Comments on: Not tennis: the best cities for singles

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:45:59 +0000

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.

By: Roger Mann

Roger Mann — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:18:38 +0000

Whoever made that list has never been in Miami.

By: Tom W

Tom W — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:16:55 +0000

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.

By: sd

sd — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:48:31 +0000

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?

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:35:27 +0000

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.

By: ca

ca — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:29:38 +0000

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.

By: Anm

Anm — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:35:29 +0000

Looks more like “Top cities too expensive to remain single”.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:21:18 +0000

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.

By: Tru

Tru — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:39:50 +0000

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.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:07:06 +0000

May seem obvious, but worth specifying in the blog article: I presume Forbes was comparing only cities in the United States?