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.
I agree, the choices from each should be more even.
I think it would be more insightful if the choices were more like:
Buffalo, New York
Burlington, Vermont
Fargo, North Dakota
Eugene, Oregon
McAllen, Texas
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Gulfport, Mississippi
Gainesville, Florida
Houston is huge. Largest city by far in a humid Gulf belt, so it's reputation precedes it. It's a safe bet to chose for those hating hotter areas, especially when there are just two hot areas to choose from
Splitting the choices evenly, and picking smaller to midsized areas lessens the bias.
Gulfport, weather is identical to Houston's, but because it is smaller and less known, I definitely doubt it would be picked as often as Houston's.
I think OP's know that. They know what the outcome of the poll is going to be based on how the poll is stacked. It's like asking, what is going to be the summer blockbuster, and include a choice from a major studio and the rest from smaller, more obscure studios. A smaller studio may yield the surprise blockbuster, but the poll results would most likely show the major studio far ahead of the pack.
With the acceleration of climate change obviously occurring, I wonder if places like Miami and Houston are even going to be places people want to be in during the summer within a few decades. It's already getting too hot to even be at the beach, and people in these places do not hang out outside in the summer for long periods as it is. It's just hopping from one air-conditioned place to another, so I am dubious that people there actually enjoy the heat as much as they claim. At least winters in the north are getting milder over time. With higher risk of flooding, sea level rise and hurricanes (and all the massive increases in insurance rates), coastal areas are not going to have a great time of it moving forwards. I'd much rather be in a place like Minneapolis long-term at the rate things are going.
With the acceleration of climate change obviously occurring, I wonder if places like Miami and Houston are even going to be places people want to be in during the summer within a few decades. It's already getting too hot to even be at the beach, and people in these places do not hang out outside in the summer for long periods as it is. It's just hopping from one air-conditioned place to another, so I am dubious that people there actually enjoy the heat as much as they claim. At least winters in the north are getting milder over time. With higher risk of flooding, sea level rise and hurricanes (and all the massive increases in insurance rates), coastal areas are not going to have a great time of it moving forwards. I'd much rather be in a place like Minneapolis long-term at the rate things are going.
It won’t matter. People live in much hotter places near the equator. Humans have an amazing ability to adapt. Plus housing is much cheaper in many of these warm states like Texas and Florida.
^ If you are going to exclude Houston because it’s large and has a reputation, then you should also exclude Buffalo because of its reputation, and that it is up to 6x larger than a couple of those other places on the new list.
The Buffalo metro area contains microclimates, but the reputation of the city is usually driven by the worst events, which typically only affect small portions of the area.
The Buffalo area has warmer winters and cooler summers than nearly every city in the Midwest and Great Lakes. The northern half of the metro also sees significantly less snow than the southern half, and in amounts no greater than any other Major Great Lakes cities. The metro area also has the sunniest and driest summers in the Northeast due to the cooler lake waters preventing cloud formation, in addition to moderating air temperature.
I agree, the choices from each should be more even.
I think it would be more insightful if the choices were more like:
Buffalo, New York
Burlington, Vermont
Fargo, North Dakota
Eugene, Oregon
McAllen, Texas
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Gulfport, Mississippi
Gainesville, Florida
Houston is huge. Largest city by far in a humid Gulf belt, so it's reputation precedes it. It's a safe bet to chose for those hating hotter areas, especially when there are just two hot areas to choose from
Splitting the choices evenly, and picking smaller to midsized areas lessens the bias.
Gulfport, weather is identical to Houston's, but because it is smaller and less known, I definitely doubt it would be picked as often as Houston's.
I think OP's know that. They know what the outcome of the poll is going to be based on how the poll is stacked. It's like asking, what is going to be the summer blockbuster, and include a choice from a major studio and the rest from smaller, more obscure studios. A smaller studio may yield the surprise blockbuster, but the poll results would most likely show the major studio far ahead of the pack.
Actually, you could have made the choices more even while sticking to large metro areas.
San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, El Paso, Dallas, New Orleans*, Charlotte and Atlanta could have all been included in this poll.
Status:
"Worship the Earth, Worship Love, not Imaginary Gods"
(set 14 days ago)
Location: Houston, TX/Detroit, MI
8,425 posts, read 5,569,281 times
Reputation: 12407
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJac
Worst climate with largest population growth. Houston wins…. Hmmm
Perhaps climate is overrated or people only take into account the extremes? (Voters of this poll, that is)
You have to remember this is City Data. Many won't vote for a city they like for anything negative regardless of what the topic is. See the results for Chicago on this thread.
You have to remember this is City Data. Many won't vote for a city they like for anything negative regardless of what the topic is. See the results for Chicago on this thread.
But also see the results for Minneapolis, a city that people here generally like.
I think that one of the reasons it isn't getting as many votes as Buffalo is: Buffalo gets lake effect snow, while none of Minnesota's 10,000 lakes are big enough to produce that effect, fortunately for Minneapolis.
You have to remember this is City Data. Many won't vote for a city they like for anything negative regardless of what the topic is. See the results for Chicago on this thread.
Chicago’s climate though really is not the worst on this list.. It’s more of a balanced climate.
You have to remember this is City Data. Many won't vote for a city they like for anything negative regardless of what the topic is. See the results for Chicago on this thread.
Or people think Buffalo is worse? Or people hate humidity
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.
