When "Places Rated Almanac" ranked Pittsburgh as America's most livable city in 1985, it was a tonic to people reeling from the grim retrenchments in a steel industry that had given the region its identity. At the same time, it confirmed that the Steel City persona was giving way to a new reality.

It was big news back then -- and shocking, especially to those who lived elsewhere. It seemed inconceivable to some outlanders that what they viewed as a smoky, rust-belt relic could be tapped as the most desirable place to live. Local residents knew the truth about Pittsburgh's strengths, of course, but the disrespect at large fed an inferiority complex at home.

This week the almanac, no longer published by Rand-McNally but still respected, gave a fresh boost to civic morale by ranking Pittsburgh No. 1 once more, ahead of such shining cities as San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and Philadelphia (the rest of the top five). That's excellent company.

While this recognition remains big news, it's not as thundering as it once was. That's not because the Pittsburgh area is in the pink -- that can't be said with two financial oversight boards in the city and a population loss in the region outstripped only by hurricane-ravaged New Orleans. But at least the great fear of the future experienced after Big Steel's collapse is no longer felt as keenly in a re-invented place. This, after all, is a region where three pro sports teams were saved by building new facilities; where arts, libraries and recreation are supported with a regional-assets tax; and where county government has begun to reform itself.

This rating isn't as shocking now because, in a way, it is validation. Although Pittsburgh's ranking has fluctuated over the years, it is the only city to finish in the top 20 in seven editions of the almanac. Plus, other top ratings regularly come this way. This week, for instance, a readers poll in American Style Magazine placed Pittsburgh first in the mid-sized cities category for destinations favored by art lovers. Last month, a study rated Pittsburgh No. 1 for baby boomer love, apparently a case of livability affecting libido.

Still, the "Places Rated Almanac" is a much bigger deal and should be seized upon by local marketing officials because, despite the stream of good publicity in recent years, the smoky-city image hangs around like a foul odor. This new ranking should be a stake to drive through that old monster's heart.

There's another opportunity to be found in contemplating how Pittsburgh became No. 1 in the almanac. The 379 metropolitan areas are surveyed in nine categories: housing affordability (cost of living). transportation, jobs, education, climate, crime, health care, recreation and ambience.

The amazing thing is that Pittsburgh did not finish in the top 20 in any category. It was 21st in recreation, 29th in education, 111th in housing and 135th in climate, for example, but the sum of these parts added up. The lesson is that if it wants to keep being No. 1, it should be alarmed whenever its individual strengths -- say, public transit -- are whittled away.