One can already tell you some factors deductively (and verifiedly): it's not the density, it's the presence. Mass is phonoabsorbent; there where you have buildings, you have both noise from the inhabitants and shielding from the constructions.
In the open spaces, one single source can pollute for even ten kilometers or five miles of distance, and more. The added effects of natural acoustics can be worsening - barkings bouncing in the echo from valley to valley, starting in front and returning behind etc.
> The trend is higher sound levels in wetter areas with more vegetation. This is due to the sounds of wind blowing through vegetation, flowing water, and more animals (especially birds and frogs) vocalizing in more fertile locations.
I find those sorts of natural sounds to be way less annoying and offensive than machine-originated sounds, even at equal decibel levels. Perhaps it’s because of a learned/cultural associations, but I’d bet there’s something inherently annoying to most manmade sounds, probably due to the periodic nature of motors, fans, etc. I’d be interested in the above suggested diff map showing (approximately) machine-originated sound levels.
I was noticing the same thing. Equally easy to pick out the major US cities. In the West, anyway ... where the lack of major oceanside cities above San Fran is especially notable. (Why is that?)
Lack of well-protected harbors north of the Bay Area.
As you move North the winter storms get more and more fierce. You have to go pretty far inland (Portland or Puget Sound) to reach calm waters and a low enough wind speed to hold down construction costs for tall buildings.
The closest thing to an exception is Grays Harbor, which is topographically equivalent to the SF Bay but extremely shallow -- much too shallow for container ships. They have to dredge it every few years just to get the ag/lumber/automobile ships into the port.
Being next to the ocean up in the PNW sucks ass. Windy, misty cold for 10 months and then 7 weeks of windy and misty. You get 1 week of pleasant weather spread through the 7.
That's what I found strange honestly. I don't know why but I always thought the west coast was great weather. But it sucks. Only southern California had ok weather, but even then the beaches weren't great and the water was cold in summer. The farther North it was like borderline miserable weather.
I guess the weather comparison trope is based on New York and places that it snows a lot, but so much of the US has a far better climate than the west coast.
Where I am it never ever gets hot and it gets below freezing maybe two or three nights a year. When it's warm it's never humid (dry summers) and the only time it's humid is when it rains, which happens pretty much all winter. I kinda like that. Nights are cool (55F or below) every night, even in the middle of summer, which makes for comfortable sleeping.
The main downside IMO is the short days in the winter, but that's really latitude rather than weather.
Yeah, it definitely depends on what you like and I get that different people like different types of weather. To me though, that sounds pretty miserable, except for the dry summer, except it's not hot so not great for doing summer activities.
Just wondering, have you lived anywhere with a different climate?