RSS
September 6, 2008
LA Drops from #3 to #16 on Forbes' List of 'Best Cities for Singles'
Los Angeles drops down to number 16 on Forbes.com's list of Best Cities for Singles. | Photo by Hamed Masoumi via flickr
As a city known for its beautiful weather and beautiful people, you'd think it would be difficult to name a more ideal city for singles than Los Angeles. However, Forbes.com, actually found 15 other cities that they think are a better fit for bachelors and bachelorettes in their "8th Annual Best Cities for Singles" list.
LA's ranking of number 16 on the annual list that the national business magazine's Web site compiled, marks a 13 spot drop from 2007's results. What caused LA to drop from 3 to 16? The article, written by Forbes.com Executive Editor Michael Noer says, "Blame the cost of living in sun-drenched SoCal and a lackadaisical online dating culture."
Our wallets agree with that knock on LA's cost of living. But "lackadaisical online dating culture"? Clearly Noer has not driven around Los Angeles and spotted any of these signs in every damn neighborhood.
Atlanta took the top spot on the list, which is described by Forbes.com as a ranking of "the 40 largest urbanized areas in mainland America in seven different categories: number of singles, nightlife, culture, cost of living alone, job growth, online dating activity and coolness."
Los Angeles placed second in number of singles (Forbes.com cites the city as being 29.2% not married), tops in culture and second in nightlife. In "Cool Factor" LA came in 17th, the "Cool Factor" was determined by surveying people and asking, "Among the following U.S. Cities, which one do you think is the coolest?"
Here's a question to ask regarding that question, "Who were they talking to?" These people ranked Minneapolis-St.Paul as the eighth coolest. Really? Is it because Prince lives there? Does that up their "Cool Factor"?
Forbes.com, who seems to be putting together more lists than Cracked.com places Los Angeles near the bottom of the rankings in the areas of "Job Growth" (#32) and the previously mentioned "Online Dating" (#39) and "Cost of Living" (#38).
If you're a young, ambitious single Forbes.com thinks you might have better luck in Denver ("the sunshine state"), or San Antonio, two cities that surprisingly outranked LA on their list. Or you can just move up north, San Francisco came in second in this year's rankings, down one from the top spot it owned last year.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
You bring up good points, as in Who DID they ask? Or maybe we're taking this a little too personally. Seriously - who has a *positive* opinion about Los Angeles outside of L.A. itself? You know EVERYONE judges us. ;)
[ report this ]
Los Angeles is only a terrible (i.e., 16th ranked) city in which to be single, if your goal is to become attached.
PS - Only 29% single? That seems awfully low to me. That mustn't include divorcees.
[ report this ]
Well the fact they even have Detroit on their list proves they made the whole thing up.
[ report this ]
Think of it this way: The higher you are on the list, the more undateable you are, hence making a city full of singles.
[ report this ]
Is "undateable" code for ugly?