California’s population is on the rise. So much for the claims of the state’s demise

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by craigs

"Least dense" is the sticking point for me. I disagree that rich people choose the "least dense" parts of metropolitan areas. Obviously, rich people live in Manhattan and Nob Hill and the Gold Coast, but looking at all of the nation's metropolitan areas it seems to me that most rich people prefer amenity-rich areas that still allow for large single-family homes, not sparsely-populated exurbia. Take Beverly Hills. It is rich, with lots of stand-alone mansions and a ton of urban amenities nearby. It is by no means the "least dense" part of the metropolis.

Same for DC. Their rich areas/suburbs are similar to LA for the most part.
Great Falls/Potomac/much of NW DC is similar to Brentwood/Pacific Palisades. Not to far from city amenties but not dense either.

Manhattan/Brooklyn/SF/Gold Coast/Society Hill/Back Bay are the exceptions, really.

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

"Least dense" is the sticking point for me. I disagree that rich people choose the "least dense" parts of metropolitan areas. Obviously, rich people live in Manhattan and Nob Hill and the Gold Coast, but looking at all of the nation's metropolitan areas it seems to me that most rich people prefer amenity-rich areas that still allow for large single-family homes, not sparsely-populated exurbia. Take Beverly Hills. It is rich, with lots of stand-alone mansions and a ton of urban amenities nearby. It is by no means the "least dense" part of the metropolis.

Sounds like if I had used 'less dense' we'd basically be in agreement. But, to be fair, there are plenty of rich sparsely populated suburban/exurban places. "Horse Country" type suburbs, which basically all major cities in the eastern third of the country have, are just that. You're still an easy drive to the amenities of the city, but you live on 5+ acres and have a house you can't even see from the street. I can think of tons of examples of these types of communities.

I reject the notion that in America, wealthy people prefer living in dense environments. I just don't see that evidenced outside of NYC. There are pockets of urban/dense in-town wealth in most big cities, but those are usually notable because they're the exception to the general rule. Most wealthy people choose to live in detached housing with some land. Isn't that kind of the whole American dream? Get enough money to have your own castle- however modest or extravagant that may be? To use Chicago as an example, sure the Gold Coast has a lot of rich people. There are penthouses in downtown that go for many millions. But the undeniable hub of wealth in the Chicagoland area is the north shore suburbs. Places like Winnetka and Lake Forest where people have big homes and drive fancy cars.

Where do the richest Detroiters live? Bloomfield Hills in estates, not rowhouses in Brush Park. You touched on Beverly Hills, and I already mentioned Hancock Park in LA. Malibu, Brentwood, the Hollywood Hills...all pretty low density. SF has impressive in-city wealth, and while Pac Heights is far below the average density of SF, it's still an urban neighborhood. But compare the number of wealthy people who live in urban SF with all the wealthy people further south on the Peninsula or across the Golden Gate in Marin. No contest where more live and where more wealth is clustered. Philly's wealth is in the Main Line communities-- far exceeding the in-town wealth. Again, I think only NYC might buck this pattern. And NYC defies basically all American trends and patterns. In many ways it's more akin to a European city than other American cities.

[jd3189]

^^^ Even NYC metro has the lower density Hamptons, if I’m not mistaken, so it’s not quite an outlier as thought.

[FromSD]

There are enough wealthy people in the U.S. to populate both dense urban precincts as well as less dense suburban ones, but most of the wealthy are going to be found in the latter. Even in the New York Metro. I'd be surprised if the population of wealthy suburbs in NJ, Westchester, Fairfield and Long Island doesn't vastly exceed the population of the wealthy neighborhoods in Manhattan and bits of Brooklyn and Queens. LA is the other end of the spectrum. Almost all the wealth is in suburban areas, even if many of those suburban areas are inside the LA city lines. The wealthy in LA just haven't developed a taste for dense urban living. Even if they do enjoy urban amenities, they will want to head home to a single family house in a neighborhood of single family houses after a night out in the city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ Even NYC metro has the lower density Hamptons, if I’m not mistaken, so it’s not quite an outlier as thought.

The Hamptons are mostly summer vacation houses, and those houses are typically owned by people who maintain residence in NYC. It's not a place where most rich people live full time.

[Crawford]

The Hamptons now have much more year-round wealth, but yeah, most of the Hamptons wealth is still weekend and summer home crowd. It would still be uncommon to have those fancier neighborhoods occupied in the colder months.

NYC region is weird in that the region's wealth REALLY gets out of town on summer weekends. UES on a summer weekend like today is amazingly quiet. If you're rich, you're generally expected to have two places.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't agree with this at all. The densest parts of LA are the poorest parts. Westlake/MacArthur Park and parts of Koreatown are by far the densest neighborhoods in LA, and they're dominated by poor (or at least working class) immigrants. The wealthiest neighborhoods are the least dense. Hancock Park sits right next to Koreatown, and it's abundantly clear which neighborhood is wealthier and denser. The situation is made even clearer when you look at the hillside and coastal neighborhoods where the very wealthy live in LA.

Maybe 25 years ago but Koreatown is not inexpensive by any means. All the thousands of units going up are all "luxury." Average rent says $2200 but I was just looking through rental websites and it is slim pickings to find something for that price or lower except for studios. I see studios for as little as $1600.00 to as high as $2400. They have some units going for as much as 4K a month. I would hardly describe Koreatown as a poor working-class neighborhood, nor would I describe Hollywood that way, which is quite dense. Downtown Los Angeles at 88 thousand people has a density of 26K to 39K per square miles depending on how broad you define the downtown area to be. The average income of downtown is $85K so I would not think qualifies as one of LA's poorest of neighborhoods.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Its 97 in Sherman Oaks today. Hottest day for us so far.

I dont know how people in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Tennesee and Florida put up with this every day for half the year (at least)

Staying inside in AC isn't good QOL. Cheap house? Who cares? You can't do anything.

And its only gonna get hotter in those places.

No, not half a year. Look at average highs for the major cities in those states, by month. But...you are correct, it's only gonna get hotter, and already has been, especially since 2000. We used to cool down somewhat in September, but not so much anymore.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

No, not half a year. Look at average highs for the major cities in those states, by month. But...you are correct, it's only gonna get hotter, and already has been, especially since 2000. We used to cool down somewhat in September, but not so much anymore.

Yes - a bit hyperbolic and dramatic. (Knoxville, TN same climate as Miami or Orlando??, etc). "Half a year (at least)" ?? Atlanta has on average 47 days a year with a high 90 or above according to local weather report. And the earliest date for a high 90 or above is in late May/early June. Also, plenty of folk do things in the heat (fish, beach/lake, bike, picnic, jog, gardening, lawncare, etc). Plus, folk act like a global climate change is only going to affect certain places - when it may change the climate where you like today to that of those that you deride/dislike or to something even worse.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houstonian here, the humidity is just awful. Give me 110 and 40% humidity in Phoenix over 90 with 80% humidity any day of the week. When I lived in the East Bay, I would hang dry my clothes on the front porch and everything would be dry in a few hours...incl. jeans.

I'm the exact opposite.

Dry Heat literally feels like you are sitting in a giant oven whereas humid climates feels like you are sitting in a sauna.

There have been multiple studies on this that the humid climate is a way more healthier climate to live in, especially for the skin.

That dry heat dries our the skin really fast causing premature aging.

There is a reason why Los Angeles is the Botox capital of the world.

Besides, most of Texas has "perfect weather" for 8-9 months of the year.

Winters are routinely in the 70s with low humidity.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Bailey

I'm the exact opposite.

Dry Heat literally feels like you are sitting in a giant oven whereas humid climates feels like you are sitting in a sauna.

There have been multiple studies on this that the humid climate is a way more healthier climate to live in, especially for the skin.

That dry heat dries our the skin really fast causing premature aging.

There is a reason why Los Angeles is the Botox capital of the world.

Besides, most of Texas has "perfect weather" for 8-9 months of the year.

Winters are routinely in the 70s with low humidity.

Actually, Miami is the botox capital of the world.

Well, plastic surgery capital. I read that somewhere. Botox is just one of many types of cosmetic procedures.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Bailey

I'm the exact opposite.

Dry Heat literally feels like you are sitting in a giant oven whereas humid climates feels like you are sitting in a sauna.

There have been multiple studies on this that the humid climate is a way more healthier climate to live in, especially for the skin.

That dry heat dries our the skin really fast causing premature aging.

There is a reason why Los Angeles is the Botox capital of the world.

Besides, most of Texas has "perfect weather" for 8-9 months of the year.

Winters are routinely in the 70s with low humidity.

BS. Studies have been written the ideal climate for the human body is in California.
Dry heat is like the oven? What are you talking about? Vegas? Phoenix? Most of California weather is just comfortable. It might get above 90 some of the summer but the rest of the year is comfortable. The body can walk 2-3 miles barely sweating. Try that in Houston or Florida lmao.

Every visitor I've had in LA from back east marvels how nice the weather is. Sitting in a Sauna is not a good thing lmao. Youre an exception. And theres plenty of bad skin in Florida, sitting out in the sun all day isn't good for you regardless. Thats why Ill never get "going to the beach all the time". You really shouldnt.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by LA21st

BS. Studies have been written the ideal climate for the human body is in California.
Dry heat is like the oven? What are you talking about? Vegas? Phoenix? Most of California weather is just comfortable. It might get above 90 some of the summer but the rest of the year is comfortable. The body can walk 2-3 miles barely sweating. Try that in Houston or Florida lmao.

Every visitor I've had in LA from back east marvels how nice the weather is. Sitting in a Sauna is not a good thing lmao. Youre an exception. And theres plenty of bad skin in Florida, sitting out in the sun all day isn't good for you regardless. Thats why Ill never get "going to the beach all the time". You really shouldnt.

Yeah..Every time I've been to Vegas, when it is 115 degrees, it feels like an oven.

Of course temperate ranges are more comfortable when you're in California but once you start getting north of 100 degrees, it feels worse than humid climates.

On the Miami having more plastic surgeries...Miami is its own animal.

It markets itself to a bunch of international clients that specifically come to Miami FOR plastic surgeries.

I'm referring to the natives that have spent the majority of their life in their lives in either A) dry arid climates with no moisture in the air or B) humid climates with moisture in the air.

You may think the dry hot air air is better for the skin but you would be the only one...the lack of moisture dries out the skin faster causing premature wrinkles..that's just a fact

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Yeah..Every time I've been to Vegas, when it is 115 degrees, it feels like an oven.

Of course temperate ranges are more comfortable when you're in California but once you start getting north of 100 degrees, it feels worse than humid climates.

On the Miami having more plastic surgeries...Miami is its own animal.

It markets itself to a bunch of international clients that specifically come to Miami FOR plastic surgeries.

I'm referring to the natives that have spent the majority of their life in their lives in either A) dry arid climates with no moisture in the air or B) humid climates with moisture in the air.

You may think the dry hot air air is better for the skin but you would be the only one...the lack of moisture dries out the skin faster causing premature wrinkles..that's just a fact

Vegas is nothing like CA. Its far hotter. Dry heat isnt the same in different locations. Vegas is usually 20-25 degrees higher than coastal CA, which is a massive difference

The body struggles more cooling down in humidity. Thats a fact. You sweat more because your body is overheating faster. Even athletes hate playing in humid climates.'

100 in dry heat is far better than 90-95 in humidity. You are pouring sweat in humidity, and its dangerous to be outside for an extended amount of time. Thats why people stay in AC there.
They know. And its not really the humidity percentage. Its the dew point number that really tells you how bad it is outside.
Right now,

LA is a currently 61
Miami 79
Houston 76.

Dew point is the temperature at which air can hold no more water vapor. It's a factor in the heat index and measures how much water is in the atmosphere. Dew point can affect how comfortable you feel, and here are some general comfort levels:
Less than or equal to 55°F: Dry and comfortable
55–65°F: Becoming "sticky" with muggy evenings
65–66°F: Uncomfortable
66–70°F: Uncomfortable
70–75°F: Oppressive
76°F and higher: Miserable

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Vegas is nothing like CA. Its far hotter. Dry heat isnt the same in different locations.

The body struggles more cooling down in humidity. Thats a fact. You sweat more because your body is overheating faster. Even athletes hate playing in humid climates.'

100 in dry heat is far better than 90-95 in humidity. You are pouring sweat in humidity, and its dangerous to be outside for an extended amount of time. Thats why people stay in AC there.
They know. And its not really the humidity percentage. Its the dew point number that really tells you how bad it is outside.
Right now,

LA is a currently 61
Miami 79
Houston 76.

Dew point is the temperature at which air can hold no more water vapor. It's a factor in the heat index and measures how much water is in the atmosphere. Dew point can affect how comfortable you feel, and here are some general comfort levels:
Less than or equal to 55°F: Dry and comfortable
55–65°F: Becoming "sticky" with muggy evenings
65–66°F: Uncomfortable
66–70°F: Uncomfortable
70–75°F: Oppressive
76°F and higher: Miserable

Yes!

That sweating is very healthy for you.

It allows Toxins to be released from your body and the moisture in the air slows down the "baking" of the skin as the skin is less dry.

https://www.asarchcenter.com/blog/is...good-for-skin/

I'm telling you, I've seen life long Californians and they have noticeably drier and more damaged skin.

[LA21st]

Sweating means the body is overheating. Its literally the bodys way of cooling down. Toxins? Uhh, your kidneys and liver already get rid of toxins. Thats their job.

Sweat is your body's way of cooling you down. When your body starts to sense that it's overheating, it starts sweating as a way to control its temperature.


The ideal conditions for a resting human body fall into a range called the thermalneutral zone, where the air temperature is between 20°C and 25°C, or (68-77)°F, with little wind and moderate relative humidity.

People in CA are probably outside more, because its nicer lmao. But people in FL dont have good skin if they're on the beach all the time. Thats bs
Sun burn is sun burn.

You arent supposed to be in the sun for extended time, no matter what.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Yes!

That sweating is very healthy for you.

It allows Toxins to be released from your body and the moisture in the air slows down the "baking" of the skin as the skin is less dry.

https://www.asarchcenter.com/blog/is...good-for-skin/

I'm telling you, I've seen life long Californians and they have noticeably drier and more damaged skin.

Actually you sweat the same in dry or humid air. The difference is that in humid air the sweat doesn't evaporate as efficiently and so you don't get the same evaporative cooling effect. That's also the reason why swamp coolers don't work very well in a humid climate despite their name.

Also, most Californians live along the coast where the air is moist and cool in the morning. It's a "dry climate" because of precipitation, not because of lack of moisture in the air like in the desert. For example right now in DTLA it's 74F with 69% humidity, with a forecast high of 89F with 37% humidity at 2PM. Much cooler and more "humid" near the coast. Moisture in the air is associated with cooler temps around here.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Actually you sweat the same in dry or humid air. The difference is that in humid air the sweat doesn't evaporate as efficiently and so you don't get the same evaporative cooling effect. That's also the reason why swamp coolers don't work very well in a humid climate despite their name.

Also, most Californians live along the coast where the air is moist and cool in the morning. It's a "dry climate" because of precipitation, not because of lack of moisture in the air like in the desert. For example right now in DTLA it's 74F with 69% humidity, with a forecast high of 89F with 37% humidity at 2PM. Much cooler and more "humid" near the coast. Moisture in the air is associated with cooler temps around here.

Because so many people go to Vegas and some get nose bleeds, they think all dry heat is that extreme. Then they go to Ca and realize they're wrong.
I never have gotten a nose bleed in drier places, but I guess its not that rare either.

Coastal CA isnt even a desert climate, its a medtierrean climate. Not sure why people confuse this. You can see the difference in scenery when you drive in from Palm Springs.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by L41A

Plus, folk act like a global climate change is only going to affect certain places - when it may change the climate where you like today to that of those that you deride/dislike or to something even worse.

Some places will be affected more than others. But coastal California will always have a milder/cooler climate relative to the interior of the continent. The earth would have to stop spinning to disrupt the North Pacific Gyre and the California Current that bring us those cool ocean breezes. Not to say that climate change won't affect us at all here. We're seeing some impacts but not so much in terms of air temperatures.

Apparently climate change will turn Southern California into the world of Pandora from Avatar.

• Video Link

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This isn't true, and I guess this false idea explains the disconnect we are having here. There are plenty of examples of rich people living in the densest parts of their regions. Manhattan is, by far, the densest subsection of metropolitan New York, and also one of the richest subsections of metropolitan New York. The richest areas of Brooklyn are also the densest. The Gold Coast in Chicago is one of the densest areas of the Chicago area, and is also one of the richest.

If you go back to the original comment that started this tangent, there was a claim made that rich people don't like density. I rebutted that claim by pointing out that rich people willingly live in high density throughout the global west. Rich people also seem to congregate in and around major cities that are denser than average.

Most rich people of metro NYC do not live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
Especially families with kids.
Yes, rich people congregate around big cities, due to jobs and amenities they offer, but they do not prefer to live IN them.