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.
The request in this thread is probably the most common request related to climate on these forums. There isn't really a perfect answer, but rest assured *no* suggestion east of the Rockies makes any sense. Appalachia isn't 'mild' in any meaningful sense of the word.
The cooling effect in summer is mostly caused by elevation which of course also has a cooling effect in winter. Even down into TN, Northern GA or AL, the winters aren't 'mild' in the way you'd use it to describe Southern California. Unless the grey of barren trees and 35-40 degree highs are your ideas of a 'mild winter'.
You have to go all the way to the coast to get mostly mild winters and of course there you get the full brunt of the warm season's humidity. So in the East it's always a trade-off, you don't want a humid hot summer? Well better be prepared for a colder winter, too.
The affordable parts of the West are inland mostly - and therefore not as mild as say a Santa Monica or San Diego. So if you just want winters with mostly mild temps (50s/60s/70s) but can live with hot arid summers (80s-low 100s) then inland CA in lower elevations is fine and once you get out of the major metros also not that expensive.
California also has a good amount of empty land even close to the coast in Northern CA. Of course you're still paying all the cost of living in a Democratic one party state in terms of taxation and so forth, but houses aren't going for 7 figures in Crescent City for instance. Of course they have the drawback that they're very rural and quite a bit away from everything. But you don't get much milder than that part of the country as 50s through 60s is pretty much the norm all year at the coast.
The request in this thread is probably the most common request related to climate on these forums. There isn't really a perfect answer, but rest assured *no* suggestion east of the Rockies makes any sense. Appalachia isn't 'mild' in any meaningful sense of the word.
The cooling effect in summer is mostly caused by elevation which of course also has a cooling effect in winter. Even down into TN, Northern GA or AL, the winters aren't 'mild' in the way you'd use it to describe Southern California. Unless the grey of barren trees and 35-40 degree highs are your ideas of a 'mild winter'.
Perception. Maybe the southern Appalachians don't seem mild to a native of CA, but someone used to midwest winters will generally see it differently. Same source and location as my post above.
Jan 2017 20 days highs in the 50s-60s, Feb 22 days (6 of those in the 70s)
Jan 2018 13 days highs in the 50s-60s, Feb 21 days (8 of those in the 70s/80s)
Jan 2019 14 days highs in the 50s-60s, Feb 21 days (1 of those in the 70s)
I use a broom to remove what little snow we get here, and very rarely do we get anything meaningful in the way of ice. I find it comfortable to be out of doors daily for most of the year, other than several weeks in August and again in February. I've lived in quite a few areas of the south and midwest and I can say that this area has the mildest seasons of them all.
Perception. Maybe the southern Appalachians don't seem mild to a native of CA,
Definitely don't. Asheville or Knoxville means 6-10 inches of snow a year, with Jan. average highs in the upper 40s, and plenty of frosts and freezes. Kind of like Richmond, VA, and slightly better than DC.
Compare that to Sacramento, rarely get a night under 30 or over 60. I live in the East Bay near SF and its 12 months of outdoor activities. Never too cold or too hot for tennis or hiking, and very few mosquitoes. Sacramento is also much cheaper than the Bay Area.
Definitely don't. Asheville or Knoxville means 6-10 inches of snow a year, with Jan. average highs in the upper 40s, and plenty of frosts and freezes. Kind of like Richmond, VA, and slightly better than DC.
Compare that to Sacramento, rarely get a night under 30 or over 60. I live in the East Bay near SF and its 12 months of outdoor activities. Never too cold or too hot for tennis or hiking, and very few mosquitoes. Sacramento is also much cheaper than the Bay Area.
OP is from the midwest, is your COL there in CA in alignment with the request for affordable housing in the 100-150k range? I'm not here to debate what the 'best' (IMO CA is not it) climate is, I'm here to answer the OP's question with facts.
How about the Piedmont Triad region of NC (higher elevation than most of the South, lower elevation than the Appalachians)? Mild winters and summers are humid, but not as hot and humid as along the coast or further South.
Maybe look at the Sacramento Valley region in Northern California (Redding, Chico, Yuba City, maybe Sac). Also, the Sierra Vista metro in Arizona has a mild/warm climate (avg. highs in low 60s in the winter, upper 80s/low 90s in the summer).
Sacramento has a solid climate and I know its less expensive than other parts of CA, but there is really no city or area really that exemplifies your criteria of a mild, affordable place. The Upland South is probably a little better than other parts of the South (ATL, Knoxville, Charlotte, Triad, Triangle) but it also has humid spells and it gets pretty hot here during the summer. The winter isn't that bad as its usually 50's and low 60's , with lows in the 30's. I get that may be a bit cold but nothing can be perfect. Snow is more common the closer you are to the mountains and the farther north you go, but Charlotte for example hasn't had a good snow in a while now. Maybe the Outer Banks would be a good idea but you don't want to be that isolated. I don't know much about New Mexico but maybe that works?
Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. There's always a trade off, the question is the trade off worth it? Is losing the prospects of home ownership worth it to live in a city like San Francisco, LA, Honolulu, or NYC? Is frigid snow worth it for an affordable, green city with mild summers like Minneapolis? Is humid summers worth it for an affordable green city with mild winters like New Orleans or Tampa? Is brown and high temperatures worth it for an always sunny and mild winter place like Phoenix? Is rural living with no job prospects worth it for some small town with good weather and low cost of living?
You have to choose which of these cons are tolerable and then stick to it. We all have preferences.
Most people on City-Data end up trying to find places with great climates. California tops the list usually, but the cost of living in California is simply unattainable for a lot of people. Is there a place in the US that enjoys mild weather (50s-80s mostly) year-round, with sunshine and things to do? I know the South fits the bill, but the South is also humid and along the coast, swampy. I'm tired of the midwest, where we wait for 7 months for good weather and then struggle to make time to do all the camping, beach trips and fun outdoor activities in the 3 months of decent weather.
As far as affordable, could someone who isn't in one of the professional classes find a good house for 100-150,000 in a nice town or city with amenities? Where's the secret sweet spot you've been hiding up your sleeve?
Or is there simply no sweet spot? Pay the cost of living in California or live with the swampy mugginess of the South?
maybe ABQ,NM
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.
