Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If we could magically make all American cities have virtually the same climate (for the sake of argument, let's make it 55-75 sunny degrees average every month of the year and the rain only falls between 1:00-3:00 am!) and, since it is magical, keep the same vegetation each one currently has (each metro would look the same as it now does; remember, it is magic)....

how would that change the dynamics of which cities (metro areas) in which people would like to live? Which cities would benefit from the leveling of the climate? Which would be hurt by it.

Remember: you wake up every day of the year in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, or Washington and you have basically the same weather those other cities have.

Where would you choose to live if climate ceased to be a variable? Is that a different place than you currently would choose because climate is a variable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
If climate ceased to be a variable? Easy, I'd stay right here. The weather is the only thing that I really don't like.
 

·
EffSizzle
Joined
·
160 Posts
If weather was the same across the board, then there would be NO reason for me to leave Seattle. I'd stay right here. But I'd give NYC and Chicago serious consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,670 Posts
Miami would have developed into a more pedestrian friendly place (no more summer weather of everyday rain combined with insane heat). The winter would be unchanged since that is our winter climate (lows in the 50's, highs in the low 70's, no rain).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Take that rainy San Francisco and make the seasons a bit more distinct. Now you're talking.
the way to take SF weather and tweak it to make it even more desirable is to turn it into Bay Area weather. Outside of the city, you get places that are not subject to the cool waters coming off the ocean through the Golden Gate. Places like East Bay and the bayside portions of both Marin and the peninsula are often sunnier and warmer than SF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
the way to take SF weather and tweak it to make it even more desirable is to turn it into Bay Area weather. Outside of the city, you get places that are not subject to the cool waters coming off the ocean through the Golden Gate. Places like East Bay and the bayside portions of both Marin and the peninsula are often sunnier and warmer than SF.
On the other hand a fairly regular distribution of precipitation is key to the perfect San Francisco. Green, lush San francisco is so much more attractive than dry, sunburnt San Francisco. Also a couple of light snowfalls in the winter would be cool.

I can see a problem with that though. Imagine driving down one of those steep streets in the snow?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
Boring weather every place? Not for me! I need extreme heat, extreme cold and beautiful autumns. and throw in a blizzard every once in a while
Same here. I wish Long Island would get more blizzards. Heh. Thats why Buffao is on my list.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
On the other hand a fairly regular distribution of precipitation is key to the perfect San Francisco. Green, lush San francisco is so much more attractive than dry, sunburnt San Francisco. Also a couple of light snowfalls in the winter would be cool.

I can see a problem with that though. Imagine driving down one of those steep streets in the snow?
they'd have to turn them all into Lombard Street. Can you imagine 400 twists and turns coming down from Twin Peaks? They'd have to call it the Road to Hana.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
On the other hand a fairly regular distribution of precipitation is key to the perfect San Francisco. Green, lush San francisco is so much more attractive than dry, sunburnt San Francisco. Also a couple of light snowfalls in the winter would be cool.

I can see a problem with that though. Imagine driving down one of those steep streets in the snow?
green, lush San Francisco could be a disaster. What makes SF work is the complete lack of canopy aside from the obvious places like GG Pk, the Presidio, Sutro Hts, etc.

SF works so well because so many tightly packed hillsides are rather barren of tree cover, making their distinctively San Francisco buildings stand out when checking the cityscape. Can you imagine how much Telegraph or Russian hill could lose covered with green? I'll keep the green canopy on the slopes of Mt. Tamalpais or the top of the Berkeley Hills and leave the wonderfully mediteranean SF streetscape visible without that cover of trees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
green, lush San Francisco could be a disaster. What makes SF work is the complete lack of canopy aside from the obvious places like GG Pk, the Presidio, Sutro Hts, etc.

SF works so well because so many tightly packed hillsides are rather barren of tree cover, making their distinctively San Francisco buildings stand out when checking the cityscape. Can you imagine how much Telegraph or Russian hill could lose covered with green? I'll keep the green canopy on the slopes of Mt. Tamalpais or the top of the Berkeley Hills and leave the wonderfully mediteranean SF streetscape visible without that cover of trees.
Nonsense. Green is the way forward. It's my parallel universe and I won't have it any other way.
 

·
Downtown San Jose
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
green, lush San Francisco could be a disaster. What makes SF work is the complete lack of canopy aside from the obvious places like GG Pk, the Presidio, Sutro Hts, etc.

SF works so well because so many tightly packed hillsides are rather barren of tree cover, making their distinctively San Francisco buildings stand out when checking the cityscape. Can you imagine how much Telegraph or Russian hill could lose covered with green? I'll keep the green canopy on the slopes of Mt. Tamalpais or the top of the Berkeley Hills and leave the wonderfully mediteranean SF streetscape visible without that cover of trees.
Agree. Besides, trees have a hard time growing in a lot of SF because of the weather and building shadows. And it's not like SF needs the shade; in fact, I think that on a sunny day people want to see open sky, not be beneath a canopy. It's a city people, not a forest!
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top