Large city with best climate in U.S.?

[CassGilbert]

I'm thinking of relocating sometime in the future, to a large city with decent climate. This could be few years down the road or maybe never at all, depends on a lot of factors. Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a perfect city.

I'm sick and tired of Summers in New York City with extreme humidity and heat, when it's almost impossible to simply walk down the street.

What I'm looking for is:
- Large city with a large urban core, at least some skyscrapers.
- Dry Summers with maximum temperature no more than 80 F.

I am considering Denver, since it's near a mountain range and dry, but temperatures still seem a bit too high there. I would appreciate any suggestions :)

[Crawford]

San Francisco and maybe Seattle would be your only options. Not sure if Seattle has a "large core", but it isn't really small.

There are plenty of other cities that meet the weather requirement, but not the urbanity requirement.

[brian_b]

San Diego?

[glowrock]

Denver's got the best summer climate for the most part, being in the 80's and low 90's for much of the summer. And it's normally very dry, which helps as well.

Obviously coastal California locales are excellent as well during the summer (or winter, or spring, or fall... ;)), but they're very expensive in general. Seattle and Portland would work, but they tend to be quite wet in general terms. San Diego would be a good choice, as long as you're within about 10 miles of the coast, otherwise it can easily top 100 degrees in the summers, especially in the suburban areas surrounding the city. Same goes for L.A.. Cool in the summer, as long as you're generally within about 10 miles of the coast, otherwise it can easily top 100 degrees.

As long as you don't miss the water, I think Denver's a great choice. If you want water, obviously Denver isn't for you.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Crawford]

San Diego?

I didn't include San Diego because I don't think it would meet the urbanity requirement.

Probably best weather in the U.S., but I don't think it would come close to one of the larger or denser U.S. cores.

[CassGilbert]

Thank you all for interesting suggestions. I think mountains would be a fine substitute (in terms of the views) for an ocean, so I don't mind that at all. Actually, I think it would be interesting to live near the mountains. But still, 90's and even 80's is something that I'm looking to avoid. Still, I suppose if it is very dry then 80's wouldn't be nearly as bad as 80's in NYC, where it feels more like 130's.

What about some less urban places? As long as there is a chance to live downtown (not being the only one doing so) and not in the suburbs.

Climate in San-Francisco seems really nice, except it appears to lack winters at all, but I can live with that. So I'll keep it in mind.

[Cirrus]

Denver has pretty nice summers. It can get hot, but it's a dry heat and there is often wind, which trust me is much more tolerable than the sticky still air of a humid climate. I'd rather be in 100 degree heat in Denver with no humidity than 80 degree heat in New York.

But it snows a ton in Denver, so you have to be OK with that.

[ametz]

Based on your criteria, the east, south, and midwest will be too humid or hot in general, and most western cities lack a real urban core (especially if you're coming from NYC). Denver and Seattle may fit the bill, though they may seem too small for you. I would say San Diego is too spread out and too laid back...leaving only San Fran and LA. LA's downtown has made huge strides, and there's a lot of energy there. I vote LA!

[CassGilbert]

Snow is not ideal but you can't have everything. I really like North East but the climate is torturous.

I'll be considering Denver and San Francisco. Probably will pay a visit to both in the Summer, to check it out.

[pj3000]

If dry summers that don't get too hot is your thing, then California is just about the only place you're going to find it.

To find urbanity somewhat comparable to NYC with that weather combo out there, San Francisco is your only option... though I don't find the climate there to be great at all (always between 50 and 70 is pretty boring to me). And I don't care for cool summertime temps and persistent cloudiness. Sounds like you want the weather of southern California... but the urbanity component will be lacking, though there are certainly more than adequate urban areas in LA and San Diego, in my opinion.

[OhioGuy]

My first thought when reading your "wish" list was San Francisco. Average high is in the 50s in the winter and low 70s in the late summer/early fall. In between it's generally in the 60s. For someone like me that doesn't even like temperatures in the 80s, let alone 90s, the climate in San Francisco is about as ideal as it gets (though the microclimates within the city make some areas more sunny and warmer than other areas).

Denver would probably be ok. Humidity is low, but the sun is strong. And with temperatures still typically reaching the 90s a fair number of days in the summer, it's still beyond my preferences. Strong sun and high temperatures is still uncomfortable to me, regardless of the humidity (the humidity just makes it even more uncomfortable).

-OhioGuy (still not sure how I'll survive a DC summer... I'm already miserable with the increase in temperature and humidity this week and June, July & August will likely be even more unbearable)

[CassGilbert]

My first thought when reading your "wish" list was San Francisco. Average high is in the 50s in the winter and low 70s in the late summer/early fall. In between it's generally in the 60s. For someone like me that doesn't even like temperatures in the 80s, let alone 90s, the climate in San Francisco is about as ideal as it gets (though the microclimates within the city make some areas more sunny and warmer than other areas).

Denver would probably be ok. Humidity is low, but the sun is strong. And with temperatures still typically reaching the 90s a fair number of days in the summer, it's still beyond my preferences. Strong sun and high temperatures is still uncomfortable to me, regardless of the humidity (the humidity just makes it even more uncomfortable).

-OhioGuy (still not sure how I'll survive a DC summer... I'm already miserable with the increase in temperature and humidity this week and June, July & August will likely be even more unbearable)

Seems like we have similar climate preferences. Thanks for your input.

Yes, DC can be even more miserable in terms of weather than NYC. Though I love both of these cities.

[Vlajos]

Seems like you have one choice. San Francisco

[Cirrus]

Another thing: San Diego and Denver are similar urbanistically. If San Diego isn't urban enough then neither is Denver, and if Denver is OK with you then so should be San Diego.

[Gordo]

San Francisco sounds ideal for what you're looking for, unless you do want a snowy and cold winter.

I love winter sports and spending some time in cold areas, but I definitely like that SF doesn't have much in the way of seasons. I'm with you though, I can handle cold much easier than hot and humid. I'll never be able to live anywhere that has months at a time with highs above 75 or below 45, had enough of that in my youth.

[MolsonExport]

Is price an object?

[ColDayMan]

I don't know what you'd consider a "large" city but the only option is San Francisco, followed by medium-sized metros with decent urban cores like Seattle, San Diego, Denver. Los Angeles, if you stick with certain areas, isn't bad either. I'd personally pick San Diego over Denver; Seattle over either for city amenities.

[CassGilbert]

Thank you all.

I've looked over several threads and google street views of Denver and it has a lot of beautiful European architecture, which is something that I would appreciate very much. A lot of what I saw looks surprisingly like New York and New England.

San Diego seems a bit too laid back, like a resort, somewhere you would go on vacation but not live in. Not quite ideal for me. And if I'm not mistaken it's warmer than SF.

San Francisco does sound ideal. Though complete lack of a winter would be a bit odd too. I don't like extreme winters either, but some cold weather is nice, especially during the holiday season. I'll be also considering Seattle, I suppose.

Cost of living is not necessarily a determining factor, because virtually anything is cheaper than living in New York.

By "large" I mean the larger the better, but really I'd consider anything that can boast large quantities of interesting architecture and be urban-lifestyle-friendly.

[dktshb]

Having lived in Denver for 20 years it does get quite warm in July and August with temps in the 90's not uncommon. I can also attest that it is more laid back than San Diego and has a much smaller feel to it. Not that I would recommend San Diego either but it definitely has more what you're looking for than Denver.

[BosWash316]

I've got it, Anchorage! Just kidding. ;)

I hate to blow you're bubble, but the only place in the USA that doesnt get above 80F in the summer is.....nowhere. Even San Francisco, which I find to be quite a bit more humid than most locations in California.

Although, San Francisco may be an option (leaving out weather prereq) but personally I don't care for cloudy/drizzly weather. Not sure if that's what you want either. It's a nice city though.

Come to think of it, I don't know if any city with "dry summers" is going to have maximum highs below 80F. Most places with low humidity have higher temperatures to balance it out (ie Phoenix, Las Vegas.......Baghdad.)

[tdawg]

I'm also planning on leaving NYC after graduate school ... for San Diego.

[OhioGuy]

I hate to blow you're bubble, but the only place in the USA that doesnt get above 80F in the summer is.....nowhere. Even San Francisco, which I find to be quite a bit more humid than most locations in California.

Although, San Francisco may be an option (leaving out weather prereq) but personally I don't care for cloudy/drizzly weather. Not sure if that's what you want either. It's a nice city though.

Most locations will obviously have warm spells. 80 degrees is above average for any time of the year in San Francisco. They'll certainly have those days from time to time, but even when they have warm spells, they don't typically last much longer than 3-4 days.

As for cloudy & drizzly, the microclimates of San Francisco make it possible to live in areas where the likelihood of experiencing this type of weather can be minimized, as well as the duration of overcast skies. Will you be able to completely avoid it? No, certainly not. But locations such as SOMA, the Castro, and especially the Mission District are sunnier than areas further west, such as the Richmond and Sunset districts, which have little if any natural barrier to block the low level marine layer from spilling over the neighborhood.

[BosWash316]

:previous: Interesting about the microclimates! The whole climate of that area is quite interesting. San Francisco is probably the coolest area of the metro, because it's well known that the surrounding area can be hot, especially places inland like San Jose. That seems obvious that inland is hotter, but the metro is not gigantic. Lots of climatic change within a small area.

[zilfondel]

Snow is not ideal but you can't have everything. I really like North East but the climate is torturous.

I'll be considering Denver and San Francisco. Probably will pay a visit to both in the Summer, to check it out.

Maybe not urban enough for you, but Portland has pretty nice summers. Rarely gets above 90, and the humidity never tops 60%. Usually closer to 30-40% during summer, with evening wind... similar to Seattle, except a little warmer. Its great weather for going outdoors to do stuff, even physical activity, without worrying about heat stroke. Plus we've got mountains and the coast within an hour drive.

But yeah, SF, Seattle, PDX should be high on your list to visit. I'd say all 3 have the best summers of any city in the USA. SF is obviously the most urban. Seattle and PDX have soggy winters, but very little snow.

[dimondpark]

I'm thinking of relocating sometime in the future, to a large city with decent climate. This could be few years down the road or maybe never at all, depends on a lot of factors. Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a perfect city.

I'm sick and tired of Summers in New York City with extreme humidity and heat, when it's almost impossible to simply walk down the street.

What I'm looking for is:
- Large city with a large urban core, at least some skyscrapers.
- Dry Summers with maximum temperature no more than 80 F.

I am considering Denver, since it's near a mountain range and dry, but temperatures still seem a bit too high there. I would appreciate any suggestions :)


The Bay Area would be a great place to meet your weather criteria. Summes in much of the metrpolitan region are very comfortable. One of the things you would immediately notice is the microclimates-zones within a small geographic area that have vastly different temperatures and even differing levels of clear skies and sunlight during the day.

As far as hot and cold air---first of all its all DRY. Otherwise, we had a conversation about this fairly recently in another forum and I put together this homemade map as a result:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m293/luiinsac/BayAreaMap2.gif?t=1306355355
(I welcome any observations from other Bay Area folks as this map is not exact, but rather a working hypothesis-LOL
FYI: People were telling me that San Rafael is a little warmer than the rest of the areas I put in the 'cool air' zone but I havent had a chance to change it)

Just gives an idea of how vastly different temps and levels of comfort can be in a relatively close proximity to other temperature ranges. Its not uncommon for there to be a 25-40 degree variance in temps at the exact same time.

This also occurs in Los Angeles(although its cooler temps areas are a touch warmer than in the Bay) and San Diego too.

[OhioGuy]

^^ That map looks pretty good to me. While I haven't lived in San Francisco, I used to forecast the weather for United Airlines and as a result I've done a lot of forecasting for San Francisco since it's one of their hubs.

You could almost add 10 degrees for each zone.

Zone
Cold Air: average 50s & 60s
Cool Air: average 50s, 60s, & 70s
Warm Air: average 50s, 60s, 70s, & 80s
Hot Air: average 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, & 90s

Obviously the cooler 50s are typical of winter, the warmer temps for each zone are typically seen in the summer and/or early fall, and the mid-range temps are typical for spring, early summer, and mid/late fall.

[Buckeye Native 001]

So long as price isn't an issue, go with the Bay Area or Southern California. Denver/Seattle/Portland would be next, and while not huge, I wouldn't rule out Salt Lake City or Boise.

Then again, my perspective on city sizes is skewed since I currently live in a tiny little mountain town 7000 feet above the rest of Arizona (Flagstaff, a town with a population of about 65,000). Our summers are great (rarely above 80 degrees with no humidity) but winters can be a bitch and the job market is abysmal.

[bnk]

For cool summers SF is the city for you.

A popular quote incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain is

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."

[dimondpark]

^^ That map looks pretty good to me. While I haven't lived in San Francisco, I used to forecast the weather for United Airlines and as a result I've done a lot of forecasting for San Francisco since it's one of their hubs.

You could almost add 10 degrees for each zone.

Zone
Cold Air: average 50s & 60s
Cool Air: average 50s, 60s, & 70s
Warm Air: average 50s, 60s, 70s, & 80s
Hot Air: average 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, & 90s

Obviously the cooler 50s are typical of winter, the warmer temps for each zone are typically seen in the summer and/or early fall, and the mid-range temps are typical for spring, early summer, and mid/late fall.

Thanks.

Fairfield was a huge issue(yes we're geeks). Some said it was 'HOT' and others pointed out that the strong delta breeze which one feels around Fairfield when you come in from the Central Valley qualified it for 'WARM'.

[Gordo]

Most locations will obviously have warm spells. 80 degrees is above average for any time of the year in San Francisco. They'll certainly have those days from time to time, but even when they have warm spells, they don't typically last much longer than 3-4 days.

As for cloudy & drizzly, the microclimates of San Francisco make it possible to live in areas where the likelihood of experiencing this type of weather can be minimized, as well as the duration of overcast skies. Will you be able to completely avoid it? No, certainly not. But locations such as SOMA, the Castro, and especially the Mission District are sunnier than areas further west, such as the Richmond and Sunset districts, which have little if any natural barrier to block the low level marine layer from spilling over the neighborhood.

Even the Sunset and Richmond, while they may have fog/low clouds quite often, really have no "drizzle" for 9+ months out the year. Rain, even very light rain, is very, very rare in any part of SF during the summer. I actually wish that we had a bit more, to keep things more green. Pretty much all summer precipitation is from dew/fog/low clouds.

We do get a lot of rain from typically mid-November through mid-February, sometimes into March. The first year that I lived in SF it rained at least a quarter inch for 28 of the first 30 days that I was there (December).

It's quite a contrast from Seattle or Portland, which rarely have the heavier rains that we get in SF during the winter, but have drizzle most of the year (not as much in the summer, but still more than SF). It definitely shows in how much greener Seattle or Portland is year round.

[fflint]

Even the Sunset and Richmond, while they may have fog/low clouds quite often, really have no "drizzle" for 9+ months out the year.
No, that is inaccurate--there are not 9 months without drizzle in the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. In addition to the rainy season, which lasts from October to May (it's raining as I type this), the western neighborhoods suffer very heavy fog and drizzle from June through late August.

[Nowhereman1280]

I know this isn't really answering the question, but I for one think the perfect climate is the middle great lakes region in the latitudes between Chicago and Green Bay across lower Michigan and through Toronto and Buffalo. Obviously there are places within that area that get slammed with lake effect snow, but on average I love the climate:

I love having four real seasons. I love having my seasons moderated by the lake effect but still being four distinct seasons. I love a little sweltering heat in the summer and a little blistering cold in the winter. I love a little bit of snow in the winter, but not as much as what falls in Minnesota or Northern WI. I love humid summer days with massive thunderstorms, but not every day like you get further south. I love falls with perfect, crisp weather, dew and frost. I love springs with their radically unpredictable swings between all weather extremes. Most of all I just love the fact that by the time each season is over I have grown tired of the weather and am ready for a change. A 20 degree January day never sounds better than in the middle of a 90 degree August day and a 90 degree August day never sounds better than during a 20 degree January day. Nothing sounds better than perfect, consistent 57 degree fall days than during a wild spring with snow, thunderstorms, freezing weather and scorching heat. Nothing sounds better than the unpredictable spring during a fall full of identical, cool days. I love the constant change and anticipation.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I find consistent climates to be mind numbingly boring. Nothing ever happens. No blizzards, no thunderstorms, no real fall, no real spring. Yuck.

[Gordo]

No, that is inaccurate--there are not 9 months without drizzle in the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. In addition to the rainy season, which lasts from October to May (it's raining as I type this), the western neighborhoods suffer very heavy fog and drizzle from June through late August.

I suppose we'll have to disagree, but I'll admit that nine months is a bit of a stretch. Heavy fog, sure, but there's a difference between fog and drizzle. There is very little drizzle anywhere in SF, unless we're talking about totally different things. I've never lived in the Outer Richmond or Sunset, but I did live two years in the Inner Richmond. Lots and lots of fog, and you may be wet after walking around outside, but drizzle implies something actually falling, which was almost nonexistent.

According to the NOAA, SF has 3.3 days per year rain in May (average of 0.54 inches for the month) and 4.1 days per year of rain in October (average of 1.2 inches for the month). April has 6.6 days and for comparison July has 0.4 days. It has been rainier this year, but I think that you're really stretching to call those months part of the typical rainy season. About 18.5 inches of the average 22.3 inches of precipitation per year (80%+) falls from November to March.

[glowrock]

Thanks.

Fairfield was a huge issue(yes we're geeks). Some said it was 'HOT' and others pointed out that the strong delta breeze which one feels around Fairfield when you come in from the Central Valley qualified it for 'WARM'.

Fairfield blows, except for the Jelly Belly factory! :jester:

Aaron (Glowrock)

[10023]

I'm sick and tired of Summers in New York City with extreme humidity and heat, when it's almost impossible to simply walk down the street.

That's why people get share houses on the beach. :cool:

[Dr Nevergold]

Climate is subjective, but if you're looking for "perfect" or "near perfect" I'd say the California coast. San Diego stays between 65 and 75 nearly year round, all the way up to San Francisco where it may be a little more rainy in the winter, but still averages between 55-75 depending on the time of the year. California is hands down the best weather state in the union, and if you "need" the heat you can take a quick weekend trip inland during the summer and get to above 90-100 very fast, or go into the mountains and get a little snow.

[sopas ej]

:previous:
That is oh so very true.

[CassGilbert]

Thank you all for so many informative suggestions! I had no idea about the micro-climate that exists in San Francisco, I am completely intrigued. That map is very interesting.

I like to be outside, especially walk a lot, with a camera or sit down in a park with a book. These basic activities are difficult to exercise during a New York summer.

[dimondpark]

Fairfield blows, except for the Jelly Belly factory! :jester:

Aaron (Glowrock)

LOL

Well, I suppose the Jelly Belly factory gives Fairfield an air of sophisitication.:haha:

[Lipani]

SF easily has the best core in the west and matches your ideal weather. Personally, I like the laid back nature of San Diego. The core is decent, although it lacks the urbanity you'll find in SF.

If you want very mild winters and don't mind slightly warmer summers, then go for LA. Otherwise, I'd say SF is right for you.

[krudmonk]

it's well known that the surrounding area can be hot, especially places inland like San Jose.
wut

Places on the bay don't get that hot. It's the areas separated from water (by hills) that suffer. San Francisco is not all that close to any areas like that.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i would say move to Santa Monica. urbanity and an ideal climate, great restaurants, fantastic looking women, and oh ya, a beach. the weather is perfect with the temps being 72 - 77 for about 300 days a year.

the micro climates in LA are pretty much the same as SF. on any given day, it could be 72 at the beach, 80 downtown LA, 85 in the Valley, 45 in the mountains and 110 in the desert. its really amazing.

[Yankee]

You basically have hot humid summers in the entire eastern half of the country, so that leaves the west.

SF has crazy weather, you have the wet/foggy period that lasts from mid-late november thru april-may and then you have a weirdly cold period that lasts from early may thru like july sometimes, it's really weird, the summer can actually be pretty cold, even colder than spring, and then you have sort of a delayed summer that starts in late july or august and lasts thru october, sometimes early november. And obviously you almost never get consistent weather, it fluctuates like crazy. So for SF I would actually argue that weather is a drawback.

Southern CA is your best bet weather-wise. There are a lot of reasons to not want to live there, but weather is not one of them. You have a very mild warm fall/winter/spring period, and then you have a dry hot, but not ridiculously hot summer when it's on average around 75. In fact its pretty much 65-75 9 months of the year. It has the best weather in the country for sure. And the sky is so blue, that was the first thing I really noticed when I moved to CA, clouds do not exist even in Northern CA. Seattle is fine too, if you like cloudiness and seasons.

I will be moving to DC soon and while I can't wait, weather is the one thing I am least excited about. I will miss the lack of humidity, because summers in DC are like... you need an oxygen mask.

[xzmattzx]

It sounds like you want February to April weather stretched out over 12 months, which I don't think you're going to find in any city.

[10023]

It sounds like you want February to April weather stretched out over 12 months, which I don't think you're going to find in any city.

What you need to do is spend half the year in one place and the other half in another, but that's not a luxury most people have.

[Centropolis]

I don't see what is wrong with New Yorks climate, seems like an upgraded, marine mellowed version of a midwestern climate. :) Then again, 0 (F) and 100 (F), black wall clouds, tornado sirens, hail crashing through my windshield is all normal here...

[brickell]

I went to San Diego while they were in the middle of a supposed heat wave.
:koko::shrug::sly:

I personally found much of coastal California to be too cold for my tastes, but I suppose you get used to it pretty quickly.

[OhioGuy]

^^ I guess one of the good things about living in this country is that we have a wide range of climate zones to pick from. If you like tropical weather, move to south Florida, Hawaii, or even Puerto Rico. If you like dry heat, move to the desert Southwest. If you prefer more of a Mediterranean climate, move to southern California. If you like cold weather, move to Alaska, the intermountain West, or the northern states. Head to Northern California or the Pac Northwest if you prefer mostly moderate temperatures. If you prefer having four distinct seasons, a good chunk of the country is available to you. Not to mention the availability of living near oceans, mountains, even rainforests, etc... We have so many options available here in the US.

[pico44]

I know this isn't really answering the question, but I for one think the perfect climate is the middle great lakes region in the latitudes between Chicago and Green Bay across lower Michigan and through Toronto and Buffalo.




Yet another reason Chicago is the perfect city!

And I suppose all those people I saw on tv the other night--wearing gigantic winter coats and swaddleled in blankets during the Mets-Cubs game at Wrigley (May 24!!!!!!!!!!)--were enjoying their perfect Chicago weather.

[CassGilbert]

So southern California is cooler than northern? What about Seattle, how does it compare to San Francisco, in terms of climate?

[JManc]

Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a perfect city.

There is no such place.

[ColDayMan]

Exactly. If a place was perfect, we'd all be there (that could afford it).

[trvlr70]

Denver, Salt Lake, and coastal California are you best bets. Pacific Northwest, although moderate, it just too dreary for my tastes.

Also, apparently Asheville, NC has the most ideal climate east of the Rockies: all 4 seasons but mild versions of them all.

[jg6544]

I'm thinking of relocating sometime in the future, to a large city with decent climate. This could be few years down the road or maybe never at all, depends on a lot of factors. Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a perfect city.

I'm sick and tired of Summers in New York City with extreme humidity and heat, when it's almost impossible to simply walk down the street.

What I'm looking for is:
- Large city with a large urban core, at least some skyscrapers.
- Dry Summers with maximum temperature no more than 80 F.

I am considering Denver, since it's near a mountain range and dry, but temperatures still seem a bit too high there. I would appreciate any suggestions :)

Winters in Denver are too long and too cold. Your best bets are L.A. (the closer to the ocean, the better), San Diego, and San Francisco (if you don't mind cold, drizzly winters). As far as I'm concerned, the United States east of (roughly) Hancock Park is uninhabitable.

[SteveD]

This is getting a little off topic, and it doesn't fit his criteria for urbanity, but in my opinion the best climate in the country is the Piedmont region of the southeast.

Everyone's tastes differ, but I wouldn't do well in the cloudiness and rain of the northwest, and I don't really like little variation in the climate, typical of SoCal, Florida.

In the Piedmont of the southeastern US, especially in upper elevations, you get four distinct seasons, with interesting but not brutal winters, absolutely stunning springs and falls, and summers which, while hot and humid, are much less so than surrounding areas in the South, and even the Northeast, due to elevation.

Atlanta and north Georgia, up through eastern Tennessee, western S & N Carolina, really can't be beat, climate wise, at least in my book.

[Gordo]

^Atlanta's climate? Really? The summers aren't quite as bad as Houston, but good god, they're every bit as bad as DC or NYC if not worse, IMO. Every time I get off a plane in Atlanta during the summer it feels like I'm walking into a steam room at a gym.

To each their own, I suppose.

[Centropolis]

Denver, Salt Lake, and coastal California are you best bets. Pacific Northwest, although moderate, it just too dreary for my tastes.

Also, apparently Asheville, NC has the most ideal climate east of the Rockies: all 4 seasons but mild versions of them all.

I really like the climate of the southern appalachians as well (not ATL), Asheville and higher elevations, and I would say it's my favorite climate in the states. No large cities, obviously. In spots it reminds me a little of the PNW in it's moisture, moderation and even flora, and I think some areas are considered temperate rainforest. It's probably as close of a climate to the PAC NW as you will find east of the rockies, but with a lot more swim weather and milky sunshine...very, very pleasant.

[SteveD]

Well, as I said, hot and humid, but not as bad as many surrounding areas.

Atlanta is at an average elevation of about 1,000 ft. Highest of any decent sized urban area east of the Mississippi.

I'm very familiar with summers in DC and NYC and I would venture to say that Atlanta's are more comfortable than either DC's or NYC's.

[Centropolis]

Well, as I said, hot and humid, but not as bad as many surrounding areas.

Atlanta is at an average elevation of about 1,000 ft. Highest of any decent sized urban area east of the Mississippi.

I'm very familiar with summers in DC and NYC and I would venture to say that Atlanta's are more comfortable than either DC's or NYC's.

I know you said east of the Mississippi, but Springfield, MO is about 1300' on a plateau and Kansas City, MO is around 1000' in midtown above a river valley, and are both scorch boxes in summer...not as tolerable as NYC, in my opinion. 1000' doesnt seem high enough to make a difference at all.

[bunt_q]

Winters in Denver are too long and too cold. Your best bets are L.A. (the closer to the ocean, the better), San Diego, and San Francisco (if you don't mind cold, drizzly winters). As far as I'm concerned, the United States east of (roughly) Hancock Park is uninhabitable.

Denver suffers from a lot of weather-related misconceptions. Winters aren't bad. I mean, this winter was sort of bad for me, personally, after three winters in Honolulu/Baghdad. But generally, it's a very pleasant, sunny time of year in the city, with snow that comes (and comes big), and then melts within a few days. Snow doesn't stay on the ground, though, like it does other places. The important thing to remember is that the Front Range weather and the mountain weather are completely different.

Summers are what they are. It can get toasty, but if you've never experienced dry heat, it's hard to describe. It's not Chicago or DC sweaty heat, though. Not Baghdad burns-your-arm heat either. :) Summers also mean afternoon 30-minute thunderstorms (in a "normal" year, every afternoon), so after 3 or 4pm, there's no more heat.

I'd say San Diego and Denver are a toss-up, just depends on what you want weather-wise.

San Francisco, as a city, is in a different league, we can't compete. But I would still take the Denver (or San Diego) weather.

[CassGilbert]

While I don't particularly like long and cold winters, I'm used to them and they're perfectly tolerable for me. NYC has both extremes, it gets very windy in the winter which can seriously hurt your unprotected face. But it's nothing like the nasty summer. So, for now, I'm just trying to establish which cities have dry summers with mild temperatures. Then I'll factor in everything else, including winter conditions.

San Francisco seems like a great option, but the complete lack of a real winter, even a short one, is not particularly desirable for me. Otherwise, I've been researching it and the city seems perfect, it's as urban as New York and architecture is great. The cloudy weather aspect is also not particularly attractive, but not a deal breaker. I would say that presence of diverse, imposing and historic architecture is higher on my priority list than having sunny days all year round.

Areas with decent climate but no big cities are not suitable for me. I don't think that I can survive outside of a big city. I like nature hikes, but at the end of the day I need to return to a city.

Despite Los Angeles' significantly larger population, the city center/core/downtown doesn't seem that much bigger than Seattle's and San Francisco, judging by my own observations/calculations via Google Earth. While Seattle apparently has a real, mild winter, which is a plus for me. And from what I understand, people don't generally live or hang out downtown in Los Angeles, is this accurate? There seem to be separate local commercial concentration areas, which are also urban, but are pretty far from the core. I also read a lot of criticism of Seattle's frequent precipitation, but according to Wikipedia it rains less frequently than in New York, so that's not an issue for me, because I don't think it rains that much here.

[brickell]

Here's a more analytical answer...
The Weather service uses heating and cooling degree days to measure the amount of theoretical energy a place might use. The baselines is 65 degrees. Anything warmer counts as a cooling degree day and anything colder is counted as as warming degree day. This is based on my own calculations from data here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/cdus/degree_days/


The top 10 for having the least total cooling and heating degree days (spending the closest amount of time to 65)
st/city/cooling/heating/total

CA LOS ANGELES 679 379 1058
CA SAN DIEGO 866 353 1219
CA SAN FRANCISCO 142 1100 1242
OR NORTH BEND 12 1892 1904
CA EUREKA 7 1927 1934
OR ASTORIA 22 2094 2116
CA PASO ROBLES 1038 1097 2135
WA SEATTLE TACOMA173 1967 2140
OR PORTLAND 390 1755 2145
WA HOQUIAM 30 2120 2150


The 10 stations with the most heating and cooling days (in this case it's all cooling).

AK BARROW 8482
AK NORTHWAY 7001
AK BETTLES 6952
AK BIG DELTA 6505
AK KOTZEBUE 6464
AK FAIRBANKS 6461
AK GULKANA 6327
AK MCGRATH 6268
AK UNALAKLEET 5907
NH MT WASHINGTON 5900


There's different ways of looking at it.
If you don't like the cold, here's the places with the least number of heating degree days

HI HILO-HAWAII 0
HI LIHUE-KAUAI 0
HI KAHULUI-MAUI 0
HI HONOLULU-OAHU 0
FL KEY WEST 14
FL FTLAUDERDALE 29
FL MIAMI 42
FL WEST PALM 68
FL FORT MYERS 93
FL VERO BEACH 119

But if you do like the heat, here's the stations with the most cooling degree days (the most above 65)

FL KEY WEST 4830
HI HONOLULU-OAHU 4561
AZ YUMA 4540
FL MIAMI 4361
TX LAREDO 4213
AZ PHOENIX 4189
TX MCALLEN 4181
CA BLYTHE 4166
FL FT LAUDERDALE 4120
FL WEST PALM 3999


If you don't like the heat move to Alaska. A bunch of stations there are at 0 for cooling degree days.



and likewise, if you really like cold, here's the top 10 heating degree days (also Alaska heavy)

AK BARROW 8482
AK NORTHWAY 6996
AK BETTLES 6914
AK BIG DELTA 6505
AK KOTZEBUE 6452
AK FAIRBANKS 6387
AK GULKANA 6327
AK MCGRATH 6247
AK UNALAKLEET 5904
NH MT WASHINGTON 5900

[CassGilbert]

I'm indifferent to cold, it's just minor discomfort for me, but there are no big cities in Alaska anyway. I've googled Anchorage and it seems like one of the most boring places ever. Interesting analysis though.

[Buckeye Native 001]

You're only, at most, a couple hours' drive from winter weather in SF and LA if you really need to experience it for any length of time.

[Strange Meat]

Winters in Denver are too long and too cold. Your best bets are L.A. (the closer to the ocean, the better), San Diego, and San Francisco (if you don't mind cold, drizzly winters). As far as I'm concerned, the United States east of (roughly) Hancock Park is uninhabitable.

The winters aren't as bad as a lot of people think. Sure, there are days where it'll be below zero, once or twice a year, but the average temp in the coldest month is still 46F. Days in the 50s are really very normal. And bear in mind that it's pretty much always sunny, so the snow doesn't stay on the ground long at all (2 feet completely gone in 2 days or so), and there are also usually several days in the 60s and 70s. I never pack my shorts away. Also, due to the dryness and altitude, a day in the mid 50s or 60s feels a lot nicer than it would elsewhere. People never go pasty white here, that's for sure.

[CassGilbert]

46F is perfectly acceptable for me. Is it windy though in Denver? With the mountains and high altitude...

[Centropolis]

You should do a poll, but I think SF is your ticket. The Donner Pass is 150 miles away, if you really need a cold weather fix.

[Strange Meat]

46F is perfectly acceptable for me. Is it windy though in Denver? With the mountains and high altitude...

And keep in mind too, that the 46 in Denver is a lot more comfortable than the same 46 in NYC or on the east coast. Winters are, save for, as I said, a couple cold snaps, VERY mild here.

As for the wind? Yeah, it can be windy, but depends on where you are. The mountains actually shield us from the wind, a bit. The eastern plains are more windy, as is Wyoming up north. Remember too, that Denver isn't in the mountains.

[jg6544]

Denver suffers from a lot of weather-related misconceptions. Winters aren't bad. I mean, this winter was sort of bad for me, personally, after three winters in Honolulu/Baghdad. But generally, it's a very pleasant, sunny time of year in the city, with snow that comes (and comes big), and then melts within a few days. Snow doesn't stay on the ground, though, like it does other places. The important thing to remember is that the Front Range weather and the mountain weather are completely different.

No misconceptions on my part; my family lived in Denver for years and my nephew still lives there; my Mother and my Brother live in Colorado Springs. Winter in Denver isn't 3-5 months of steady, unadulterated misery, but it can get damned cold there and it can snow as early as Labor Day and as late as Memorial Day. I prefer southern California, where snow stays in the mountains where it belongs.

[jg6544]

While I don't particularly like long and cold winters, I'm used to them and they're perfectly tolerable for me. NYC has both extremes, it gets very windy in the winter which can seriously hurt your unprotected face. But it's nothing like the nasty summer. So, for now, I'm just trying to establish which cities have dry summers with mild temperatures. Then I'll factor in everything else, including winter conditions.

San Francisco seems like a great option, but the complete lack of a real winter, even a short one, is not particularly desirable for me. Otherwise, I've been researching it and the city seems perfect, it's as urban as New York and architecture is great. The cloudy weather aspect is also not particularly attractive, but not a deal breaker. I would say that presence of diverse, imposing and historic architecture is higher on my priority list than having sunny days all year round.

Areas with decent climate but no big cities are not suitable for me. I don't think that I can survive outside of a big city. I like nature hikes, but at the end of the day I need to return to a city.

Despite Los Angeles' significantly larger population, the city center/core/downtown doesn't seem that much bigger than Seattle's and San Francisco, judging by my own observations/calculations via Google Earth. While Seattle apparently has a real, mild winter, which is a plus for me. And from what I understand, people don't generally live or hang out downtown in Los Angeles, is this accurate? There seem to be separate local commercial concentration areas, which are also urban, but are pretty far from the core. I also read a lot of criticism of Seattle's frequent precipitation, but according to Wikipedia it rains less frequently than in New York, so that's not an issue for me, because I don't think it rains that much here.

San Francisco is glorious and if you're looking for Manhattan without all the crud, it's your ticket. You won't be shocked by the astonishingly high real estate prices (sale and rental) either, coming from Manhattan.

With L.A., you have to understand, it hasn't been the traditional "downtown-model" city for more than fifty years. Downtown is coming back, but it isn't there yet. In L.A., you have to content yourself with multiple urban centers. I live in Brentwood and do practically all of my errands on foot; I have had my car for almost four years and still don't have 14,000 miles on it. BUT, if you want to get from urban center-to-urban center, you have to drive. Public transportation might as well not exist (although that's improving too). If you were to live in L.A., you'd find all the "cosmopolitan urban" you'd want, but it just isn't all in one place.

The weather is incredible, though.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Lets not kid ourselves: I love LA and would move back in a heartbeat, but its urbanity and mass transit are improving at a snail's pace.

Is it getting better? Yes.

Will it have mass transit service comparable to NYC, DC, SF, Chicago or Boston by the time I die (I'm 27)? Probably not.

[Expat]

People will call me crazy, but I love the weather in Boston. The summers are pleasant compared to DC, where I lived for years. Most evenings I have the windows open for the breeze. The lawns stay effortlessly green. People here will complain about the heat during the summer, but they have no I idea. I love snow, so the winter isn't a problem for me. And when you have a good transit system, winter weather isn't the issue it is for people that must drive on slick roads, shovel driveways, etc. The autumns here are delightful.

Frankly, I think Boston is your answer. Excellent urbanity, transit, walkability, sea breezes, etc. Also, if you want something a little cheaper and less crowded, there are a ton of beautiful, walkable towns on convenient transit lines to the city. And very often they are near the sea for especially pleasant summers. I don't know if you have been following my photo threads, but I don't think I will ever run out of neighborhoods & towns to explore.

Most people associate the term 'nice weather' with warm weather. I do not. Heat takes the life out of me. I come alive when the the AC is off & the walking is brisk & chilly.

[CassGilbert]

I've been to Boston in the winter and it was extremely cold and windy, but even so I assume that it is just as humid as New York in the summer. I've been as far north as Montreal on the summer and it was still as bad as New York.

[Expat]

I've been to Boston in the winter and it was extremely cold and windy, but even so I assume that it is just as humid as New York in the summer. I've been as far north as Montreal on the summer and it was still as bad as New York.

I like Boston weather, but I suppose it is too close to be an improvement over New York weatherwise. Boston summers are certainly more pleasant than anyplace I have lived.

[Centropolis]

I like Boston weather, but I suppose it is too close to be an improvement over New York weatherwise. Boston summers are certainly more pleasant than anyplace I have lived.

I always assumed Boston weather was similar to Chicago, but maybe not as brutal in the extremes with the marine moderation.

[CassGilbert]

I bet Boston has nicer summer weather but not the kind of life changing metamorphoses that I am seeking. Otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue, naturally I'd choose Boston, it's one of my favorite cities. The historic architecture up there is just marvelous.

[Centropolis]

I have to believe Los Angeles is changing a lot, I don't know how much you have visited L.A. but if you want some asymmetry, maybe that's it moving forward. Chicago is pretty great, but brutal in winter. Honestly, though, I'd recommend New York over everything else. It's the great weight, and loose and free at the same time, the perfect balance like a fine tuned gyroscope; step out your door...

[Illithid Dude]

I'm not biased or anything (I am), but L.A. might have the best climate in the U.S. Winters rarely dip below 60 and mostly hover around 70. Summers really don't go below 70 (except for last yea-burrrr) and almost never hit above 85 unless you live in the Valley. It's really a nice temperament.

[JDRCRASH]

You're only, at most, a couple hours' drive from winter weather in SF and LA if you really need to experience it for any length of time.

That's a good point. Several ski resorts like Wrightwood and Big Bear are a not-too-shabby 100 mile drive from LA.

Lets not kid ourselves: I love LA and would move back in a heartbeat, but its urbanity and mass transit are improving at a snail's pace.

Is it getting better? Yes.

Will it have mass transit service comparable to NYC, DC, SF, Chicago or Boston by the time I die (I'm 27)? Probably not.

Come on, that's way too pessimistic. We're already almost done building LA's first rail to the westside in decades, and are about to build the downtown streetcar, which will boost livability in the area.

You've got AT LEAST another 50 years to live. That's more than enough time to bring LA next to ALL those cities in terms of mass transit service.

And that's assuming everything continues at it's present rate. If 30/10 and the infrastructure bank proposal pulls through Congress, things will go even faster. Projects not in Measure R like the Vermont Corridor, Silver Line, along with numerous extensions like Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, will all move faster through study process as well.

[jaxg8r1]

I was in a similar situation about 5.5 years ago and decided on Portland. I can't stand being too hot, but summers here are perfect. And the winters are mild, but I can be on the mountain (Mt Hood) in a little over an hour, or at the coast in the same amount of time.

The winters are when all the rain happens, and although I love summer, I am still surprised at how much I love Autumn. I suppose never really having one (grew up in Florida) makes me really appreciate it.

[Dr Nevergold]

Here's a more analytical answer...
The Weather service uses heating and cooling degree days to measure the amount of theoretical energy a place might use. The baselines is 65 degrees. Anything warmer counts as a cooling degree day and anything colder is counted as as warming degree day. This is based on my own calculations from data here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/cdus/degree_days/


The top 10 for having the least total cooling and heating degree days (spending the closest amount of time to 65)
st/city/cooling/heating/total

CA LOS ANGELES 679 379 1058
CA SAN DIEGO 866 353 1219
CA SAN FRANCISCO 142 1100 1242
OR NORTH BEND 12 1892 1904
CA EUREKA 7 1927 1934
OR ASTORIA 22 2094 2116
CA PASO ROBLES 1038 1097 2135
WA SEATTLE TACOMA173 1967 2140
OR PORTLAND 390 1755 2145
WA HOQUIAM 30 2120 2150


That explains why when I moved to Portland in 2007, there wasn't a single apartment complex that had air conditioning installed, even "luxury" units didn't tend to have them.

[Centropolis]

That explains why when I moved to Portland in 2007, there wasn't a single apartment complex that had air conditioning installed, even "luxury" units didn't tend to have them.

I know it's "Portland," but did people really come outside/sleep outside in the evenings if there was a heat wave? I find it interesting that there arent A/Cs in the PNW to the extent there are east of the Cascades...personally I hate air conditioning, I'm really into adapting to seasons.

[BosWash316]

:previous:I bet you would'nt be into adpoting seasons if you were stuck in Phoenix with no air when its 125! :haha:

I find it strange that they don't even have the air conditioners in Portland, that seems like a fault of planning in my opinion. I'm pretty sure the pacific northwest was in a huge heat wave last year. I know I would not be happy stuck with no type of climate conditioning when it's super hot like that.

[Centropolis]

:previous:I bet you would'nt be into adpoting seasons if you were stuck in Phoenix with no air when its 125! :haha:

I find it strange that they don't even have the air conditioners in Portland, that seems like a fault of planning in my opinion. I'm pretty sure the pacific northwest was in a huge heat wave last year. I know I would not be happy stuck with no type of climate conditioning when it's super hot like that.

I have no problem sleeping outside in the desert in AZ, just not near PHX city limits. The upper south, lower midwest is pretty brutal in summer, even when compared to PHX, i suppose when i quit drinking i will turn on the air...i hate HATE the roar of A/Cs, though...

There's no way i would install air in a house in Portland. I don't get what you mean by a failure of "planning." :(






:haha:

[BosWash316]

:previous:Good Luck with the coyotes and rattlesnakes and mountain lions and scorpions and cactus needles! :D

By fault of planning I mean houses should be ready to accomodate anything that comes there way, within reason of course. Like if you lived somewhere that rarely gets cold, but CAN get cold (like parts of Florida) but don't have insulation or any type of heat. What would happen if there was a historic cold snap? Your pipes could freeze and you would be in for some major remodeling of drywall.

[jg6544]

That's a good point. Several ski resorts like Wrightwood and Big Bear are a not-too-shabby 100 mile drive from LA.



Come on, that's way too pessimistic. We're already almost done building LA's first rail to the westside in decades, and are about to build the downtown streetcar, which will boost livability in the area.

You've got AT LEAST another 50 years to live. That's more than enough time to bring LA next to ALL those cities in terms of mass transit service.

And that's assuming everything continues at it's present rate. If 30/10 and the infrastructure bank proposal pulls through Congress, things will go even faster. Projects not in Measure R like the Vermont Corridor, Silver Line, along with numerous extensions like Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, will all move faster through study process as well.

The subway will be completed to the VA Center just west of the 405 within ten years; the light-rail line to Santa Monica will be completed before that. Unfortunately, L.A. is still spread-out and you will still need a car here. On the other hand, you won't need water-proof, fleece-lined boots to wade through lakes of slush and you aren't likely to die of heat prostration walking from the mall to your car. There are trade-offs.

As for the east coast in the summer - all of it - it's a great place to live if you're an asparagus.

[Gordo]

:previous:I bet you would'nt be into adpoting seasons if you were stuck in Phoenix with no air when its 125! :haha:

I find it strange that they don't even have the air conditioners in Portland, that seems like a fault of planning in my opinion. I'm pretty sure the pacific northwest was in a huge heat wave last year. I know I would not be happy stuck with no type of climate conditioning when it's super hot like that.

I don't have an air conditioner in my place in Bellevue, and it's new construction from 2008. I certainly never even came close to needing or wanting A/C last year, even during the heat wave. Some good insulation goes a long way when it cools off considerably at night, and even during the day, you've always got a consistent cool breeze off of the water, so an open window feels like A/C. Unless you've got floor to ceiling windows on all sides and/or terrible insulation, A/C is really unnecessary in the Pacific Northwest. Portland probably needs it more than the Seattle area, just because it's a bit farther from large bodies of water, but I would still bet that most modern construction doesn't need it.

At my place in SF, no A/C, and I've used the heater on a total of maybe ten days in four years.

[Centropolis]

As for the east coast in the summer - all of it - it's a great place to live if you're an asparagus.

"Only young asparagus shoots are commonly eaten: once the buds start to open, the shoots quickly turn woody and become strongly flavoured."

Sounds exciting at first!

[Centropolis]

:previous:Good Luck with the coyotes and rattlesnakes and mountain lions and scorpions and cactus needles! :D

By fault of planning I mean houses should be ready to accomodate anything that comes there way, within reason of course. Like if you lived somewhere that rarely gets cold, but CAN get cold (like parts of Florida) but don't have insulation or any type of heat. What would happen if there was a historic cold snap? Your pipes could freeze and you would be in for some major remodeling of drywall.

I don't know, it sounds like you are an engineer and I spend my days trying to tell engineers how the world really is, and how it doesnt matter. :cool:

[fflint]

At my place in SF, no A/C, and I've used the heater on a total of maybe ten days in four years.
In what months do you live here? I've used my heater 10 times this month. Tomorrow's expected high temperature: 58 degrees.

[Gordo]

In what months do you live here? I've used my heater 10 times this month. Tomorrow's expected high temperature: 58 degrees.

You need a heater when it's 58 degrees for a high (when the low is 49)? I'd suggest having your landlord install some better insulation, or perhaps you're in a corner unit or something with more external walls to lose heat.

After multiple days of sub-50 degree highs it might drop into the low 60's inside my apartment, otherwise, I'm pretty much always opening the window in the afternoon to cool it down a tad. I've got units above, below, and to either side of me, with just a front and rear wall (and a window well) that actually face the elements. I had two windows open most of today, and probably will tomorrow as well.

My place in Bellevue can go without heat into even lower temperatures. It's just how it works in a large building where your individual unit has very few outside walls and good insulation, especially if you've got a few floors below you.

[fflint]

Corner unit, top floor, no insulation (common complaint in SF) in the Mission. This is the third unusually cold year in a row. Haven't been in my pool since 2008.

I've lived on the East Coast. I know what cold is. I also know what 'summer' is, and we don't have either.

[edluva]

Come on, that's way too pessimistic. We're already almost done building LA's first rail to the westside in decades, and are about to build the downtown streetcar, which will boost livability in the area.

You've got AT LEAST another 50 years to live. That's more than enough time to bring LA next to ALL those cities in terms of mass transit service.


who seriously wants to consider how good LA's mass transit will be by the time they're 75 years old? let's see, at least a decade (prob more like 12-13 yrs) until subway hits the VA, maybe 16-20yrs to the beach. that's realistically like 20 years for one fucking line to the beach - add 20 years to your age right now - that's how old you'll be when you'll be able to ride to the beach. and that's not to mention how long it will take after opening day for ridership to grow, and how long it will take for la's urban fabric to respond. market forces work extremely slowly, especially when speaking of real estate here.

and honestly, how useful do you think expo is going to be? it's utility is limited to those living along the route seeking to travel to the beach/culver or towards downtown. it misses the key entertainment and employment centers of wilshire northwards. is that line even a selling point to most people?

to put it bluntly, don't waste your youth on los angeles if you care a lot about real urbanism. you only live once. move to a real urban city.

jdrcrash- you think la mass transit will catch up to ny in 50 yrs? what are you smoking? i want some of that.

[Illithid Dude]

And from what I understand, people don't generally live or hang out downtown in Los Angeles, is this accurate?

Totally and completely incorrect. Downtown LA actually has a population of 40,000 people, which I believe is second in the U.S. after New York, and not just poor people who can't afford any better, but hipsters, and in some cases (Ritz Carlton Residences) very, very wealthy people. It is an extremely quickly gentrifying area, with almost every old historic building being converted to lofts or offices. Some of the best restaurants and bars in the city are based in Downtown Los Angeles, which I could easily rattle off but won't. Target is about to open a store downtown, as is H&M and Urban Outfitters. Before 2021, there should be three new subway stops downtown. I'd recommend you come down to L.A. and check out downtown. It isn't as bad as you New Yorkers are led to believe, and in many cases, is actually really, really nice.

[Illithid Dude]

who seriously wants to consider how good LA's mass transit will be by the time they're 75 years old? let's see, at least a decade (prob more like 12-13 yrs) until subway hits the VA, maybe 16-20yrs to the beach. that's realistically like 20 years for one fucking line to the beach - add 20 years to your age right now - that's how old you'll be when you'll be able to ride to the beach. and that's not to mention how long it will take after opening day for ridership to grow, and how long it will take for la's urban fabric to respond. market forces work extremely slowly, especially when speaking of real estate here.

and honestly, how useful do you think expo is going to be? it's utility is limited to those living along the route seeking to travel to the beach/culver or towards downtown. it misses the key entertainment and employment centers of wilshire northwards. is that line even a selling point to most people?

to put it bluntly, don't waste your youth on los angeles if you care a lot about real urbanism. you only live once. move to a real urban city.

jdrcrash- you think la mass transit will catch up to ny in 50 yrs? what are you smoking? i want some of that.

Oh, and sorry for the double post, but I gotta respond to this one.

Yeah, sure, L.A. won't catch up to New York in terms of mass transit in 50 years, but is it even trying to? New York has an amazingly extensive subway system. It has the most stops of any subway system in the world. You are asking for L.A. to be equal to, in some cases, the best subway system in the world. That isn't really fair. Frankly, as long as I can get to where I need to go via Metro Rail, I'll be happy, and I am positive that will be done in the next 50 years.

[fflint]

Downtown LA actually has a population of 40,000 people, which I believe is second in the U.S. after New York
That is not obviously true, why do you say that?

[Illithid Dude]

That is not obviously true, why do you say that?

Because it is true. Or at least the 2010 census says so, which I happen to believe, it being distributed by the government.

Here yah go, for some proof.

http://blogdowntown.com/2011/03/6174-census-numbers-show-downtown-population-over

[Centropolis]

I'd recommend you come down to L.A. and check out downtown. It isn't as bad as you New Yorkers are led to believe, and in many cases, is actually really, really nice.

Heck, I want to check downtown L.A. out, I really want for it to succeed.

[Nowhereman1280]

Yet another reason Chicago is the perfect city!

And I suppose all those people I saw on tv the other night--wearing gigantic winter coats and swaddleled in blankets during the Mets-Cubs game at Wrigley (May 24!!!!!!!!!!)--were enjoying their perfect Chicago weather.

Perfect weather is subjective. I for one love how volatile spring is here and have absolutely no problem with cold weather, after all, you can always put more clothes on, but you can only take so many clothes off to cool down.

Chicago is actually right on the border of where I am willing to live climate wise. I wouldn't ever go any further South because it's just too hot (KC, for example, is crushingly hot in the summer). Milwaukee to me is the perfect climate. It lies right on the border of climate zones 4 and 5 which to me is the sweet spot...

You're only, at most, a couple hours' drive from winter weather in SF and LA if you really need to experience it for any length of time.

Not during the summer you aren't. Contrary to popular belief, the mountains do not stay cold all year round. Then again I may be missing your point.

[Gordo]

Corner unit, top floor, no insulation (common complaint in SF) in the Mission. This is the third unusually cold year in a row. Haven't been in my pool since 2008.

I've lived on the East Coast. I know what cold is. I also know what 'summer' is, and we don't have either.

I can agree with that, and that's most of the reason that I like the climate.