Just Enough for the City

Well, it looks like Forbes.com goofed. They ranked Pittsburgh #1 in livability among the 200 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. And why is this a goof? Well, simply because it will reward all the wrong people – i.e. local politicians – for all the wrong things. You know, things like coddling big business and unions, but driving most businesses (and many residents) away with high tax rates, neglected infrastructure, poor management, debt, and so on. And sure enough, the naysayers have come out of the woodwork along with the public officials and Chamber of Commerce “booster” types.

But I have to beg to differ with both sides. Clearly, the average Chamber of Commerce is forever pushing things that they think people ought to value, or be interested in, but don't. I call this the “mint on the pillow” approach – for that one stinkin', lousy mint you're expected to cheerfully fork over another $50. And because some local booster says something is “good for business”, the average citizen is supposed to lie down, roll over, and play dead. Anyone remember back when “urban renewal” was going to be “good for business”? It was good for business – in the suburbs. But the cities were turned into vast wastelands, and, in most cases, are only now beginning to recover. The question no one asks every time something is touted as being good for business is, "_whose_ business"? The answer is usually a very small and often very elite group; everyone else can get lost. (We saw this in action during the recent G-20 meetings, for example.)

But on the other hand, the objections from the conservative side aren't necessarily any more responsive to what the average person really wants or values. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, for instance, cites “traffic problems, high property taxes, incompetent public officials, financial conditions of the core city, labor strife, poor street maintenance and inept snow removal”. But really, does the average Pittsburgher spend any significant part of his day worrying about the fact that the city is chronically bankrupt? I daresay not – mainly because he doesn't perceive the effects; at least not directly. Even incompetent officials only become a worry when their incompetence directly impacts one's wallet. And as to taxes, if you don't own property you avoid most of those as well. And snow can be a pain for a while -- but it does eventually melt, after all.

The point is that livability is, obviously, a “quality of life” issue, and quality of life is a highly subjective thing. Outfits like Forbes try to boil it down to objective, quantifiable “metrics”, but that can only go so far. (Look at all the “happiness” scales out there, for example.) And it's always based on someone's – an “expert”, a focus group, whatever – notion as to what constitutes “quality”. I always think of the guys from the inner city who used to spend the weekend fishing in the Potomac above Washington, D.C. – their notion of “livability” would have included how good the fishing is. In an urban area! Plus, a lot of it has to do with comparisons between where you live at present and where you've lived before. I hear complaints from the locals about Pittsburgh traffic, for instance, and can't help wondering how they would survive in D.C. They complain about the weather as well – and I consider Pittsburgh weather one of the best-kept secrets around. But see, there you are – I happen to relish “real” winter weather (vs. that wimpy stuff D.C. usually has) because it reminds me of the winter weather when I was a kid – and you know the saying, when you're a kid there is no such thing as “bad weather”. I also happen to relish the fact that, in the summer, you will find Pittsburghers walking down the street on errands, and sitting on their front porches – something that, in the hermetically-sealed suburbs of D.C., is unheard of. But to a person who doesn't care one way or the other about the weather, because they spend their lives in high-rise apartments, this is not a “livability” factor. And frankly, I could get along just fine without the Pirates and the Penguins – but not the Steelers! Now how would Forbes quantify something like that? Would the fact that Pittsburgh markets have a vast array of Italian cheeses and sausages carry any weight in D.C., where, as far as I know, there are no -- repeat, no -- authentic Italian markets? And yet D.C. has every imaginable kind of Oriental restaurant -- and some that aren't imaginable as well. But most Pittsburghers would emit a huge yawn at that fact.

So these "livability" indexes, while intriguing, can only tell one so much. Ultimately it really boils down to the individual -- his likes and dislikes, preferences, and "non-negotiables". There is no city on earth, probably, that some people "wouldn't live in for all the tea in China", and that others would never want to leave, even for one day. Frankly, I think it's just as well. I used to think how great it would be if everyone shared my (good -- ahem!) taste -- until I realized that then we would all be competing for the exact same things. And then watch the price skyrocket and the supply, in the cases of some non-sustainable items, be used up. No, it really is better to have true diversity (vs. the government-engineered kind) -- in cities as well as everywhere else.