Is Portland a good city for climbers?

I live in LA right now. Moved from philly about 6 months ago. I like it here, but it’s expensive as fuck and things have generally not been going well, so it doesn’t feel like there much keeping me here. However, it’s a great place to be a climber because it never rains and there’s lots of sick trad/sport/bouldering to be done within a 3 hour radius. Not to mention the easy access to the mindblowingly epic potential of the sierra’s. And I most certainly have been taking advantage of all this (maybe that’s why my life feels like it’s falling apart HA).

Anyway I got a few homies that live in Portland (non-climbers), and I like the city, so I’m debating moving there.

But is it a good place to live as a climber??? Like how much of a bummer is the rain? I know smith rock is near by, but is there any sick trad climbing? Any good local bouldering?

Would love to hear y’all’s thoughts. Thank you :)

If you like climbing gyms. 

It's not terrible. You'll have to learn to enjoy basalt columns because that's all the nearest crags have to offer. For weekend trips smith, vantage, trout creek, tieton are all good options for trad climbing that stay dry more days out of the year. Plenty of trad climbing near portland or around mt hood in the summer too.

James Tierney wrote:

LA right now. ... lots of sick trad/sport/bouldering to be done within a 3 hour radius. Not to mention the easy access to the mindblowingly epic potential of the sierra’s. And I most certainly have been taking advantage of all this (maybe that’s why my life feels like it’s falling apart HA).

 Portland .. is it a good place to live as a climber??? Like how much of a bummer is the rain? I know smith rock is near by, but is there any sick trad climbing? Any good local bouldering?:)

Purposely juxtaposing two sections of the quote above to provide some relevant context. Notably, what is your driving tolerance to access good, dry climbing?

Portland gets criticism for adequate but uninspiring local basalt cragging, and lots of rainy days. But that's only if you are limiting your scope to the super local (within 1 hour) zone. In describing your LA climbing, you are citing the climbing options within 3 hours, and then the 3-5 hours for the Sierra. If you apply that same radius to the Portland area, it opens up access to Smith, Trout Creek, and central Oregon bouldering in under 3 hours, plus various Washington crags at 3-5 hours. This also helps with the weather; Smith Rock gets less average annual precip than Los Angeles. 

Overall, I think Portland is ok but not great as a climber. But the same is true for LA; ok but not great. Since you think LA is amazing, your standards may not be that high/picky, and Portland is probably acceptable as well. Both are way better as a climber than Philly., but not as good for climbing access as SLC/Vegas/Denver/etc. It just depends how picky you are and what your frame of reference is.

Regarding rain: this is just talking about the climbing. While you can drive to Smith to climb on the weekends, you're still living in the rain in the city through the winter. This can really wear on you. Some people tolerate it better than others.  Something to consider.

Thanks y’all! Yeah it sounds like a pretty similar deal to LA where there’s some decent enough climbing within the hour and good stuff within 3. I’m def down to drive 3-5 hours every now and then for good climbing if it means living in a generally cool city.

Mariah Tries wrote:

As they say, all of Oregon's finest crags are in Washington. 

I think that as a trad climber, Portland leaves a lot to be desired. I drive 4+ hours north nearly every weekend because I'm not stoked on local crags or what central OR has to offer. Your mileage may vary. 

That is certainly true for someone mostly interested in multipitch trad climbing. True for bouldering also.

For sport climbing and single pitch trad climbing, there's a much more even matchup and a reasonable argument to be made in favor of Oregon. Depends on personal preferences of course (if you love granite and hate columnar basalt*, Oregon may not be for you).

For every Portland climber wishing for granite and frequently driving north to Washington, there's a Seattle sport climber frequently driving south to try their Smith project (especially in the winter months).

*Note: Counting Beacon as an Oregon crag based on proximity to Portland, despite that it happens to be in Washington.

JCM wrote:

For every Portland climber wishing for granite and frequently driving north to Washington, there's a Seattle sport climber frequently driving south to try their Smith project (especially in the winter months).

FACTS.

bryans wrote:

I always tell people that if you are a trust funder who could live anywhere, or childless, why would you ever move here for the climbing? Move to SLC, Reno, Bishop, Boulder, etc., of course Portland can't compare to true climbing meccas. But if you have a job/family/winter hobbies/well-rounded life, the climbing within 30-60 minutes of downtown is good enough and ample enough to keep you busy for many years, and you can do in a progressive city . 

I've moved a bunch to various cities and small mountain towns around the country, and when comparing them I think it is helpful to think of them in tiers, to reasonably compare like-to-like.

A Tier is places that you would move to specifically for the climbing, and would consider making sacrifices in other parts of your life to do so. Places like Boulder, Vegas, etc.

B Tier is places you wouldn't move to just for the climbing, but are still plenty good enough to provide a solid set of climbing resources. You move there for work, family, other interests, because you like the city, etc.; but your climbing doesn't feel too compromised for being there. In recent years I've lived in Seattle and Sacramento - both seemed like B tier. You can be reasonably content as a climber in these places, even if it isn't perfect.

C Tier is places where you definitely wouldn't move to for the climbing, and your climbing options are notably compromised for living there due to distance, lower quality local climbing, or other factors. You can still have a productive climbing career there, but it will be a struggle and you will need to be more motivated to drive, or lower your expectations, or put up with adverse conditions. The Bay Area stands out to me as the archetypal C Tier spot. You can make it work if you need to, but you also kind of dream of getting out.

D Tier it is getting even more difficult/limiting (example: Baltimore), and F Tier is just disastrous (haven't live in any of these myself, but easy to think of examples - Omaha, Orlando).

===

Anyway, kind of a long winded intro there to the main point I was going for - Portland can't compare to Boulder, Bishop, or SLC. Those are A-tier places, and Portland definitely isn't. That's OK as long as you set the expectation appropriately. I'd hazard a guess that Portland is on the cusp of B tier vs C tier. Where it lands probably depends on your preferences and priorities. If you enjoy single pitch volcanic rock climbing, with an optional side of alpine terrain on volcanoes, it probably a solid B tier. For someone who wishes for multipitch granite or extensive bouldering options, it probably feels more like C tier.

Bryan and JCM nailed it.

The one thing I've noticed from other much better climbers, if you are climbing at or above 5.13, your options in Portland dry up fast (no ironic pun intended).

JCM wrote:

===

Anyway, kind of a long winded intro there to the main point I was going for - Portland can't compare to Boulder, Bishop, or SLC. Those are A-tier places, and Portland definitely isn't. That's OK as long as you set the expectation appropriately. I'd hazard a guess that Portland is on the cusp of B tier vs C tier. Where it lands probably depends on your preferences and priorities. If you enjoy single pitch volcanic rock climbing, with an optional side of alpine terrain on volcanoes, it probably a solid B tier. For someone who wishes for multipitch granite or extensive bouldering options, it probably feels more like C tier.

Solid breakdown and distinctions. I think I would place Portland in the C tier and bump Boulder down go B tier. 

Having been living in Portland for 13 years and climbing for 4 years, i do get frustrated having to drive 3 to 5 hours for some prefered climbing. I find myself taking the long weekends up to Squamish or other places in Washington. Smith has given me plenty of fun weekends on trad and sport though at only 2.5-3 hours away. The climbing within 1.5 hours is pretty decent though. Klinger is my favorite day trip, but I think the main local crags (ozone and broughton) can be tough as a newer climber and I've only somewhat recently started to enjoy them much.  Beacon is also a really great local crag, but again you need to be able to climb moderate trad.

When I lived in Portland every day I wished I lived in California, so 

Don't discount the long dreary season in Portland. Not just rain, but even when it isn't rainy, it's often overcast.

On top of that? There's simply less sunshine, shorter days than SoCal.

This is a real thing, and people leave because of it.

H.

Old lady H wrote:

Don't discount the long dreary season in Portland. Not just rain, but even when it isn't rainy, it's often overcast.

This is why you don't leave Portland in the summer; you go do all your sunny vacations Dec-Apr. :) Cheaper too!  

It IS tough not being able to discern that the day is lengthening in the spring - those overcast skies mean extremely muted/washed out sunsets... the light just kinda fades from a bright gray to a purple gray, and then dark. Suddenly it's June and the sunset is blasting you in the face.