each other in trying to make the rustbelt into the boombelt again. I was glad to see such high marks for both major metros in this region. Looks like this whole area is really coming back in a big big way!

[peaceloveunderstanding]

The story reads "Cleveland and Pittsburgh had the highest American scores."

Nowhere does it say that those two were the only American cities that made the list, nor was this survey done for/by CNN which has its CNN/Money best places.

Anyways, congrats to those cities.

EDIT:

Here's a Pittsburgher's take: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_381958.html

[PghUSA]

^^I think he meant top 5 or 10, we were the only U.S. metros in the top 5 or 10 if I remember right. Anyways we were the only two cities mentioned by the CNN article, what gives with mentioning us at the BOTTOM of the article, where's Dangerfield when you need him.

[Randy@Tacoma]

Thats an effing joke! No offense, I think that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are nice cities with interesting cities, but they are FAR from the most livable places in the US. The CNN crew must have been on dope... Unless high unemployment, high crime, and dilapitated buildings are desirable, I dont see it... Sorry. Oh, and on top of that, wages are EXTREMELY LOW! I honestly like those places... (I know, it really doesnt seem like it...) but places like Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Portland.... Now those are LIVABLE places... I do hope for the best of Pittsburgh and Cleveland... They do have a lot of potential... But theyre just NOT livable in comparison with other US cities...

[PghUSA]

Randy, I would be interested how much time you have spent in either.

It may help folks like you to turn off MTV and quit bathing in the crap Hollywood Blvd. and Madison Avenue washes over you everyday.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland have been the safest metros in modern American history, Pittsburgh is the ONLY major city with a crime rate below the national average for the last several generations.

High unemployment? possibly LOW job GROWTH, but there is no evidence of negative numbers, and since when was EXTREMELY LOW cost of living a Bad Thing??!?

[Sundodger]

Pittsburgh and Cleveland have been the safest metros in modern American history, Pittsburgh is the ONLY major city with a crime rate below the national average for the last several generations.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are safer than Portland and Seattle?

Murder rates per 100,000 people, 2002 (latest stats I could find in a jiffy):

Cleveland - 16.6

Pittsburgh - 13.7

Seattle - 4.5

Portland - 3.7

[PghUSA]

As always SunD, you provide the link to the information.

You could look here for better stats:

http://www.pittsburgh-region.org/public/cf...ACTION=FBICrime

Pittsburgh at the top of the charts.

Pittsburgh is the only major metro BELOW the national average in violent crime year in and year out in the last 30 years. There is no safer place.

I appreciate your thoughts and views on this but if we have dispensed with the Hollywood Blvd. and Madison Avenue MTVesque stereotypes maybe we could finally move to real stats.

[Sundodger]

We are comparing apples with oranges. The #s above from me are city numbers, you posted metro numbers. Pittsburgh isn't as safe as Seattle and Portland.

Just reviewed some Bureau of Justice stats. From 1985-1997 (full set of data availible), Pittsburgh had the lowest murder rate between Seattle, Portland, and itself in 1985, 1987, and 1988. It had the highest murder rate between the three 1992-1997. Seattle had the lowest murder rate in 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995-1997 while Portland had the lowest rate in 1987, 1990, 1992, & 1994.

[GRDadof3]

Thats an effing joke! No offense, I think that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are nice cities with interesting cities, but they are FAR from the most livable places in the US. The CNN crew must have been on dope... Unless high unemployment, high crime, and dilapitated buildings are desirable, I dont see it... Sorry. Oh, and on top of that, wages are EXTREMELY LOW! I honestly like those places... (I know, it really doesnt seem like it...) but places like Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Portland.... Now those are LIVABLE places... I do hope for the best of Pittsburgh and Cleveland... They do have a lot of potential... But theyre just NOT livable in comparison with other US cities...

Randy, stop trying to start flame wars in other forums.

All these "rankings" are screwy. They are put out for one reason only: to sell magazines and increase website traffic.

[PghUSA]

GR, good point, they are however able to sway opinion and in that limited scope they are important.

SunD, you have been to Pittsburgh before--as you mentioned on another thread--you do realize that I could bring you out on the deck of hundreds of nice homes to the North, South and West side of downtown with absolutely knockout views of downtown and . . . NOT be in the city. Pittsburgh has a mere 55.5 sq. miles and much of it are the oldest neighborhoods west of Alleghenies. If I am sitting on my deck watching the sunrise over the skyline of downtown Pittsburgh and seeing the parking lot fill up for the Pirates game at PNC Park, and I feel safe, that isn't feeling safe IN Pittsburgh? Cleveland is not quite as constricted but is no where as a BIG city like you would believe Louisville, Indianapolis, Juneau, Anchorage and Jacksonville are, since again metros don't matter only the size of the sq. miles.

What is more relevant then metro stats, they are the only apples to apples stats that matter out there. How could one possibly compare the impact of a huge but geographic pigmy "Miami" or "Pittsburgh" to that of a minor-metro but hugmonous geographic coverage "Louisville" or "Jacksonville"? If you threw out the apples to apples metro stats you would think that the economic, cultural, and media capital of Florida was NOT the largest metro area in the South (excluding Texas) of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale but the rather minor metro of Jacksonville?!

The only numbers that can compare the impact of those two cities fairly are the Census metro stats, to speak of any "city" stats outside of the realm of local political, administrative or tax purposes is an effort in futility.