%20%20--%3E%0A%3Csvg%20version%3D%221.1%22%20id%3D%22Layer_1%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20xmlns%3Axlink%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F1999%2Fxlink%22%20x%3D%220px%22%20y%3D%220px%22%0A%09%20viewBox%3D%220%200%20684.6%2068.1%22%20style%3D%22enable-background%3Anew%200%200%20684.6%2068.1%3B%22%20xml%3Aspace%3D%22preserve%22%3E%0A%3Cg%3E%0A%09%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M444.1%2C29.3h-17.4v14.5h17.4V29.3z%20M36.4%2C68.1l29.3-50.8V0H50.4L32.9%2C36.8L15.5%2C0H0v68.1h16.7V45.8l12.4%2C22.3H36.4z%0A%09%09%20M49.1%2C68.1h16.6V23.4L49.1%2C52.1V68.1z%20M76.6%2C68.1h45V53.8H93.3V41.6h21V27.1h-21V14.8h28.3V0.1h-45V68.1z%20M175.6%2C68.1h17.3v-68%0A%09%09h-16.5v40.3L150%2C0.1h-17.6v68h16.7V27.7L175.6%2C68.1z%20M235.8%2C14.8h15.4V0.1h-47.4v14.7H219v53.2h16.8V14.8z%20M290.3%2C45.9h-17.1%0A%09%09l7.5-15.6h2L290.3%2C45.9z%20M298.7%2C68.1h18l-32.2-68h-5.7l-32%2C68h18l3.3-7.1h27.1L298.7%2C68.1z%20M325.2%2C68.1h46.2V53.8h-29.6V0.1h-16.7%0A%09%09V68.1z%20M423.7%2C14.8h27.2V0.1H407v68h16.7V14.8z%20M462%2C68.1h46.2V53.8h-29.6V0.1H462V68.1z%20M564.8%2C34.1c0%2C10.7-7.2%2C19.2-18.5%2C19.2%0A%09%09c-11.4%2C0-18.5-8.5-18.5-19.2s7.1-19.2%2C18.5-19.2C557.6%2C14.9%2C564.8%2C23.4%2C564.8%2C34.1%20M580.6%2C34.1c0-19-14.2-34-34.3-34%0A%09%09c-20.2%2C0-34.3%2C15-34.3%2C34c0%2C19%2C14.1%2C34%2C34.3%2C34C566.4%2C68.1%2C580.6%2C53.1%2C580.6%2C34.1%20M604.8%2C20.5c0-4.1%2C3.3-6.2%2C6.7-6.2%0A%09%09c4.4%2C0%2C6.6%2C3%2C6.6%2C6.6h14.7C631.8%2C9.1%2C625.1%2C0.1%2C611%2C0.1c-12%2C0-21.7%2C9.3-21.7%2C20.6c0%2C10.9%2C5.9%2C15.9%2C16.7%2C19.8%0A%09%09c5.2%2C1.8%2C11.5%2C3.2%2C11.5%2C8c0%2C3.3-2.4%2C5.5-6.4%2C5.5c-3.6%2C0-6.6-3-6.6-6.7h-15.2c0%2C11.5%2C7.9%2C20.8%2C21.8%2C20.8c12%2C0%2C21.6-9.3%2C21.6-20.6%0A%09%09c0-10-5.3-16.4-16.7-19.8C610.6%2C26.1%2C604.8%2C25.3%2C604.8%2C20.5%20M670%2C20.9h14.7C683.8%2C9.1%2C677.1%2C0.1%2C663%2C0.1c-12%2C0-21.7%2C9.3-21.7%2C20.6%0A%09%09c0%2C10.9%2C5.9%2C15.9%2C16.7%2C19.8c5.2%2C1.8%2C11.5%2C3.2%2C11.5%2C8c0%2C3.3-2.4%2C5.5-6.4%2C5.5c-3.6%2C0-6.6-3-6.6-6.7h-15.2c0%2C11.5%2C7.9%2C20.8%2C21.8%2C20.8%0A%09%09c12%2C0%2C21.6-9.3%2C21.6-20.6c0-10-5.3-16.4-16.7-19.8c-5.4-1.6-11.3-2.4-11.3-7.2c0-4.1%2C3.3-6.2%2C6.7-6.2C667.7%2C14.4%2C670%2C17.3%2C670%2C20.9%0A%09%09%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fg%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A)
Pet owners will do a lot for their furry (or feathered) family members. They’ll pay high vet bills, order the best of the best food, and, in some cases, may even leave their animals money in their wills.
When it comes to having pets, choosing the right location to settle down also has an impact. Living in a city with plenty of pet-friendly rentals and high-quality veterinary care will make it a lot easier (and possibly cheaper) to welcome an animal into the home.
WalletHub recently set out to determine the most pet-friendly cities in the United States. They rated the 100 largest U.S. cities using 23 key metrics; those metrics were broken down into three major categories: pet budget, pet health and wellness, and outdoor pet-friendliness. Here’s which cities stood out as the best (and worst) places for pet owners to live.
The 10 Most Pet-Friendly U.S. Cities
Ranking | City | State |
|---|---|---|
1 | Scottsdale | Arizona |
2 | Tampa | Florida |
3 | Las Vegas | Nevada |
4 | Birmingham | Alabama |
5 | Lexington-Fayette | Kentucky |
6 | North Las Vegas | Nevada |
7 | St. Petersburg | Florida |
8 | Cincinnati | Ohio |
9 | Portland | Oregon |
10 | St. Louis | Missouri |
The top city, Scottsdale, Arizona, has a lot to offer animal lovers. It is among the most pet-related businesses in the nation, and 98 percent its rental units allow animals. Scottsdale’s ample outdoor spaces and relatively pleasant weather are an added bonus.
Tampa, Florida—the no. 2 spot—has an extremely high number of local veterinarians and animal shelters. It’s followed by Las Vegas, Nevada, which also boasts an abundance of affordable veterinary options. Those hoping for a break on their pet insurance costs should consider Birmingham, Alabama, which has one of the nation’s lowest pet insurance premiums.
When it comes to choosing a pet-friendly place to live, not every U.S. city compares to the 10 listed above. Here’s a look at the cities that rounded out the bottom of WalletHub’s rankings.
The 10 Least Pet-Friendly U.S. Cities
Ranking | City | State |
|---|---|---|
1 | Boston | Massachusetts |
2 | Durham | North Carolina |
3 | Milwaukee | Wisconsin |
4 | Honolulu | Hawaii |
5 | New York | New York |
6 | Frenso | California |
7 | Tucson | Arizona |
8 | Toledo | Ohio |
9 | Stockton | California |
10 | Detroit | Michigan |
Boston, Massachusetts, was determined to be the least pet-friendly city in the U.S., mostly because it’s the most expensive place to own and maintain an animal. Durham, North Carolina, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were determined to have few pet-friendly rental units available. And though New York has a decent amount of pet-friendly rentals and dog parks, it has some of the highest veterinary costs and has a notably low amount of companion animal-related businesses.
Read More About Pets: