Top 10 Best US Large Cities For Climbing

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

Who is JCM and why do we care about his list so much?

Its just a fun excuse to argue about climbing on the internet! Why else would we be doing this?

Agree with posters above about VT/NH. The rural east has some awesome places to live and great climbing. I lived in VT for a while and loved it there. The big cities of the east leave something be be desired though, as a climber.  As Trevor said, I would also possibly take VT/NH over WA, but if having to choose big cities I would take Seattle over Boston.

Make sure to put in your votes for how to arrange the East Coast Top 5 List.

------

Update:

More on Sac vs SD: What's more important: rock 20 minutes away to climb after work, or having an entire career worth of climbing progression in weekend access? The downside of Sac is it is 90 minutes to the good climbing. The upside is the climbing 90 minutes away is much better than anything within 4 hours of SD.

 I don't think the hard climbing piece is an irrelevant argument. The availability of harder climbing helps bring up the level across the board - it raises the standard of the community. Even in a place like Seattle there are a lot of people climbing 5.13 now - since the resource is available to do so.

A city where there are not good challenges available for a notable portion of the climbing community, including it's most dedicated members, is really lacking something. Do we really want to judge cities primarily on the least common denominator (easily accessible 5.10 sport)? A good climbing city offers more than that.

Jordan Wilsonwrote:

San Diego> Sacramento, so many low time comitment options in San Diego. 

low time commitments mean better climbing?

nah braji

JCM; I'll chime back in. To help those just tuning in, to avoid reading through the whole thread again, I lived in SLC for 11 years and now SD for 2.5 years...5.11 trad on a good day.

The 5.13/5.14 argument is a little bit of a "straw-man" if you ask me. Absolutely there are people climbing those grades but to reduce and area exclusively to that metric, when literally 95-99% of climbers don't climb that is unfair.

Locals only spots aside, the level of easily accessible good trad and sport less than 30 minutes away would make any New Englander salivate.

Maybe a Sacromentan can chime in here, where's the closest 5.10 trad from the city/5.10 sport? 5.10 sport/trad are 15 minutes from most of SD and better stuff is only 30 min away?

Gumby boy king wrote:

low time commitments mean better climbing?

nah braji

Any better climing Sacramento offers is a 3+ hours commute, all of which is withing driving Distance from San Diego.  No real after work or quick session opportunties in Sac, it's close to World Class stuff sure but so is San Diego which also has close quality local stuff. 

As a life-long Northeasterner, I agree that one-on-one it is really hard to compare east coast cities to western ones in terms of being 'top climber cities' (though I don't agree that being an east coast climber is anywhere near as dire as some are contending), so that idea of an east coast top five is a good one. Probably due to personal experience, though I don't live in that part of the State anymore, I would put Boston as #1. It is a great city (cost of living and traffic issues aside--but that covers most cities). While the old stomping grounds of Quincy Quarries is, at best, an acquired taste (though I spent many--too many--enjoyable hours there), there has recently been much bouldering development in the near suburbs, good trad and sport 1-2 hours away, and NH, the Gunks, and ADKs in easy weekend range. In winter there is excellent ice and mixed--something not easily available in many of the places mentioned out west. There are also multiple good gyms for us plastic-pullers.

After Boston it becomes harder. I don't think any of the other big metro areas (NYC, Philadelphia) make the cut as 'climber cities'. Yeah, NYC has some bouldering and the Gunks aren't too far, but, as a thread on the Northeast Forum discusses, you really need a car--and that is a big problem in NYC--and even with one, getting out of the city itself can add hours to the trip.

I don't know about how they fit into the MESA criteria--but, as mentioned, cities such as Chattanooga and Charlotte are good options, maybe Atlanta as well--with in-city bouldering and many areas within 2 hours. Further north Albany, NY, might work, and Portland, ME also has a lot going for it--though the very close to the city outdoor options (after work) are very limited. Hartford and New Haven, CT. both have good climbing close by, as well as similar weekend options to Boston, but, personally, neither fit my 'want to live there' criteria.

JCMwrote:

Its just a fun excuse to argue about climbing on the internet! Why else would we be doing this?

jdejacewrote:

...but I'm not leaving Vermont. Specifically, you couldn't pay me any amount to live in SLC.

Interesting in that we considered moving to VT at one point due to a job offer my wife had. At the time, for me, there was only one possible place of employment in my line of work. Couple that with the winters (learned to ski in VT and regularly did so in the Mad River Valley - got really sick of the multiple mid-winter rain followed by hard freeze events each year), the humid summers, and that we could live there for the next 40 years and still be viewed as "from away", well, we bailed on the idea pretty quickly.

I like ice :-) NE winter isn't for everyone, and ice isn't a criterion on JCM's list. Neither are the many other reasons I'd rather live in New England than Utah, or Burlington vs SLC. But for skiing and rock, yeah no contest. 

I have no issues with the list re: rock. I think NE rock is actually quite good, but there's no arguing with more sunny days and mild year round temps if rock is the objective. 

I’m really not sure why the east coast gets a bad rap and why many folks say there is no climbing on the east.
I would get this argument if you were into big mountain stuff, partly but even big rock routes are just hiking 6 miles of 2000 feet of vertical to climb 6-10 pitches and really only maybe 2 of those pitches were actually good climbing.

Same for skiing a lot of people say how much better the skiing is out west, but arguably New Hampshire and Vermont had a better ski season this year then much of the west. Then the vertical feet argument comes out.  but the vast majority of people out west end up just parking at their nearest mountain pass and hiking less then a mile and skiing only a single 800 feet run completely gassed after skinning up in their ultra light ski set up getting a selfie and complaining of how busy this super accessible area is and how dangerous split boarders are.

And the vast majority of people that say the east doesn’t have good climbing are folks that primarily enjoy bouldering or single pitch climbing, which I think the east has a higher collection of. And they would have more if there wasn’t private land issues. I mean New York and New Hampshire have more climbing routes then Idaho or Oregon hell the red river gorge almost has more climbing routes then Oregon. Plus many of the crags out west are sub standard and not worthy of being climbed like the black cliffs, vantage and the exits. 

First of all, this is JCM’s introduction to this topic:

“.... 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.”

I think that you, JCM, are moving the goalposts in this particular (entertaining) debate between your stomping grounds and mine. You make some good points, and there was a time in my climbing experience where challenges and pushing hard through them was paramount, so I can relate to your perspective. But as others have said, the number of climbers capable of leading 5.13 or harder outdoors on a regular basis seems to be a minor percentage of people who call themselves “climbers”, at least in these parts.

The most popular route by far at Eagle Peak is Cruise Line, 5 pitches, 5.10b. The 12’s which are some of the best, steepest routes rarely get done in comparison. At El Cajon Mountain the most popular route is Leonids, 4 pitches, 5.9, the same dynamic occurs there with the 12’s and the few 13’s.

To address your positions further...

“Secret crags: Kevin indicates the best San Diego sport climbing is at a secret crag, and the best bouldering is privately owned. Is that secret crag the sort of place that is unpublicized on the internet, but locally anyone is welcome? Or is it an exclusive invite-only sort of situation? Same question for the bouldering. In other words, if some random climber moves to San Diego, will they actually get to climb at these places in a timely manner? If it isn't publicly available, it shouldn't count here. And if this knocks the best local sport climbing and bouldering out of consideration, that would drop San Diego in the ranking.”

The “secret crag” I referenced with SD’s best sport climbing is not publicized on the internet, and anyone is welcome, depending on who’s climbing there! It’s on BLM land, and it is possible to access it without trespassing, but the approach is brutal that way. A combination of trespassing, stealth, land knowledge and creativity make for an easier approach. The Rainbow Boulders are on private property owned by climbers, and they are the best concentration of quality bouldering in the county with over 400 problems, drive up access.

Both of those areas have their access challenges, both are top notch, both have potential to be open access in the future if climbers at large make the right moves. I mention them not because I developed them, but because they are both outstanding real resources to SD climbers. You could ignore these spots and San Diego would still be a contender.

“Hard climbing and bigger challenges: Kevin discounts the importance of places like Calaveras Dome and Jailhouse by saying "I don’t see multi pitch trad as being high priority for the majority of climbers." and "Jailhouse is not for your average climber". While these statements may be true, I disagree with the conclusion that all that matters is climbing that appeals to the average climber. I would argue instead: Availability of hard climbing matters. This related to both physically harder sport climbing, and also bigger trad multipitch challenges. A good climbing city will not just meet the current needs of the average climbing, but will also provide good opportunities to a wider range of climbers (including the upper end), and give the current average climber the means to progress. Sacramento has these things to a much greater extent than San Diego.”

I’m not saying “all that matters is climbing that appeals to the average climber”. I’m saying that the average climber doesn’t climb 5.13, or even 5.12 for that matter, and for that average climber, moderate or even easy climbing is a far more valuable resource than routes to aspire to. See your original criteria for big city rankings. 

“Sport climbing provides a good example of this. San Diego has a good selection of 5.12, but it appears that once you hit 5.13 the options thin out dramatically (al least at the public crags).  5.13 is a pretty common grade these days, and many motivated young climbers reach this grade if the resources (and routes) are available to them.”

I’d like to see a statistic of what percentage of people who call themselves climbers have led 5.13 or harder. That seems to be an important factor in this debate. And a factor that weighs on the following point you make:

“You want to have some headroom above your current grade, since it gives you another tier of local routes above your current ability to work toward, and also be be surrounded by other climbers who climb those grades. A climber in San Diego is a lot more likely to hit a progression ceiling due to more limited local hard-climbing resources. Sacramento does not have this issue - good quality 5.13-5.14 sport climbing is available both winter (Jailhouse) and summer (various Tahoe crags). A motivated and improving climber in Sacramento can have routes to do and continue to progress for a long time.”

“Similar situation for longer routes. Once a San Diego climber is comfortable on the 3-5 pitch routes available around San Diego, Idyllwild, etc, they are going to have to drive a long way for anything bigger or more committing. There is not reasonable weekend access to all-day multipitch routes.”

You can link multi pitch routes at all the big SD crags, particularly Eagle Peak to effectively do all day multi pitch. The descent at EP is less than 10 minutes on foot to do another 5 pitches. Granted it’s not as committing, but I successfully trained for a 19 pitch, 12b FA in Yosemite, with 14 5.11 pitches, by climbing multiple multi pitch routes at EP. The same is possible at Tahquitz, and ECM, although their descents are more time consuming.

“Again this puts a ceiling on how far a climber can progress locally. If you have to travel long distances to level up, it is no longer a good city for you.  Sacramento doesn't have this issue; there's a lot of great "training ground" short multipitch 1.5 hours away, and then by travelling 2 hours to Cal Dome or 3.5 hours to Yosemite, climbers have weekend access to places they can really level-up on long routes and even big walls.”

Then there are many many 50’ to 100’ quality crags, and great bouldering within 30 - 45 minutes of the City, and creativity can produce what are effectively 5.13 climbing challenges. 

“In short, I think Kevin makes a solid case that San Diego has great convenient local climbing that appeals to the average climber. But Sacramento's climbing resources offer more incentive and opportunity to progress, in both the athletic and adventure realms. The best climbing cities are those that help you become a better climber. Based on this Sacramento > San Diego”

San Diego’ vast granite infested backcountry offers plenty of adventure, not in the same scale as the High Sierra, but it’s there, and don’t forget Trono. SD for sure has better weather over the year, which translates to more climbing days.

I’d say it’s apples to oranges, or a draw at best!

No, it's not apples to oranges SD does not have the Sierra Nevada on its doorstep. 

It's delusional to think that the climbing in SD is anything like the Sierra Nevada.

The Sierra Nevada might be on your doorstep in Bishop. And I’ve considered selling my house and buying in Bishop for that reason. But I wouldn’t move to Sacramento. I don’t see the Sierra Nevada as being “on your doorstep” there.

There are a lot of factors in the equation. As I pointed out earlier, the Southern Sierra - Whitney and The Needles is just as accessible from San Diego as from Sacramento.

AND Las Vegas, ranked número uno, is over 3 hrs closer to San Diego than Sacramento!

Great reply Kevin! This has been a fun debate. I've enjoyed hearing about all the climbing in SD. Although I've been trying my hardest to debate against it, it sounds like you've got some great stuff down there. 

San Diego seems to offer more to the "everyman" climber who wants close access to after-work cragging and bouldering, and doesn't mind the lack of hard grades or big objectives nearby.  Sacramento seems to offer more to the highly motivated climber who wants access to hard sport climbs or big multipitch objectives on the weekend, and doesn't mind that weekday climbing is generally limited to training in the gym (to prep for those weekend objectives, of course).  Seem like an accurate summary?

So which is better? Depends on who you are and what you are looking for. Based on this I think it's fair to call a tie between the two cities. 

--------

I'll be mostly off the grid this weekend (doing that climbing thing we all supposedly like to do). Keep the discussion rolling. I'll update the rankings on Monday based on what people say over the weekend. What are the top Eastern cities? Does Cincinnati deserve a spot in the East list? 

Considering Cincinnati a contender for a top-rated climber city is comparable to still thinking that Trump won the election. Sure, the Red is within reasonable weekend distance, but what else makes it of interest to a climber? Lexington, though maybe not sufficiently high in terns of MSA rating, is closer and more 'liveable'.

Apples to oranges = tossup in my mind

It’s a complicated equation, JCM - you sum it up well!

it would take a scientist to actually create an equation for the rankings you proposed here, but climbers aren’t scientists, right?!

DC is clearly the #1 east coast climbing city.  There is truly no other crag east of the Mississippi that can compare with Carderock.

Deven Lewiswrote:

I’m really not sure why the east coast gets a bad rap and why many folks say there is no climbing on the east.
I would get this argument if you were into big mountain stuff, partly but even big rock routes are just hiking 6 miles of 2000 feet of vertical to climb 6-10 pitches and really only maybe 2 of those pitches were actually good climbing.

Same for skiing a lot of people say how much better the skiing is out west, but arguably New Hampshire and Vermont had a better ski season this year then much of the west. Then the vertical feet argument comes out.  but the vast majority of people out west end up just parking at their nearest mountain pass and hiking less then a mile and skiing only a single 800 feet run completely gassed after skinning up in their ultra light ski set up getting a selfie and complaining of how busy this super accessible area is and how dangerous split boarders are.

And the vast majority of people that say the east doesn’t have good climbing are folks that primarily enjoy bouldering or single pitch climbing, which I think the east has a higher collection of. And they would have more if there wasn’t private land issues. I mean New York and New Hampshire have more climbing routes then Idaho or Oregon hell the red river gorge almost has more climbing routes then Oregon. Plus many of the crags out west are sub standard and not worthy of being climbed like the black cliffs, vantage and the exits. 

You lost me at east coast skiing being better. 

I like to ski snow, not ice. 

JCMwrote:

I'll update the rankings on Monday based on what people say over the weekend. What are the top Eastern cities? Does Cincinnati deserve a spot in the East list? 

A weekend discussion may Skew the results as some of us may actually be out climbing :-)

If you don't mind a little meth, the Inland Empire is a good place to both live/climb.  Joshua Tree, Tahquitz/Suicide, Black Mountain, Holcomb Valley, New Jack City and countless other small crags are 1 or 2 hours away.  Tons of local climbing is accessible after work at places like Riverside Rock Quarry and Mount Rubidoux.   The Eastern Sierras, the Valley and Red Rocks are all about 4hrs away.  You would never have to drive through LA traffic or the often congested 91fwy if coming from OC to go climbing.   IE doesn't have the mega gyms like LA and OC has, most gyms are small and are bouldering only...  But that'll get you stronger anyway   

jdejacewrote:

If all one cares about is rock climbing (as stated in the OP), sure. I've not made an argument for the East coast in this thread because of those specific criteria. 

I have no ties to the Northeast and could get a six figure job in any of the cities in the OP within a month, but I'm not leaving Vermont. Specifically, you couldn't pay me any amount to live in SLC. Horses for courses and all that. Best this way for everybody. 

Can you hook a dude up with a 6-figure salary in NH?