Top 5 Most Livable US Cities 2014 - Page 2

fflint · #21 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 12:22 AM**

Pittsburgh often ends up on lists like these. It is very underrated even on this forum. It's got a fantastic setting, one of America's best downtowns, a solid and respected eds-and-meds sector in its secondary high-density area (Oakland), great housing stock, interesting neighborhoods, passable public transit, great cost of living and housing costs... There are also problems, of course, but it seems like Pittsburgh built and retained enough physical and cultural/educational infrastructure that it will continue on the upswing for quite some time.

dc_denizen · #22 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 1:41 AM**

^yes, but picking it ahead of (for example) the cities I listed would be like placing Hamilton ahead of Toronto.

Private Dick · #23 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 1:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^yes, but picking it ahead of (for example) the cities I listed would be like placing Hamilton ahead of Toronto.

I don't get the Hamilton-Toronto correlation with Pittsburgh and cities you listed, but I'll humor you...

Why?

ssiguy · #24 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 4:00 AM**

It's funny how Vancouver is always highly rated in the Economist surveys but in Canadians surveys it usually comes out dead last. The reason is that the Canadian surveys also include this little thing known as "the cost of living" and Vancouver makes Toronto look piss poor cheap.

Vancouver has a lot to be proud of and has a lot going for it but cost of living inclusion makes the surveys more reliable and pragmatic for the average person as opposed to a single wealthy international ex-pat. You can all the wonders of the outdoors, shopping, restaurants but if you are working 2 jobs to pay the mortgage and are in debt to your eyeballs for the remainder of your life, it doesn't do you much good.

isaidso · #25 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The Economist has no clue about the US or American cities. They are commonwealth-centric.

That's wishful thinking. Most studies have Australian and Canadian cities dominating the top of livability studies. It has zero to do with them being in the Commonwealth. Your logic is about as weak as suggesting that these countries do well because the letter A appears often in their names. I suppose Karachi and Lagos coming 6th and 7th worst in the world is a Commonwealth bias as well? This guy hit the nail on the head:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

Cities in countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Scandinavia tend to do well in these kinds of surveys because they usually have the essentials of liveability right. Strong public healthcare, quality/equitable public education, stability and peace, low crime rates, strong civil liberties, high quality infrastructure, good environment (Canadian weather knocks us down a notch), strong economies, plentiful job opportunities, and so forth. While not necessarily the most exciting cities on the planet, they offer a tremendous quality of life.

Metro-One · #26 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's funny how Vancouver is always highly rated in the Economist surveys but in Canadians surveys it usually comes out dead last. The reason is that the Canadian surveys also include this little thing known as "the cost of living" and Vancouver makes Toronto look piss poor cheap.

Vancouver has a lot to be proud of and has a lot going for it but cost of living inclusion makes the surveys more reliable and pragmatic for the average person as opposed to a single wealthy international ex-pat. You can all the wonders of the outdoors, shopping, restaurants but if you are working 2 jobs to pay the mortgage and are in debt to your eyeballs for the remainder of your life, it doesn't do you much good.

Show me the surveys for general quality of life where Vancouver comes dead last.

Again, your posts are so full of it it is not even funny.
Please, I want to see them.

Metro-One · #27 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 5:09 AM**

Seeing how you never miss a chance to shit on Vancouver for some strange reason (or Toronto at different times) you forgot to put this little warning I have made for you on all your future posts:

*this post will contain complete bizarre bias hate towards Vancouver and or Toronto depending on mood*

It should be in French as well though.

NorthernDancer · #28 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 5:41 AM**

wrong thread

mhays · #29 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 5:51 AM**

You're right. In the US our cities tend to have very high crime by first world standards, public transit that ranges from horrible to pretty good (NY), and healthcare that's mostly out of reach to tens of millions.

On the plus side, we have more diversity than most places, and while there's a huge wealth chasm the upper 1/3 have a lot of things pretty good.

Doug · #30 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 7:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's wishful thinking. Most studies have Australian and Canadian cities dominating the top of livability studies. It has zero to do with them being in the Commonwealth. Your logic is about as weak as suggesting that these countries do well because the letter A appears often in their names. I suppose Karachi and Lagos coming 6th and 7th worst in the world is a Commonwealth bias as well? This guy hit the nail on the head:

Maybe British inspired legal systems are superior.

Crawford · #31 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 11:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by private dick

seattle is rainy and gray
austin is great... For texas.
Boston is expensive and racist.
Chicago has terrible weather.
Portland is annoyingly white.
Dc is full of preppies in salmon pants.
Nyc is too close to jersey.
Minneapolis is too damn cold and people talk silly.
Philly just sucks.

lol

Crawford · #32 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 11:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I don't get the Hamilton-Toronto correlation with Pittsburgh and cities you listed, but I'll humor you...

Why?

For one, Pittsburgh has the most severe population loss of any metro in the U.S.

So the most "livable" city is apparently the one people are least inclined to live. Doesn't mean it can't be #1, but kind of challenges the assumptions from the term "livable".

GeneW · #33 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 12:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

For one, Pittsburgh has the most severe population loss of any metro in the U.S.

So the most "livable" city is apparently the one people are least inclined to live. Doesn't mean it can't be #1, but kind of challenges the assumptions from the term "livable".

Pittsburgh looks like it hit bottom in population in the 2000s and seems to be gaining now. We'll know for sure in 2020 but given the furious pace that they're building apartment complexes in the city these days, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a significant gain.

Crawford · #34 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 1:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneW

Pittsburgh looks like it hit bottom in population in the 2000s and seems to be gaining now. We'll know for sure in 2020 but given the furious pace that they're building apartment complexes in the city these days, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a significant gain.

The annual estimates still show population loss, and I don't think city apartment complex construction has anything to do with regional population trends.

And BTW, here are the official numbers for housing units permitted in the City of Pittsburgh. Almost nothing is being built-

2014- 45 units permitted
2013- 100 units permitted (none multifamily)
2012- 137 units permitted (none multifamily)

Evergrey · #35 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 1:52 PM**

I don't know where you get your numbers, Crawford... but those are not reality. (and of course you're cherry-picking "regional population" and "CITY housing permits" to suit your arguments).

I know you've long found it hard to wrap your head around Pittsburgh not being some sort of dystopian wasteland because of historical demographic trends... but there are many metrics beyond simple population gain/loss that demonstrate Pittsburgh's increasing livability and desirability.

The Pittsburgh region has enjoyed net domestic in-migration for several years now... and the population bonus has been enough to overcome the region's "natural decline" (deaths exceeding births)... a phenomenon no other major US region endures... a legacy of severe economic challenges that happened decades ago. While the birth deficit hampers the region's overall population growth... the die-off of our senior surplus is mostly irrelevant to the trajectory of the region... a region which is attracting more Americans than it is losing.

mhays · #36 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 3:15 PM**

Pittsburgh has been building apartments including new construction and conversions. I have no idea how many. This points to some of the holes in Crawford's preoccupation with permit statistics, a topic he doesn't understand to begin with.

Crawford · #37 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I don't know where you get your numbers, Crawford... but those are not reality.

I got my numbers from the official source- U.S. Census Bureau.

http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

(and of course you're cherry-picking "regional population" and "CITY housing permits" to suit your arguments).

No, the previous poster did the cherry picking, and I pointed out the problem in his argument. My whole point was that city housing trends are largely irrelevant, and in any case, the city isn't showing much construction anyways.

Obviously the city of Pittsburgh doesn't mean much in determining Pittsburgh population trends, since the metro is 80-90% outside the city limits. So even if Pittsburgh had massive housing construction, and even if this massive housing construction meant population growth, it wouldn't mean Pittsburgh wouldn't have the greatest population decline in the U.S. (which it does, if you believe the Census numbers).

Housing construction doesn't really correlate heavily with population growth anyways. They're really loosely linked. But if you want, you can look at the Census metro housing numbers too, and they show Pittsburgh has some of the lowest levels of housing construction of any major metro in the U.S.

Crawford · #38 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

This points to some of the holes in Crawford's preoccupation with permit statistics, a topic he doesn't understand to begin with.

You're right; I have a preoccupation with actual, verifiable Census statistics over SSP anecdotes. Call me crazy.

AMWChicago · #39 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 6:52 PM**

Chicago has incredible recreation, at least for a city of its size. You need to realize ALL 26 MILES of the lakefront is park and beaches. Unlike any other major city in North America.

And I know its cold, but where isn't it cold. Yes New York and Boston also have days where it is 10º out.

And the Summers are WAAAAAAY better than any other city in America. I know this is opinion, but no other major metropolis in the USA is like it.

fflint · #40 Posted **Aug 28, 2014, 9:27 PM**

Pittsburgh's place atop this list is not a one-off or a fluke. This isn't the first time the Economist has given the city high marks, nor is that the only publication to do so. And I'm genuinely interested in what it is about Pittsburgh that garners such high regard.

And can we just dispense with the talk about population growth? It is clearly not a major factor in determining what the Economist considers 'livability.'