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.
AC is more essential in most of the West compared to the upper Midwest and most of the Northeast.
False. I went to Pittsburgh, PA for college and our dorms didn't have A/C. It was downright miserable in August and most of September and then again most of May. Fortunately I wasn't there for the summer.
I also lived in Northern California in San Jose (not immediately on the coast, a bit inland) and I was NEVER uncomfortable at night and I had a top floor apartment and no A/C. I would have fans in the window at night and even on those rare 100 degree days, the nights were in the 60's. I would regularly check the indoor temperature and with the fans running, I was able to get the internal temperature down to 65 even in mid summer without A/C, then I would shut all doors and windows and preserve that cool air. When I returned from work it was usually around 78-80, which was fine by me. On those 100 degree days it could get up to 85, but like I said, always cool by morning. In contrast, in Pittsburgh, I couldn't get the temp below 80 in the room most nights, and it was as humid as hell. This is with weather of low 90's in the day and mid 70's at night. The humidity is what is a killer.
Even coastal S. CA is comfortable without A/C at night.
^ First of all, the remark was about the "Upper Midwest," and Pitt isn't even in the Midwest, not to mention Upper. It is part of the Northeast, but it's far enough inland to be a good bit hotter/more humid than "most of the Northeast," as noted.
Second, areas right by the coast are not "most of the west." Furthermore, forget about nights, when it's over 100 degrees, the vast majority of people require air conditioning.
--
I personally would need air conditioning in all but a few SoCal areas of the US, at least for the handful of days/nights where it'd be miserable sleeping in otherwise cool locales.
Last edited by cheese plate; 10-10-2014 at 09:52 AM..
^ First of all, the remark was about the "Upper Midwest," and Pitt isn't even in the Midwest, not to mention Upper. It is part of the Northeast, but it's far enough inland to be a good bit hotter/more humid than "most of the Northeast," as noted.
Second, areas right by the coast are not "most of the west." Furthermore, forget about nights, when it's over 100 degrees, the vast majority of people require air conditioning.
--
I personally would need air conditioning in all but a few SoCal areas of the US, at least for the handful of days/nights where it'd be miserable sleeping in otherwise cool locales.
Well, if you work in an air conditioned office most of the day, why do you need A/C at home? The night time is all that matters (for sleeping).
Also, San Jose is not really "coastal", it is a 45 minute drive to the coast.
Also, in really hot and dry weather you can use "swamp coolers" which are evaporative coolers. They are really effective and can be used in lieu of air conditioning.
In hot and humid conditions, even in the upper Midwest, aka like Minneapolis, A/C is still needed. I think it was in the upper 90's a summer or two ago, and that's with humidity.
Well, if you work in an air conditioned office most of the day, why do you need A/C at home? The night time is all that matters (for sleeping).
Also, San Jose is not really "coastal", it is a 45 minute drive to the coast.
Also, in really hot and dry weather you can use "swamp coolers" which are evaporative coolers. They are really effective and can be used in lieu of air conditioning.
In hot and humid conditions, even in the upper Midwest, aka like Minneapolis, A/C is still needed. I think it was in the upper 90's a summer or two ago, and that's with humidity.
Given the choice I think I'd still rather live in Minneapolis without AC than San Jose. In San Jose summer lasts half the year. It is a lot better than the Central Valley though. You'd have to be insane to live in Stockton without AC.
Given the choice I think I'd still rather live in Minneapolis without AC than San Jose. In San Jose summer lasts half the year. It is a lot better than the Central Valley though. You'd have to be insane to live in Stockton without AC.
Quite obviously.
And unless you work 365 days a year, you will be at home during the day and it will be absolutely miserable when it's in the 100s sans air conditioning.
The fact is that you will need air conditioning far more often inland CA than in the Twin Cities - very few people would be foolish enough to argue otherwise, because it simply doesn't make any sense to argue this.
Here is my observation after living most of my life in low cost of living areas (South Dakota and Nebraska) and for the last 5 years now living in the Seattle area. The higher cost of living in this area is really just with housing- most everything else is very similar. However that being said, housing is a lot more- a house back in Nebraska, new construction would be in the $150K-200K range. Here in a suburban area it would be more like $400K-500K. That is a lot more- but when passing through neighborhoods and all over the metro area you still get the sense that people still have a higher standard of living here than they did back there. I say this because overall, you see people with nicer cars, dressing nicer, having nicer houses here. Back there even though housing is cheap, a LOT of it looks rather run down, the houses are more basic in many ways (finishings, etc), and people tend to be broke a lot more- not enough money to cover bills, having to drive old beater cars, don't dress as nice, etc.
So I know we can run numbers and show one area with cost of living adjusted may or may not be better off, but the "ground level" experience I have is that people still do far better out here in my corner of the west than they did back in the "cheap" Midwest.
I can kind of understand why Denver is expensive. The good economy, legal marijuana, and close access to mountains and skiing. Portland doesn't have any of those things from my understanding.
Portland has close access to mountains and skiing as well, it has close access to the ocean beaches (90 minute drive), and has a mild climate.
Here is my observation after living most of my life in low cost of living areas (South Dakota and Nebraska) and for the last 5 years now living in the Seattle area. The higher cost of living in this area is really just with housing- most everything else is very similar. However that being said, housing is a lot more- a house back in Nebraska, new construction would be in the $150K-200K range. Here in a suburban area it would be more like $400K-500K. That is a lot more- but when passing through neighborhoods and all over the metro area you still get the sense that people still have a higher standard of living here than they did back there. I say this because overall, you see people with nicer cars, dressing nicer, having nicer houses here. Back there even though housing is cheap, a LOT of it looks rather run down, the houses are more basic in many ways (finishings, etc), and people tend to be broke a lot more- not enough money to cover bills, having to drive old beater cars, don't dress as nice, etc.
So I know we can run numbers and show one area with cost of living adjusted may or may not be better off, but the "ground level" experience I have is that people still do far better out here in my corner of the west than they did back in the "cheap" Midwest.
I'm sure much or all that is true, but your comparison is akin to Chicago vs San Bernardino or something and then extrapolating it to Midwest vs West, instead of more peer-to-peer like Minneapolis vs Seattle. South Dakota and Nebraska?
Portland has close access to mountains and skiing as well, it has close access to the ocean beaches (90 minute drive), and has a mild climate.
I don't consider 90 minutes "close access" per se. If you don't have a car it's impossible to reach the coast for a day trip. Besides, I know it's not quite the same but much of the Midwest and South are also close to lake and gulf beaches. And the Oregon Coast isn't the same as a warm stereotypical beach so I think it's a fair comparison.
I don't think the fact the Oregon Coast and Mount Hood Meadows are a 90 minute drive away is reason enough to pay more for rent. Vancouver BC on the other hand ... the mountains and the sea are right there.
As for a "mild" climate ... maybe compared to North Dakota Portland has a mild climate but a lot of people would definitely find it unpleasantly wet and cloudy most of the year, and unpleasantly hot and dry during the summer. Sub-freezing and 90F+ temperatures aren't as frequent as a lot of areas of the country but Portland is not San Diego either.
I don't consider 90 minutes "close access" per se. If you don't have a car it's impossible to reach the coast for a day trip. Besides, I know it's not quite the same but much of the Midwest and South are also close to lake and gulf beaches. And the Oregon Coast isn't the same as a warm stereotypical beach so I think it's a fair comparison.
I don't think the fact the Oregon Coast and Mount Hood Meadows are a 90 minute drive away is reason enough to pay more for rent. Vancouver BC on the other hand ... the mountains and the sea are right there.
As for a "mild" climate ... maybe compared to North Dakota Portland has a mild climate but a lot of people would definitely find it unpleasantly wet and cloudy most of the year, and unpleasantly hot and dry during the summer. Sub-freezing and 90F+ temperatures aren't as frequent as a lot of areas of the country but Portland is not San Diego either.
Portland is not San Diego, this is true- but it is more mild than a huge chunk of the country, pretty much anything east of Portland and north of the "southern" states in the winter, and more mild in summer than pretty much any of the rest of the country.
And true Portland is not as close to the ocean or mountains as Vancouver, BC- but most people would consider 90 minutes rather close. The vast majority of people in this country have cars so it's a tiny number who would find that distance not doable due to not having a car. Sure being right on the water is even more attractive, but 90 minutes from the ocean is far better than a lot of other places in the country, so that location overall does make it a more desirable and more expensive place to live than many cities in middle America.
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.
