Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Top 10 Best US Large Cities For Climbing
|
A while back there was a great thread about the Top 10 Best Climbing States. Lets make that list for cities now. This list is for cities large enough to generally offer an abundance of career and other opportunities associated with a big city. While many of us would want to live in a place like Flagstaff, it can be challenging to make that happen. So if you have to live in a larger city for work/life/etc - which ones are the best for climbing access? Revision : the "large city" threshold has been adjusted to MSA population of around 1 million or more, a robust local economy, and/or qualitative assessment of having the characteristics and opportunities of a large city. The Wikipedia page for Metropolitan Statistical Areas has the full list. Previously some smaller cities (Chatt) were on the list, but these are now bumped to honorable mention. Once that threshold is met, cities are ranked by climbing access: quality, quantity, variety, and proximity of rock accessible from the city, plus length of season. This climbing doesn't have to be *in* the metro area directly, but accessible from. Will edit based on comments. Debate away. 1. Las Vegas 2. SLC 3. Denver 4. Tucson 5/6. Tie: Sacramento and San Diego 7. LA 8. Seattle 9. Albuqurque* 10: Portland UPDATE: The Eastern-US Sub-List Has Been Added. The kids table. They weren't able to hang with the top western cities, but still deserve some recognition. A rough initial guess shown below. Revisions welcome! Same population criteria apply; must also be east of 100th meridian. 1. Charlotte 2. San Juan 3. Boston 4. Hartford 5........?? Honorable Mentions: (Cities with good climbing access, but too small in population or not sufficiently urban to make the list): Chatt, Reno, ABQ, Lexington, Boulder, Fort Collins, CO Springs, Asheville, Fresno, Boise, El Paso *MSA pop of 900k in ABQ, but considered "big-city enough" for the list since it is a regional hub for its state. |
|
Salt Lake City and Denver |
|
Seattle belongs on there for sure. I wouldn't say Portland typically, but if I have to goose out of those 50, Portland towards the end. |
|
Tucson Phoenix? |
|
San Diego's not bad if you don't mind burly approaches. They've got a free climbing gym right in the city, and (basically) a year round season. |
|
Moab, Salt Lake |
Nathan Bilthuis wrote: Moab is not a city. Certainly not an MSA. |
|
Wait weren’t you in seattle? Are you regretting the move? |
|
Vegas, a pit that should not be lived in, and you pick it as #1- a sad day in hell! |
|
After the first four you're gonna have to start rating cities based solely on their gyms...unless you are talking worldwide (as you didn't specify the USA). There are lots of International cities that fit the bill... |
|
Moab may not be a MSA, but it’s still one of the best climbing cities in the US |
|
Trevor: Only regret is not leaving Seattle sooner. CA has been a major upgrade over WA. Matt: Naming Moab is missing the point. Living in Moab, Spearfish, or Bishop is of course great for climbing. But reality is that many climbers have to compromise on location due to work, family, etc., and end up in a bigger city. But some compromises are better than others. Jon: Thread title indicates US cities. Generally disagree with the "After the first four you're gonna have to start rating cities based solely on their gyms". Sure, there are only a few "A-tier" large climbing cities in the US, and after that you are making bigger compromises. But there are a decent selection of "B-tier" cities. These aren't places you'd move just for climbing, but are good enough that a climber can manage - reasonable compromise places. Mark: I lived in Vegas for a bit. Great place to be a climber, terrible place to be a human. I filled in the list a bit more. Fire away. |
|
I think you should specify the criteria in a bit more detail.. For example, how is the gym scene weighted vs the sport climbing scene vs adventure-style trad climbing and big mountains? Also, if a city falls on that MSA list, is it by definition equal to any other city on the list? You've put Riverside at #5 and San Diego at #8, but most would probably agree that San Diego is a much better place to live if you factor in weather, job opportunities, diversity, other outside activities, etc. The only thing Riverside has going for it over SD is that you shave an hour off the drive to many of the outdoor climbing destinations. I don't know if San Diego ranks particularly high (I live here but I'm not in love with the local climbing) but I for sure as hell think it's above Riverside! Apologies to the Inland Empire. |
|
No need to apologize Jason. San Diego is the best, and way better than the meth infested IE. We’re called America’s Finest City for a reason. |
|
Tucson should definitely be on the list as it's stacked with year round climbing. If you're not into trad then Chatty and NW AR (Fayetteville- Springdale- Rogers) should probably be on your list. Edit: Phoenix should definitely be removed - long drive to most decent climbing and it's way too hot most of the year. |
|
New Paltz, close to the Gunks and the Dacks. I haven't spent any time in Albany, but that's a possibility- it's halfway between the Gunks and the Dacks |
|
Gonna throw out a couple for debate- Reno and Chattanooga |
Matt Sauer wrote: Please stop calling a little town of slightly more than 5K residents a "city". And no, if you don't like sandstone, or 4 months of 100+F heat, it's hardly "best". |
Marc801 C wrote: Found the sport climber |
|
Boston. Opportunities for careers and education. Massive amount of climbing within 3 hour drive. Bouldering, trad, sport, top rope, ice. 20 climbing gyms within an hour drive. |
|
Geez... Anyone who compromises their life so much they're stuck in a big city, well, my sympathies. Oh wait. Big cities are fabulous! STAY THERE!! Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Yup. Better yet, move to the east coast... ;-) |
