Glendale came in as the worst of the worst on this list--all the way down at number 182. They suffered in all three categories that this list was based on: cost of living, entertainment options and the number of singles.
Hope you're not looking for love in Brownsville, Texas. They ranked low for both number of potential partners and things to do on a date, coming in at number 181.
Pembroke Pines, FL
Pembroke Pines may be in beautiful southern Florida, but love is not in the air here--ranking number 180 of 182. Their biggest weak spot was a lack of potential mates.
Warwick might look like a cozy town, but if you're single, you might not want to settle here. This city ranks at number 179 thanks to a high cost of living and low number of singles already living there.
Laredo isn't expensive for a single person--it's got one of the best cost of living ranks on the list. However, it still ranks number 178 thanks to a lack of entertainment and a lack of dateable people.
Hialeah may be the sixth biggest city in Florida, but people are still struggling to pair up in town. Although it didn't rank well in any of the three ranking factors, it did particularly bad for its cost of living and potential partners.
Moreno Valley, CA
Moreno Valley, California didn't fare too well in the rankings, coming it at number 176. It ranked so badly because of the high cost of living coupled with a lack of dating activities in the city.
Winston-Salem is a major urban area but still managed to rank at number 175. So, you might be able to find a job, but don't expect to find the love of your life here.
Modesto didn't fare well with any of the ranking factors, but they did especially poorly when it came to activities for dates. All and all, they ended up ranked number 174.
Pearl City, HI
Hawaii may be one of the most romantic places on earth, but the sparks definitely aren't flying in the city of Pearl City. They fared poorly across all dimensions and ended up ranked number 173.
Clearly, Philadelphia is so concerned with brotherly love that their other relationships suffer, which is why they ranked number 172 on the list. Considering the size of the city, it was shocking to see them perform so poorly in terms of date-night activities.
While Yonkers fared decently in terms of date activities, they suffered in the areas of cost of living and number of potential partners. They ended up at 171 on the list.
San Bernardino, CA
San Bernardino had a decent ranking in terms of the number of single people there, but their cost of living and entertainment rankings were so bad that they still ended up at number 170 on the list.
Lewiston, Maine has a fantastic cost of living if you don't mind being single for the rest of your life. While they ranked well for that factor, they didn't do so hot in terms of available entertainment or potential partners.
Shreveport, Louisiana ranked number 168 on the list thanks to their poor rankings for date activities and the number of singles in the area. That being said, the cost of living didn't seem to have a significant impact on their low rank.
Oakland has never really had a reputation as a city where people fall in love and raise a family, so it should come as no surprise that they ranked number 167 on the list. They ranked poorly for all three factors, but did especially bad when it comes to cost of living.
Columbia, Maryland is just too close to Washington D.C. to be a good choice for singles. Nothing kills that loving feeling faster than politics. They ranked at number 166 and were particularly low on the list of entertainment options for dates.
Stockton, California didn't have one single factor that drove its rank down--faring pretty terribly across all three dimensions. The city ended up at number 165 on the list.
Santa Ana, CA
While Santa Ana has plenty of things to do on dates, you probably won't be able to afford them and you won't have anyone to go with you. The city fared particularly poorly in terms of available partners and cost of living.
Greensboro had one of the worst rankings in America in terms of potential mates, but their other rankings weren't too terrible, which landed them at an unimpressive (but not catastrophic) overall rank of 163.
Santa Rosa, CA
Santa Rosa is in a prime, beautiful location, but that's just not enough to make love happen there. They ended up at number 162 on the list and did particularly bad in terms of cost of living.
These days, most of the residents of Montgomery, Alabama are already taken. They ranked particularly poorly in terms of available single people, leading to an overall rank of 161.
Garland, Texas may be near Dallas, but people are still struggling to pair up here. The city ranked particularly poorly for a lack of entertainment and a lack of available singles.
The city of Fremont didn't do particularly well in any of the three ranking categories. Their numbers were pretty consistent across the board, leading to an overall rank of 159.
South Burlington, VA
South Burlington is a great place is you're looking for cheap living. But if you're looking for a fun date, you may want to search elsewhere. They ended up ranked at number 158.
Poor Detroit can't catch a break, even when it comes to love. The Michigan city ended up with an overall rank of 157.
Grand Prairie, TX
There's just not enough going on for singles in Grand Prairie, Texas. Their poor showing when it comes to entertainment options led it to be ranked number 156 overall.
Gulfport did okay in terms of cost of living, but their rankings for entertainment and available partners really did them in. They ended up ranked number 155 overall.
There are plenty of single people ready to mingle in Ontario, CA and they ranked rather well for available partners. However, a lack of entertainment and a high cost of living led them to be ranked 154 overall.
When it comes to cost of living, you can't do much better than Peoria, AZ--which came in at number 6 for that. However, their horrible rankings for entertainment and available singles (both 174), led them to be ranked number 153 overall.