Best places to get coupled up.

August 9, 2006 3:40 PM

Forbes' Best Cities for Singles 2006.Apparently you have better chances of meeting your mate at Sox game than at a Yankees' game. But as a New Yorker I still find it hard to believe my chances would be better were I a Rockies fan. Although, I might meet a good Christian woman.
posted by allkindsoftime (27 comments total)

I guess since I'm most likely to meet New Yorkers in New York, I'd also be most likely to remain single there than anywhere else.
posted by taursir at 3:46 PM on August 9, 2006

Hah. Boston #2? Not if you're over 22 or not from New England.

Not that I'm bitter or anything...
posted by snickerdoodle at 3:50 PM on August 9, 2006

Methodological issue: including the number of singles as a positive factor means that a place where everyone remained single because they couldn't find a partner would rank as a good place to meet people.
posted by grobstein at 3:52 PM on August 9, 2006

Seems potentially backwards. A place with few singles could be that way because there's a high rate of uptake into relationships, whereas a place might have many singles because they're attracted there by some exogenous factor and have trouble becoming un-single.
posted by grobstein at 3:53 PM on August 9, 2006

Best AMERICAN cities for singles ...
posted by homodigitalis at 3:59 PM on August 9, 2006

Well, this was from the U.S. edition of Forbes.
posted by taursir at 4:00 PM on August 9, 2006

I notice how they have an "In Pictures" gallery of the cities which is just a collection of conspicuously contrived stock images, some of which may or may not have been taken in said city.
posted by justkevin at 4:01 PM on August 9, 2006

Hmmm.. Las Vegas is in the middle of the pack. Of course anyone who actually lives here will tell you its a horrible place to be single - especially since the SoCal invasion of 2002-2005. Its all beautiful people and money. Go to a club (in a casino, because thas where they all are) and have a good time, end up with a bill for $2000.
posted by SirOmega at 4:02 PM on August 9, 2006

In fact, the picture for Raleigh-Durham looks suspiciously like the one for Cleveland.
posted by justkevin at 4:04 PM on August 9, 2006

wait, phoenix ranks #1 in culture?

am i reading that right?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 4:31 PM on August 9, 2006

Holy shit is it annoying to have to click through all the slides. Can't they just make the first frame a complete list?
posted by ninjew at 4:51 PM on August 9, 2006

Wow, so the best cities for singles in this country are some of the highest-profile ones, minus LA.

Whodathunkit?
posted by Afroblanco at 5:17 PM on August 9, 2006

I have no idea what these mean. Does San Francisco have less nightlife than Phoneix, or less nightlife than Raleigh?
posted by aubilenon at 5:32 PM on August 9, 2006

I would of thought you would have seperate lists for men and women. Like a city that is good for single women would be not as good for single men and vice versa.
posted by bobo123 at 5:37 PM on August 9, 2006

Off-topic, but related ...

Money Magazine: Best Places to Live, 2006.

Men's Journal: 50 Best Places to Live.
posted by ericb at 6:13 PM on August 9, 2006

You can complain about methodology. I live in Winston-Salem, which only is in the list because Greensboro is our next-door town: and believe me, this city is deadly for singles.
posted by kadmilos at 6:43 PM on August 9, 2006

Washington-Baltimore

Ugh, I hate to be pedantic but Charm City and our nation's Capital are TWO DIFFERENT CITIES and are about an hour apart. They're not even similar.
posted by dhammond at 8:19 PM on August 9, 2006

Can't they just make the first frame a complete list?

The complete list is here, linked at the top of the left-hand sidebar. Me, I love the Cost of Living Alone Index (it's proprietary!) on the methodology page:

Our proprietary Cost Of Living Alone index is determined by the average cost of a metro area's apartment rent, a Pizza Hut pizza, a movie ticket and a six-pack of Heineken.

Now *that's* tacky.
posted by mediareport at 8:25 PM on August 9, 2006

It's obvious that inflation is out of control when Forbes calculates procreative potential from the price of a sixpack and a pizza...
posted by Operation Afterglow at 11:26 PM on August 9, 2006

I still think the easiest place to get laid is BORING, OREGON.
posted by odasaku at 11:59 PM on August 9, 2006

Does San Francisco have less nightlife than Phoneix, or less nightlife than Raleigh?

both culture and nightlife are now measured on a per-capita basis.

So-- no, just more people.
posted by obloquy at 12:39 AM on August 10, 2006

when Forbes calculates procreative potential from the price of a sixpack and a pizza...

Because, of course, singles buy pizza and beer more often than they buy groceries. What a jerky, jokey way to compare the cost of living.
posted by mediareport at 7:42 AM on August 10, 2006

I visited St.Paul once and yes, everyone did look like that all the time.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:45 AM on August 10, 2006

Buffalo is so bad, it's not even on the list.

I lived in Denver for a few years, and it was quite easy to meet other singles. Now I'm in Cleveland, ranked #37. The place is brutal. It's a very family-oriented city, a place where the streets are packed with mini-vans piloted by short-haired upper-middle-class uber-moms driving their three or four kids to soccer practice at Fill-in-the-Blank Heights Elementary School. Those singles that are here have circles of friends that date back to childhood; it's nearly impossible to break in.

Lots of singles events, but again, there's the problem of breaking in if you weren't born or raised in the area. Boomtowns where a large number of residents aren't natives don't have the same problem.
posted by elmwood at 8:14 AM on August 10, 2006

I think these doofs went to “hot” spots like Division street (et.al). Chicago is loaded with neighborhood bars and local eateries. If you live in the neighborhood and people see you it’s like being ‘in’ with a crowd in a high school. If you can’t hook up in such an environment than life is indeed sad for you my friend. I have immense respect for a DJ out here (Steve Dahl) because he quit drinking yet was living in Chicago. An amazing feat. Chicago is built for carousing. It was that way as far back as the Upton Sinclair “The Jungle”/ White City days. Although I gotta bend to Boston for obvious reasons (even tho’ it’s not a big college town).
posted by Smedleyman at 9:29 AM on August 10, 2006

/I believe the Potawatomi name for Chicago is “Eschikagou,” which means “Place upon which to portage from the barrelhouse, eat pizza with stong onions and yet make out.” But perhaps I’ve lost something in the translation.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:43 AM on August 10, 2006

Not to nitpick, but it's Beulahland, not someplace named after the hero of a John Hughes 80's teen comedy, Mr. Daniel J. T. Schuker. And it's Northeast. I don't believe you've ever actually been to Portland, sir.
posted by cacahuete at 11:32 AM on August 10, 2006