Every year, Forbes comes out with a ranking of the best cities for singles and recently also ranked cities for their outdoors opportunities. As a single person who enjoys the outdoors, I thought it might be informative to see how these rankings compare and determine what cities were best for both singles and outdoors. This post reviews my methodology, the cities in the bottom third of my top-25 composite ranking, and the cities that barely or almost made the cut. Next time, I’ll look at the top cities for singles and outdoors.
- Methodology: Since Forbes has ranked cities for the outdoors only once and little other information was available online, I did not tinker with their 2008 rankings at all. However, for singles, I averaged Forbes’ rankings from the past three years (3 parts 2008, 2 parts 2007, and 1 part 2006), assuming that consistent performance over three years was a better predictor for future success than simply last year’s rankings.* I considered other sources like Sperling’s and Kiplinger’s, but the former was targeted at 18 to 24-year-olds and the latter did not articulate its methodology online but is for “young” singles, so I assumed the 18 to 24-year-old range might apply there as well. I then simply averaged the rankings for singles and outdoors together and looked at the top 25. I have grouped them into three tiers as described in this and my next post.
- Barely/Almost Making the Cut – Cities in the Midwest: The Midwest has fewer cities in this top-25 ranking than any region other than the Rocky Mountains, but there is no need to despair if you really want to live in this area. A good chunk of them are clustered at the bottom of this ranking, and being “last place” on this list is not a bad thing. There are thousands of cities in the United States, and dozens are included Forbes’ study each year. St. Louis makes it into the top 25 for basically being #25 across the board; it’s been ranked #30, #27, and #20 for singles in the last three years which, when averaged together with weight on the more recent rankings, comes out to #24. It’s ranked #25 for outdoors, so it is well-deserving of an overall ranking of #25 for singles and outdoors. Columbus isn’t quite as nice for the outdoors (#31), but had an admirable #11 ranking for singles in 2006, followed up by top-twenty rankings in 2007 and 2008. Other Midwest cities (Kansas City and Cincinnati) barely didn’t make the cut.
I've always kind of liked Baltimore, and it seems that others kind of like it too. It is just outside the top 25 for singles each year and #28 for outdoors but not quite good enough to make this composite top-25 list.
- Tier III – A Pair Each from Florida, Texas, Mid-Atlantic & West Coast: Eight cities scattered around the United States but not in the Midwest make it into the bottom of three tiers that divide up the top 25 cities for singles and outdoors. If you prefer the outdoors, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville are both top ten cities for outdoors but don’t crack the top 25 for singles in any of the last three years. Virginia Beach is ranked highly for outdoors due to its exceptional spending per resident on parks, and Jacksonville is for nearly 20% of its space devoted to parks and a miniscule 1.3 days per year of unhealthy air; both experience sunny days at least 60% of the year. As mirror images to this, Miami, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Houston all broke into the top fifteen for singles at least once, but rank between #20 and #30 for outdoors, which is still quite good. For balance in this tier, look at Sacramento and Portland. Sacramento ranks #13 for outdoors and matched that for singles in 2006, but dropped to #32 in 2008. Portland has not had any peak rankings for singles but has consistently been in the top 30 every year to go with a #17 ranking for outdoors.
San Jose did not make this top-25 list because it has never been ranked as a top city for singles by Forbes. However, it is #3 for outdoors and with San Francisco and Oakland just 50 miles away, how bad can it be?
You probably won’t be disappointed by the singles scene or the outdoors in any of these places, though if you’re open to moving anywhere, one of the cities in a higher tier might be more to your liking.
* It is actually more likely that changes in methodology impact the rankings more than anything else. Minneapolis is one example, as noted in the caption above. Denver is another one, ranked #1 for singles in 2006 when it was paired with Boulder, but dropping out of the top ten in 2007 and 2008.
[...] Cities for Singles & Outdoors (in the United States), Part II 16 09 2008 In my last post, I discussed some cities that are good places for both singles as well as outdoors and the method I [...]