PDA

View Full Version : Forbes' Best Cities for Singles



PenforPrez
07-29-2006, 10:02 AM
I love a good ranking, and I always find ranking of singles cities especially amusing.

Forbes has their new list out. They ranked 40 major cities in several categories: amount of singles, "coolness," online dating, job growth, etc.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/3/06singles_Best-Cities-For-Singles_land.html

Top 5 singles cities:

1. Denver
2. Boston
3. Phoenix
4. SF Bay Area
5. New York

Botton 5:

36. Salt Lake City
37. Cleveland
38. San Antonio
39. Norfolk-Virginia Beach
40. Greensboro, NC

Once again, my beloved St. Louis ranked in the bottom 10: 31st out of 40 this year. But just how St. Louis ranks 11th in "coolness" is FAR beyond my comprehension. Almost as confusing as New York ranking dead last in job growth. :confused:

Paul

yankeeyosh
07-29-2006, 10:08 AM
Interesting...boston is above NYC, despite the fact that everything closes by 10. But Denver is #1?

PenforPrez
07-29-2006, 10:15 AM
Interesting...boston is above NYC, despite the fact that everything closes by 10. But Denver is #1?

New York ranked DEAD LAST in job growth; that's probably why. How NY could rank below Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit in that category is beyond me.

Paul

and1grad
07-29-2006, 11:45 AM
Whats up #13!!!!

Anyway, I like how Denver's comments are written by someone named "Nerf." Sounds faux sports...like those so called "winter sports."

SunDevil
07-29-2006, 11:51 AM
According to this page:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/3/06singles_Best-Cities-For-Singles_OtherSinglesRank.html

Your list above shows the overall ranking, the best cities for singles are:
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Austin
4 Boston
5 Milwaukee
6 New Orleans
7 San Francisco-Oakland
8 Philadelphia
9 Chicago
10 Providence
11 Miami
12 Phoenix
13 Sacramento
14 Washington-Baltimore
15 Seattle
16 Detroit
17 Denver-Boulder
18 Minneapolis-St Paul
19 Columbus
20 San Diego

I would have thought San Diego, Seattle & Miami would have been higher.

wordsmith
07-29-2006, 11:59 AM
I'm interested in the reasons Milwaukee outranks Chicago.

SunDevil
07-29-2006, 12:01 PM
And what nightlife does Cincinnati have that makes it #1? I've been to Vegas, LA, Austin, and Phoenix and all of those have a better night scene than Cincinnati. And I would imagine NYC, Miami, Chicago, and Boston are a lot better as well.

lonestar
07-29-2006, 12:08 PM
I think this list is a load of crap. I have relatives in the Cincinnati area and that place is pretty dead at night. Also, I like Austin but I do not see its singles scene as being better than Chicago - Austin is fun at night, but after a while it is still a pretty small city and you can only cover the scene so many times.

wordsmith
07-29-2006, 12:11 PM
I think Austin is easily as much fun as Chicago. Just an opinion. But it's also more my taste. Regardless of how big Chicago is, most people have a pretty limited "scene." Chicago is like a collection of small cities...the people from x neighborhood rarely go outside of their neighborhood for nightlife, serious socializing, etc., at least, young people.

beeblebrox
07-29-2006, 12:41 PM
I think Austin is easily as much fun as Chicago. Just an opinion. But it's also more my taste. Regardless of how big Chicago is, most people have a pretty limited "scene." Chicago is like a collection of small cities...the people from x neighborhood rarely go outside of their neighborhood for nightlife, serious socializing, etc., at least, young people.

I can definitely attest to that because there's a million bars everywhere. I don't understand the Milwaukee thing since it's smaller than Chicago and it feels like I know everything there since I grew up there. Cincinnati where I went to college is really dead at night in the downtown with the exception of Main Street and that's it. In Chicago, there's definitely more oppurtunities to meet people than some of the other cities listed.

wordsmith
07-29-2006, 12:43 PM
Don't you think it's true, though? The Lincoln Park people stick to the Lincoln Park scene, etc.? I know a TON of people that wouldn't consider going out outside their 'hood.

SmilesSoSweet
07-29-2006, 01:19 PM
Phoenix is #3? Interesting. Where are all these single people? I'm guessing it's because of ASU being apart of the metro Phoenix area.

yankeeyosh
07-29-2006, 01:29 PM
I'm wondering how NO could be No. 6. I'm looking at the sources in which they used to do their calculations, and I suspect a lot of it was pre-'Katrina'.

Sanman111
07-29-2006, 01:36 PM
It is lists like these that make me wonder why I left one of the top 5 cities for one of the bottom 5 cities on that list. And as a single person, I can feel the difference.

beeblebrox
07-29-2006, 01:43 PM
Don't you think it's true, though? The Lincoln Park people stick to the Lincoln Park scene, etc.? I know a TON of people that wouldn't consider going out outside their 'hood.

Ohh, I definitely see it. The whole Lincoln Park scene is weird to begin with and act very weird. When I was going to a concert and on the Fullerton bus we passed everyone and all of the girls were dressed all trendy and guys the same way. Coming from Rogers Park and living in Logan Square, the mentality is alot different and more relaxed. My favorite bar is a dive bar downtown so I definitely don't stick to my hood. The Wicker Park/Bucktown area is the same way.

littledancerus
07-29-2006, 02:02 PM
New York ranked DEAD LAST in job growth; that's probably why. How NY could rank below Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit in that category is beyond me.

Paul

Yea, that I do not get either. Considering we don't have job "growth" because we have job REDUCTION here in the D. Thousands per year we're loosing, & it's not going to get better any time soon. Pretty much I would assume that cities that rely on high-paying, low skill, manufacturing (line) jobs would be last in job growth because those jobs are just dissappearing right & left.

lostindc
07-29-2006, 03:00 PM
The people writing articles for the "best cities" in the US for Money or Forbes probably haven't even been to half of the cities they are ranking. They just run some silly statistics through a computer (kind of like what US News does for colleges).

One year Money picked Brockton, MA as one of the top places to live in the US. I doubt any of their editors are rushing to move down there though.

yankeeyosh
07-29-2006, 03:25 PM
The people writing articles for the "best cities" in the US for Money or Forbes probably haven't even been to half of the cities they are ranking. They just run some silly statistics through a computer (kind of like what US News does for colleges).

One year Money picked Brockton, MA as one of the top places to live in the US. I doubt any of their editors are rushing to move down there though.

Brockton? What year was this? 1935? :confused: :confused:

lonestar
07-29-2006, 03:57 PM
I think Austin is easily as much fun as Chicago. Just an opinion. But it's also more my taste. Regardless of how big Chicago is, most people have a pretty limited "scene." Chicago is like a collection of small cities...the people from x neighborhood rarely go outside of their neighborhood for nightlife, serious socializing, etc., at least, young people.

That's true for a while, but after you live here for a while you start to realize how small this town is...plus its real country. The other day I drove westward outside of of the city and within five minutes I was in total country..its pretty funny because I have never lived in a place where the city just "ends". Also when you fly in, unlike NY, DC or Philadelphia which I am used to, you can actually see the boundries of the town from the plane!...I love it here, but also you have to consider the large going out scenes in other cities in this state too...San Antonio has a pretty crazy party scene on the Riverwalk and Dallas and Houston are just massive and have large nightlife scenes.

That said, Austin scene is very "flavorful" and maybe that's what they are going for...But I have partied in downtown Chicago (for three straight days) and that scene was totally fun...

week2week
07-29-2006, 05:44 PM
forbes is crap.

wordsmith
07-29-2006, 07:39 PM
Ohh, I definitely see it. The whole Lincoln Park scene is weird to begin with and act very weird. When I was going to a concert and on the Fullerton bus we passed everyone and all of the girls were dressed all trendy and guys the same way. Coming from Rogers Park and living in Logan Square, the mentality is alot different and more relaxed. My favorite bar is a dive bar downtown so I definitely don't stick to my hood. The Wicker Park/Bucktown area is the same way.

Cosigned, wordsmith

wordsmith
07-29-2006, 07:45 PM
That's true for a while, but after you live here for a while you start to realize how small this town is...plus its real country. The other day I drove westward outside of of the city and within five minutes I was in total country..its pretty funny because I have never lived in a place where the city just "ends". Also when you fly in, unlike NY, DC or Philadelphia which I am used to, you can actually see the boundries of the town from the plane!...I love it here, but also you have to consider the large going out scenes in other cities in this state too...San Antonio has a pretty crazy party scene on the Riverwalk and Dallas and Houston are just massive and have large nightlife scenes.

That said, Austin scene is very "flavorful" and maybe that's what they are going for...But I have partied in downtown Chicago (for three straight days) and that scene was totally fun...

Oh, lonestar, lonestar...you've seen some of my landscape shots posted, no? :huge: Austin isn't remotely country; doesn't the metro area have a population of a million and a half people? That's not really country. I live where it's "real" country (as in, nowhere even a quarter of the size of the size of Austin for a couple of hours' drive minimum). It just seems odd to you because in the east, metro areas bleed into one another, and the further west you go, they have distinct city limits and open space before you get to the next urban area. It's not nearly so condensed, but it's still urban.

Kitty
07-29-2006, 08:16 PM
I think the bay area (ESPECIALLY the south bay) is an awesome city if you're a singe female - there's a lot more men then women.

Starsailor
07-29-2006, 08:26 PM
New York ranked DEAD LAST in job growth; that's probably why. How NY could rank below Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit in that category is beyond me.

Paul
Aren't at least the first two (especially Ohio cities) traditionally and regularly pretty awful in terms of economy (and thus job availabilities), thus it wouldn't take much for their "growth" to be more than NYC?

PenforPrez
07-29-2006, 11:38 PM
Aren't at least the first two (especially Ohio cities) traditionally and regularly pretty awful in terms of economy (and thus job availabilities), thus it wouldn't take much for their "growth" to be more than NYC?

I think the methodology used for job growth was Federal government projections over the next five years. Everywhere else seemed to match up to me, personally; except for New York ranking dead last. The question depends on what one expects in the Rust Belt in the next five years.


The people writing articles for the "best cities" in the US for Money or Forbes probably haven't even been to half of the cities they are ranking. They just run some silly statistics through a computer (kind of like what US News does for colleges).

Very true; they just crunched a lot of numbers. And some of their methods are rather suspect, I think.

For their "cost of living alone" figures, they totalled up the following: average apartment rents, average price of a Pizza Hut pizza, average price of a movie ticket, and average price of a six-pack of Heineken. They could have done a LITTLE better than that, I think.

As I say, I find these things highly amusing; that's why I threw this out there. I personally think they got things pretty close to right. It's a fair assumption that Boston and NY and SF would be better single places than Salt Lake City or Greensboro. They just had some screwy stuff here and there.

I go by their rankings on St. Louis in my thinking. They pictured it pretty well. Online dating sucks in St. Louis. There's no singles, and job growth is not great. But there's lots to do and see; not a boring place.

I'm still racking my brain as to how STL ranks 11th in "coolness." St. Louis hasn't been cool since Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic. My father was two months old then; he's now 79. :huge:

Paul

lonestar
07-30-2006, 12:06 AM
I imagine the new Busch Stadium and environs rate pretty high in terms of coolness...STL seems to be a good baseball town. Also the gateway and do they have riverboats and stuff?

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 01:52 AM
I imagine the new Busch Stadium and environs rate pretty high in terms of coolness...STL seems to be a good baseball town. Also the gateway and do they have riverboats and stuff?

Not many riverboats anymore. They have a "riverboat cruise" and the President Casino aboard The Admiral. Which is in bankruptcy due to Missouri's unusual gaming laws. Suits me fine; I'm opposed to riverboat gambling. :huge: Then you have the Casino Queen riverboat on the East St. Louis side of the river. I am withholding comment here.

But there's plenty of cool spots in STL, and it's still the best sports town in the country. They're building a big development around the new Busch Stadium; it'll be great when they get it done. I am still pissed that they ever built it; they didn't need it. :googly:

But to me, "coolness" would insinuate that people would want to go there. When's the last time you heard somebody say: "Lets vacation in St. Louis this year?" You never hear that. Which is a shame. It's easy to fill a week of things to do in St. Louis. If they can't do it on their own, they need to call me. I'll take them there personally. They'll have to pay me for my trouble. *ahem* :huge:

Paul

LadyCA
07-30-2006, 02:20 AM
This list is strange.

I have to note: San Francisco is a horrible single city for straight men and women - they never seem to find each other. Does that count for anything? Also, where's Hot-lanta on this list?

Finally, who links SF and Oakland like they are one city? That's like linking Chicago and Milwaukee (kinda). They might as well put Oakland-SF-LA.

beeblebrox
07-30-2006, 10:07 AM
Not many riverboats anymore. They have a "riverboat cruise" and the President Casino aboard The Admiral. Which is in bankruptcy due to Missouri's unusual gaming laws. Suits me fine; I'm opposed to riverboat gambling. :huge: Then you have the Casino Queen riverboat on the East St. Louis side of the river. I am withholding comment here.

But there's plenty of cool spots in STL, and it's still the best sports town in the country. They're building a big development around the new Busch Stadium; it'll be great when they get it done. I am still pissed that they ever built it; they didn't need it. :googly:

But to me, "coolness" would insinuate that people would want to go there. When's the last time you heard somebody say: "Lets vacation in St. Louis this year?" You never hear that. Which is a shame. It's easy to fill a week of things to do in St. Louis. If they can't do it on their own, they need to call me. I'll take them there personally. They'll have to pay me for my trouble. *ahem* :huge:

Paul

I grew up in St. Louis and still think that it's a great city. I can't believe that they tore down the old Busch stadium because I have the best memories of being a little kid seeing the Clysdales and watching Ozzie Smith do his running flip. I also remember the riverboats and the riverboat McD's.

wordsmith
07-30-2006, 10:16 AM
Then you have the Casino Queen riverboat on the East St. Louis side of the river.

Paul

That's because E. St. Louis is Illinois, and Illinois ONLY has legalized gambling on riverboats (unless you count the state Lotto system). Unlike Minnesota and Wisconsin, we don't have Indian casinos, because we kicked all the Indians out and across the Mississippi River. :googly:

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 11:57 AM
I grew up in St. Louis and still think that it's a great city. I can't believe that they tore down the old Busch stadium because I have the best memories of being a little kid seeing the Clysdales and watching Ozzie Smith do his running flip.

Quite a few people (including myself) were insanely pissed about the whole new stadium thing. Especially when they tried to blackmail the Missouri government into footing much of the bill for it. They said: "We'll move the team to East St. Louis if you don't pay for it."

That started a MASSIVE series of letters to the Post-Dispatch. They published the letter I wrote; I had one of the angriest ones. I vaguely remember the words "disgrace" and "corporate greed" in it. :mad:

Most people were more concerned about their safety in East St. Louis; they weren't going to go to the game if it was on the East Side.


I also remember the riverboats and the riverboat McD's.

All of them are closed now. :( Even the floating McDonalds. What a crying damn shame.

Paul

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 12:07 PM
That's because E. St. Louis is Illinois, and Illinois ONLY has legalized gambling on riverboats (unless you count the state Lotto system).


Missouri is the only state with a gambling loss limit; $500 in a 24-hour period. That's the biggest reason the President Casino in downtown STL is broke. Suits me fine; I vote against anything gambling related.


Unlike Minnesota and Wisconsin, we don't have Indian casinos, because we kicked all the Indians out and across the Mississippi River. :googly:

We did worse in Missouri; we tried to kill all the Mormons. We made it legal to kill them 170 years ago. And nobody noticed that law was still on the books, and so it stayed until it was repealed by then-Governor Kit Bond in 1976.

Paul

beeblebrox
07-30-2006, 12:25 PM
Quite a few people (including myself) were insanely pissed about the whole new stadium thing. Especially when they tried to blackmail the Missouri government into footing much of the bill for it. They said: "We'll move the team to East St. Louis if you don't pay for it."

That started a MASSIVE series of letters to the Post-Dispatch. They published the letter I wrote; I had one of the angriest ones. I vaguely remember the words "disgrace" and "corporate greed" in it. :mad:

Most people were more concerned about their safety in East St. Louis; they weren't going to go to the game if it was on the East Side.



All of them are closed now. :( Even the floating McDonalds. What a crying damn shame.

Paul

aww, that sucks. I loved that as a kid. God, my true hometown has gone insane getting rid of my Busch stadium and the riverboats. I would have thought that the riverboats would have provided a great income like the Indian casinos. Even in WI, the Indian casinos tend to be contentious because there's no state regulation and all of the profits go back into the tribe, so the state still has problems with it.

beeblebrox
07-30-2006, 12:27 PM
I forgot to mention that even in Milwaukee where my rents are and where I lived from the age of 10-18. The creation of Miller Park had the same issues and also had the Big Blue accident too. However, Miller Park is so much better than the old one, it's still sad to see old stadiums being replaced.

Winter Storm
07-30-2006, 12:32 PM
Baltimore is a great city for singles...if you want to stay single.

Exclusive relationships are rare and hard to come by here and most people are content keeping friends with benefits and f*ck buddies. :sad:

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 12:36 PM
aww, that sucks. I loved that as a kid. God, my true hometown has gone insane getting rid of my Busch stadium and the riverboats.

But the good news, the city of St. Louis is coming back big time. Like I said for years that it would. The loft apartments in the old warehouses are a huge hit. I'm fascinated by the industrial apartments they tried in Pittsburgh; I thought that might be a great idea for St. Louis.

Paul

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 12:40 PM
Baltimore is a great city for singles...if you want to stay single.

St. Louis is the exact opposite. Everybody's already married, and now they're looking for people to cheat with.

Had a 30 year old married woman on Craiglist last week; looking for a guy to be her "dirty little secret" twice a month. As hilarious as I thought that was, I realized what a sad indictment that was of St. Louis romance.

Paul

RedHead1420
07-30-2006, 12:45 PM
Almost everyone in St Louis is there because that's where they were born, raised, and have never left. The most popular question is "where did you go to highschool?" and you are instantly defined by the answer. It's not a bad place (if you can handle the horrifically hot and steamy summers), but if you're not from there, you're definitely treated as an outsider. (I lived there for 2 years, and have to say that New Hampshire is much, much better!)

PenforPrez
07-30-2006, 12:53 PM
Very true on all counts.

and1grad
07-30-2006, 12:56 PM
Baltimore is a great city for singles...if you want to stay single.

Exclusive relationships are rare and hard to come by here and most people are content keeping friends with benefits and f*ck buddies. :sad:
I'm startin to think that this IS actually what they mean when they say a place is good for singles.

beeblebrox
07-30-2006, 01:50 PM
Almost everyone in St Louis is there because that's where they were born, raised, and have never left. The most popular question is "where did you go to highschool?" and you are instantly defined by the answer. It's not a bad place (if you can handle the horrifically hot and steamy summers), but if you're not from there, you're definitely treated as an outsider. (I lived there for 2 years, and have to say that New Hampshire is much, much better!)

Cincinnati is the same way too. When I went to college there, I had that same feeling. I made sure that I left because that mentality was so messed up to me. I don't think that I would have gotten the experiences that I have from the Nati that I do in Chicago like shopping in mercados all the time.

MetFanL
07-30-2006, 07:04 PM
I'm startin to think that this IS actually what they mean when they say a place is good for singles.

I agree. NYC is a great place if you're single and want to stay that way. You could meet a new guy EVERY night. But, so can he, so there is no reason to make a choice.

I'd love to see the list of "Top 10 places to meet singles looking for an SO." That's where I'd move.

wordsmith
07-30-2006, 08:01 PM
Well, crap, if people are looking for a place where folks get married young, my hometown oughta top the list. And, it's partially because of the opposite reason you guys are indicting NY and B-more, there AREN'T a lot of people to choose from, so people tend to hold on to it when they find something they like, and there's no wandering eye, because the selection just ain't there. But, somehow, I'm noth thinking that's what's meant by "great place for singles," either. :rolleyes:

TinyDancer
07-30-2006, 08:52 PM
Almost everyone in St Louis is there because that's where they were born, raised, and have never left. The most popular question is "where did you go to highschool?" and you are instantly defined by the answer. It's not a bad place (if you can handle the horrifically hot and steamy summers), but if you're not from there, you're definitely treated as an outsider. (I lived there for 2 years, and have to say that New Hampshire is much, much better!)
Yikes. . . I could not DISAGREE more! It's horrible meeting people in NH outside of work, and when I do, I run into the same people EVERYWHERE. Similar to STL (only worse, because it's SMALLER), all the same people grew up here and have never left. I've given up hope on finding love here because no one's willing to leave, and I don't wanna stay! It's beautiful and all and close to Boston. . . but my social life absolutely sucks here.

I've lived in St. Louis several times and loved it. . . and there are plenty of single people there. :) Hang out in Soulard on the weekends. . . People can be kinda cliquey in STL. . . but I think it depends on where you live and hang out.

RH--I'll PM you. We need to talk about where the hell you hang out here!