Top 10 Best US Large Cities For Climbing

Deven Lewis wrote:

I think going to one of the three gyms you guys have is convenient. black cliffs  has 200+ routes and has better quality basalt then vantage and folk in Seattle drive 2 hours to climb there. Maybe not as bulletproof  as the lower gorge at smith but pretty good. Basalt climbing is never on anyone’s list but it’ll humble you and make you a better climber.

I love basalt Hawaii Basalt is amazing but best case black cliffs is equal to vantage. 

Seattle has:

1.  vantage 600 routes in the database +400 that are not, there are also 134 5.11s and 5.12s
2. Tieton which is quite a bit better than vantage with 300 routes
3. Leavenworth when snow is gone
4. Local summer crags and index
5. Good hardware replacement
6. Within driving distance to Squamish/Smith

 Boise has:

1. Black cliffs that are climbable in shoulder seasons but only has 250 routes only 45 5.11s and 5.12s (which were not very clean and many are very very short)
2. Twin falls which is a better version of black cliffs
3. Less crowds
4. Generally awful hardware on older 5.11+
5. City of rocks and smith

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

I love basalt Hawaii Basalt is amazing but best case black cliffs is equal to vantage. 

Seattle has:

1.  vantage 600 routes in the database +400 that are not, there are also 134 5.11s and 5.12s
2. Tieton which is quite a bit better than vantage with 300 routes
3. Leavenworth when snow is gone
4. Local summer crags and index
5. Good hardware replacement
6. Within driving distance to Squamish/Smith

 Boise has:

1. Black cliffs that are climbable in shoulder seasons but only has 250 routes only 45 5.11s and 5.12s (which were not very clean and many are very very short)
2. Twin falls which is a better version of black cliffs
3. Less crowds
4. Generally awful hardware on older 5.11+
5. City of rocks and smith

You forgot 

6. Albertsons 

7. Bodybuilding.com to get buff to fight off rabid climbers when you visit California 

Edit: also I don’t think black cliffs or vantage are destination but better then people give them credit for.

Kevin Worrall wrote:

As far as LA vs SD, Tahquitz/Suicide, Black Mountain/Tramway and JTNM are basically a wash as far as driving goes. 

Bishop is about 90 miles closer to downtown LA, than downtown SD, Yosemite about the same, but those are long drives and the extra hour and a half is pretty minor. Also if you live in North County SD or South “LA” the difference can be a lot less, basically a wash.

LA has the Riverside Quarry, Frustration Creek, Horse Flats, Stoney Point, a little closer to Margaritaville, it’s closer to Holcomb, but that’s kind of a wash too. Tell me what else? Never lived in LA

San Diego, on the other hand, has Trono, Azteca, Valley of the Moon, Corte Madera, El Cajon Mountain, Eagle Peak, Mission Gorge, Woodson, Descanso Wall, Stonewall Peak, Deerhorn Valley, Culp Valley and The Jasper boulders, the Rainbow Boulders and the Temecula Domes, 2 extensive “secret spots”, one of which, even though it’s only partially developed, has been called “world class granite sport climbing” by several well traveled climbers, and the other a vast area of mostly moderate climbing with high quality routes up to 400 ft, plus dozens of lesser areas with routes in the 50 - 100’ range, and an insane amount of bouldering all over the county, mostly unexplored.

I’m saying SD rules over LA climbing decisively, if you don’t lump them together, and SD is not LA

Why not live on the east side or tahbro or by the valley where the "real" climping is? Dont the real climpers leave so cal once they realize where the real climping is anyways? Thought that was a long standing tradition dating back to the 50's.....

Yep, that's why Robbins moved to FRESNO!

Well gbk 

I moved into camp 4 when I was 17 in 1972, fresh out of high school, and didn’t hardly leave for about 5 years. Did the Salathe with a 17 yr old partner that Fall, did a bunch of FA’s over those years, and you’re right to a point. I yam honored to have, for a time, fit your definition of a real “climper”.

I know what good climbing is, I know what good rock is, and I guarantee I’ve done and seen more of both than you have. Either you’re trolling or you don’t know Diddley when you say SD Climbing is “nuting but Choss”.

I was born and raised in SD, and started climbing when I was 12. Local climbing was limited to Mission Gorge, a minor amount at Woodson, and a few routes at Corte Madera and Stonewall Peak. I traveled to Taquitz/Suicide and Josh when I could, and to the Valley when I was 15. My greenhorn partner and I did The North Face of Quarter Dome, I did The RNWF next year, and didn’t stay in San Diego long after - the next Fall I was dug into C4.

San Diego has some of the best granite I’ve seen, there is a mind boggling amount of it, and the weather is hard to beat. If I had known about the areas around the county that I and others have developed over the last 40 yrs, I might not have been a C4B for so long.

San Diego climbing rules over LA climbing decisively. Climbers at large just don’t know about most of SD County’s best.

Kevin, I don't disagree with you. SD & LA are different but both have lots of climbing in & around them. SD just has a better climate. But over the years the driving down there has become crazy-making stupidly aggressive! 

The soil is amazing you can grow a lot of anything. One acre can feed a family, the climbing is great & year round, the food is great, but the fricken drivers drive me crazy!!!

You have to plan driving around local conditions. San Diego has gotten worse, and the beach areas are f’d up in summertime, but it’s still miles better than the City of the Fallen Angels, and one more reason SD rules as a city for climbers!

Good arguments made by Kevin to bump San Diego one spot higher on the list to #7. Now ranked above LA. It's gonna take more convincing though if you think San Diego should move up any further.

I’m happy with that, Thanks!

And I’ll happily go toe to toe with anyone who still thinks LA is better!

I am curious about Sacramento’s place in line, though. Bakersfield is same distance to Yosemite, it’s closer to Josh and all those scrappy desert crags, closer to Domelands, A Hills, Whitney, The Needles and Dome Rock, Kern River Canyon, Sequioa/Kings, Shuteye, and Courtright.

Plus it’s closer to San Diego!

I will say San Diego has the best weather on average of all on the list. Sacramento and Bakersfield score pretty low on the weather meter.

Bakersfield is disgusting I feel for those that most live there!

Sacramento is a great little city, but it's flat & hot & there are better places to live if you are a climber. 

Bakersfield?
Are you fucking serious?

Re: Bakersfield. I hesitate to include it since it isn't "major city" enough. Similar to it's neighbor Fresno, it has the population numbers but lacks the economic activity and other opportunities that are the draw of a big city. The whole point of the thread is to rank places that have major-city opportunities (economic and otherwise) while also being decent for climbing. Bakersfield falls short on the city-opprotunities part.

I also have some misgivings on including Chatt and ABQ. Climbing is good, but perhaps not big-city enough to meet the goal of the list. Perhaps the threshold should be refined to require MSA population of 1 million and a robust regional economy. This would bump Chatt and ABQ to honorable mentions, and open up the bottom of the list to the likes of Charlotte and Portland. Thoughts?

Edit: Added  a qualitative assessment term for "large city-ness". Chatt is out (too small). ABQ stays in.

Who gets #10 now - Charlotte? Boston? Portland? NYC? Atlanta? Phoenix? San Juan?

Re: Sacramento. There is a reasonable debate to be had on the placement of Sacramento vs. the big SoCal cities. I favor Sac based on proximity to the "good stuff" in the Sierra. But I could see an argument to favor San Diego for closer local climbing. Make your case Kevin...

In what universe is Charlotte a better climbing city than Boston? It doesn't win on weather, proximity, quality or quantity.

Re Albuquerque, I do talk a lot of shit about it, It is crimey, there is a lot of poverty, and it is an unattractive urban sprawl. However, saying that it is not a large city does mischaracterize it. There is a good airport, a major university, two major regional hospitals (we get patients from El Paso and Arizona), National Labs, two large and very good gyms, and there are over 900k in the MSA. Even Facebook, Intel and Netflix have campuses here. It is not a megalopolis, but it is a large city. 

MattH wrote:

In what universe is Charlotte a better climbing city than Boston? It doesn't win on weather, proximity, quality or quantity.

I want to know in what universe “best” and “Bakersfield” have ever been used in the same sentence other than when you’re getting some meth?

I feel like a good number of comments on here could be replied to with, 'ok boomer'. Definitely some interesting back in my day Boise was this SLC was this comments. 

Sorry thread drift, I agree if were excluding dirt-bag-ness from this topic which is seems like that's were its flowing; then yes economic activity should be a significant metric. Which isn't to say SLC/Alb/Boise/the like have, but....they pale in comparison to SD, SEA, LA etc. If OP is even still wacthing this thread I propose we rank order everything based on 5-8 criteria. Climbing weather/Good 'after work' climbing accessibility/Day off climbing accessibility/weekend climbing accessibility/Economic infrastructure/miscellaneous + other?

Thoughts?

Here ya go:

One of the best was from Bakersfield 

Kevin Worrall wrote:

Here ya go:

One of the best was from Bakersfield 

Please how many MTV music awards does merel haggard have 0

Grammys 0

Just followed the status quo making country music.

2 grammy award

Helped create a new genre of metal. And did it all while tweaking hard on meth 

Bakersfield should be on the list just for these legends.

Boston I feel like should be 10. I probably didn't get the best of san diego but I feel Boston has the same issue of too much un-inspiring rock with hidden gems. Boston is also very manageable after work almost year round if you are into bouldering but the sport/trad game isn't that great.

JCM wrote:

Re: Bakersfield. I hesitate to include it since it isn't "major city" enough. Similar to it's neighbor Fresno, it has the population numbers but lacks the economic activity and other opportunities that are the draw of a big city. The whole point of the thread is to rank places that have major-city opportunities (economic and otherwise) while also being decent for climbing. Bakersfield falls short on the city-opprotunities part.

I also have some misgivings on including Chatt and ABQ. Climbing is good, but perhaps not big-city enough to meet the goal of the list. Perhaps the threshold should be refined to require MSA population of 1 million and a robust regional economy. This would bump Chatt and ABQ to honorable mentions, and open up the bottom of the list to the likes of Charlotte and Portland. Thoughts?

Edit: Added  a qualitative assessment term for "large city-ness". Chatt is out (too small). ABQ stays in.

Who gets #10 now - Charlotte? Boston? Portland? NYC? Atlanta? Phoenix? San Juan?

Re: Sacramento. There is a reasonable debate to be had on the placement of Sacramento vs. the big SoCal cities. I favor Sac based on proximity to the "good stuff" in the Sierra. But I could see an argument to favor San Diego for closer local climbing. Make your case Kevin...

I don't care how big Chatt is, it doesn't have anywhere close to the amount of access for climbing  variety, quality, or volume that the California cities have. I don't think its season is any better than SD or LA either.

If Sacramento has no climbing within an hour of the city then I'm not sure how it could be considered any better than San Diego or LA.