Top U.S. Cities for Recreation in 2025: Insights From WalletHub Analyst Chip Lupo
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
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 analyst Chip Lupo breaks down the 2025 rankings of U.S. cities for recreation, highlighting how entertainment access, park quality, affordability, and weather shape each city’s score. Cities like Las Vegas and Orlando lead the way, while suburbs lag. Recreational access links directly to public health and financial savings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by prolific WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo to discuss their latest ranking of the best and worst U.S. cities for recreation.
One of the key takeaways is that being active not only benefits personal health but can also lead to significant financial savings—WalletHub notes that maintaining a healthy weight through exercise can save people nearly $1,900 in health care costs annually.
When looking at the 2025 rankings, the top five cities for recreation are:
- Las Vegas, NV
- Cincinnati, OH
- Orlando, FL
- Atlanta, GA
- Tampa, FL
These cities were evaluated across four critical dimensions:
- Entertainment & recreational facilities
- Costs
- Quality of parks
- Weather
What stood out to you in this survey and analysis?
Chip Lupo: It is interesting because, for the most part, these cities are already known as popular travel destinations. However, you would not necessarily expect parks and other recreational amenities to be a significant part of their appeal.
What is even more intriguing is that each of the top five cities had strengths and weaknesses across the four dimensions WalletHub used for ranking.
All five cities ranked in the top 15 for entertainment and recreational facilities. That includes metrics like the number of attractions, music venues, coffee shops, public beaches, tennis courts, swimming pools, and more. However, not all of them did well across the board.
For example:
- Atlanta ranked 61st in cost, which dragged down its overall score.
- Cincinnati ranked 58th in weather, which makes sense given its cold winters.
- Orlando ranked 57th in quality of parks, suggesting that while the city offers an abundance of recreational facilities, many of them may not be in the best condition.
Jacobsen: What about long-term investments and cost savings—how do these factor into the rankings?
Lupo: The rankings recognize that accessible recreation yields long-term financial benefits through improved public health. The methodology includes cost-related factors as one of the four dimensions. However, detailed sub-rankings (like exact position in cost or park quality for each city) are not publicly broken out.
Additionally, WalletHub highlights that Buffalo, NY, leads the nation in spending on parks per capita, ranking 11.5 times higher than the lowest-ranked city—a noteworthy data point on municipal investments in public recreation. So you are not putting so much money into one entity while another agency suffers.
Jacobsen: How much of these decisions are intentional, aimed at bringing more recreation into a city? Moreover, how much more are like byproducts—natural outcomes of evolving politics, public needs, and long-term urban development?
Lupo: Well, it is a combination of both. A lot of the cities in the top rankings are what we might call “boom towns”—they have seen rapid growth, especially in the last 30 years or so.
Jacobsen: “Boom towns”? What does that mean in American lingo?
Lupo: “Boom towns” are smaller cities or metro areas that experience sudden population and economic growth. You may have seen it in places like Seattle. About 30–35 years ago, Seattle was more of a mid-sized, modestly bustling city. However, then people started moving there in droves, and now it is a central metropolitan area.
So that is what we mean—once-small cities that experience a population surge due to factors like job opportunities, housing, and lifestyle, and then quickly expand into sprawling metro areas.
To keep that momentum and retain new residents, city leaders tend to focus on quality of life improvements. One of the first things they typically invest in is parks and recreational infrastructure. Making a city more resident-friendly and livable often starts with upgrading these kinds of amenities.
Jacobsen: Now let us look at the other end of the spectrum—the bottom-ranked cities. How does a city end up being so neglectful of recreation? Moreover, even among these lower-ranked cities, what are some universal elements we still see in American recreation?
Lupo: That is a fair question. First, it is worth noting that recreation is still valued in every U.S. city. There is a kind of baseline commitment to public recreation that most municipalities maintain—even if funding is tight.
Now, what is particularly interesting about the bottom five or bottom ten cities is that many of them are suburbs of larger metropolitan areas. For instance:
- Newark and Jersey City, while having their challenges, are right next to New York City. Residents seeking significant recreational or cultural experiences are likely to venture into Manhattan.
- Irving, Texas, is a suburb of Dallas, which is already a well-known recreational hub.
- Chula Vista, just outside San Diego, is in a similar position.
When you are that close to a significant city with world-class attractions, there is often less pressure on the suburb to invest heavily in things like festivals, stadiums, or large park systems, simply because residents already have access to those amenities nearby.
It is not that these suburban cities are neglecting recreation altogether. Still, there tends to be less local investment in large-scale experiences, since people often head into the nearby metro area.
Jacobsen: What about the sources used in this study? Why were they chosen, and why did the rankings come out the way they did this year?
Lupo: Great questions. WalletHub’s analysis pulls from a range of public data sources, including:
- U.S. Census Bureau
- Bureau of Labour Statistics
- Trust for Public Land
- Yelp and TripAdvisor
- National Weather Service
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
These sources help provide a broad, data-driven view across the four ranking dimensions: entertainment & recreation facilities, costs, quality of parks, and weather. This year, the methodology stayed largely consistent. Still, changes in population trends, spending, weather events, or economic shifts can all influence how a city ranks year to year.
As cities grow or shift their priorities, their recreation infrastructure either keeps pace—or it does not. That dynamic plays a significant role in how the rankings change over time.
Jacobsen: Let us go back to the sources. You mentioned a few already, but what were the primary ones used for the study?
Lupo: The first one was the U.S. Census Bureau, which we used to gather population and demographic information, especially around shifts in city populations. Then there is the Council for Community and Economic Research, which tracks things like public funding: how much money is being allocated to parks and recreation versus other public needs.
We also used Yelp and TripAdvisor, which are travel and review platforms. They help us evaluate whether a city is considered recreation- and travel-friendly by everyday users. As for Trust for Public Land, that is one you may not be as familiar with—it is a nonprofit that provides data on park access and green space equity across the U.S.
Finally, we incorporated WalletHub’s research and methodology, which complements the public data and helps balance the broader picture.
Jacobsen: And the other question I had was about how you divvied up the overall score. How do you weigh these various categories to get the final composite ranking?
Lupo: Ah, you are talking about weighting—yes. So we score everything out of 100 total points, and each of the four dimensions contributes a share of that:
- Entertainment & Recreational Facilities: This category received the most significant weight because it has the most available metrics. We are talking about everything from the number of hiking trails and fishing spots to amusement parks, pool halls, sports venues, restaurants, food festivals, and recreational centers. People care about variety and access when it comes to recreation, especially during the summer.
- Costs: This was the second most heavily weighted category. Again, because there are numerous sub-metrics here, like:
- Average fitness club fees
- Restaurant meal and food prices
- Alcoholic beverage prices
- Movie ticket costs
- General affordability
- Quality of Parks: This had fewer sub-metrics and therefore received less weight.
- Weather: This had the lowest weight, only 10 points out of 100. That is because it was measured using a single metric: ideal weather conditions, which is relatively subjective and varies less dramatically year-to-year across most U.S. cities.
So it came down to the density of measurable data. Entertainment and cost offered more robust metrics, so they got more weight in the final scoring.
Lupo: No problem at all, Scott—as always.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much. Take care!
Lupo: You too.
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 