mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Thank you, Forbes, for your annual reports on the state of the “singles” nation; the 2007 edition is here! If you want to skip the methodology until you’re ready to write a defense or indictment of your city, here are the top ten “Best Cities For Singles” (many more cited in the full report):
1. San Francisco-Oakland
2. New York
3. Los Angeles
4. Atlanta
5. Chicago
6. Washington
7. San Diego
8. Seattle
9. Dallas-Fort Worth
10. Philadelphia
I have to say: I buy that the top two are cities that feature ubiquitous and generally reliable mass transit, but LA being number three seems…forced? I mean, the inability to drive one’s self to/from venues with ease is probably responsible for turning a lot of potential non-singles into functional agoraphobics, but is that really for the “best”?
Not to exclude all non-LA dwellers, but the field work I’ve done/witnessed others do seems to beg otherwise. Perhaps they meant the best cities to absolutely make sure you stay single? Cities in which you’re completely bludgeoned with options and too enmeshed in the pyrotechnics of urban life to make adjustments to your “single” status? Please feel free to degenerate into a free-for-all if you feel passionately about the protection or advancement of “singles” agendas in your city…
Comments (16)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
i enjoyed the singles life in LA until i got herpes. maybe those capitalists got their lists confused and this was supposed to be “Best Cities for Shingles”?
posted by eeyore on 8-27-2007 at 7:33 pm
Are we talking men or women here? Straight or gay? The male-female ratio in NY favors single men. From all the jokes you hear, it sounds like NY would be an awful place to be a single woman looking for romance. Maybe I’ve just watched too much Sex and the City. :)
posted by abbasmurf on 8-27-2007 at 7:33 pm
“…four cities have been removed from consideration (Charlotte, Greensboro, Nashville, and Raleigh-Durham)…”
What did North Carolina do to get totally dropped from consideration?
posted by Joe on 8-27-2007 at 8:21 pm
What about Denver? Yes I live there, but almost every publication I’ve read has Denver near the top. High income, good economy, and an enormous amount of single, good-looking people should at least get Denver on the list. Not to mention all that is available to do (restuarants, hiking, skiing, boating) without the hassles of LA, NY politics.
posted by hansey on 8-27-2007 at 9:53 pm
I totally agree about LA. Lame, lame, lame when a social life requires making plans three weeks in advance and spending half the night driving and parking, and then chances are your friends will be flakey and cancel. Makes people lock the door and shiver in the corner.
It seemed like Austin had a really high cost of living — that surprised me. Is it true?
posted by robin on 8-28-2007 at 1:12 am
I don’t live in Denver, but I’m still surprised it’s not on the list.
posted by Miss Cellania on 8-28-2007 at 4:10 am
May seem obvious, but worth specifying in the blog article: I presume Forbes was comparing only cities in the United States?
posted by Caleb on 8-28-2007 at 9:07 am
I’m amazed DFW even made the list. Please, if anyone out there know exactly what there is to do in Dallas for singles, let me know.
posted by Tru on 8-28-2007 at 9:39 am
Being single in LA is like being a Texan in Texas. I’m from Chicago and every time I go home for a visit with friends, the city is teeming with nightlife. There is a good place to go in every possible direction. And the people are way friendlier, less career-obsessed than in LA. LA is the place where dreamers go to find out their dreams are stupid and try cocaine for the first time. Not a good singles scene, gay or straight.
posted by Mike on 8-28-2007 at 10:21 am
Looks more like “Top cities too expensive to remain single”.
posted by Anm on 8-28-2007 at 10:35 am
well despite my resolution to start consciously liking Los Angeles from now (because this place is beginning to drive me bat-sh** crazy), I am going to agree with you.
If you make plans with anyone, romantic or otherwise, chances are: the person will flake (I grew up here- do people flake as much in the rest of the world?) or I will flake (presumably because I dont want to deal with traffic, pay for gas, drive really far, or drink and drive)
I am single in LA for the first time in my adult life… And so far it has been downright impossible. Techinically, I live ten miles from a guy I’m dating, but… with traffic… forget it. give me agoraphobia.
posted by ca on 8-28-2007 at 12:29 pm
I love LA, but I can’t believe it’s on the best place for singles list. As a twenty-something who’s neither socially awkward nor unattractive, I had an awful time finding guys amongst the throngs of would-be rockstars, actors, and trust fund hipsters. Many of my friends have gone years without a long term partner. If “great for singles” is Forbes’ way of saying “abundant opportunities to sleep with a lot of good looking (albeit self-centered) people who aren’t necessarily relationship material” then, sure.
posted by Lauren on 8-28-2007 at 12:35 pm
I read the methodology, yet I still don’t understand some of the rankings
for example: Pittsburgh is a relatively inexpensive city in which to live (even so, it held the lowest spot on this list in years past!) – so how in the world is Pittsburgh ranked 27th in “Cost of Living Alone,” compared to LA/NYC at 24th??!! I can’t for a second even begin to agree with that ranking. Am I missing something?
posted by sd on 8-28-2007 at 1:48 pm
I live in Pittsburgh, which is consistently ranked at the bottom. One thing that’s come up in discussions about this is that all of the top cities have the most expensive housing. There’s a disincentive to make a commitment and settle down, as it means one or both partners have to give up smaller affordable housing and look for something bigger and unaffordable. For people in expensive cities, it might just be safer to stay single and be a serial dater.
posted by Tom W on 8-28-2007 at 3:16 pm
Whoever made that list has never been in Miami.
posted by Roger Mann on 2-6-2008 at 9:18 pm
Uh, Roger… South Florida is the dating twilight zone. Not a good place to meet quality people. Transients, anti-intellectuals, drug dealers, yes, but not anybody you’d actually hope to meet and keep meeting. Thank God I’m only going to school here. Adios Miami-
I’m going back home to DC which is FABULOUS.
posted by Amy on 2-6-2008 at 9:45 pm