Pittsburgh: Most livable downtown of all "small to mid-sized cities"

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Pghuser

These lists are worthless

Like the local weatherman...but somebody's gotta get paid to come up with some info.

[Geeo]

Whatever criteria were used, and for whatever reason we seem to be obsessed with "best of" lists these days, I'm glad to see our downtown on it. Sure, there are many cities with great downtowns, and ours is one of them. Compared to ten or twenty years ago, downtown Pittsburgh is a different place today. It's vibrant, it's clean (for the most part), it attracts more than 100,000 workers and thousands more on a daily basis. The Cultural District is a gem, Market Square is a real gathering place, the PPG ice rink attracts families, Point State Park has been refurbished, lots of new apartments, new office buildings, and restoration of historic buildings all come together in this dense urban space that really works.

[MountainDewGuy]

As with all types of lists like this, the results are extremely subjective based on the criteria used. One person's "great downtown" could be another person's worst nightmare. I think the ranking criteria used here happens to benefit Pittsburgh greatly, so much so that I don't wonder if they picked Pittsburgh first and then selected the ranking criteria that would justify their selection.

Vacancy Rate: Depends on how you look at it. Supposed you have a downtown with 50,000 office spaces, and 45,000 of them are filled, and those 5000 empty spots is just part of a natural turnover cycle or because new space is continually being built. Then, compare to another downtown that has 5,000 total spaces, and 4,998 of them are filled... suppose the local government makes it difficult for new things to get built and the result is a high vacancy rate Which downtown is 'better'?

Population increase since 2010 / Percentage of new homeowners: Benefits Pgh greatly because we have seen declining population growth for decades... and then finally an increase. On the other hand, suppose a city has been booming, and then leveled off recently... they would technically rank behind the first city no matter how behind/ahead the two are compared to one another.

Daytime population: Not sure what this means and why it is listed. Is it compared to the overall downtown population, or the city's total population? Or something else?

Projected median household income: Compared to what/where? The rest of the city? Or compared to other city's? Or something else?

Walk Score / Entertainment options / Arts/Cultural attractions: I suspect that Pittsburgh's downtown scored very high here, simply because the size of the area that is downtown is relatively small, but still has lots to do in or nearby downtown proper. The theaters are close. The stadiums and arena are close. Museums are relatively close depending on which one you want to see. Some cities have that stuff miles and miles away. And with this being 3 of the 8 listed criteria, doing well in one and you probably do well in all 3.

To me, every "downtown" has good and bad things about it depending on your view. If you can't stand the cold weather, then no amount of rankings criteria would place Pittsburgh at the top for you. If you have a huge fear of earthquakes, then I doubt any downtown in an earthquake zone on the west coast will be at the top of your list.

but... I do think these rankings criteria are a bit repetitive. Maybe one of these days someone will come up with a way to allow people to set their own criteria (sort of like the find your spot website) and we will be able to calculate our own personal best cities/downtown lists.

If it were me I would want to thrown other quality of life metrics like traffic, transportation infrastructure and pollution into the mix. And for me personally, I would not consider any downtown the "best" were bars still allow smoking, unless the other factors were so overwhelm in that downtown's favor.

[I_Like_Spam]

A city of more than 300,000 in a metro of 2.3 million really isn't "small to mid sized". A million resident standard for "large" seems absurd.

[MountainDewGuy]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

A city of more than 300,000 in a metro of 2.3 million really isn't "small to mid sized". A million resident standard for "large" seems absurd.

They simply know that an unexpected #1 will sell more magazines or influence more website clicks. Nobody is going to read an article that says the #1 downtown is NYC or Chicago.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by MountainDewGuy

They simply know that an unexpected #1 will sell more magazines or influence more website clicks. Nobody is going to read an article that says the #1 downtown is NYC or Chicago.

Whatttt? How dare you insinuate that this is click bait! That is a slight against our beloved city!