The Post-Gazette has more here.
I was not actually living in Pittsburgh in 1985. So here's a question for anyone who has. How is the city better today? Worse? I have some ideas. But I thought I might check out some others before jumping in.
And now that it's been 12 hours or so and it's safer to be a bit more analytical, here's something I didn't know that sort of takes a little of the glow off the rankings:
Mr. Savageau said the rankings favor large metropolitan areas with history. Thus, none of the top 10 cities in the rankings are in the Sun Belt. Five are in the Northeast, and four are on the West Coast. The 10th-ranked city, Madison Wis., is in the upper Midwest.
"I guess they are somewhat subjective," he said of the ratings. "In a sense that I try to imagine what people ought to be looking for. Low housing costs and lack of crime and more things to do. I think people would agree that these are good, valid ways of measuring metropolitan areas."
Well, another way to gauge what people are looking for is to look where people are going. And a lot of people are going to the Sun Belt. For various reasons. But it seems to me that whether or not people are actually choosing to live somewhere says a lot about a place's livability. I agree that "history" is important. And most people would agree that it is. But apparently it is less important than some other factors.