In my last post, I discussed some cities that are good places for both singles as well as outdoors and the method I used for selecting those cities for my list. Here, I examine cities that are rated even better than those previously discussed by Forbes’ various rankings. If you are willing to move and want an “upgrade” in the singles scene and your outdoor life, then one of these cities is probably an excellent choice for you.
- Tier II – Huge Cities, Vegas & Tampa: You can’t go wrong with any of this group of seven cities, as all but two logged a top ten ranking for singles at some point in the last three years, and all are in the top 25 for outdoors. Las Vegas and Tampa-St. Petersburg get into this tier with #8 and #5 rankings for outdoors. Both cities expend more than $100 per resident on parks and experience a lot of sunshine each year, but can be relatively hot, especially Vegas. Tampa is ranked higher for outdoors overall due to its exceptional #5 ranking in Forbes’ “Recreation Index,” but Vegas has been in the top 25 for singles in each of the last three years. With less impressive but still relatively good outdoor experiences, big cities like New York, Atlanta, LA, Dallas, and Chicago are even better bets for singles than Vegas and Tampa, with all but LA and Chicago scoring two top ten rankings in the last three years. In the 2008 study, New York, LA, and Chicago stood out for their culture, number of singles, and top-ranked nightlife (#1, #2, and #3, respectively), but suffers from lower ranks in job growth, online dating, and relatively high cost of living (ranked #34 or lower out of 40). Atlanta and Dallas, ranked #1 and #3 overall in 2008, rate well (top 15) across the board for singles, with the exception of online dating for both cities (#24 and #20) and the actual number of singles for Dallas (#34).
Denver probably belongs in Tier II, as its ranking for singles is inflated by including Boulder with Denver in the 2006 study. However, I personally like the mountains, and Denver is really the only option in the Rocky Mountains, so I left it in Tier I.
- Tier I – West of the Mississippi, DC & Boston: If you want to choose from the best of the best in cities for singles and outdoors, then you’re going to Boston, DC, or west of the Mississippi. At the bottom end of this tier, Austin, Boston, and Denver all had a top-ten ranking for singles at some point in the past three years and are in the top 15 for outdoors. Boston’s singles scene is comparable to to the megalopoles (NYC, LA) as described above but with better online dating (#15 in 2008), while Austin is notable for top-5 rankings in the number of singles, online dating, and job growth. Edging these cities overall are Seattle and Washington, DC, both remarkably in the top ten for singles every year of Forbes’ ranking, making them the most consistent cities in this area, while ranking a solid #11 and #12, respectively, for outdoors. Both of these cities are great for online dating but have relatively high living costs. DC is better for the number of singles (#7 to Seattle’s #22), but Seattle is better than DC for job growth (#9 to DC’s #19). While not as consistent for singles as Seattle and DC, San Diego and Phoenix have all jumped into the top seven for singles in one of each of the last three years and are all in the top six for outdoors. Thanks to 20% of its land devoted to parks and comfortable temperatures year-round, San Diego ranks #2 for its outdoors, but it’s been outside the top 15 for singles each year except 2006 since it has a relatively high cost of living (#36 out of 40) without ranking in the top third in any other area for singles. Phoenix might not be as spectacular and San Diego for the outdoors, but it is still relatively affordable (#13 cost of living) and is in the top fifteen in 2008 for culture, night life, and job growth.
A testament to the limitations of rankings, Washington, DC is rated among the best cities for singles and outdoors but inexplicably remains one of the last cities in which I would actually want to live in the United States. I just don't like it.
- Runner-Up – Minneapolis: Minneapolis numerically tied with San Diego and Phoenix, but this was probably due to St. Paul’s inclusion in the 2006 and 2007 Forbes’ rankings, which brought Minneapolis’ ranking down to #14 and #13, respectively. Analyzed separately from St. Paul in 2008, Minneapolis jumped to #3 overall for singles, with a huge improvement in Forbes’ “online dating” ranking, “determined by the number of active profiles in each city listed on dating site Yahoo! Personals.” Minneapolis is in the top 20 in every category for singles except for cost of living, but even there its #28 ranking handily beats all of the best cities for singles other than Dallas and Atlanta. Meanwhile, Minneapolis ranks a solid #7 for outdoors, with a stellar $150 spent per person on parks and a tiny 2.3 days with unhealthy air, both measures in which Minneapolis is rated second among all cities ranked. Residents have to put up with almost three months of noticeable precipitation, but this is still less than Boston, Portland, and Seattle and on par most East Coast and Midwest cities. The real stinker is five months of sub-freezing temperatures, an amount only Denver beats among ranked cities. Minneapolis is 11th for Forbes’ “Recreation Index,” which measures “the number of ball diamonds, tennis courts and pools” in a city, but even without the cold it would be tough to beat the #1 city for singles and outdoors…
If you can brave five months of below-freezing temperatures, Minneapolis is hard to beat for its singles scene and outdoor activities.
- The Best – San Francisco: If you’re willing to pay for it, San Francisco has seemingly no weaknesses in its singles scene or outdoor life. It has been ranked #4, #1, and #2 for singles the past three years. Despite an astronomical cost of living (second only to New York City among ranked cities, based on Forbes’ calculations) and relatively middling job growth (#24), it is quite good for online dating (#13) and nightlife (#12), excellent for culture (#4), and tops (#1, for those aren’t sure what I mean by “tops”) for the sheer number of singles, and these rankings are fairly consistent over the course of the last three years. As for outdoors, San Franciso blows away the competition with over $250 spent per person on parks and recreation and featuring just one day over 90 degrees and zero below freezing, a climate rivalled only by San Diego and Los Angeles. A good 20% of the city is parkland, and only about a week has “unhealthy air.” It’s wetter than San Diego and LA, with two months (instead of one) of noticeable precipitation, but this is still less than all but desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Of course, rankings, with their perfectly even weighting of various “objective” factors whose very objectivity is questionable in first place,* are not the perfect guide to anything, including where to live, and averaging those rankings together does nothing to address their inherent limitations. Innumerable factors like family, jobs, and networks keep people in one place despite supposed enhancements to their life that other cities might be able to deliver. I, for one, lived most of my adult life in and enjoyed Philly (a “Tier III” city here), would never choose to live in Las Vegas (“Tier II), and have lived in and can’t stand Washington, DC. However, this assessment gives me an additional appreciation for Minneapolis, where I currently live, and grounds that appreciation in some interesting facts about the city.
[...] Post-Baccalaureate Programs in Fine Art Top-25 Cities for Singles & Outdoors (in the United States), Part II [...]
[...] Some sources broke this down into multiple categories, one going so far as to have a separate category for spouse, friends, family, co-workers, and God. If you’re single and want to know the best place to live for meeting other singles, check out this post. [...]