WalletHub: Best-Worst Cities for Active Lifestyles

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

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, 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. Lupo discusses WalletHub’s 2025 study on the best and worst U.S. cities for an active lifestyle. Top cities like Honolulu, New York, and San Francisco excel in recreational facilities, while North Las Vegas ranks lowest. Factors include access to amenities, affordability, air quality, urban planning, and Google fitness search trends. Cities like Garland and Anaheim highlight suburban challenges, with residents often seeking activities in larger cities. Lupo emphasizes urban areas’ dominance in promoting active lifestyles due to better infrastructure. The study’s weighting of metrics like basketball courts and playgrounds reflects their popularity and impact on physical activity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here again with Chip Lupo to discuss WalletHub’s study titled “Best and Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle in 2025.” This study identifies U.S. cities where Americans have the best opportunities to maintain an active lifestyle this year. According to the study, the top cities for an active lifestyle are Honolulu, Hawaii; New York, New York; and San Francisco, California. The lowest-ranked cities are North Las Vegas, Nevada; Irving, Texas; and Fort Wayne, Indiana. Before delving into specifics, what factors contribute to these cities ranking at the top or bottom in promoting an active lifestyle? What stood out about the top three cities? This evaluation focuses solely on the city proper, excluding surrounding metropolitan areas. As we continue, this distinction will become clearer.

Chip Lupo: Interestingly, all of the top ten cities, from Honolulu in first place to Cincinnati in tenth, ranked highly in WalletHub’s “sports and outdoors” category. This category includes metrics such as the number of basketball hoops, soccer fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, public golf courses, and ice-skating rinks per capita. Being densely populated, these cities meet the demand for such facilities. While some cities had lower rankings in the “budget and participation” category, they still performed well overall. For instance, San Diego, ranked eighth overall, was 31st in the budget and participation dimension, considering factors like average monthly fitness club fees, cost of sports apparel, average bowling costs, number of sporting goods stores per capita, and the percentage of physically inactive adults.

Jacobsen: Regarding the lower-ranked cities, it’s notable that Las Vegas is ranked fourth overall, yet its neighbouring suburb, North Las Vegas, is at the bottom, ranked 100th. What could explain this disparity?

Lupo: This disparity may be because residents of North Las Vegas seeking recreational activities prefer to travel to Las Vegas rather than utilize facilities in their suburbs. This highlights the differences in resources and opportunities between a major city like Las Vegas and its surrounding areas.

Jacobsen: The study encompasses various factors, including the availability of sporting goods stores, public golf courses, fitness trainers, aerobics instructors, and playgrounds, which cater to different age demographics. Playgrounds, for example, are primarily for children. Does this study consider the entire lifespan of physical activity when evaluating cities?

Lupo: The study takes a comprehensive approach covering all age groups. It evaluates amenities like playgrounds and soccer fields that benefit youth and adults. While there are specific metrics for inactive adults, the study includes all demographics.

Jacobsen: Do different age groups require varying levels of physical activity? Is this a factor to consider when interpreting the results?

Lupo: Yes, different age groups have varying physical activity needs, and the study’s comprehensive approach accounts for these differences, providing a holistic view of how cities support active lifestyles across all demographics.

Jacobsen: The frequency of their provisions, like playgrounds versus golf courses, would also differ. Could it be a one-to-one mapping? Let’s start with the top five cities. In a place like Honolulu, primarily a resort area, there might not be as much emphasis on family-friendly activities. Instead, the focus could be on activities tailored to tourists and vacationers to keep them active while away from home. Would you agree?

Lupo: Yes, and the same applies to New York and San Francisco. These are also diverse areas, ethnically speaking. The diversity pushes for various activities to cater to different ethnic groups. You have to consider the overall population and various activities that suit their needs.

Jacobsen: That makes sense. Another factor to consider is the cost of fitness facilities. For instance, there is a huge difference in monthly fitness club fees between places like Garland, Texas, and Anaheim, California—up to 16 times the difference in average cost. How does that disparity affect people’s ability or even desire to get a gym membership and use it?

Lupo: Garland, Texas, is an interesting case because it’s essentially a suburb of the Dallas–Fort Worth area. Anaheim is similar—it’s about 40 miles outside Los Angeles. Individuals seeking more adventurous or dynamic activities are often venturing outward. These areas are largely commuter towns, so residents frequently leave their home areas to access entertainment or fitness opportunities in the larger cities. It’s the same dynamic we discussed earlier with Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.

Jacobsen: That’s an important point. You mentioned Irvine, California, earlier. Could proximity to cities and the distances between activities within a city factor into the physical activity levels of adults? For example, could these distances make people decide to stay home and spend more time online instead of engaging in physical activities?

Lupo: Absolutely. Irvine is an excellent example. It’s in Orange County, a suburban area of Los Angeles. Public transportation is a significant issue in Southern California, and traffic congestion discourages people from travelling to nearby cities. In Irvine, you might spend much time driving into and out of Los Angeles. As a result, people may prefer staying home, telecommuting, or working out at home rather than dealing with the hassle of travel. All of these factors contribute to physical inactivity in such areas.

Urban planning, transportation infrastructure, and local amenities all substantially shape people’s activity levels. We’re talking about these large, sprawling areas where public transportation is a significant problem. It’s a college town, so there is much walkability. Many students don’t have cars for various reasons. So, at least within university environments, it’s a walkable area. In this particular study, only a few factors were given double weight: basketball hoops per capita, baseball and softball diamonds per capita, and average monthly fitness club fees.

Jacobsen: Those factors and the share of physically inactive adults were given double weight. Additionally, fitness centers per capita, hiking trails, and playgrounds were double-weighted. Hiking trails are particularly interesting because they offer Americans access to physical activity for free. Were there any metrics considered for triple or quadruple weight?

Lupo: Not that I’m aware of. The ones that received double weight, especially basketball hoops and baseball diamonds, are among the most popular recreational facilities. Whether you’re renovating or constructing these facilities, they’re relatively easy to maintain once built. There’s also a high demand for them, so they were prioritized in the weighting. Soccer fields follow closely behind in popularity, but basketball and baseball facilities tend to dominate.

Jacobsen: Air quality is another factor I’ve been thinking about. Does poor air quality impact people’s willingness to go outside for physical activity? Or is it more about whether their health is directly affected while exercising outdoors?

Lupo: It’s a bit of both. As we discussed with traffic issues, people might avoid going outside or driving far to exercise. If the air quality is poor, they’re likely to stay indoors, exercise at home, or find recreation closer to home to avoid prolonged exposure to unhealthy air. For example, the recent fires in Los Angeles have made air quality unbearably poor. Southern California has struggled with air quality for years, and events like this only make things worse. It will be interesting to see how this affects outdoor activity over the coming months.

Jacobsen: Another fascinating aspect is the inclusion of Google search trends in methodologies. Google accounts for over 90% of all searches, so when we’re talking about search engines, we’re talking about Google. The inclusion of search terms like “workout at home,” “ab workouts at home,” “chest workouts at home,” “leg workouts at home,” “bodyweight workout,” and “dumbbells resistance bands” is intriguing. These searches aren’t the physical act of getting out and doing something but indicate a major precursor to physical activity.

Lupo: While these searches don’t directly measure outdoor activity, they provide insight into how people adapt their fitness routines. Search trends like these show a shift in behaviour, with many opting for at-home workouts due to factors like convenience, cost, or external conditions such as poor air quality or traffic. It’s critical to understand how people maintain active lifestyles in different environments.

Jacobsen: Either they’re searching to buy something for someone else or to buy it for themselves. Could there be a context under which these searches are so significant that you would have given them double weight rather than full weight?

Lupo: I think so, particularly during COVID, when people had little choice but to stay home. This is becoming a trend, much like working from home. More and more people are shifting toward home-based fitness. If nothing else, these searches show at least an interest in working out at home. You can build your gym and customize it to your preferences. It’s yours once you pay for the equipment—no monthly gym fees.

If you relocate, you take your equipment with you. You don’t have to worry about finding another gym or whether a gym chain has a location in your new city. It’s about maintaining interest and staying active but also reflects practicality.

Jacobsen: Before we wrap up today, do you have any final notes to make as an inclusive statement on this particular study?

Lupo: Sure. Let’s take another good look at the top ten. As we’ve mentioned, these are, for the most part, urban areas—sprawling urban areas, to be precise. To reiterate an earlier point, the study evaluates only the city proper. You’ll notice that while the top 10, 12, or even 15 cities for active lifestyles rank well, the outlying areas often don’t fare as well. This is because residents in those areas are likelier to enter the major city to access physical activities or recreational opportunities.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Chip, thank you as always. 

Lupo: No problem. Talk to you later.

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.