Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Napa definitely has it's small share of remote workers. As does Sonoma - these towns though are small in comparison to a lot of other Bay Area counterparts. You can live a pretty decent life up in these parts if you love the outdoors and warm weather.
I don’t see the big migration to some of our northern California areas.
As Ruth has mentioned it is hellishly hot in the Redding area.
There are lots of areas like that and they all are getting hotter.
Just last year we lost our chickens in Danville (a mere 32 miles east of San Francisco) due to 118 degree temperatures and they had lots of shade and water.
For me anything much over 80 degrees requires air conditioning.
If it is much hotter than that it might as well be subfreezing weather as far as I’m concerned because I won’t be going out in it.
I don’t see people (unless they are destitute or know nothing better) wanting to live in the hot areas.
I’m sure there are a few that picked California’s north coast but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think those are high numbers.
Other areas that are cooler like Lake Tahoe, Truckee or one of the other nicer Sierra towns I can see well paid people flocking to.
Places that are like a northern Barstow not so much.
My wife is a remote worker and we chose to live near Canada.
There are lots of Californians in our area.
In any really nice area you can expect to have Californians that work from home there.
That state line thing might only limit someone’s imagination.
I guess it just seems kinda weird to go all the way to Colorado or Montana when there's a similar experience in Northern CA. The only thing is there's not much for actual cities up there outside of Redding, so people may not want to go from Coastal big city CA to a smaller town. Cost wise Northern CA is similar or cheaper than most of these other states locations.
Regarding wildfire, there may be some recency bias with the last couple years being especially bad for fires, but Northern CA isn't any worse than Front Range CO, AZ, ID, or Florida for that matter according to FEMA https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map. At least there's not much beetle kill.
Weather wise, looking at Yreka, it's not that different from Colorado Springs, little more temperature swings and hotter summers and cloudier winters, but way less wind, less UV, and no hail - it doesn't seem too harsh. I'd take Yreka's over COS.
We moved from a VHCOL part of CA to ID a few years ago. Interestingly, when we were planning our move our thinking was "why limit ourselves to CA?" Why move to Redding where it's brutally hot and the city itself is okay but pretty meh, when we could live in a place like Boise with a vibrant city, great schools, local options for university as the kids get older, lower taxes, lower utilities, lower crime, lower fire risk, a proper airport (Bay Area is 1.5 hr flight), and better access to the outdoors.
RE the risk map you linked: On a County View basis things seem pretty similar, but per-county risk is basically meaningless for individuals, though important for local government. Instead, you need to click on the more granular Census Track View button at top left. Doing so shows that population centers in NorCal are mostly Relatively High to Very High risk, whereas population centers in WA, ID, MT, UT, CO, generally have much lower risk.
I don’t see the big migration to some of our northern California areas.
As Ruth has mentioned it is hellishly hot in the Redding area.
There are lots of areas like that and they all are getting hotter.
Just last year we lost our chickens in Danville (a mere 32 miles east of San Francisco) due to 118 degree temperatures and they had lots of shade and water.
For me anything much over 80 degrees requires air conditioning.
If it is much hotter than that it might as well be subfreezing weather as far as I’m concerned because I won’t be going out in it.
I don’t see people (unless they are destitute or know nothing better) wanting to live in the hot areas.
I’m sure there are a few that picked California’s north coast but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think those are high numbers.
Other areas that are cooler like Lake Tahoe, Truckee or one of the other nicer Sierra towns I can see well paid people flocking to.
Places that are like a northern Barstow not so much.
My wife is a remote worker and we chose to live near Canada.
There are lots of Californians in our area.
In any really nice area you can expect to have Californians that work from home there.
That state line thing might only limit someone’s imagination.
It's going to be over 100 in Phoenix today and somehow 6 million people live in that furnace. But I guess people are willing to put up with either snow or over 100F temps, having both might limit the subset of interested people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors
We moved from a VHCOL part of CA to ID a few years ago. Interestingly, when we were planning our move our thinking was "why limit ourselves to CA?" Why move to Redding where it's brutally hot and the city itself is okay but pretty meh, when we could live in a place like Boise with a vibrant city, great schools, local options for university as the kids get older, lower taxes, lower utilities, lower crime, lower fire risk, a proper airport (Bay Area is 1.5 hr flight), and better access to the outdoors.
RE the risk map you linked: On a County View basis things seem pretty similar, but per-county risk is basically meaningless for individuals, though important for local government. Instead, you need to click on the more granular Census Track View button at top left. Doing so shows that population centers in NorCal are mostly Relatively High to Very High risk, whereas population centers in WA, ID, MT, UT, CO, generally have much lower risk.
That's the thing is you have to give up some city amenities - like an airport, if one is going to relocate up here. Even here in Taos, there hasn't been the remote worker influx as places like Park County CO have gotten due to things like being far from an airport.
But just from an outdoors / nature perspective god this area looks like another level of beautiful. The Rockies have big peaks, but they don't have 16 species of conifers all intermixed with each other in one spot and that amount of green - there's a lot of dead or dying lodgepole / spruce. I was looking at pics on google maps last night and it's incredible how Thompson peak and that area is like one solid hunk of very hard rock, that's so neat vs the crumbled scree that a lot of other mountains can be.
For risk though, I'm sure if you live in the trees, it's a much bigger gamble than living in the open flat parts at the bottom of the mountains... I wouldn't live in a setting like Burnt Ranch, that would be to risky for me.
Removing wildfire risk from the equation, most of northern California is too remote for the average person. Take the town of Fortuna, Humboldt County, for example. To reach a freeway from Fortuna, one must drive east on California State Route 36 for over three hours. And while CA-36 traverses a very scenic area, the road itself is very winding and exceptionally dark at nighttime.
Road surface quality and the general lack of services are other major issues affecting most of rural northern California. As we know, California is not particularly good at maintaining road surfaces, especially compared to Nevada and Oregon, which makes some of those switchback roads even more treacherous. Then, because northern California contains a low population, few major roadways and many federally or state-protected lands, there is a limited amount of roadside services, which are important for people who must regularly traverse rural roadways.
That's the thing is you have to give up some city amenities - like an airport, if one is going to relocate up here. Even here in Taos, there hasn't been the remote worker influx as places like Park County CO have gotten due to things like being far from an airport.
But just from an outdoors / nature perspective god this area looks like another level of beautiful. The Rockies have big peaks, but they don't have 16 species of conifers all intermixed with each other in one spot and that amount of green - there's a lot of dead or dying lodgepole / spruce. I was looking at pics on google maps last night and it's incredible how Thompson peak and that area is like one solid hunk of very hard rock, that's so neat vs the crumbled scree that a lot of other mountains can be.
For risk though, I'm sure if you live in the trees, it's a much bigger gamble than living in the open flat parts at the bottom of the mountains... I wouldn't live in a setting like Burnt Ranch, that would be to risky for me.
Of the many remote workers I know, they all have two non-negotiables: Reliable high-speed internet and reasonable commute to the mother ship for monthly/quarterly in-person meetings. This can mean being a several hour drive from HQ, or reasonable proximity to a decent airport. Areas near airports and universities typically have decent enough internet. Most, but not all, remote workers prefer other urban amenities: restaurants, nightlife, shopping, culture, etc. Lower COL and QoL are the main draws.
Boise has had an influx of remote workers, whereas some of the more beautiful mountain towns... not as much (though still some). Take Baker City/La Grande OR, about 2-3 hrs from Boise. Stunningly beautiful, much lower cost of living, and the mountains in that area are breathtaking. But the nearest real airport is in Boise, so too remote for most remote workers.
What you're describing with Thompson peak sounds like a batholith, solid igneous rock that cooled underground and then exposed through uplift and erosion. The High Sierras are the quintessential example of this, including Yosemite valley and even better (in my view) the Yosemite high country. Similarly, much of the Emigrant Wilderness in the Stanislaus National Forest (just north of Yosemite) is essentially one enormous chuck of granite. I've done a ton of backpacking there, fantastic area filled with smooth glaciated granite pocketed with deep lakes and great trout fishing. But beware the mosquitoes in July!
Personally, I prefer rugged craggy mountains above tree line. Which is why I spent a lot of time in the High Sierras. The Trinity Alps in NorCal are great and fit this description, same for Mt Shasta and Lassen, yet these are relatively small areas. A big part of the reason we landed in Boise (vs North Idaho) are the Sawtooth Mountains of Central Idaho, which aren't as massive as the Sierras, yet more craggy and beautiful. As for trees, this is mostly a function of elevation. Throughout the mountain west, low elevations are dominated by Ponderosa Pine and sage brush; the middle elevations various fir, spruce, mountain hemlock, lodgepole pine, aspen, and alder; and higher elevations its white pine and related.
As much as I prefer Boise, it's not for everyone. It gets cold and snowy here, though not as much as many assume. And it gets hotter in summer than many expect, though not nearly as consistently hot as Redding, and we pay just $0.08 per kWh so we just run the AC. It's a bigger city than many expect with around ~800k in the Treasure Valley... I fairly regularly encounter folks who've moved here (usually from CA or NY) that are surprised by how urban it is, which I don't get, this stuff is super easy to look up online.
So it really depends on individual preferences. For those that really want more dense conifer forest, North Idaho/CdA/Spokane is a better option. Want a bigger city with world class skiing in your backyard? Salt Lake City. An even bigger city? Denver. For those looking for smaller cities, you have too many great options to list throughout CA, WA, OR, ID, MT, UT, CO, NV, AZ, NM, WY, and others.
I also wonder how many remote workers will end up doing the snowbird thing. Buy a house in Phoenix and a small house or condo in Spokane/North Idaho. Spend most of the year in Phoenix, then head north when it gets too hot. The northern residence can also be used for ski trips and the Holidays.
No idea about Nor-Cal, but tons of remote workers fled the Bay Area and came down here to San Diego in the last few years.
We were selling our house in Carlsbad in 2021, and received 25 offers in the first two days of it being on the market. Majority of the offers were from Bay Area refugees. Several of the offers were site-unseen; just their realtor walking around the house, giving the potential buyers a tour by holding up their iPhone. Crazy. Most of the Bay Area offers were all cash too.
The feedback from the Bay Area buyers was that compared to housing prices up there, San Diego houses were cheap. Spending $2M up there only got you a 80 year old 1500 sq ft shack; whereas in SD, that same money got you a newer 4k sq ft house with a pool 10 minutes from the beach.
No idea about Nor-Cal, but tons of remote workers fled the Bay Area and came down here to San Diego in the last few years.
We were selling our house in Carlsbad in 2021, and received 25 offers in the first two days of it being on the market. Majority of the offers were from Bay Area refugees. Several of the offers were site-unseen; just their realtor walking around the house, giving the potential buyers a tour by holding up their iPhone. Crazy. Most of the Bay Area offers were all cash too.
The feedback from the Bay Area buyers was that compared to housing prices up there, San Diego houses were cheap. Spending $2M up there only got you a 80 year old 1500 sq ft shack; whereas in SD, that same money got you a newer 4k sq ft house with a pool 10 minutes from the beach.
IMO, there are quite a few tradeoffs. Overall, SD is less physically attractive than the SF Bay Area. SD borders a Third World country and occasionally experiences spillover crime and pollution from neighboring Tijuana. There are fewer major companies headquartered in SD, and employers (across all industries) pay lower salaries/wages down there. People in SD are very transient, too — they hang around for a 3-5 years and then move on, similar to Phoenix and Las Vegas. Housing lots are smaller in SD, the tap water tastes and feels terrible, and people drive rather recklessly (by CA standards). Honestly, I would rather live in Temecula than anywhere in SD County.
IMO, there are quite a few tradeoffs. Overall, SD is less physically attractive than the SF Bay Area. SD borders a Third World country and occasionally experiences spillover crime and pollution from neighboring Tijuana. There are fewer major companies headquartered in SD, and employers (across all industries) pay lower salaries/wages down there. People in SD are very transient, too — they hang around for a 3-5 years and then move on, similar to Phoenix and Las Vegas. Housing lots are smaller in SD, the tap water tastes and feels terrible, and people drive rather recklessly (by CA standards). Honestly, I would rather live in Temecula than anywhere in SD County.
I was kinda with you until I read the last sentence.
You'd rather live in Temecula than anywhere in SD county????
Really?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
