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 guess I can ease up on the weather requirements, just do not want anymore Chicago winter weather when I leave. Also, I can take some humidity, but I spent some time around Orlando,Fl which almost broke me...lol. Do not think I could live in that for an extended period of time.
Humidity as I remember gets more tolerable the more north you are. What about somewhere like Baltimore or NYC? For humidity anyway.
Also if you still want dry but not extreme winters you'll have to put up with the heat. That is the only option out here. Arizona generally fits your winter requirement rule, with night time temps reaching the 30s but that's about at 3 am when no one's awake. But we all know Arizona is hot, so... Unless you can afford the nice weather parts of California (which is really only the coast, the inland parts are not that much different than AZ especially in SoCal) then the West may not be for you if Arizona or Nevada aren't places you'd consider. Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. all have nicer summers but the winters will be much, much colder and will be close to Chicago or even colder. SLC for an example has about the exact same climate as Chicago.
You'll notice that when you compare Western cities that the biggest difference in just temperatures will be in the winter. For an example Phoenix can easily get to 115 in the summer in June and July. Salt Lake City on the other hand shows high in the mid to low 90s. So you are looking at about a 25 degree difference in the summer. Now in the winter SLC has HIGHS in the high 30s, while Phoenix has highs in the low 70s. So a 40 degree difference in the winter. Part of this has to do with SLC's much higher elevation and the fact it is at a higher latitude in general. The humidity keeps the temperatures from doing this out East, which is partially why there is less climate variation overall in the right half of the country. Only the coastal parts of the West are temperate.
I'm not recommending Arizona or Utah to you. In fact I don't think either would have something for you. I'm just pointing out the whole temperature difference thing.
California coast does match everything you want though. The key is if the COL matches the salary you'd get at least for a good lifestyle still.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Everything seems to focus around the California coast, which I anticipated. I just did not know if I was missing out on any hidden gems across the country which deserved further consideration The decision will be between San Francisco and likely Los Angeles, if I did choose California I would probably have to go to Fresno once a month. My experience has always been that people in S.F. were a little more stand offish and L.A. a little more friendly. Several times I have been in L.A for short periods and ended up leaving with a handful of numbers from new contacts.
The big draw for S.F is the outdoor activities (especially the great hiking), highly urban, and I think the food is fantastic. Also there are a lot of DINK's in SF, they just make you work a little harder to get into the group.
L.A has great weather, people, and diversity. Any suggestions on a place where the best of LA and SF intersect? No budget concerns.
@Nightlysparrow, I have been to Madison and it is not for me, so I am guessing Sacramento is not for me either. Thanks for all your info...So far Santa Monica seems great, possibly WeHo.
The Bay Area for sure -- Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco. Hits on all your criteria. And you already know it's an expensive place to live.
You might find SF a bit wierd, however, coming from Chitown because it's such a non-black city. Middle-class for everyone is being priced out, but its particularly noticeable (to me at least) how few black middle-class people or couples I see in the city. Certainly a lot less than in Chitown or NYC. (I've been spending a lot of time in the Bay area for work over the past year). But I haven't ventured out much from downtown or the most popular residential neighborhoods.
Oakland is much more racially diverse, but is smaller and lacks the dense, hi-rise urbanity of Streeterville. But it's definitely a place you'd find appealing. There are some really nice neighborhoods and entertainment options in the city and the commute to SF by BART is easy. Oakland is not all crime and deterioration+you don't have to worry about schools. I'd hazard to guess you'd like it there. Berkeley is even less dense
Berkeley is dominated by the university, of course, and it feels to me something of a cross between SF and Oakland. In Chicago terms, just imagine a combination of Hyde Park and Lakeview, except with a lot of homeless roaming around downtown in a city run by a bunch of ageing hippies.
The big draw for S.F is the outdoor activities (especially the great hiking), highly urban, and I think the food is fantastic. Also there are a lot of DINK's in SF, they just make you work a little harder to get into the group.
L.A has great weather, people, and diversity. Any suggestions on a place where the best of LA and SF intersect? No budget concerns.
So far Santa Monica seems great, possibly WeHo.
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.