UPDATE: Best U.S. Cities for Singles (according to that bastion of the playboy lifestyle, Forbes magazine)

One of Columbus’ finest.

Chicago falls from 9th place to 22nd (!) in the Forbes rankings.

PEOPLE, something is very wrong with our fair city when COLUMBUS, OHIO bests CHICAGO!

MILWAUKEE beat Chicago! Fucking Milwaukee!

Providence beat Chicago. I think it’s in Rhode Island. You know, that state they’re always comparing stuff to: “In other news, a wildfire the size of Rhode Island engulfed hundreds of acres on forestland…”

At least Chicago beat out Salt Lake City, Indianapolis and Detroit. But that’s not sayin’ much.

Now, Denver/Boulder, I can buy them coming in first. There some fine ladies out there, and some rugged gentlemen. I’m sure this will only increase my little sister’s lobbying for me to move out to Colorado with her. My friends in SF have already weighed in, pointing out that Chicago was also bested by the Bay Area. I had to remind them that I am in search of heterosexual dating partners, not an alternative lifestyle. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The question remains: how to reclaim our position amongst the nation’s hottest cities for singles?

You already know my prescription.

Cross-posted to my friends call me nikkos.

7 Comments so far

  1. Bill V (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 12:31 pm

    And Naperville is one of the best cities to live!?! Yeah, right. Have fun in Columbus or Milwaukee chasing their “babes”. You only need one, right? I think you’ll do just fine in Chicago.

  2. Dave! (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

    Nikkos, you should have written, “FORBES magazine! Fucking FORBES magazine! Still, when I was single, Chicago was right up on top. But apparently, now that I’m taken… ;)

    I think Futurama pegged why Milwaukee’s on the list: “Welcome to Romantic Milwaukee Birthplace of Beer Goggles”

  3. nikkos (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm


    I made fun of Forbes when I first “reported” this last year. Every year or so I try to get a new joke ;).

    As for Milwaukee, Futurama nailed it!

    Bill, thanks for the vote of confidence!

  4. Katie (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 2:49 pm

    I resent that Milwaukee comment. There are many cute boys there. So…if you’re a straight lady or a gay man you might just think Milwaukee was up there.

  5. Brian (unregistered) on July 28th, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

    I checked out the methodology and they cite # of singles as the most important factor. Another key factor is # of online dating profiles.

    So if you’re looking for a city where there’s a high % of single people, it could be because everyone’s they’re not interacting socially enough to become non-single.

    I guess it depends on what they mean “best for singles” is. If you’re looking to get married, wouldn’t a city where a high % of people get married be a better choice?

    Looking for love- maybe Chicago is better. Looking for lots of college age girls? Denver and Boston, here I come.

  6. Kristin (unregistered) on August 3rd, 2006 @ 10:31 am

    Why the hostility for Milwaukee? Like Chicago is all that better? There’s just as many good looking people in Milwaukee and just as many fat, beer-drinking slobs in Chicago. Sheesh!

    One could argue that the only hot people in Chicago moved there from someplace else – just like L.A.

    The rest of you “natives” are considered just as much “dorky midwesterners” by those on the coasts, as well.

    So I wouldn’t get all high-and-mighty! LOL!

    Go figure that “smart” big city “folk” gain knowledge about places they’ve never been to by watching Adult Swim. **rolls eyes**

    The #1 comment I hear from people who actually MOVED to Milwaukee is how nice the people are and how surprised they are at the cleanliness, nightlife and great places to raise a family.

    Never hear that about Chicago. Gee, wonder why?

    Recent visitors from Detroit & New York – who actually went to Milwaukee would disagree that it’s such a horrible place:



    I like Chicago and would normally have nothing bad to say about it. But it pisses me off when the people there think they are sooooo much better than “Fucking Milwaukee!”

    Gimme a break.

  7. nikkos (unregistered) on August 3rd, 2006 @ 11:10 am


    I was wondering how long it would take for a Milwaukeean to offer a spirited defense of your fair city. Your reply is an admirable effort!

    Lest anyone think I ammunfairly disparaging the fine people of Milwaukee, my point is only that a city as large, diverse, vibrant and cosmopolitan as Chicago should not be beat out by a smaller, less diverse, less vibrant and less cosmopolitan city.

    Of course, it’s all subjective, and my opinion is malleable. I can be persuaded.

    Hot women of Milwaukee, I throw down this challenge: take me out for drinks, dinner, reckless promiscuity- whatever- and prove me wrong !

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.