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.
sf isn't really that sunny and certainly not warm the winters are cold and damp, nothing like southern california/az/texas/florida where the bulk of "sun belters" claim home.
What about the areas surrounding SF, aside from the Peninsula? Here's some data that I think is interesting
Sacramento (located at 38'33 N): 78% possible sunshine
Los Angeles (located at 34'02 N): 73% possible sunshine
San Diego (located at 32'30 N): 68% possible sunshine
San Francisco (located at 37'46 N): 66% possible sunshine
In fact, Redding, CA is one of the few places in the planet that is above 40'N latitude and has summers exceeding 40 C/104 F, and is still relatively dry. The sunbelt, at least in California, extends further north than most people think.
However, point taken. Traditional conceptualization of the sunbelt is usually below 35'N, with 36-37'N being a transition zone. San Francisco isn't 'warm', but it certainly isn't 'cold' or 'chilly' in terms of getting ice and snow. I think people usually phase SF out of their mind when it comes to the sunbelt because its built like a traditional eastern city.
Sacramento (located at 38'33 N): 78% possible sunshine
Los Angeles (located at 34'02 N): 73% possible sunshine
San Diego (located at 32'30 N): 68% possible sunshine
San Francisco (located at 37'46 N): 66% possible sunshine
In fact, Redding, CA is one of the few places in the planet that is above 40'N latitude and has summers exceeding 40 C/104 F, and is still relatively dry. The sunbelt, at least in California, extends further north than most people think.
However, point taken. Traditional conceptualization of the sunbelt is usually below 35'N, with 36-37'N being a transition zone. San Francisco isn't 'warm', but it certainly isn't 'cold' or 'chilly' in terms of getting ice and snow. I think people usually phase SF out of their mind when it comes to the sunbelt because its built like a traditional eastern city.
However, there should be a poll for this.
Yeah I mentioned the other areas around it being sunnier and warmer than the city itself. l.a. and San Diego are not even close to sf, unless you consider 400 and 500 miles south closer.
Thats like the same difference in location as being in Nashville or bowling green kentucky, or sitting on the beach on the gulf coast in destin, florida. to put it in perspective. or for those not familiar, charlotte , nc vs daytona beach.
Yeah I mentioned the other areas around it being sunnier and warmer than the city itself. l.a. and San Diego are not even close to sf, unless you consider 400 and 500 miles south closer.
Thats like the same difference in location as being in Nashville or bowling green kentucky, or sitting on the beach on the gulf coast in destin, florida. to put it in perspective. or for those not familiar, charlotte , nc vs daytona beach.
Oh, I didn't mean that those areas are near SF (in fact, Sacramento is nearly 100 miles away in itself). What I meant was areas like Oakland (way sunnier than SF itself), Fremont, Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa, San Jose, etc etc. The range is probably from the lower 70% from Antioch, down to the high 50% along the coast. Even within SF itself, the Sunset district may only get 58% possible sunshine, while downtown SF gets 66%. That's how much variance there is in the Bay Area.
The majority of the Bay Area seems to be built more along sunbelt lines than anything else. However, SF itself is an anachronism.
The reason why I put the other California cities up there is for comparison. San Diego, at least where the data was taken (probably at downtown) gets only 2% sunnier a year than San Francisco at 68%. Los Angeles (again, taken at downtown) only gets 5% more sun than SF. Sacramento, which is even further north than SF gets 10% more sun.
The sunbelt distinction within California is confusing itself, due to microclimate distinctions. I've lived in California for most of my life, so I know how far everything is away from each other Driving from LA to the Bay Area is something I've done so much that I can identify every single exit and what it has off US 101, I-5, and CA-99. Yup.
Oh, I didn't mean that those areas are near SF (in fact, Sacramento is nearly 100 miles away in itself). What I meant was areas like Oakland (way sunnier than SF itself), Fremont, Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa, San Jose, etc etc. The range is probably from the lower 70% from Antioch, down to the high 50% along the coast. Even within SF itself, the Sunset district may only get 58% possible sunshine, while downtown SF gets 66%. That's how much variance there is in the Bay Area.
The majority of the Bay Area seems to be built more along sunbelt lines than anything else. However, SF itself is an anachronism.
The reason why I put the other California cities up there is for comparison. San Diego, at least where the data was taken (probably at downtown) gets only 2% sunnier a year than San Francisco at 68%. Los Angeles (again, taken at downtown) only gets 5% more sun than SF. Sacramento, which is even further north than SF gets 10% more sun.
The sunbelt distinction within California is confusing itself, due to microclimate distinctions. I've lived in California for most of my life, so I know how far everything is away from each other Driving from LA to the Bay Area is something I've done so much that I can identify every single exit and what it has off US 101, I-5, and CA-99. Yup.
haha yeah it does resemble it outside SF, definitely. And it gets HOT... over 110 sometimes.
haha yeah it does resemble it outside SF, definitely. And it gets HOT... over 110 sometimes.
It does get extremely hot, but what makes ME mad about the way the valleys around the Bay are is that the nights are also somewhat cold. I hate days that are over 100 degrees but the low is around 50. It makes it feel like I got cheated out of a warm summer night (I absolutely LOVE them!). That may be the key difference between the Bay Area and the rest of the sunbelt. When its hot during the day, there are warm nights. In places like Santa Rosa and the rest of Sonoma County, it can be above 90 during the day, but be in the high 40s and low 50s at night. What gives!
I'm from the San Fernando Valley in LA, and whenever it gets to be above 100 (which is way too common during the summer), the nights are still in the mid 60s-low 70s. I remember a night when I was growing up where it was 75. You'll never get that in the Bay Area.
What's interesting, at least to me, is that Washington, San Francisco, New York, and St. Louis all have year round mean temperatures within 3 degrees of each other.
Washington DC annual average temperature: 58.0
San Francisco annual average temperature: 57.1
St. Louis annual average temperature: 56.1
New York annual average temperature: 54.7
They all obviously manifest in extremely different ways, but there is something to be said about how much chillier it is in SF as opposed to its surroundings. Being on a peninsula around a cold ocean and bay helps.
It does get extremely hot, but what makes ME mad about the way the valleys around the Bay are is that the nights are also somewhat cold. I hate days that are over 100 degrees but the low is around 50. It makes it feel like I got cheated out of a warm summer night (I absolutely LOVE them!). That may be the key difference between the Bay Area and the rest of the sunbelt. When its hot during the day, there are warm nights. In places like Santa Rosa and the rest of Sonoma County, it can be above 90 during the day, but be in the high 40s and low 50s at night. What gives!
I'm from the San Fernando Valley in LA, and whenever it gets to be above 100 (which is way too common during the summer), the nights are still in the mid 60s-low 70s. I remember a night when I was growing up where it was 75. You'll never get that in the Bay Area.
What's interesting, at least to me, is that Washington, San Francisco, New York, and St. Louis all have year round mean temperatures within 3 degrees of each other.
Washington DC annual average temperature: 58.0
San Francisco annual average temperature: 57.1
St. Louis annual average temperature: 56.1
New York annual average temperature: 54.7
They all obviously manifest in extremely different ways, but there is something to be said about how much chillier it is in SF as opposed to its surroundings. Being on a peninsula around a cold ocean and bay helps.
Yeah I have been out here the majority of my time since 2008 and I only remember a few nights, 4-5 which it was warm out where you could be in short sleeves and be comfortable. The beach is more or less always cold and chilly compared to L.A. , although beautiful, also. I am not single but if I were, I might be dissapointed that all the girls are in jackets at night in July. If I'm going into SF for the night I ALWAYS bring a jacket or light sweater year round. I guess that is why SF is called the air conditioned city.
I think the names of the 2 regions influence peoples' voting...people hear "Rust" and think, eww gross. People hear "Sun" and think, ooooh, ahhhh, palm trees and margaritas. There are other things to consider besides rust and sun, however.
In 50 years, the Sun Belt tackiness of cookie cutter homes will be uglier than they are now. The Rust Belt had its boom back when people had TASTE in design. Things were well built and attractive, which is the exact opposite of what most of the Sun Belt is comprised of (strip malls, endless tract housing, etc). And in 50 years the old Victorians, Greek Revivals, Georgians, Union, etc, will still be attractive in the Rust Belt, while the tract homes in the Sun Belt will become the new ghettos like theyre starting to become in areas.
In 50 years, the Sun Belt tackiness of cookie cutter homes will be uglier than they are now. The Rust Belt had its boom back when people had TASTE in design. Things were well built and attractive, which is the exact opposite of what most of the Sun Belt is comprised of (strip malls, endless tract housing, etc). And in 50 years the old Victorians, Greek Revivals, Georgians, Union, etc, will still be attractive in the Rust Belt, while the tract homes in the Sun Belt will become the new ghettos like theyre starting to become in areas.
Firstly, you're making too many broad, sweeping generalizations. The Rustbelt also has more than its fair share of cookie-cutter homes and some of the older housing stock in some cities are at such a level of disrepair as to be beyond repair. At the same time, there are some great infill residential projects in the Sunbelt as well as older housing that has been preserved and rehabbed.
Firstly, you're making too many broad, sweeping generalizations. The Rustbelt also has more than its fair share of cookie-cutter homes and some of the older housing stock in some cities are at such a level of disrepair as to be beyond repair. At the same time, there are some great infill residential projects in the Sunbelt as well as older housing that has been preserved and rehabbed.
Exactly so.
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.
Driving from LA to the Bay Area is something I've done so much that I can identify every single exit and what it has off US 101, I-5, and CA-99. Yup.
