This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
I don't think such a thing exists
Even of the handful of pleasant ones, each still has its drawbacks, whether due to climate change, cost of living, natural disasters, lousy winters or whatnot
[sep]
([i]edited to add the below[/i])
I would like living in Maine if it weren't for the lousy winters, and New England more broadly if not for both the lousy winters and higher cost of living than where I am now ... and I used to imagine Maine would be maybe a bit safer from hurricanes, but I have to rid myself of that delusion, even Connecticut had a hurricane in the 1930s and Nova Scotia was hit last year, but I do suppose they would be less frequent and weaker up there than where I am now ... but where I am now, the best part about this place is the mild winters (its already getting over 80 F yesterday and today) ... however the summers are hellish, as are the Trump-loving rednecks ... and for the moment it's still a bit cheaper than New England, though so many people are moving here that is changing .... other than some wide expanses of marsh the landscape is fairly boring, and only rich people can afford to live with a marsh view ... I prefer the rocky coasts of New England, nothern California and Washington state to the long fairly flat sandy beaches here, and the only part of the US with clear turquoise waters like parts of the Mediterranean are redneck Florida and expensive/isolated/impractical Hawaii, everywhere else the water always seems to be cloudy, although at least in parts of NorCal it does have a bit of a turquoise hue
I would love NY if not for the expense and snow, NorCal if not for the fires/droughts/earthquakes/expense, and Washington west of the Cascades if not for the duration of grey skies in winter, the expense, the non-zero possibility of drought/fire/rare heat domes, and THE CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE (holy f*ck ... coastal Oregon is absolutely out of consideration because of this, and while the Willamette Valley is interesting, it seems to have the fire and quake drawbacks of the much of the US west coast, but without the coast, and without the seismic infrastructure updates of WA and CA, Portland is expensive, and the wine acreage isn't super diverse, certainly nowhere near as diverse as southern Europe) ... and honestly I still think the landscape of, say, coastal Mendocino County in California looks a bit nicer than the typical coast-forest interface appearance in western Washington, I can't quite explain it but there are subtle differences maybe in predominant tree species, composition of the beaches and in particular the actual Pacific coast (not the Strait) of WA seems more dreary, just lots of huge driftwood, depressing poverty, et al. (but the Hoh rain forest is very nice)
i prefer being near the coast even if I can't swim, for some reason being way out in the middle of nowhere and landlocked kind of feels a bit like being trapped in some way (ironically my grandfather apparently felt the exact opposite when he lived on the rural NorCal coast, he felt trapped I guess between the sea and the mountains, and I can see a bit of logic in that, so my mind must be broken)
The desert and the plains in particular are something I am content to have seen once but it's nowhere appealing enough to live in those environments ... and mountains without ocean (the Rockies) seems incomplete to me, I guess I want the sea just a bit more than mountains
Side note: no matter how much coastal California is described as a Mediterranean climate, and in some respects has a similar landscape, no place on Earth exactly replicates the Mediterranean (whether in France, Italy, or even Greece/Albania/Croatia/Slovenia) ... it's just not the same, it's nice, but not the same (and of course parts of the Mediterranean have their own drawbacks too ... no place on Earth is truly ideal)
Even of the handful of pleasant ones, each still has its drawbacks, whether due to climate change, cost of living, natural disasters, lousy winters or whatnot
[sep]
([i]edited to add the below[/i])
I would like living in Maine if it weren't for the lousy winters, and New England more broadly if not for both the lousy winters and higher cost of living than where I am now ... and I used to imagine Maine would be maybe a bit safer from hurricanes, but I have to rid myself of that delusion, even Connecticut had a hurricane in the 1930s and Nova Scotia was hit last year, but I do suppose they would be less frequent and weaker up there than where I am now ... but where I am now, the best part about this place is the mild winters (its already getting over 80 F yesterday and today) ... however the summers are hellish, as are the Trump-loving rednecks ... and for the moment it's still a bit cheaper than New England, though so many people are moving here that is changing .... other than some wide expanses of marsh the landscape is fairly boring, and only rich people can afford to live with a marsh view ... I prefer the rocky coasts of New England, nothern California and Washington state to the long fairly flat sandy beaches here, and the only part of the US with clear turquoise waters like parts of the Mediterranean are redneck Florida and expensive/isolated/impractical Hawaii, everywhere else the water always seems to be cloudy, although at least in parts of NorCal it does have a bit of a turquoise hue
I would love NY if not for the expense and snow, NorCal if not for the fires/droughts/earthquakes/expense, and Washington west of the Cascades if not for the duration of grey skies in winter, the expense, the non-zero possibility of drought/fire/rare heat domes, and THE CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE (holy f*ck ... coastal Oregon is absolutely out of consideration because of this, and while the Willamette Valley is interesting, it seems to have the fire and quake drawbacks of the much of the US west coast, but without the coast, and without the seismic infrastructure updates of WA and CA, Portland is expensive, and the wine acreage isn't super diverse, certainly nowhere near as diverse as southern Europe) ... and honestly I still think the landscape of, say, coastal Mendocino County in California looks a bit nicer than the typical coast-forest interface appearance in western Washington, I can't quite explain it but there are subtle differences maybe in predominant tree species, composition of the beaches and in particular the actual Pacific coast (not the Strait) of WA seems more dreary, just lots of huge driftwood, depressing poverty, et al. (but the Hoh rain forest is very nice)
i prefer being near the coast even if I can't swim, for some reason being way out in the middle of nowhere and landlocked kind of feels a bit like being trapped in some way (ironically my grandfather apparently felt the exact opposite when he lived on the rural NorCal coast, he felt trapped I guess between the sea and the mountains, and I can see a bit of logic in that, so my mind must be broken)
The desert and the plains in particular are something I am content to have seen once but it's nowhere appealing enough to live in those environments ... and mountains without ocean (the Rockies) seems incomplete to me, I guess I want the sea just a bit more than mountains
Side note: no matter how much coastal California is described as a Mediterranean climate, and in some respects has a similar landscape, no place on Earth exactly replicates the Mediterranean (whether in France, Italy, or even Greece/Albania/Croatia/Slovenia) ... it's just not the same, it's nice, but not the same (and of course parts of the Mediterranean have their own drawbacks too ... no place on Earth is truly ideal)