In the west Climate is primarily a function of Elevation and proximity to the Ocean.

You can be in thick pine forest from desert within in an hour drive from Vegas, ABQ, Phoenix, Tucson, LA, Reno San Diego, Salt lake etc.

Parts of these cities MSA/CSA's couldn't be more different climatically. Within the Los Angeles area you can have temps inland nearing 100 degrees with 60 and cloudy on the coast and lows in the mountains in the 40's and 50's

I wouldnt rely on climate necessarily as a good gauge

More the post-ww2 suburban sprawl is what characterizes these places more than anything

That's fine, picking landscapes many miles away from San Francisco. I can do the same with LA and the mountain towns/ski resorts:

Idyllwild
https://ap.rdcpix.com/807080024/0988...0_h770_q80.jpg

Lake Arrowhead
https://www.pinerose.com/wp-content/...ad-Village.jpg

Big Bear Lake
https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/JbvNF...004ff36dbf.jpg

And then Morgan Hill:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1447...2!8i6656?hl=en

Santa Clara:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3803...2!8i6656?hl=en

Cupertino:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3256...4!8i8192?hl=en

It all looks like California to me.

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.

https://i.postimg.cc/FKkpVwV7/bb-simba7.jpg

Big Bear Lake is our little secret. Let them keep thinking it's a barren desert out here. The bay might be a little greener and it has the low elevation, coastal redwood forests going for it. But LA is surrounded by high country all around. You can drive right on up to higher ground and get lifted :yes:

"Secret" That place is packed as hell!

I think it's because of the fog but doesn't that burn off pretty quickly?

I'm a local so I can go anytime and on weekdays, it feels like I have the whole place to myself ;)

Depends, in the summer no. In the spring, yes, but it's also constant, so there's always this mystical fog falling in over the hills into the city. The eastern side of SF peninsula gets sun, but also fog at the same time. Quite a magical combo.

That's also why SF has the coldest summer high temperatures of any major city in the US. Average highs in summer months don't crack 70 degrees in any month.

Its true, I know its a famous saying but I have been in San Francisco freezing my ass off watching 4th of july fireworks.

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.

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'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.

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???"

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.

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

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.

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... :D

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?

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.

"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...

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 :haha:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, that would mean "the heights."

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

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.

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.

Los Altos translates to "the Heights".

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).

It's 100% unarguably established that regions don't have to always be made of entire states.

Example 1) NY State has parts that are "Great Lakes/Rust Belt" and parts that aren't.

(Lake Erie/Ontario waterfront, vs the eastern tip of Long Island)

Example 2) Texas has parts that are "Southern" and parts that are "The Southwest".

(The bayou area of East Texas near the Louisiana border, vs El Paso)

Similarly, the Inland Empire of Southern California is not forced to be in the same region as the Oregon border of the state.

Terrible Spanish translation skills aside, my larger point is the Bay Area is greener than the Southland, and by that I mean it has higher annual rainfall totals and is moistened by summer fog, which combined support the region's many native wetlands, grasslands, redwood forests and mixed woodlands.

How else are we supposed to define "green?" Manicured suburban lawns?

Sunbelt seems like a vague mix of weather, employment patterns, growth levels and development.

I haven't seen much mention of them here but I still think of Salt Lake City and Denver (one of the sunniest cities in the US) as sunbelt cities.

Hell, even Boise seems to have more in common with Phoenix or Albuquerque than Nashville or Atlanta does.

Why do we do this to ourselves? lol

New Orleans, no. Birmingham, not really. Columbia, yeah I'd say it's Sunbelt.

The definition of the sunbelt I've always heard was basically southern California, across the southwest and the south. If that's changed I wasn't aware of it.

Ok guys. When I came back I didn't expect a 5 pages long debate about what the definition of what the sunbelt is. So I've reworded my initial post. Hope that simplifies things a bit and keeps things on topic. Thanks.

LA is Sun Belt. The Bay is mostly Sun Belt.

You should know your name is sunbelt....duh.

Although I don’t think it’s a real region.

The map is ok, but I would include OKC and RDU in the Sun Belt.

I had the opposite experience - on my first visit to San Jose I was shocked by the Sunbelty architecture, layout, feel, etc. of the place, for my NorCal expectations.

A place named "Sunnyvale" can't be anywhere but Sunbelt.

I never thought of "sunbelt" as a specific geographic region but rather a cluster of cities that shared common characteristics such as rather sunny and warm weather, explosive post-war growth, and a destination for retirees. As others have pointed out, they're lots of cities in the sunbelt "region" such as Jackson, MS or Montgomery no one would consider sun belt so I'm not sure arguing over geographic characteristics makes sense. And if we were, than we'd definitely want to include places like St. George, Denver, Yuma- i.e., the sunniest places in the US.

these boys would disagree.

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88...d1vGrkXfSJ0l1w
source: https://www.deviantart.com/imaginash...-PS4-420646788
source:

Perhaps sun belt just refers to large cities that came to prominence in the post war period built more to accommodate cars.

It was affordable suburban area back in the day. My uncle moved to Sunnyvale in the 50's and probably paid the same for his modest 3 bedroom ranch as he would have in Upstate NY. That house went on the market for $2.1 million a few years ago.

yeah, i mean if we are going down that slippery slope, kansas city is sunnier than atlanta, nashville, etc... hell st. louis is sunnier than nashville...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_duration

Ok. I stand corrected. I really didn't know that the Bay area was included.

Corners of the Sunbelt;
Raleigh
Miami (not for much longer)
Phoenix
Las Vegas/Salt Lake City

It would include Denver and Nashville.
California stopped being Sunbelt in 2010.

California stopped being Sunbelt in 2010...huh?! :???:

I forgot about that monumental moment in California history. The Sun Belt just ends at the Colorado River.

Also a big "huh?!" :???: to excluding New Orleans and Miami and whatever else somebody thinks should be excluded.

It's all included in the Greater Sun Belt Region, even slow growth 'Bama and Mississippi.

-----

Question] Is Reno Sun Belt? It's sunny, sunnier than Atlanta, but it's frigid up there. If it is Sun Belt, then SLC and Denver most certainly are as well.

My wife grew up in Sunnyvale in the 90s. By 93 Sunnyvale was already approaching unaffordable for most. Last time we visited South Bay in 2016, we drove by her old house and Zillowed it for fun; the 4 bedroom 2.5 bath late 70s split level had been sold that year for $3.3 million.