Sunbelt battle for #2?

[Obadno]

The Problem with the urban enthusiast here is that unless the city was primarily built in the 19th century its "inauthentic" or "Not really a city" for some reason.

As I have said before when they complain about there "not being a culture" in newer cities what they really mean is "Its not the same as I am used to back east/Up north" Places cant "not have a culture" its just weather you find that culture appealing or not.

[edale]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

Are you aware that San Francisco is one of the more sunniest cities in USA. That is a gross misconception.

Number of sunny days are not much different than Los Angeles/Long Beach coastal areas.

I'd believe that Sonoma or San Jose are some of the sunniest places in the US. SF is shrouded in fog so much of the year, and their winters are much cloudier and rainy than what we get in LA. Late August/early September through November is reliably sunny in SF city. Outside of those months, I wouldn't describe SF as a very sunny city.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The Problem with the urban enthusiast here is that unless the city was primarily built in the 19th century its "inauthentic" or "Not really a city" for some reason.

As I have said before when they complain about there "not being a culture" in newer cities what they really mean is "Its not the same as I am used to back east/Up north" Places cant "not have a culture" its just weather you find that culture appealing or not.

I had trouble with that statement too: "The NE and Midwest have culture." Like, what kind of culture? The NE is WASPy, maybe? (I found Connecticut to be quite WASPy). And the Midwest, like what, German/Protestant work ethic kind of culture?

I'm being facetious of course, but, I long ago stopped associating the term "culture" with opera, ballet (both of which I can't stand) and live theater (which I only watch occasionally, and by that I mean plays, not shit like "Hamilton" or "Wicked"), as if liking those particular things is the only way to define "culture." There is PLENTY of culture in the Southwest, culture that I find particularly more interesting than anything associated with "culture" in the NE, like the Chaco Canyon ruins, the Taos Pueblo, Navajo culture... I'm really into the culture of indigenous peoples.

I remember being miffed too by someone who told me "I like Hawaii, but they don't have culture there." ???? I'm like "WTF???"

[edale]

Originally Posted by jd3189

A lot of you guys are some full on purists with specific requirements that are extremely limiting.

“Real, urban cities” or whatever the hell your standard might be also exists in the Sunbelt.

Cities that aren’t doing so well economically are part of the Sunbelt.

Cities that sprawl are a part of the Sunbelt

Cities that don’t sprawl as much anymore are also part of the Sunbelt.

The Sunbelt, to me, are the southernmost regions of the country that people have been attracted to for the past 150 years or so (being even more pronounced in the past 50 years) because of various reasons connected to the weather of the region.


It’s more “sunny” in the Sunbelt than anywhere else in the country above it. That led to people and businesses that favor that type of weather year-around to come down here, especially when the air conditioner made it possible to endure that weather rather than having to endure the cold.


Almost every state in the Sunbelt has grown, more or less, for that reason alone compared to the Northern parts of the country. The NE and Midwest have culture, urban amenities, etc. The South and the Southwest (which are pretty much the Sunbelt) has a little bit of those things too, not to the same extent, but they do have them if people care to look for it. The main difference is the climate, which previously contributed to the Sunbelt not developing to the same extent as the rest of the country in the beginning.

That's your definition. I think it's ludicrous to group everything from Miami to Sacramento in a single region, but apparently that makes sense to you. I believe the term Sunbelt originally described cities/regions that were growing like crazy in the post-industrial age. It's the foil to the Rust Belt. So cities like San Francisco and perhaps LA, which were large cities well before the post-industrial age, would not count. Places like Phoenix, Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte- i.e. places that were insignificant cities until relatively recently, are the true Sunbelt.

You also have cities like Nashville, which are hardly warm and sunny, but do meet the other criteria for Sunbelt status. Nashville's weather is not too dissimilar from St. Louis and Cincinnati. Florida it is not. But it's growing like crazy and sprawly and at least used to be cheap. There's no easy answer for what qualifies, and it's ultimately a subjective exercise. The Sunbelt is just an idea, not a real thing with firm boundaries. Just like the Rust Belt.

[edale]

Who said anything about having culture in this thread? I must have missed that post or its been deleted or modified.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Going by this the sunbelt starts at the San Bernardino county line.

And even then, most of the growth probably isn’t in the form of Northeast/Midwest transplants relocating for jobs, cost of living, or retirement (minus the Coachella Valley). That’s a major distinction between the IE and Phoenix/Las Vegas.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The Problem with the urban enthusiast here is that unless the city was primarily built in the 19th century its "inauthentic" or "Not really a city" for some reason.

As I have said before when they complain about there "not being a culture" in newer cities what they really mean is "Its not the same as I am used to back east/Up north" Places cant "not have a culture" its just weather you find that culture appealing or not.

And that’s just simply a stupid standard. If we are going to take that into account, European cities may even blow past some of our most “urban” accomplishments, which they do. However, I don’t see an hierarchy or set definition of what’s urban and what’s not. If it functions as such, it is was it is.


But considering the question of this thread since I didn’t answer it in my rant...

The second spot for the Sunbelt is pretty much up for grabs. LA will always be on top no matter what since it’s so far ahead of the group. The Bay Area (even including SF) is in the conversation because whether people like it or not, California was essentially the first Sunbelt state. It grew to its large size today largely because of weather, just like Florida, Texas, and all the others. It isn’t cheap anymore, but that’s just because the limit has been reached possibly physically and has also been artificially created via zoning, NIMBYs, etc.

Plus, isn’t DC somewhat considered Sunbelt or is it fully a part of the NE?

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by edale

That's your definition. I think it's ludicrous to group everything from Miami to Sacramento in a single region, but apparently that makes sense to you. I believe the term Sunbelt originally described cities/regions that were growing like crazy in the post-industrial age. It's the foil to the Rust Belt. So cities like San Francisco and perhaps LA, which were large cities well before the post-industrial age, would not count. Places like Phoenix, Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte- i.e. places that were insignificant cities until relatively recently, are the true Sunbelt.

You also have cities like Nashville, which are hardly warm and sunny, but do meet the other criteria for Sunbelt status. Nashville's weather is not too dissimilar from St. Louis and Cincinnati. Florida it is not. But it's growing like crazy and sprawly and at least used to be cheap. There's no easy answer for what qualifies, and it's ultimately a subjective exercise. The Sunbelt is just an idea, not a real thing with firm boundaries. Just like the Rust Belt.

Well, to each their own I suppose. I would not say my definition is perfect, but I’m trying not to make it very subjective. I also welcome other interpretations, but I’m mainly trying to not make it into a hierarchy.

And I will admit, with Nashville, it’s arbitrary.

[JManc]

"Sunbelt" was coined in the late 60's when people were really starting to move to cheap warmer climates...which included California but like any lexicon, language evolves and what might have been considered sunbelt back then doesn't necessarily mean the same thing today. I would not consider Jackson, MS a sunbelt city simply because it's warm and sunny. Nor would I Los Angeles. Again, in the 50's and 60's absolutely when people from all over were moving to Southern CA in droves. It's not really just a geographical term. Nor is the Rust Belt a geographical term. Ohio was ground zero for rust but Columbus was spared. It's not so black and white...

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I had trouble with that statement too: "The NE and Midwest have culture." Like, what kind of culture? The NE is WASPy, maybe? (I found Connecticut to be quite WASPy). And the Midwest, like what, German/Protestant work ethic kind of culture?

They mean the kind of culture where they could walk down to the bagel store and hear a taxi driver yell at a homeless guy for laying in the street.

And although its much more common to find that in NYC I have seen that in very sunbelt cities

[craigs]

San Francisco gets an average of 23.65 inches of rainfall each year. Los Angeles averages 14.93 inches. That rainfall, plus the moisture native trees pull in from the famous fog that regularly blankets the region in the dry season, means you can drive 16 miles north of San Francisco proper and be in the redwoods; there are also redwoods an 18 mile drive to the east and a 30 mile drive to the south. Other evergreen and mixed forests are more prevalent and closer in, thanks to the regional greenbelt network.

Oakland is named for its native oaks, Palo Alto means "tall tree," and nearby Los Altos just means "the trees." The seat of San Mateo County is Redwood City, named for the area's once-plentiful trees that were cut down to build Victorian San Francisco's homes and businesses. And these are metropolitan suburbs, fully within the Bay Area, unlike these cherry-picked photos of high-mountain resort biomes in remote portions of the much drier, browner southern part of the state. The Bay Area is unquestionably greener than metro LA.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And even then, most of the growth probably isn’t in the form of Northeast/Midwest transplants relocating for jobs, cost of living, or retirement (minus the Coachella Valley). That’s a major distinction between the IE and Phoenix/Las Vegas.

Pretty sure the biggest group of refugees, *ahem* I mean immigrants are from Los Angeles now.

And that goes for Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and Texas.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by craigs

San Francisco gets an average of 23.65 inches of rainfall each year. Los Angeles averages 14.93 inches. That rainfall, plus the moisture native trees pull in from the famous fog that regularly blankets the region in the dry season, means you can drive 16 miles north of San Francisco proper and be in the redwoods; there are also redwoods an 18 mile drive to the east and a 30 mile drive to the south. Other evergreen and mixed forests are more prevalent and closer in, thanks to the regional greenbelt network.

Oakland is named for its native oaks, Palo Alto means "tall tree," and nearby Los Altos just means "the trees." The seat of San Mateo County is Redwood City, named for the area's once-plentiful trees that were cut down to build Victorian San Francisco's homes and businesses. And these are metropolitan suburbs, fully within the Bay Area, unlike these cherry-picked photos of high-mountain resort biomes in remote portions of the much drier, browner southern part of the state. The Bay Area is unquestionably greener than metro LA.

I wasn't talking about the whole Bay Area; if you look at the previous posts, I was talking specifically about Silicon Valley, which I generally say to mean San Jose/Santa Clara County. That area doesn't strike me as being particularly green all year round; in fact, someone earlier in this thread mentioned it being akin to Costa Mesa---and Silicon Valley does indeed remind me of inland Orange County times 10.

I'm aware of where the name Palo Alto comes from; in LA County, we have the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the name being a historical reference to the old Spanish/Mexican rancho, Rancho Los Palos Verdes (plural). Palo actually translates as "stick."

Speaking of Palo Alto: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4065...7i16384!8i8192

To me, that's what the Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County looks like most of the year. I don't know why that's an issue for some of you, that's what the natural landscape looks like. Nothing wrong with that... I even like the way that looks. Very rustic. In fact, that's how you can tell the seasons, for those transplants who think that everything in California looks the same all year round.

[bossabreezes]

This has kind of gotten off track, but it seems that we're split between thinking SF is Sunbelt or not.

I honestly think people who have not been to SF have a different idea of what it actually is. If you go there, you'll know it's not sunbelt.

[Chisouthside]

Most of Alameda county also looks like socal, ride the bart from Willow Springs to Oakland and youll see the dry hills to the right. also being in the north bay with their golden hills also reminded lots of socal. Huge swaths of the Bay resemble socal.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by craigs

nearby Los Altos just means "the trees."

Actually, that would mean "the heights."

Palo Alto means "tall stick," and Palos Verdes means "green sticks."

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

This has kind of gotten off track, but it seems that we're split between thinking SF is Sunbelt or not.

I honestly think people who have not been to SF have a different idea of what it actually is. If you go there, you'll know it's not sunbelt.

I’ve been there more times than I can count, half my relatives live there. What I’m saying is if LA is considered sunbelt, so should San Francisco.

Personally I don’t consider either one a sunbelt city. San Francisco is far closer to LA in looks than it is east coast. Is it really that much hatred for Southern California, face it they are more similar than most Bay Area folks are willing to admit.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

I’ve been there more times than I can count, half my relatives live there. What I’m saying is if LA is considered sunbelt, so should San Francisco.

Personally I don’t consider either one a sunbelt city. San Francisco is far closer to LA in looks and than it is east coast. Is it really that much hatred for Southern California, face it they are more similar than most Bay Area folks are willing to admit.

Bay area people are very ... sensitive. One of the few places I have ever run into where the locals have no sense self deprecating humor about their city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

Oakland is named for its native oaks, Palo Alto means "tall tree," and nearby Los Altos just means "the trees."

Los Altos translates to "the Heights".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think a key characteristic of Sunbelt cities is that the growth is fueled in large part by accessibility of cheap, easy-to-develop land, of which the main California cities have little left (different if you count far East IE for LA I guess).

I think the key characteristic is the mild winters. Beyond that, yes, typically it's also sprawly and offers good sq ft for the buck, but that's not necessarily mandatory. The very expensive, very walkable 19th century gaslamp quarter of San Diego is totally in the Sunbelt (it's +25C and sunny year-round).