Where to Move in Western US?

J P wrote:

There’s this little place I know that no one talks about ever. It’s amazing no one knows about it, even though millions of people are moving every year and climbing is more popular than ever.

I’m down to tell you but I just wanna make sure you’ve exhausted your own options and know exactly what you want. Because if it’s not a match then I don’t know if I feel comfortable telling you.

So I dunno, we may need to hash it out. I’m not above being offered a bounty to find out. You lemme know if you want the secret beta.

I am not even moving and I want the secret beta. My life for the secret. Please disclose publicly, here, on the forum.

Kieran Hunt wrote:

Been also looking around Vegas and J tree.

Being an east coaster there's something else to know: 

Summer heat in Vegas has been mentioned in this thread. You're used to the heat of the day occurring around 2-3 in the afternoon, then gradually cooling off in the evening. Here in the west the high for the day is often 6 or 7 pm and may still be above 90 after midnight. Yesterday, Vegas was 101F...at 10:30pm.

OP should take a serious look at Arizona. It hasn't been mentioned yet here, and OP did not mention it as a spot on his radar. But AZ has some spots that meet the stated criteria pretty well. Don't live in Phoenix itself (sprawling suburbs; kinda far from the good climbing). But within 2 (ish) hours of the Phoenix airport are Flagstaff, Prescott, and Tucson. Each has its own flavor, climbing options, and pros/cons, but all would potentially suit what OP is looking for. Less expensive and less crowded feeling, generally speaking, than the CO Front Range. Tucson also has its own smaller regional airport.

---

Vegas is of course also an excellent option and has all the things OP is looking for. But Vegas has its well-known downsides also.

---

Regarding OP's original query: There is no single ultimate location that is perfect for what you are looking for. But there are a lot of pretty good spots, each with their own pros/cons. It all comes down to what your preferences and priorities are.

One major consideration is how big a city/town do you want to live in, and the tradeoff of airport proximity vs climbing proximity.  Are you flying every week, or once every 1-2 months? This could make a big difference. If you are flying less frequently and interested in living in a smaller town (as long as it is a cool town with stuff going on), this gives you a much different set of options compared to living in the bigger city close to the airport.  I.e. living in Flagstaff would be awesome if you only had to go to the airport once a month or less. But I would not want to have to make that commute every week.

Eh, Arizona is a lot like New Mexico (okay, but not phenomenal) except drier, hotter, more crowded, more expensive and way more right-wing. Don’t get me wrong, I climb in Arizona often, but only when it’s way too cold in NM in the winter. 

Marc801 C wrote:

I'm not really familiar with air quality in Provo. While not the topographic bathtub that is the Salt Lake valley, I suspect it's not great but likely less so than SLC. Personally being politically liberal and non-LDS, I wouldn't live in Utah county (with the possible exception of Lehi) due to the local LDS influence.

In my experience the air quality in Provo pretty much mirrors what’s going on in Salt Lake County. That might change as the Great Salt Lake continues to evaporate.

As someone that is LDS I would honestly have to agree that living in Utah County comes with its challenges, I’m personally moving up to Salt Lake this fall and I’m looking forward to the subtle but significant cultural shift. It’s worth noting though that there are a fair number of non-LDS people that have a good community here. For example I think Boone Speed still lives in American Fork?

As far as sport climbing goes though I actually think Utah County is dope. American Fork has tons of great limestone and you can easily day trip down to Maple. Rock canyon and the hinterlands have some decent stuff too, and lots of solar crags that you can climb on pretty much all winter. You’re also that much closer to Joe’s Valley, Moab, Zion, St George for when things get cold. Obviously LCC is the place to be for trad climbing, but for all disciplines of climbing I think Utah County is underrated.

If you have any specific questions feel free to send me a PM!

I spent 5 years looking for a place to live (key areas were Bend, Bozeman, Boulder/Denver, Colorado Springs, Logan, Eastern WA, Seattle, Portland). Ultimately picked Logan because it was 'affordable' (but we didn't buy a house when we moved here, and now we're fucked :shrug:) and I could find a job in my industry.

* Denver/SLC - All the points are spot on, I'd be willing to bet you can drive from Park City to SLC (barring a bad snowstorm) in about the same time as Denver metro to DEN, so factor that in
* Depending on your political leanings, vast difference between UT and CO - I haven't had an issue with LDS folks at all (but we're also child free, so that simplifies our life). I HAVE had an issue with the MAGA folks being fairly in your face and having folks roll coal on me while riding a bike and/or driving our car (yeah, a prius, I know right...). Don't discount what it's like to live somewhere where you see daily signs of "Hey, if it were legal, I'd kill you because of your sexual orientation, political affiliation, or religion", it takes a toll on you.

** Edit - This tends to track city vs rural as much as CO vs UT. You can find some fairly progressive areas of SLC as much as you can find backwards parts of CO

* I liked the Spokane/CDA recommendation (we looked at living there), but keep in mind that the region is notorious for issues with white supremacists
* Spend some time thinking about what you really want in a city. Logan isn't a 10/10 for anything, but it's better than a 5 for any activity I care about (and is way better than Central NY for everything), but we didn't anticipate how much we enjoyed having reasonable access to diversity of cuisine (most things here are chains).

Cory N wrote:

The best part of these threads is everyone living in Colorado talking about how busy it is. Have you ever spent any time in a real city?

Yes, I'm from Chicago and have lived in Atlanta. I have also spent large quantities of time in NYC. Those cities are livable because they have the infrastructure to support the population. The reason population per mile is so low around the Front Range is because there is a lot of open land. The city of Boulder is busting at the seams. They continue to allow more housing without parking and facilities to support the growth. 

I went hiking last Saturday and was basically in a line the whole time. It was a 10-15 minute wait to scramble the summit block. 

Went to a crag two weeks ago and all the .12's had queues that were not accepting new climbers. Had to wait 1 to 2 parties back to get on mediocre .11's.

Not sure what your work travel is (long day trips/overnight vs weeks on the road), but I’d look at Bend.  Yes a small area, but living in on the north side of Bend, I can be to the airport and through security in under an hour any day of the year.  You’d most likely need to connect, but with Seattle, Denver, SFO, SLC, and soon Dallas you should be able to get anywhere with a connection.  I can also be to Smith in 30 minutes.  Bouldering is even closer.  The climbing is a bit limited (tuff and basalt), but Smith has a lifetime of projects.  Bolts and gear, and you can climb 12 months a year.  The town has plenty to do (music, brews and other forms of debauchery).  Housing is on par with Golden, but not Boulder.  The locals like to talk about traffic, but there is no real traffic.  If you don’t care about skiing, you could live in Redmond.  A little more red, but minutes from the airport and 15 from Smith.  It’s easy living.

There are so many great places to live & climb in the west & almost none of them have been brought up so far! 

it's all gonna burn. just get a van.

Cheiftan Mews wrote:

Yes, I'm from Chicago and have lived in Atlanta. I have also spent large quantities of time in NYC. Those cities are livable because they have the infrastructure to support the population. The reason population per mile is so low around the Front Range is because there is a lot of open land. The city of Boulder is busting at the seams. They continue to allow more housing without parking and facilities to support the growth. 

I went hiking last Saturday and was basically in a line the whole time. It was a 10-15 minute wait to scramble the summit block. 

Went to a crag two weeks ago and all the .12's had queues that were not accepting new climbers. Had to wait 1 to 2 parties back to get on mediocre .11's.

+1. Lived in Chicago for a few years. Infrastructure there is (mostly) designed to handle big numbers of people in a small space. Colorado is designed around cars. More people means more cars, more traffic, less parking at your favorite crag, lines on all the trade routes, etc. Not to mention, a large portion of the population is here for the same thing. Imagine if everyone in NYC wanted to go to the Met every weekend. That's what's happening. 

Flagstaff, AZ or maybe the Tahoe/Reno area?

I tend to agree with the van/bus/campy idea. There's no perfect place to live as a climber, so the obvious solution is to live multiple places if it's an option. Also, rent is expensive everywhere, and buying more-so, so a home on wheels that you own and is mostly rent free is a sweet deal.

Cory N wrote:

You need to be up in the mountains to ditch the smog. PC, Heber, Coalville, Kamas. As for recommending these places to live, not so much. It’s also important to note that if you live up there you are no longer close to climbing other than Echo.

It's hard to figure out what to quote. I lived in the SLC Metro area from 1990 to 2017. Spent my first 10 years in SLC, second 10 years in Heber City, last 7 years back in SLC. I don't mean to slag on the place, but in the 10 years I spent in Heber, SLC seriously degraded in terms of air quality and general quality of life. I realized I didn't want to be there any more. Sure, compared to other largish cities, quality of life is pretty good and it is a nice city. Fun, accessible, offers a lot that that other places don't. The climbing and skiing can't be beat. But then there's the air. You simply can't (or shouldn't) disregard that. And the political structure there seems to be unequipped to deal with it. Much less even acknowledge it. Much less the shrinking Salt Lake and all that this entails.

For me it was a value judgment: Is the good climbing and skiing worth endangering my health? Can I go somewhere else that is healthier and offers enough of what I want? The choice was obvious for me. Personally, I have several friends who plan to bail just as soon as their kids go off to college. Yes, you can get above it or outside of it by living at higher elevation or a different community such as Heber City. But can you afford it? And if you live in the SLC valley, you have to realize that every time you drive to "get out of it" or "get above it", you only contribute to it.

I'm kinda harsh on SLC I suppose. But I think the place is f*cked, to be blunt. I have no regrets as far as moving away to a place that doesn't have "world class" climbing and skiing. And i have no regret for not being under the thumb of a religious conservative super-majority political structure that doesn't have a clue.

There you have it, lol.

Vegas. Especially if you are traveling a LOT, like you said. Amazing climbing. Airline connections everywhere. Housing isn't that expensive compared to other cities. There are things about it that suck, but those can be avoided. 

Collin C Burn wrote:

I am not even moving and I want the secret beta. My life for the secret. Please disclose publicly, here, on the forum.

it was a very bad joke implying that there are no real 'secret' spots at all that have not been mentioned or that can possibly meet all the original requirements... but i did get OP to take the bait   

 Denver's air is approaching SLC's. . . and like most of the west, it's running out of water. . . most of it's already been appropriated, but the developers want to develop.

oh, and Denver will soon spread from Trinidad to Cheyenne. . .

Steve Williams wrote:

 Denver's air is approaching SLC's. . . and like most of the west, it's running out of water. . . most of it's already been appropriated, but the developers want to develop.

There are actual plans being considered to build a pipeline from either the Pacific or the Mississippi to refill the GSL!

Unless you're making enough to afford a minimum of 2gs a month (which it sounds like you have a decent job) you're going to live in a "bad area". I'm looking to move to the Front Range but I've already resigned to the fact I'm going to be living in not the best areas because I could only possibly afford to live anywhere in the West in the crime ridden areas of town.

To people suggesting Flagstaff, have you read the news about the fires?

I grew up there and loved it, but let's face it that place is fucked

Marc801 C wrote:

There are actual plans being considered to build a pipeline from either the Pacific or the Mississippi to refill the GSL!

I love the absurdity of this...

Options:

1. Stop siphoning off all the water from all the surrounding mountain ranges in the GSL basin for bullshit agriculture, most of which is used to grow alfalfa and hay to feed cattle

2. Build the 8th engineering wonder of the world