Pittsburgh vs. Rome - Liveable Cities?

I try to keep up with what's shakin' in the States while I'm here in Rome. I'm especially invested in the goings-on in and around Pittsburgh (it's home, people!). While checking out the Post-Gazette today, I happened upon an article on The Economist's "Liveable Cities" rankings. Turns out Pittsburgh is ranked 29th overall and the most liveable U.S. city by this poll's standards. That's proud news for Pittsburghers, I suppose, but I think we better not hold our collective breath that it indicates an increase in popularity or even that it affects the standard Steel Town image that the city's history invokes in most people's minds. Not that we might want folks to flock to Pittsburgh or that we're ashamed of its working class history, but to what extent is such an "honor" a boon for local economies? According to the Post-Gazette: "[T]he value of such publicity to the Pittsburgh area (priceless)." I'm not sure I'm sold on that.

So, what does this have to do with Rome? Well, my immediate reaction was to search for the entire list of "Liveable Cities" in order see where Rome falls in the rankings. I think I might need the print version of The Economist for that, so if anyone can provide that information, please do share. It's at least clear from the info available online that Rome did not make the top ten in 2009. In spite of this, and in relation to my musings above, populations seem to continue to boom in the places like Rome and where you'd expect - crowded urban and cultural centers like New York, LA, London, etc.

I used to think I'd like to live in a city like Rome. Now that I'm a little older, a touch stubborn, and more particular, I don't know that I'm so into it. It's wonderful to have the experience of seven weeks in an education abroad program here, but how would I be able to truly live here? Picking up the language could happen, but the euro is sure to kick my butt financially eventually. It's about as crowded with tourists as any place can get (although I can't speak for the 'off' season), and I'm certain that I'd miss my family and friends in the States too much to make it here long term.

Aside from The Economist's 'objective' standards, I think I'm ultimately questioning what makes for a 'liveable' city? It's got plenty to do with the rhetoric of the developed versus developing worlds, and I'm not without my biases toward the former. I do know quite a few folks, however, who put a lot of stock in the quality of the city's football team.