Zumper’s recent study sheds light on this, ranking U.S. cities for singles. They checked out rent, how many folks are single, dating satisfaction, costs, income, jobs, and fun stuff to do.
So, which places got a big thumbs down? Top of the ‘nope’ list are mostly Californian cities – Bakersfield, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fresno, and the odd one out, Newark in New Jersey. It seems California isn’t always the sunny paradise for those looking for romance.
Michelle Polowy from Zumper explains the importance of being in a place with more singles. Makes sense, right? More fish in the sea. Sadly, places like Newark lack the fun vibe and hit your wallet harder. Anaheim and Santa Ana are pretty much the same story, high costs, and not much to do.
But Bakersfield? That’s the worst, according to the study. Lowest scores in dating satisfaction and fun.
Don’t despair, though. Some cities are dating goldmines. Take Atlanta, for instance. Over half its folks are single, and it’s not too pricey. Plus, it’s buzzing with great places to hang out and meet people.
New Haven, CT, and Boston are also sweet spots for singles. Sure, rent’s a bit steep in New Haven, but there’s a lot of unattached folks. Boston’s got a great vibe too, lots of single people, and a solid scene for dining and entertainment.
High marks for dating happiness go to Gilbert, Arizona. And rounding out the top ten are cities like St. Louis, Minneapolis, Madison, Washington D.C., Orlando, Salt Lake City, Richmond, and Pittsburgh.
Jeremy Scott Foster, travel expert and CEO of TravelFreak, has seen the best and worst. In Atlanta, the scene’s lively with loads of singles. But in Santa Ana, it’s tougher, with safety concerns and a lack of entertainment putting a damper on dating.
Bottom line? Your city might be making or breaking your dating life. So, if you’re single and ready to mingle, maybe it’s not you — it’s your location!