Cleveland: A Swinging Place for Singles?

Ok. I know I said these ratings were BS, and I stand by my claim.

How else could Cleveland be rated the No. 14 city for singles among the nation’s 40 largest metro areas?

In its infinite wisdom, Forbes has cooked up another city ratings scheme. It goes like this: mix in cost of living, a dash of job growth, perceived coolness, culture, nightlife, online dating population and the percentage of single people in the population and …. viola! Cleveland is totally happening.


Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s fun to be a single person in Cleveland, it’s just that I’m the only single person I know.

So, Cleveland ups Columbus, Pittsburgh and Detroit in this survey, rocketing 24 places up the charts. Forbes attributes that change to the inclusion of the suburbs in this year’s equation.

“Tons of single people live in the suburbs,” said the Forbes “reporter” that compiled the ratings.

I like this remark from the Chamber of Commerce’s spokeswoman:  

Still, Samantha Fryberger does admit to being a bit baffled by all these city lists, mentioning that in June alone, Cleveland was named one of the nation’s most fun cities by Ritz Crackers and the nation’s most boring city by a travel Web site.

“You’re up one moment,” she added, “and down the next.”

What’s the deal Forbes? Are you just throwing us a bone out here in “most miserable” land? Or perhaps, did you think the newspapers (and, even more easily manipulated, bloggers) would prefer a plot twist?

I guess all our brain drain problems are solved.


Filed under Brain Drain, Featured

4 responses to “Cleveland: A Swinging Place for Singles?

  1. Olivia

    I fled Cleveland after college and the primary reason was the horrendous singles life. This forbes list is a joke. Of the several cities I’ve lived in, including some that forbes ranks pretty low, Cleveland was BY FAR the most miserable place for a single woman.

  2. Rob

    The survey’s methodology tells you all you need to know about how bogus these rankings are. Forbes calculates ‘cost of living’ by adding the rental price of a 1-bedroom apartment, a movie ticket, and a 6-pack of Heineken. That’s it. ‘Online dating’ is the sum total of profiles, without regard to age, gender, or overall datability of the people on the site. ‘Nightlife’ is bars per capita, which discriminates against some big and growing cities because zoning laws make it more difficult for bars to grow as quickly as overall population. On the flip side, in places like Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh (all top ten in the nightlife category) population falls but bars stick around, boosting the per cap number.

    The only way these rankings could be helpful is if it were broken down by age and gender. Some cities are better for men, others for women. Some places are teaming with young people, others are more suitable for older people. Trying to aggregate it all into one comprehensive list generates something like this. I suspect this is also the reason you have some comments on calling this out as complete nonsense and other comments praising it as the truest thing in the world.

    As long as local newspapers, local TV news and local tourism organizations keep eating this stuff up, Forbes, and anyone else with some data and a “proprietary formula” will keep cranking it out, without regard to its accuracy or what it actually says about a city.

  3. Special K

    Agreed. These lists are BS!

  4. Eric

    According to a recent list by Forbes the Forbes list are the most accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s