Can you name the most miserable U.S. cities (according to Forbes)?

created by Matt

Enter a city in the box below
Correctly named cities will show up below
Answers do not have to be guessed in order
Ranked by Forbes Magazine (from the largest 150 metro areas)
Rank based on: commute times, corruption, pro sports teams, Superfund sites, taxes, unemployment, violent crime and weather
Source: Forbes Magazine
Updated August 2011
Also try: Worst Traffic Cities (US)

You have 3 minutes to guess after you click the button below.

Popular trivia games today

Are You Smarter Than a College Student? III

12859

Geography by Numbers III

6595

Word Ladder 02/13/2012

3325

Are You Smarter Than a College Student? II

2415

Geography Bunker

2379

Are You Smarter Than a College Student?

2341

Missing Word 02/13/2012

2112

Mixed Word 02/13/2012

1861

And more...

Ready? Click to Start

03:00

Show Missed Answers

Rank	City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rank	City
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

U.S. Miserable Cities Quiz

Rating:	Report a mistake
Published: March 12th, 2009
Category: Miscellaneous
Plays: 120,767

Tags: City Quizzes, force, miserable, rank

Loading friend results....

	Julian:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:14 GMT	18 points
	How is Camden, NJ not on this list? It's consistently ranked as one of the most if not the most dangerous city in the U.S. If we're using weather as a criterion... shouldn't New Orleans make the cut?

	RobH:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:17 GMT	38 points
	Imagine being second on that list. That would be a real kick in the balls.

Comment below threshold: show it

	wdcvhi:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:29 GMT	-2 points
	How is NYC not on this list? The banks have completely failed and the states budget deficit is in the $10 Bilion range. DC should also be there, traffic is hell.

	Ben:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:31 GMT	25 points
	with all thats happened down there... i was only shocked to see New Orleans not on the list...

	zigra:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:38 GMT	6 points
	I used to live in Cleveland and I really liked it there. Memphis is cited for having a high tax, and that's all that is mentioned about it. Cleveland has a lot of snow -surprise! Great reporting job, Forbes! But I guess I can just click on the link to not one but two articles on billionaires you've got. We get it, Forbes: you are all super-rich and loathe anyone who doesn't live your snobby life-style.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:38 GMT	11 points
	What a stupid set of criteria! Sales tax?! Pro Sports Teams?! What about rates of home foreclosures? Deficient public schools? Access to health care? Rates of alcohol and drug abuse?

Comment below threshold: show it

	Tom_the_Dog:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:49 GMT	12 points
	After watching THE WIRE on DVD for the past few weeks, I can't believe Baltimore isn't #1! That place is messed up (on TV, at least).

gopaladins:

Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:51 GMT

3 points

let's have this quiz again, but from some sort of psychology journal as a source.

	wdcvhi:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:52 GMT	9 points
	@tom, it's messed up, I lived in DC for five years and everyone tried to avoid baltimore whenever they could.

	Bri G:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:52 GMT	21 points
	This list is so absurd. Chicago #3? Really? Sure it has a high sales tax, a cold winter and long commutes. But this "methodology" excludes all of things that make it great; excellent restaurants, a top bar/club scene, blues, jazz, street festivals, an incredibly fun beach front during the summer, wonderful cultural diversity, amazing museums, theater, one of the country's top public transit systems, a well diversified local economy... I could go on.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:53 GMT	9 points
	@ KD: Are you telling me that sales tax is really making people miserable? More than home foreclosures? Also, they don't track how much revenue is generated by the sports teams, they track whether or not they won. Apparently Detroit would be higher on the list if the Red Wings hadn't won the Stanley Cup. I'm sure that was a great solace to them. And as for drugs and alcohol, that's the best statistic of all: in happy, rich cities, you don't see lots of junkies and drunks wandering the streets. In places like Flint (I've been there, it should be #1) you do. Baltimore should be on this list. Newark should be on this list. Not Chicago.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 16:57 GMT	3 points
	@ Bri G: Right on! There's no way if you actually surveyed the people of Chicago they would be more miserable than people in Buffalo or Cincinnati or other places with NOTHING to do.

	HollywoodLeo:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:03 GMT	9 points
	@KD, regarding the pro sports comment. I think you're putting the horse before the buggy there. The pro sports teams are in the big cities because they're big cities, not the other way around.

Comment below threshold: show it

	HollywoodLeo:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:06 GMT	6 points
	Not everyone is a sports fan. I do think it's pretty silly to include sports on this list. And this is coming from a HUGE baseball and football nut.

	jesus:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:08 GMT	6 points
	@Tom the Dog: I agree. In The Wire they make out thats its terrible. Great show though. There should be a quiz on that next.

	frey553:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:10 GMT	8 points
	With a list like this, everything is going to be up for debate. I mean, putting an observable, recordable definition to a word like "miserable" is difficult to do and still be fair about it just because every city has it's ups and downs and it's difficult to quantify these things. (What's miserable for one person might be perfectly fine for another) That being said, I less than three Chicago. :]

	wdcvhi:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:13 GMT	4 points
	@Leo, What i'm saying is that it is something that you identify citys by to the same extent as major architecture and historical figures, think New York, Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building and the Yankees or Boston, Red Sox, JFK, and Paul Revere. Citys arent really seen as huge until at least one team comes there.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:16 GMT	3 points
	@KD: Dude, I didn't say that nobody does drugs or drinks in NY or DC. I said that REALLY miserable cities have high RATES of drug and alcohol ABUSE. That's not kids smoking pot. That's junkies begging for crack. Are there junkies in NY or DC or LA or Chicago? Sure there are, but at nowhere near the rate of places like Baltimore.

	bluesixstring:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:16 GMT	9 points
	I laugh at everyone complaining about why this city is or isn't on the list...except Stockton. Nobody seems to argue for that poor city. Living about 45 minutes west of it and doing a lot of work there in the past, I will also not argue for it. That city is crazy overpopulated for its infrastructure, has huge drug/crime problems and is just filthy and gross and run-down. But they have UOP and a minor league baseball team so...yeah.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:20 GMT	4 points
	@KD: I think you have a fair point that the presence of sports teams may be a contributing factor. I just don't think their success or failure matter very much in overall misery. I get pretty miserable when the Redskins lose, but it's only temporary. However, I would be a lot more miserable overall if there weren't any sports teams at all.

Comment below threshold: show it

	wdcvhi:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:27 GMT	-4 points
	heres the site, chicago is the highest for binge drinkers http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-07-sf-drugs_x.htm?csp=34

	Kinsey:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:28 GMT	5 points
	@Cuthbert Twilley Stockton is the foreclosure capital of America and Modesto is a neighboring city to Stockton. How do these cities not meet your criteria?

	wdcvhi:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:35 GMT	4 points
	@ cuthbert, you kind of hit my point there, people would rather live in a place with sports teams, and to the redskind comment, well you guys had a decent season, I couldnt immagine being a Lions fan, 0-16 would leave me miserable for a while.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:37 GMT	2 points
	@kinsey: Stockton sounds like a pretty miserable place. So Does Modesto. I don't think they don't belong on the list. I just think that the criteria put a wonderful city like Chicago in there and rate places like Detroit and Flint as less miserable than I think they are.

	Cuthbert_Twilley:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:41 GMT	-2 points
	@KD: Those are bogus stats. Binge drinking is not reflective of the poverty and crime associated with alcoholism (binge drinkers aren't the guys waiting on the corner for the liquor store to open every morning). Those rates of drug use are for any use at all. That tells you nothing about the rate of problem drug abusers. That study ranks potheads in college dorms the same as crackheads in the slums.

	let_it_go:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:42 GMT	0 points
	this is, arguably, the dumbest quiz I've seen on this site. What a waste of interweb space.

	weizenugb:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:43 GMT	13 points
	I live in Chicago and absolutely love it. I realize my perspective is skewed, as I live in a relatively low crime area with plenty of bars/restaurants/parks/lakeshore views, but it still seems hard to imagine Chicago as a worse place to live than Flint, MI.

	tobinw:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:43 GMT	5 points
	As someone who has been to almost every one of the 40 largest cities, the fact that Baltimore and Atlanta aren't on this list completely ruins its credibility.

	deej:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:45 GMT	5 points
	I grew up in Cleveland and while it has pro sports teams and decent commutes, the weather is heinous, the city government is corrupt/shiftless and it's dangerous. From what I understand of stockton is deserves the top spot.

Comment below threshold: show it

	celtic_fc:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 17:59 GMT	2 points
	@ Ben, i voted madsen

	big dick:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 18:07 GMT	8 points
	where is Davidr?

	Tired of Davidr:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 18:10 GMT	5 points
	Probably finding a "better" methodology for determining miserable cities in the U.S. ;-)

	Booger:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 18:12 GMT	24 points
	Perhaps we should put Forbes on our list of miserable list makers.

	HollywoodLeo:	Mar 12th, 2009 at 18:31 GMT	5 points
	@KD, the cities would be seen as huge with or without the pro team. The pro teams are there because they're the big cities. Was Oklahoma City not a big city until the Sonics moved there?