America’s Worst Cities for Retirees

Hananeko_Studio / Shutterstock.com

As you are planning to retire, you may be hoping to save money and dreaming of a fresh start in an exciting new place.

Moving to another city, however, can bring a lot of unknowns with it: Do you fit in with it? To make friends? Can you afford it What about the weather

This analysis can help: WalletHub recently rated 182 US cities for retirees. The site’s analysts based their recommendations on metrics across four broad categories: affordability, activity, health care, and quality of life.

They rated dozen of metrics such as public transportation, crime rates, weather, and access to entertainment.

We focused on the lower end of the leaderboard. Listed below are the cities, from bad to very bad, that WalletHub finds the least friendly to retirees.

See if you agree that these are indeed the worst places to retire.

Arlington, Texas

CK Photo / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 173 out of 182 cities

Arlington received poor marks, particularly in the Activities category. For many people, retirement is all about fishing, and WalletHub finds few fishing opportunities in Arlington, ranking Arlington the third worst city out of 182, especially based on the number of fishing opportunities per capita.

However, there is a lot for sports enthusiasts. Arlington is home to the MLB’s Texas Rangers with home games at Globe Life Field. The city is also home to AT&T Stadium, where the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys play their home games.

Jersey City, New Jersey

Sorbis / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 174 out of 182 cities

Jersey City’s low ranking for affordability (# 176) helps lower the city’s overall ranking.

However, the city boasts of having one of the most culturally diverse populations in the country.

Detroit

Susan Montgomery / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 175 out of 182 cities

Motor City is taking a hit here, in part because such a small percentage of its employees are 65 years or older. Based on this specific metric, WalletHub even rates Detroit as the worst of all 182 cities included in the analysis.

That metric, along with Detroit’s low ranking in the Quality of Life category (# 177), put the city 175th overall.

Vancouver, Washington

Rigucci / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 176 out of 182 cities

This Washington city’s location – across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon – can be good for commuting. But is Vancouver a popular place for retirees? WalletHub says no.

Clark County, which also includes Vancouver, touts its affordability compared to other major cities in the area such as Portland and Seattle. But WalletHub sees it differently and gives Vancouver particularly bad grades for affordability and ranks 177th in this category.

Wichita, Kansas

Sean Pavone / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 177 out of 182 cities

Wichita is cheaper than Vancouver, Washington. But WalletHub is still knocking down its ranking for the local quality of life for retirees, ranking Wichita 178th in that category.

Rancho Cucamonga, California

Tim Gray / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 178 out of 182 cities

Rancho Cucamonga, east of Los Angeles, was ranked fifth from the bottom on this list of 182 cities, partly because of its (lack of) activities.

WalletHub finds few amenities here for retirees. “Activities” in this study include such things as fishing, golf, museums, book clubs, art galleries, senior centers, music, bingo, and the availability of adult volunteering opportunities.

Spokane, Washington

Jon Bilous / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 179 out of 182 cities

Spokane County is one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. The population increased by 14.5% between 2010 and 2020, reports KREM2 TV, citing the US Census Bureau.

In the city of Spokane in particular, affordability isn’t as good as this study shows, and Spokane failed to impress WalletHub analysts with its quality of life, health care, and retiree activities. The city didn’t come close to the top 100 in any of these four categories.

3. Bridgeport, Connecticut

Wendell Guy / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 180 out of 182 cities

The average home value in Bridgeport is rising rapidly, which helps the city get a low score for affordability. At the time of this writing, Zillow estimated the typical home price to be more than $ 281,000 – 28.7% more than a year earlier.

Newark, New Jersey

EQRoy / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 181 out of 182 cities

New Jersey’s most populous city scores particularly poorly in terms of affordability and quality of life, ranking 171st out of 182 in both categories.

That’s not all: WalletHub also scores Newark’s rank in healthcare (102nd place). This study only rates Newark as simply average for the city’s activities.

San Bernardino, California

Matt Gush / Shutterstock.com

Overall rank: No. 182 out of 182 cities

What is it like in the worst city for retirees?

Affordability isn’t bad in San Bernardino. In fact, the cost of living in San Bernardino is low compared to the rest of Southern California. Compared to the national average, however, the cost of living is 18% higher.

However, San Bernardino does particularly poorly in WalletHub’s other three categories: healthcare, quality of life, and retiree activities.

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, sometimes we get compensation for clicking links in our stories.

Like article