|
damon_achey
Mar 8, 2011, 6:29 PM
Post #1 of 99
(9638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 8
|
I'm looking to relocate in the next 6-12 months and am just looking for a brainstormed list of cities to consider. Requirements are reasonably large city for employment options, lots of climbing within 1-2 hours away, good length of season to take advantage of it.
Some off the top of my head...
Seattle (currently live here)
pros: 6+ respectable crags within 2 hours
cons: overcast/drizzly 220 days a year
Denver
pros: ?
cons: ?
Phoenix
pros: ?
cons: ?
Where else should I be considering?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Mar 8, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #2 of 99
(9628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
damon_achey wrote: I'm looking to relocate in the next 6-12 months and am just looking for a brainstormed list of cities to consider. Requirements are reasonably large city for employment options, lots of climbing within 1-2 hours away, good length of season to take advantage of it. Some off the top of my head... Seattle (currently live here) pros: 6+ respectable crags within 2 hours cons: overcast/drizzly 220 days a year Denver pros: ? cons: ? Phoenix pros: ? cons: ? Where else should I be considering?
Two posts since registering 6 years ago? Perhaps you didn't see that obvious search function on every forum page?
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rch_string=best+city
|
|
|
|
|
damon_achey
Mar 8, 2011, 6:46 PM
Post #3 of 99
(9611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 8
|
I did, but "city" and "cities" returned lots of wrong hits, for some reason adding "best" just didn't didn't occur to me.
Thanks for the tip.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffkash
Mar 8, 2011, 6:47 PM
Post #4 of 99
(9609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 40
|
Los Angeles
I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing
Today: 70 degrees, sunny
Tomorrow: sunny
And so on....
Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags.
Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away
(This post was edited by jeffkash on Mar 8, 2011, 6:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Mar 8, 2011, 6:50 PM
Post #5 of 99
(9596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
Salt Lake City- loads of climbing and skiing right outside of town, if you're willing to drive a couple hours, there's tons more of each. The winter would suck if you dont do winter sports, though.
Vegas, i live here currently, and as far as climbing goes (assuming you dont climb alpine), there probably isnt a better metro area in the western US- 350 days of climbable weather a year (Red Rock/Charleston) with crags within 10 minutes of town. If you're willing to drive 10hrs, the PNW is the only place you cant get to. The problem is the employment- options are limited, but there is stuff out there.
If you wanna go further, Chattanooga/Knoxville are two other pretty awesome places. For sheer rock quantity, Chattanooga is probably where its at. The amount of rock in town is disturbing, and the amount of rock within a couple of hours would consume you and about 30 generations of your offsprings time. The food there is pretty damn tasty too.
I wouldnt go for Phoenix, personally- just not much world class climbing around. Seems like there is stuff around, but nothing of note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 6:51 PM
Post #7 of 99
(9592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away
LA sucks for climbing. Not as bad as that other LA but definitely not one of the top contenders.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 8, 2011, 6:56 PM
Post #8 of 99
(9584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
damon_achey wrote: I'm looking to relocate in the next 6-12 months and am just looking for a brainstormed list of cities to consider. Requirements are reasonably large city for employment options, lots of climbing within 1-2 hours away, good length of season to take advantage of it. Some off the top of my head... Seattle (currently live here) pros: 6+ respectable crags within 2 hours cons: overcast/drizzly 220 days a year Denver pros: ? cons: ? Phoenix pros: ? cons: ? Where else should I be considering?
Denver's actually really terrible, since the most well known crags have a lot of history, but not a lot of good climbing, at least compared to how long you have to wait in line to get on any given classic. The two best areas, Lumpy Ridge and the South Platte, are both at least an hour from any location in the metro area, but if you can find a home closer to either, you'd do pretty well there. Clear Creek Canyon is nice too, but again, crowded, and the rock is the color of asphalt, so the summers really suck.
Phoenix is the same way, although the summers are much MUCH hotter.
Maybe I'm spoiled with a 20 minute drive to my local crag, but I just cannot be happy in a place where more than an hour is the minimum to get to decent climbing, which is why I only lived in Denver for 8 months before moving back to Wyoming.
It seems like Salt Lake City might be all right, if you're willing to ignore the people there. I'm told SLC is the most medicated city in the US, and its just kind of weird.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffkash
Mar 8, 2011, 6:59 PM
Post #9 of 99
(9574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 40
|
gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away LA sucks for climbing. Not as bad as that other LA but definitely not one of the top contenders.
Why exactly does it suck for climbing? It puts you in a good central spot to reach Joshua Tree, Malibu Creek, Echo Cliffs, etc...
Care to offer any sort of rationale at all, or are you going to just be like everyone else on RC.com? I am open to hearing what you think, but as of this moment, I am not sure that you do.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 8, 2011, 6:59 PM
Post #10 of 99
(9574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away
Snowboarding 2 hours away? Where? I've been to LA quite a few times and it takes 2 hours to move 15 miles from the airport......if you work a normal 40 hour week, good luck heading towards the mountians on Friday afternoon in the summers. Same goes for the Bay area. 4 hours to Yosemite, yeah right.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffkash
Mar 8, 2011, 7:03 PM
Post #11 of 99
(9564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 40
|
dynosore wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away Snowboarding 2 hours away? Where? I've been to LA quite a few times and it takes 2 hours to move 15 miles from the airport......if you work a normal 40 hour week, good luck heading towards the mountians on Friday afternoon in the summers. Same goes for the Bay area. 4 hours to Yosemite, yeah right.
True, that maybe is a bit ambitious, I'll adjust to 2.5 hours, but that depends on where in LA you live, and what time you leave. It's called planning ahead. If you leave it 5pm on Friday, you chose to leave at the worst time of the week, but if you leave at 6am on Saturday it is a breeze. Traffic blows, but everyone knows that and you work around it.
(This post was edited by jeffkash on Mar 8, 2011, 7:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 8, 2011, 7:06 PM
Post #12 of 99
(9560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
To answer the OP, I've been to all 50 states and most of the big cities, and I've decided on Colorado Springs. Great weather, tons of sunshine. Garden of Gods and Red Rocks right in the city, mountains right outside it. Shelf Road, Boulder Canyon, Flatirons, RMNP, Rifle, Vedauwoo, 14er's, Black Canyon, all within a weekend trip distance. If I ever get bored of that I'll drive a couple more hours to the Tetons, S. Utah, or the like.
(This post was edited by dynosore on Mar 8, 2011, 7:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 7:21 PM
Post #13 of 99
(9535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
jeffkash wrote: gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away LA sucks for climbing. Not as bad as that other LA but definitely not one of the top contenders. Why exactly does it suck for climbing? It puts you in a good central spot to reach Joshua Tree, Malibu Creek, Echo Cliffs, etc... Care to offer any sort of rationale at all, or are you going to just be like everyone else on RC.com? I am open to hearing what you think, but as of this moment, I am not sure that you do.
Sure, for starters you are not close to any decent climbing. You can make a nice day or weekend trip but you can't pop off after work and run up a few pitches on quality rock.
Hence the climbing in LA sucks. Now the climbing in San Bernardino County is pretty stellar but that's a rather large geographical area with only a few places most people would want to/could relocate to.
Add to that the city is pretty bland and the people are horrendous.
There do exist cities with better living experiences and better climbing, thus LA is not one of the top contenders for "best climbing cities".
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 7:23 PM
Post #14 of 99
(9532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
dynosore wrote: To answer the OP, I've been to all 50 states and most of the big cities, and I've decided on Colorado Springs. Great weather, tons of sunshine. Garden of Gods and Red Rocks right in the city, mountains right outside it. Shelf Road, Boulder Canyon, Flatirons, RMNP, Rifle, Vedauwoo, 14er's, Black Canyon, all within a weekend trip distance. If I ever get bored of that I'll drive a couple more hours to the Tetons, S. Utah, or the like.
I agree with this and I've got the same credentials to back up the claim. If there happened to be a coast abutting the front range and I could get to the ocean I'd move to the springs tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 8, 2011, 7:24 PM
Post #15 of 99
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
dynosore wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away Snowboarding 2 hours away? Where? I've been to LA quite a few times and it takes 2 hours to move 15 miles from the airport......if you work a normal 40 hour week, good luck heading towards the mountians on Friday afternoon in the summers. Same goes for the Bay area. 4 hours to Yosemite, yeah right.
"LA" is pretty big, and isn;t just the city of Los Angeles... I was born and raised in Long Beach (The LBC), and enjoyed year-round climbing, ocean, and skiing all just hours away. J-Tree in just over 2 hours, Tahquitz/Scuicide in about 2, Malibu in just over 2, Bipshop in less than 6, Yosemite/Tuolumne in less than 8, bouldering at The Cove on the beach in Newport in about 30-40 minutes, and a great myriad of other climbing areas, many less than 2 hours away, plus a GREAT music scene, and consistantly good weather.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Mar 8, 2011, 7:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jeffkash
Mar 8, 2011, 7:26 PM
Post #16 of 99
(9529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 40
|
gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away LA sucks for climbing. Not as bad as that other LA but definitely not one of the top contenders. Why exactly does it suck for climbing? It puts you in a good central spot to reach Joshua Tree, Malibu Creek, Echo Cliffs, etc... Care to offer any sort of rationale at all, or are you going to just be like everyone else on RC.com? I am open to hearing what you think, but as of this moment, I am not sure that you do. Sure, for starters you are not close to any decent climbing. You can make a nice day or weekend trip but you can't pop off after work and run up a few pitches on quality rock. Hence the climbing in LA sucks. Now the climbing in San Bernardino County is pretty stellar but that's a rather large geographical area with only a few places most people would want to/could relocate to. Add to that the city is pretty bland and the people are horrendous. There do exist cities with better living experiences and better climbing, thus LA is not one of the top contenders for "best climbing cities".
Nice to hear you actually back up your opinion, or whatever your first post was.
Sorry to hear that you couldn't find your place in LA. You must have been here for some time though to get to know all 4 million people in order to write them off as horrendous. Unless you were generalizing, but I can't see someone as levelheaded and articulate as you capable of doing something so horrendous.
I think during my 3 hour break between classes tomorrow I will go hit Malibu Creek.
Anyway, this is my last post here.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 7:31 PM
Post #17 of 99
(9521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
rrrADAM wrote: dynosore wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away Snowboarding 2 hours away? Where? I've been to LA quite a few times and it takes 2 hours to move 15 miles from the airport......if you work a normal 40 hour week, good luck heading towards the mountians on Friday afternoon in the summers. Same goes for the Bay area. 4 hours to Yosemite, yeah right. "LA" is pretty big, and isn;t just the city of Los Angeles... I was born and raised in Long Beach (The LBC), and enjoyed year-round climbing, ocean, and skiing all just hours away. J-Tree in just over 2 hours, Tahquitz/Scuicide in about 2, Malibu in just over 2, Bipshop in less than 6, Yosemite/Tuolumne in less than 8, bouldering at The Cove on the beach in Newport in about 30-40 minutes, and a great myriad of other climbing areas, many less than 2 hours away, plus a GREAT music scene, and consistantly good weather.
Ha! Nice to see pirates cove included in your list.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 8, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #18 of 99
(9518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
petsfed wrote: damon_achey wrote: I'm looking to relocate in the next 6-12 months and am just looking for a brainstormed list of cities to consider. Requirements are reasonably large city for employment options, lots of climbing within 1-2 hours away, good length of season to take advantage of it. Some off the top of my head... Seattle (currently live here) pros: 6+ respectable crags within 2 hours cons: overcast/drizzly 220 days a year Denver pros: ? cons: ? Phoenix pros: ? cons: ? Where else should I be considering? Denver's actually really terrible, since the most well known crags have a lot of history, but not a lot of good climbing, at least compared to how long you have to wait in line to get on any given classic. The two best areas, Lumpy Ridge and the South Platte, are both at least an hour from any location in the metro area, but if you can find a home closer to either, you'd do pretty well there. Clear Creek Canyon is nice too, but again, crowded, and the rock is the color of asphalt, so the summers really suck. Phoenix is the same way, although the summers are much MUCH hotter. Maybe I'm spoiled with a 20 minute drive to my local crag, but I just cannot be happy in a place where more than an hour is the minimum to get to decent climbing, which is why I only lived in Denver for 8 months before moving back to Wyoming. It seems like Salt Lake City might be all right, if you're willing to ignore the people there. I'm told SLC is the most medicated city in the US, and its just kind of weird.
It's hard to believe you're seriously equating Phoenix with Denver. Have you lived in Denver?
Only SLC clearly beats out Denver/Boulder for the amount, quality, and variety of climbing within a reasonable drive.
There are plenty of places better than Denver for certain specific types of climbing. E.G. it's a crappy place to be for ice climbing. But to me, ice is for drinks.
Anyway, to the OP:
Denver pros:
--------------
Weather
variety of climbing
ease of finding partners/community
quality of climbing
other cultural institutions (otherwise Grand Junction might be better)
decent skiing (if you care)
Denver cons:
---------------
Far from an ocean (if you care)
crowded
Not as much world class climbing within a couple hours as some places
GO
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 8, 2011, 7:35 PM
Post #19 of 99
(9512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Out west, the best two are SLC and Vegas. Denver 3rd I suppose.
After that, LA, SF and Phoenix probably roughly equal. I wouldn't say any of those are great climbing towns unless you are willing to drive a fair bit on the weekends, in which case there is tons of great stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 7:35 PM
Post #20 of 99
(9511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
jeffkash wrote: gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: gmggg wrote: jeffkash wrote: Los Angeles I am very biased, but so are 4 million other people who like sun and year round climbing. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/...egory:Sport_Climbing Today: 70 degrees, sunny Tomorrow: sunny And so on.... Con: traffic, cost of living can be high, so you have to look around, usually prices go down as you get further away from centralized LA and thus closer to the crags. Pros: sick of the sun, go snowboarding - 2 hours away LA sucks for climbing. Not as bad as that other LA but definitely not one of the top contenders. Why exactly does it suck for climbing? It puts you in a good central spot to reach Joshua Tree, Malibu Creek, Echo Cliffs, etc... Care to offer any sort of rationale at all, or are you going to just be like everyone else on RC.com? I am open to hearing what you think, but as of this moment, I am not sure that you do. Sure, for starters you are not close to any decent climbing. You can make a nice day or weekend trip but you can't pop off after work and run up a few pitches on quality rock. Hence the climbing in LA sucks. Now the climbing in San Bernardino County is pretty stellar but that's a rather large geographical area with only a few places most people would want to/could relocate to. Add to that the city is pretty bland and the people are horrendous. There do exist cities with better living experiences and better climbing, thus LA is not one of the top contenders for "best climbing cities". Nice to hear you actually back up your opinion, or whatever your first post was. Sorry to hear that you couldn't find your place in LA. You must have been here for some time though to get to know all 4 million people in order to write them off as horrendous. Unless you were generalizing, but I can't see someone as levelheaded and articulate as you capable of doing something so horrendous. I think during my 3 hour break between classes tomorrow I will go hit Malibu Creek. Anyway, this is my last post here.
Woo, Are you running for Lieutenant mayor?
Have fun at Malibu creek. Don't forget to bring the 70m rope!
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 8, 2011, 7:37 PM
Post #21 of 99
(9505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
caughtinside wrote: Out west, the best two are SLC and Vegas. Denver 3rd I suppose. After that, LA, SF and Phoenix probably roughly equal. I wouldn't say any of those are great climbing towns unless you are willing to drive a fair bit on the weekends, in which case there is tons of great stuff.
Vegas is a good city to mention, it doesn't get enough attention in these types of threads.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Mar 8, 2011, 7:44 PM
Post #22 of 99
(9499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
If you're looking for decent crags within a couple of hours and more sun, anywhere on the CO front range is pretty good. Your profile doesn't specify sport vs trad vs whatever so it's a little harder to specify.
|
|
|
|
|
damon_achey
Mar 8, 2011, 7:58 PM
Post #23 of 99
(9493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 8
|
shockabuku wrote: If you're looking for decent crags within a couple of hours and more sun, anywhere on the CO front range is pretty good. Your profile doesn't specify sport vs trad vs whatever so it's a little harder to specify.
Great stuff so far. I've filled out more of my profile now, mostly sport and trad, no ice, very little bouldering.
These recommendations are inline with some threads from years ago (I guess rock and cities are slow to change). I may just have to make a lot or road trips this summer to see some of these places but this really helps with narrowing things down.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Mar 8, 2011, 8:02 PM
Post #24 of 99
(9491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
vegastradguy wrote: Salt Lake City- loads of climbing and skiing right outside of town, if you're willing to drive a couple hours, there's tons more of each. The winter would suck if you dont do winter sports, though.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 8, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #25 of 99
(9486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
marc801 wrote: vegastradguy wrote: Salt Lake City- loads of climbing and skiing right outside of town, if you're willing to drive a couple hours, there's tons more of each. The winter would suck if you dont do winter sports, though. Realistically though, winter that prevents climbing is really only about 3 months long. If you're willing to drive the 5 hrs. to the St. George vicinity, you can cut that down to about a month+ or so.
If you lived in a place like SLC, I think you'd be foolish not to at least dabble in some of the winter sports! World class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
