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.
If you give up lots of green, flowers in March and lots of leaves in fall, and things going on a strict seasonal schedule (ie it's done snowing now) - and NM fits the bill. Spring and fall are the miss seasons, the shoulder seasons get smushed together in Rockies and aren't as much real distinct seasons compared to the glorious springs and falls in Appalachia. But NM is a great spot for sunny but still winter and tolerable summers. I don't even have AC in my house and it's fine. The sunny and low humidity trims out lushness, but it opens up a world long horizon views, clear night skies. There's not long periods of ugh weather (or long periods of great weather, like October or May in TN).
Arizona’s true “mild winter” pockets are economically poor overpriced resort or mountain towns with cabins close to 500k and climbing anywhere where water is somewhat guaranteed. Places like Prescott and Payson. So if you’re rich and not job dependent then maybe, but because it’s economically poor you’re going to miss out on some civilization amenities, like cuisine diversity, medical care, emergency response, which is up to them.
I'm no expert, but I did some research as part of my own search for a retirement home. Prescott was the one and only place in the Southwest that I found that came close to what I was looking for, climate-wise. So, I paid it a visit, and decided that it was too dry and too isolated for my tastes. But given what the OP is looking for, it might be worth considering.
I'm no expert, but I did some research as part of my own search for a retirement home. Prescott was the one and only place in the Southwest that I found that came close to what I was looking for, climate-wise. So, I paid it a visit, and decided that it was too dry and too isolated for my tastes. But given what the OP is looking for, it might be worth considering.
Unless OP is some kind of trust fund baby, they’re probably going to pay close to $700k or more for a home where there’s no jobs. So why suggest something economically infeasible?
In a country where jobs can fire you for no reason, even if I had a fully remote job, I’d never live in such a city for this reason. Most of the US lives paycheck to paycheck and what if to feed myself, a family, and keep shelter I needed something on the spot? And as someone with chronic illnesses, I’d also wouldn’t live somewhere without good medical care. Which is why I don’t understand why so many old people move to Prescott. I’ve watched my retired grandparents go to doctors appointments every single week and the drive to Prescott from Phoenix where medical professionals actually live, is very traffic heavy now. And you get to a point where you’re too old to drive safely, what then? How do you get to that specialist appointment at Mayo Clinic which is now close to two hours away?
If the East was still too cloudy or rainy, I’d suggest inland Northern California or Nevada. Reno, Sacramento, or Stockton maybe. Four seasons still for someone who got bored by the California coast, dryer but not too dry, and big enough cities that are not economically depressed and shrinking (like Bisbee which another poster mentioned) to where services can be sustained. No these aren’t perfect fits but they are logical for most people.
Unless OP is some kind of trust fund baby, they’re probably going to pay close to $700k or more for a home where there’s no jobs. So why suggest something economically infeasible?
I'm not disputing your views on Prescott. But since the OP's only stated criteria involved climate conditions, I responded on that basis.
Unless OP is some kind of trust fund baby, they’re probably going to pay close to $700k or more for a home where there’s no jobs. So why suggest something economically infeasible?
In a country where jobs can fire you for no reason, even if I had a fully remote job, I’d never live in such a city for this reason. Most of the US lives paycheck to paycheck and what if to feed myself, a family, and keep shelter I needed something on the spot? And as someone with chronic illnesses, I’d also wouldn’t live somewhere without good medical care. Which is why I don’t understand why so many old people move to Prescott. I’ve watched my retired grandparents go to doctors appointments every single week and the drive to Prescott from Phoenix where medical professionals actually live, is very traffic heavy now. And you get to a point where you’re too old to drive safely, what then? How do you get to that specialist appointment at Mayo Clinic which is now close to two hours away?
If the East was still too cloudy or rainy, I’d suggest inland Northern California or Nevada. Reno, Sacramento, or Stockton maybe. Four seasons still for someone who got bored by the California coast, dryer but not too dry, and big enough cities that are not economically depressed and shrinking (like Bisbee which another poster mentioned) to where services can be sustained. No these aren’t perfect fits but they are logical for most people.
Northern Nevada might work, Auburn Ca. or Placerville would come close, but definitely not Stockton
Northern Nevada might work, Auburn Ca. or Placerville would come close, but definitely not Stockton
That’s fair. I made an assumption on Stockton since it has a train connection to Silicon Valley and being nearish to Sacramento that it would probably have a palatable climate and a decent job selection with amenities.
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.