Best Places to Get Married
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.WalletHub’s report ranks the best and worst cities for weddings based on cost, facilities, services, activities, and attractions. Orlando, Las Vegas, Miami, Atlanta, and Tampa rank highest due to favorable weather and accessibility, despite high costs. Pearl City, Bridgeport, Warwick, South Burlington, and Lewiston rank lowest due to financial and logistical challenges. Memphis frequently appears in negative rankings, prompting public inquiries. Budget is the most weighted factor, as Valentine’s Day spending varies more than weddings. Data sources include the U.S. Census Bureau, Yelp, and Numbeo. Lupo shares insights from his own budget-friendly wedding experience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Chip Lupo again. A recent report from WalletHub highlights the best places to get married. The average couple spends around $35,000—that’s in USD. That amount is significantly more in Canadian dollars for those reading from Canada.
The logistical and financial stresses of planning a wedding can be substantial. According to WalletHub’s analysis, the top cities for weddings are Orlando, Las Vegas, Miami, Atlanta, and Tampa. These cities seem more diverse than those featured in similar reports. Why is that? Looking at the rankings, the costs in these top five cities are quite high. However, they excel in facilities, services, activities, and attractions.
Chip Lupo: Yes, Scott, you’re right. It is a diverse set of cities. One thing they all have in common, for the most part, is favourable weather. Of course, you wouldn’t want to book a wedding in Miami during hurricane season. Still, aside from that, Orlando and Las Vegas generally have warm, stable climates. Atlanta and Tampa, which rank fourth and fifth on the list, also offer relatively mild weather.
Weather and accessibility are significant factors. While these cities may be expensive, they compensate with exceptional facilities, services, and attractions. For example, getting married in Orlando can be costly due to its proximity to Disney World and everything the area offers. However, this is balanced by the abundance of amenities and entertainment options.
Scott, let me share a quick anecdote about wedding costs. About 15 years ago, a co-worker was planning her February wedding. Timing plays a crucial role in wedding expenses, though this study doesn’t emphasize it much. In the U.S., weddings are traditionally held on Saturdays—typically mid-afternoon or early evening, and sometimes on Fridays if venues are available.
She was researching floral arrangements when she realized that Valentine’s Day fell on a Saturday that year—the date she had chosen for her wedding. When the florist quoted her the cost of flowers—roses, in this case—she immediately reconsidered and asked about pricing for the following Saturday. Simply changing the date will cut the cost of the flowers by half.
This highlights an important consideration when planning a wedding—timing. Suppose you schedule your wedding around major holidays, such as Christmas or Valentine’s Day. In that case, you will likely face higher costs, particularly for flowers and other high-demand services.
Returning to our discussion, while these cities may be expensive, they make up for it in other aspects. All of them rank very highly in the categories of facilities, activities, and attractions despite significant cost differences among the top five.
Jacobsen: When I look at the bottom of this ranking, the lowest-ranked cities are Pearl City, Bridgeport, Warwick, South Burlington, and Lewiston. As far as I recall, these cities don’t appear in many of the other surveys we reviewed.
Yet, they have consistently ranked near the bottom out of 182 cities. For instance, Pearl City ranks 180th, 179th, and 177th in three categories, making its overall index score the lowest. What makes these cities particularly poor in this area?
Lupo: Well, Pearl City—no pun intended—is kind of an island on its own, quite literally, since it’s in Hawaii. The cost of weddings there is high no matter when or where you get married. But beyond that, accessibility is a major factor.
Coordinating travel arrangements for family and friends, especially for a large wedding, is a logistical challenge. How many of your guests would be willing—or able—to take on that financial burden? Flying to Hawaii can be expensive, particularly for East Coast people.
So, accessibility hurts Pearl City. It’s obviously in a beautiful location—an ideal setting for a wedding—but the logistical coordination makes it impractical for many couples.
The other cities—South Burlington, Vermont; Warwick, Rhode Island; and Bridgeport, Connecticut—are all situated in the Northeastern New England region, where costs can be high.
None of these cities have wedding-friendly attractions. Accessibility is also an issue. And, of course, the weather this time of year—February—is likely not ideal for a wedding.
Jacobsen: Do you ever get emails from people in these cities, either complimenting or criticizing you?
Lupo: Since I’ve been doing this, we occasionally receive comments from media outlets in specific cities. Their journalists often reach out, looking for information—asking, “Why this?” or “Why that?”
A year or so ago, we received many emails and complaints from city officials and residents in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis frequently appeared in our rankings concerning crime, affordability, and safety concerns.
That’s the one city that stands out. For the most part, though, media outlets within specific cities are just curious—they want to inform their audiences. They ask why their city ranked a certain way, whether positive or negative. They typically want a breakdown of where their city performed well and where it didn’t.
But yes, to my knowledge, Memphis is the one that keeps coming up—particularly from people outside of the media—questioning why their city frequently ranks at the bottom in some of these reports.
Jacobsen: The ranking had three broad categories: costs, facilities and services, and activities and attractions. Why that particular breakdown? Some might wonder—why not focus entirely on costs? It’s such a major factor. Shouldn’t it be the dominant consideration? Why break things down in a more sophisticated and nuanced way?
Lupo: Well, Scott, if you look at how the rankings are weighted, cost carries a slightly higher weight. Out of a possible 100 points, cost accounts for 40 points because it is likely the primary factor. However, you must also consider availability, which negatively affects some cities.
Some cities performed poorly in the facilities and services category. You want easy access to key wedding-related services such as:
- Bridal shops
- Florists
- Hotels (since you’re hosting many guests)
- Restaurants (for rehearsal dinners)
- Catering companies
- Bartenders (if you’re including alcohol)
- Cake shops
- Makeup artists
That last one is interesting—it didn’t apply to me personally.
Event planners are another key service. You want to ensure that your wedding location can easily access these vendors. Otherwise, outsourcing services from elsewhere may increase your costs significantly.
Activities and attractions also play a role. As we discussed, weather is a major factor. The number of attractions in an area is given full weight. For example, Las Vegas has abundant activities for the couple and their guests.
Another factor is its popularity as a travel destination. If a city is well-known and frequently visited, it can be an advantage. Aside from Pearl City, the cities at the bottom of the list are not popular travel destinations. For example, cities like Warwick, Rhode Island, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, lack broad appeal.
So, while cost carries more weight, we strive to keep the ranking comprehensive by including facilities, services, attractions, and availability.
Jacobsen: And the sources of data—the ones that make the most sense—include the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more well-known sources like Tripadvisor, Yelp, Kayak.com, and your research.
But what about Numbeo, TravBuddy.com, and the Wedding Report?
Lupo: Well, TravBuddy is similar to Tripadvisor. Travel Buddy—if I’m not mistaken, it’s a social networking site for travellers. Yes, users can review destinations like Kayak.com and Tripadvisor. Now, the other one—Numbeo—is a cost-of-living database. You enter data, and it provides an index estimating living costs.
This is useful information because you need to factor in overall expenses when planning a wedding. This includes:
- Hotel prices
- Taxi fares
- Flight costs in and out of a city
These additional expenses can significantly impact the total wedding budget. While we’re on the subject, one thing that may pop up when the survey goes live is that when we got married in 2018, we did a lot of it on our own, and it ended up costing us about $12,000.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a lot less than some of the others.
Lupo: Yes, we found out—and I did a budget breakdown afterward—that about 60% of the total cost was spent on food between the rehearsal dinner and catering. But since we handled a lot of it ourselves, we saved money.
I also designed and printed our wedding invitations because I do some graphic design. It’s more of a hobby than anything else, but it helped cut costs.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chip.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 